Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
SAYNOTO0870.COM

<---- Back to main website

 
Home Help Search Login Register

Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
bmibaby (Read 26,231 times)
bmibaby
Newbie
*
Offline



Posts: 1
bmibaby
Feb 11th, 2011 at 11:45am
 
Please note the number listed on this site for bmibaby is not for customer relations.  This number is reserved for emergency use only and goes through to our operations team.  This number would be used in the case of an operational emergency.  The operations team are unable to help with any customer queries.  For details of how to contact bmibaby customer service, please visit: http://bit.ly/abM8cf.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,901
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: bmibaby
Reply #1 - Feb 11th, 2011 at 11:53am
 
I assume that the number(s) to which you aluded to are 01509 686690/89. These are the only alternatives we have for BMI Baby so there is none to replace them with.

If a suitable replacement was to be provided, then maybe they will be removed and that new number put in their place.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Feb 11th, 2011 at 11:53am by Dave »  
 
IP Logged
 
idb
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male
Re: bmibaby
Reply #2 - Feb 11th, 2011 at 12:15pm
 
bmibaby wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 11:45am:
Please note the number listed on this site for bmibaby is not for customer relations.  This number is reserved for emergency use only and goes through to our operations team.  This number would be used in the case of an operational emergency.  The operations team are unable to help with any customer queries.  For details of how to contact bmibaby customer service, please visit: http://bit.ly/abM8cf.
... which provides a wholly pointless and inappropriate contact number, +44 8458 101100, for those of us who live outside the UK. So, please enlighten us. What number should someone use when calling from overseas?
Back to top
 

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,901
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: bmibaby
Reply #3 - Feb 11th, 2011 at 12:35pm
 
idb wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 12:15pm:
... which provides a wholly pointless and inappropriate contact number, +44 8458 101100, for those of us who live outside the UK. So, please enlighten us. What number should someone use when calling from overseas?

And of course, the sheer fact that you're posting about people ringing the number listed here is because they object to be ripped off with premium phone numbers. Referring callers back to the 08 number merely gets our backs up.

So please provide us with a geographic or 03 (or freephone) number alternative to the premium ones operated by bmibaby.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dave
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 9,901
Yorkshire
Gender: male
Re: bmibaby
Reply #4 - Feb 11th, 2011 at 8:44pm
 
idb wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 12:15pm:
bmibaby wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 11:45am:
Please note the number listed on this site for bmibaby is not for customer relations.  This number is reserved for emergency use only and goes through to our operations team.  This number would be used in the case of an operational emergency.  The operations team are unable to help with any customer queries.  For details of how to contact bmibaby customer service, please visit: http://bit.ly/abM8cf.
... which provides a wholly pointless and inappropriate contact number, +44 8458 101100, for those of us who live outside the UK. So, please enlighten us. What number should someone use when calling from overseas?

We await a response from bmibaby.

I found this page which gives a US number (it says is for BMI Baby) which answers simply as "BMI" and it is... you guessed it, a toll-free number, 1-800 788 0555.

And there's an Dublin number (01 242 0794) which is answered the exact same way as the published UK rip-off numbers 0844 245 0055 and 0845 810 1100. It's voiced by an English lady, so perhaps diverts back to the UK. I have added this to the database.

I would like to list the UK 01/02 alternative and would appreciate the assistance of bmibaby.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,488
Re: bmibaby
Reply #5 - Feb 12th, 2011 at 2:10am
 
I read the original posting as providing useful information about the status of the published "alternative" number, i.e. asserting that it was not a usable alternative. This could be fairly read as implying that there is no suitable alternative offered.


The following posting has been addressed to me in another thread.

loddon wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 11:06pm:
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 10th, 2011 at 8:02pm:
Because of the present bundled situation, along with special conditions relating to BT, we currently have a complete mess. The status quo is indefensible. Ofcom admits this, although rather than beating itself up with guilt over its responsibility for it, Ofcom tries to move on by proposing radical measures.

