Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Administrator

The 'General ED' section of the forum is designed to be a useful resource for the people in the local area to discuss the latest topics specific to East Dulwich. This topic (regarding Turney Road closure) was a reasonable candidate to be in this section because:

  • It is new information
  • The road closure probably affects some ED residents (the road closure is in SE21, but its few 100m away from SE22, so would still affect nearby roads). 

 

The reason for the LTN Discussion topic being moved to the Lounge is not a conspiracy - its because its a long running, general topic which ended up up being filled with information not relevant to the area. Furthermore, a massive 2,200 reply topic is pretty inaccessible for anyone new to the forum, so it ends up just being a back and forth between a few forum members who are passionate about the subject. In general, I'd prefer the General ED forum to contain shorter lived, focused topics about breaking news, rather than seeing the LTN Behemoth topic constantly resurfacing to the top being bumped by a handful of contributors.

The Lounge is still one of the most viewed sections of the website, so its not like all LTN stuff is being suppressed. The people who care enough about LTNs will find and contribute to it (the EDF topic is on the first page of Google for the term 'LTN Discussion'!). If in the future there's any significant breaking news which directly relates to an East Dulwich LTN, then of course it might be deserving of a new topic in General ED.

So hopefully that explains my point of view. 

  • Like 4

Admin, thanks for the clarification - I don’t (and I suspect many others won’t either) agree with it but it’s your forum and you determine the rules - I always felt the forum, by its very design, was self-policing as those items that people posted on got bumped up but those that didn’t dropped. We know there has been pressure exerted on previous admins by those who have a vested interest  to see the LTN debate disappear forever and those admins policed it by not allowing multiple threads discussing LTN issues which seemed to work and kept a single thread for those wishing to discuss on the main forum - those that didn’t care or got annoyed by it could ignore it.

 

The beauty of the forum is that it is not confined solely to East Dulwich so your explanation about why the Turney Road discussion was allowed is a little concerning - do not take what is great about this forum - that it reaches far beyond the borders of East Dulwich - away from it. It’s never solely been about items specific to East Dulwich only - on any subject. In fact, some of your most loyal posters don’t actually live in East Dulwich, Dulwich or Southwark!


We all love the forum and were so pleased when it was rescued, some of us like LTNs, some us hate LTNs and the voices posting (on both sides of the debate) are reflective of the views of people in the wider community so it is important that the forum continues to be the voice for it - whatever position people take (within reason of course!).

 

I am sure everyone will respect your rules and if the LTN discussion has to be confined to the Lounge then so be it - some people will be happy about that, some will be annoyed by that - you can’t keep everyone happy all the time! Keep up the good work!

 

P.S. if Malumbu isn’t prepared to self-police their awful mental health posts may be you could for them - pretty sure that must contravene a forum rule.

  • Like 1
15 hours ago, Rockets said:

And look what happened near the LTNs - miles