The current situation is a complete mess and is indefensible !!   Very strong criticism indeed SCV.   I am not going to argue against your assessment ..... and I am not convinced that Ofcom is "proposing (sufficiently) radical measures" to clear up the mess and gain popular support.  

I don't think the Ofcom proposals will address the two main problems of excessive cost to callers and cynical exploitation by "owners" of 08 numbers.   Just look at this thread http://www.saynoto0870.com/cgi-bin/forum/YaBB.cgi?num=1297424740/4#4  which started today where an airline, BmiBaby, in similar action to their industry competitors, insist on using a rip-off 0844 number while offering toll-free and benign normal numbers to their customers in other countries.  

Their representative has had the audacity to start a thread on this site and yet will not respond to reasonable questions nor explain or attempt to justify BmiBaby's rationale in insisting on using 08 numbers.   Do BmiBaby have no confidence at all in their position such that they are not prepared to explain and justify their position?  This intransigence by Companies only fuels the public perception that they are only interested in ripping-off the British public, while they would never dare in other countries.   This is an issue which Ofcom should address.

I have responded with reference to Ofcom and its consultation in the appropriate thread.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 12th, 2011 at 12:59am:
... Whatever the injustice, I am not sure how far it falls within Ofcom's remit to regulate the way in which airlines participate in discussion forums or even in the types of telephone number which they select for particular purposes. Ofcom certainly has a duty to ensure clarity and transparency in relation to charges for telephone calls. It has been failing badly, but has now proposed improvements.


I understand the purpose of a "low cost" airline as being to eliminate overhead costs and extras, so as to keep the basic ticket price as low as possible. This necessitates charging for services the cost of which might have been expected to be covered by the ticket price. (The fact that "regular cost" airlines also use NGCS numbers could mean that bmibaby does not even need to use this argument in defence of its decision to use 090 and 0844 numbers.)

That does not excuse misrepresentation of prices and in the present environment it is virtually impossible to give a clear indication of the cost of calling a NGCS number. All that users can do is to indicate the premium which they charge (essentially the BT rate in the case of PRS and 0844 numbers) and leave it to callers to find out how much their provider adds.

Before berating bmibaby for having failed to make a further contributing to the discussion, it would probably be courteous to approach it by letter (or email) asking for suitable alternative numbers and whatever explanation of the present situation is deemed appropriate. I do not think it fair to forum members to assume that participation in, or initiating, a thread implies a willingness to fully and promptly respond to every point made by other contributors. Some would go even further in this improper assumption by suggesting that anyone who posts in this allegedly "open" forum should not only respond to points addressed at them, but is also obliged to comply with every request made. Use of the word "audacity" implies that some see this forum as anything but open, i.e. restricted to those who hold certain opinions and wish only to engage in support of each other's views, rather than open discussion.


We may disagree over whether it will ever be possible for the cost of calling NGCS numbers to be sufficiently clear for their use to be tolerable in a free economy. I would argue strongly that bmibaby should be now declaring the cost of calling its 0844 number as "5p per minute, plus whatever is added by your own telephone service provider".

I am however seriously concerned that SayNoTo0870 is content to continue to publish an "alternative" number which is said to be unsuitable, without even adding a comment to the effect that this is what bmibaby has asserted.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
idb
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male
Re: bmibaby
Reply #6 - Feb 12th, 2011 at 2:46am
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 12th, 2011 at 2:10am:
I understand the purpose of a "low cost" airline as being to eliminate overhead costs and extras, so as to keep the basic ticket price as low as possible. This necessitates charging for services the cost of which might have been expected to be covered by the ticket price. (The fact that "regular cost" airlines also use NGCS numbers could mean that bmibaby does not even need to use this argument in defence of its decision to use 090 and 0844 numbers.)

That does not excuse misrepresentation of prices and in the present environment it is virtually impossible to give a clear indication of the cost of calling a NGCS number. All that users can do is to indicate the premium which they charge (essentially the BT rate in the case of PRS and 0844 numbers) and leave it to callers to find out how much their provider adds.

Before berating bmibaby for having failed to make a further contributing to the discussion, it would probably be courteous to approach it by letter (or email) asking for suitable alternative numbers and whatever explanation of the present situation is deemed appropriate. I do not think it fair to forum members to assume that participation in, or initiating, a thread implies a willingness to fully and promptly respond to every point made by other contributors. Some would go even further in this improper assumption by suggesting that anyone who posts in this allegedly "open" forum should not only respond to points addressed at them, but is also obliged to comply with every request made. Use of the word "audacity" implies that some see this forum as anything but open, i.e. restricted to those who hold certain opinions and wish only to engage in support of each other's views, rather than open discussion.


We may disagree over whether it will ever be possible for the cost of calling NGCS numbers to be sufficiently clear for their use to be tolerable in a free economy. I would argue strongly that bmibaby should be now declaring the cost of calling its 0844 number as "5p per minute, plus whatever is added by your own telephone service provider".

I am however seriously concerned that SayNoTo0870 is content to continue to publish an "alternative" number which is said to be unsuitable, without even adding a comment to the effect that this is what bmibaby has asserted.
Let us stop p ussy-footing around here. Virtually any airline, low cost or otherwise, needs to make an allowance for handling customer calls, whether for reservations, changes, cancellations, rebookings, confirmations, complaints and a whole raft of other issues. Due to the nature of the business, airlines can also reasonably expect that some inbound calls will originate from external territories. They can also reasonably expect that not all callers are sufficiently comptetnt with or indeed able to use web based or other electronic systems to fulfil their requirements. For bmibaby, and indeed any other UK-based airline to use telephone numbers that have variable international acceptance is, in my view, simply unacceptable. Ofcom only seems to address the problem from the 'business end' and not from the long-suffering user perspective. I have little interest in how the cost of a NTS call is described if I cannot connect to it in the first place.  Ofcom should be doing all within its remit to prevent such abuse of telephone numbering yet it is entirely passive. It is aware of the problems. It is aware of the solutions yet it exhibits such pathetic behavior. Before we excuse bmibaby, I would be certain that it, like TfL, knows exactly what it is doing with its telephone numbering and is more than happy to treat its customer base with utter contempt. There is, thereofre, little point in approaching the airline directly for an alternative as the usual garbage will be provided (low call, local, no problems from overseas, and tough, we don't give a *#%& attitude).


Back to top
 

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,488
Re: bmibaby
Reply #7 - Feb 12th, 2011 at 5:55am
 
idb wrote on Feb 12th, 2011 at 2:46am:
For ... any ... UK-based airline to use telephone numbers that have variable international acceptance is, in my view, simply unacceptable. Ofcom only seems to address the problem from the 'business end' and not from the long-suffering user perspective.

If there is a problem with customers contacting airlines from overseas by telephone because they fail to provide accessible numbers, this is (whatever we may wish) not Ofcom's responsibility. Ofcom is failing to fulfil quite enough of the duties which it does hold, and already tries to extend its role too far. I do not believe that there is any purpose in trying to persuade it to take on cases in the interests of consumers of the airline industry.

The only proper role for Ofcom in this matter would be to encourage more countries and providers to enable calls to +44 8 numbers. If it is failing to do so, then that is a valid basis for criticism of Ofcom.


idb wrote on Feb 12th, 2011 at 2:46am:
Before we excuse bmibaby, I would be certain that it, like TfL, knows exactly what it is doing with its telephone numbering and is more than happy to treat its customer base with utter contempt. There is, thereofre, little point in approaching the airline directly for an alternative as the usual garbage will be provided (low call, local, no problems from overseas, and tough, we don't give a *#%& attitude).


If the approach of bmibaby and TfL is simply as suggested, then why are we engaging with them? Do we enjoy wasting our time, or perhaps just get a kick out of complaining for no useful purpose?

I am heavily focussed on trying to get Ofcom to do the job that it is required to do, by statute - all of it and no more. That requires it to specifically serve the interests of all users of communications services, including airlines and public bodies. It also, and separately, has a duty to citizens in general with reference to communications matters. The latter is commonly forgotten, neglected or misunderstood, as Ofcom focuses too much on its role as a regulator with very specific regulatory powers. These powers certainly do not include any capability to compel an airline to provide any particular form of telephone access for specific purposes.

Whether we like it or not, Ofcom sees a justifiable benefit in use of telephone numbers that generate subsidy or income for the person called. It concludes, quite rightly in my opinion, that the problem is with the visibility of the charges. If one could argue that there is no way that this problem could ever be satisfactorily overcome, then one could oppose its proposal that use of NGCS may continue.

There is no question that the present situation is utterly unacceptable. Given Ofcom's conclusion, there is little point in trying to use particular current issues such as the absence of a full overseas access number for some companies, the impropriety of the use of a particular number for a particular purpose or the "character" of a company as the basis for saying that all NGCS should be ceased. Specific remedies have been proposed; constructive engagement with the issues has to be with reference to them, if addressing the role of Ofcom.

That is not to say that one has to be constructive.

I also believe that there is nothing that Ofcom or anyone else can do to stop companies treating customers with contempt. If that is how they think, then no change in some relatively petty regulation about telephone numbers will make any significant difference. We have Halls of Shame and Fame in the forum; please do not anyone try to tell me that it is the underlying philosophy of a company that determines where it sits.

idb wrote on Feb 12th, 2011 at 2:46am:
Let us stop p ussy-footing around here.

The cat is known for its ability to adapt to situations and find the best way forward. It is generally untroubled by considerations of who is good and who is bad; it is a pragmatist.

Although not drawn to them as companions, I do have a respect for cats.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
idb
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male
Re: bmibaby
Reply #8 - Feb 12th, 2011 at 2:07pm
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 12th, 2011 at 5:55am:
idb wrote on Feb 12th, 2011 at 2:46am:
For ... any ... UK-based airline to use telephone numbers that have variable international acceptance is, in my view, simply unacceptable. Ofcom only seems to address the problem from the 'business end' and not from the long-suffering user perspective.

If there is a problem with customers contacting airlines from overseas by telephone because they fail to provide accessible numbers, this is (whatever we may wish) not Ofcom's responsibility. Ofcom is failing to fulfil quite enough of the duties which it does hold, and already tries to extend its role too far. I do not believe that there is any purpose in trying to persuade it to take on cases in the interests of consumers of the airline industry.

The only proper role for Ofcom in this matter would be to encourage more countries and providers to enable calls to +44 8 numbers. If it is failing to do so, then that is a valid basis for criticism of Ofcom.
The correct role for the regulator is to act upon previous representations to its numerous prior consultation exercises and realize that, for most engaged with this issue, the matter of whether a call is described as costing 45p per minute or (15+30)p per minute or 15p+30p per minute or indeed any other 'transparency issue' is secondary to the existence of these numbers in the first place. My understanding of previous consultation responses is that there is a overwhelming preference from the 'end user (ie caller)' for the 08 numbering regime to be simply abolished. This is the position that I would maintain. I accept that some will take an alternative position.

Ofcom created the NGN mess. We had 0845 and 0870. Ofcom consulted. It then developed 0844 and 0871. The public doesn't want these numbers for everyday calls, yet Ofcom is only concerned in how they are marketed and how the charges are displayed.

It is the regulator's responsibility to create a numbering framework that is fit for purpose. It is my opinion that it has failed, not only wrt NGNs but also with geographic, freephone, premium and mobile numbering.

For the sake of disclosure, if a business wishes to obtain a payment stream through the telephone system, then it must use premium rate numbering. There must be adequate redress and opt-out facilities, and there must be certain exclusions and constraints on some classes of premium users. For everyday calls, it is unacceptable, to me,  to have a fee collected through the telephone system.
Back to top
 

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,488
Re: bmibaby
Reply #9 - Feb 13th, 2011 at 12:32am
 
idb wrote on Feb 12th, 2011 at 2:07pm:
The correct role for the regulator ...
The regulator with responsibility for the way in which bmibaby provides and charges for its services is the CAA.

I make this point more generally as I replicate relevant comments and respond in the Ofcom consultation: ... thread.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
CJT-80
Global Moderator
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,627
East Sussex
Gender: male
Re: bmibaby
Reply #10 - Feb 13th, 2011 at 7:40pm
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 12:32am:
idb wrote on Feb 12th, 2011 at 2:07pm:
The correct role for the regulator ...
The regulator with responsibility for the way in which bmibaby provides and charges for its services is the CAA.

I make this point more generally as I replicate relevant comments and respond in the Ofcom consultation: ... thread.


SCV is the CAA responsible for the contact number BMIBaby provides to contact it? Or is Ofcom?

Also note BMI has an 01 number to contact it's Customer Relations (for complaints) yet BMIBaby does not!

Back to top
 

Regards,

CJT-80

Any comments made are my own and are not those of SayNoTo0870.com
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,488
Re: bmibaby
Reply #11 - Feb 13th, 2011 at 8:28pm
 
CJT-80 wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 7:40pm:
is the CAA responsible for the contact number BMIBaby provides to contact it? Or is Ofcom?

bmibaby itself selects the number. Ofcom makes the numbers available and regulates the industry which determines the charges for calling them.

The CAA:

Quote:
Regulates airlines, airports and National Air Traffic Services economic activities and encourages a diverse and competitive industry

I feel confident in suggesting that it is the CAA rather than Ofcom which would have the duty to regulate on the matter of whether bmibaby must fund its customer services operations through receipts from ticket prices, rather than premium charges on telephone callers.

It is not unlikely that the CAA would say that this is a matter which it leaves to the market. The question about the availability of telephone access from overseas is perhaps more likely to engage the CAA.


Ofcom could of course deny bmibaby, and everyone else, the opportunity to use numbers that provide subsidy at the expense of callers. Some would argue that it should set a minimum level for such charges, so as to eliminate current abuses with the lower rate ranges. It is currently advancing proposals intended to enable the various market mechanisms to work more effectively.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
idb
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male
Re: bmibaby
Reply #12 - Feb 14th, 2011 at 12:09am
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 12:32am:
idb wrote on Feb 12th, 2011 at 2:07pm:
The correct role for the regulator ...
The regulator with responsibility for the way in which bmibaby provides and charges for its services is the CAA.
The regulator responsible for removing the mechanism by which bmibaby exploits its callers is Ofcom, and it is the essential party that could eliminate this exploitation which is my sole desired outcome.

Incidentally the last time I raised a not too dissimilar issue with one of the CAA's organs, it would not entertain any discussion based upon my not being a resident of the United Kingdom. Now that is what I call outstanding customer service.
Back to top
 

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.
 
IP Logged
 
SilentCallsVictim
Supreme Member
*****
Offline


aka NHS.Patient, DH_fairtelecoms

Posts: 2,488
Re: bmibaby
Reply #13 - Feb 14th, 2011 at 2:13am
 
idb wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 12:09am:
The regulator responsible for removing the mechanism by which bmibaby exploits its callers is Ofcom, and it is the essential party that could eliminate this exploitation which is my sole desired outcome.

Indeed so.

SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 13th, 2011 at 8:28pm:
Ofcom could of course deny bmibaby, and everyone else, the opportunity to use numbers that provide subsidy at the expense of callers. Some would argue that it should set a minimum level for such charges, so as to eliminate current abuses with the lower rate ranges.

The questions posed are: firstly, whether the comments relate to bmibaby's use of both 0905 and 0844 numbers, or only the latter?

Secondly, are there, or rather could there be, any uses of the mechanism that is suggested for removal that do not amount to improper exploitation?
(all business is exploitation of demand to generate profit,  to some degree).

Ofcom has determined that it is in the widest public interest for these mechanisms not to be removed. It proposes changes to deliver greater transparency, thereby diminishing the potential for improper exploitation. If someone is prepared to knowingly pay at least 66.381p a minute plus a call setup fee of 11.5p (not 65p a minute) to contact an airline call centre by telephone, or someone else is prepared to knowingly charge less than £15 for an international flight, then it is hard to know what a regulator may do about either, no matter how unreasonable they may be. If one supports a competitive market, then situations like this must be allowed to arise so that the market can find its proper level.

bmibaby explicitly warns callers that call charges other than the BT rates quoted "will be considerably more" and offers a specific contact point for complaints about the cost of calling. This tends to suggest that it does not seek to conceal what it is doing, nor be unprepared to receive criticism. I am therefore inclined to wonder if bmibaby is not seeking to exploit its customers to earn extra revenue, as is alleged. It is perhaps actually seeking to minimise the cost it incurs in handling telephone contact. This is achieved partly by subsidy, but also by discouraging calls.


There are very strong arguments for wishing to see the end of "low-cost" airlines, for a variety of reasons. Whilst removal of the mechanism to provide subsidy through telephone calls would damage the business model, forcing up ticket prices (if telephone contact was retained), I do not believe that such damage would be fatal.

There are indeed many ways in which NGCS are abused. The same argument may of course be applied to many other aspects of life - "the telephone" in total could be seen as such a case. The potential for abuse is not, of itself, a sufficient argument to justify abolition. A wider view should be taken before implementing radical changes to the status quo.
Back to top
 
WWW  
IP Logged
 
idb
Supreme Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1,499
Miami, Florida, United States
Gender: male
Re: bmibaby
Reply #14 - Feb 23rd, 2011 at 3:59am
 
SilentCallsVictim wrote on Feb 14th, 2011 at 2:13am:
Ofcom has determined that it is in the widest public interest for these mechanisms not to be removed. It proposes changes to deliver greater transparency, thereby diminishing the potential for improper exploitation. If someone is prepared to knowingly pay at least 66.381p a minute plus a call setup fee of 11.5p (not 65p a minute) to contact an airline call centre by telephone, or someone else is prepared to knowingly charge less than £15 for an international flight, then it is hard to know what a regulator may do about either, no matter how unreasonable they may be. If one supports a competitive market, then situations like this must be allowed to arise so that the market can find its proper level.
I do not agree with Ofcom's determination. My position is that there is no place for non-geographic telephone numbers(*) that are charged at a greater rate than a 'regular' call (which I have described on many occasions within this forum) therefore I am not too concerned with the detail of charging transparency. Any 08 number exploits me as a non-resident by either denying me the ability to make a call, or, where calling is possible, ensures I pay a disproportionate and unnecessary charge. Airlines and similar organizations should not be permitted to use such inappropriate numbering. A regulator with some initiative could do something productive. The UK lacks such a body. Ofcom protects the industry, not the consumer, at least wrt telecom issues. I do not agree with the 'market' issue that is described above. There is no 'market' as there is no choice. The customer is forced into calling these numbers. There is no true competition or market.

We have several low-cost airlines here. Profitable too. They use toll-free numbers.

(*) True premium rate is acceptable to me given certain conditions and safeguards.
Back to top
 

As from November 21, 2013, I no longer participate in the forum and am unable to receive private messages.
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
(Moderators: Forum Admin, Dave, bbb_uk, CJT-80, DaveM)

Website and Content © 1999-2019 SAYNOTO0870.COM. All Rights Reserved.
Written permission is required to duplicate any of the content within this site.

WARNING: This is an open forum, posts are NOT endorsed by SAYNOTO0870.COM,
please exercise due caution when acting on any info from here.


SAYNOTO0870.COM » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2019. All Rights Reserved.


Valid RSS Valid XHTML Valid CSS Powered by Perl Source Forge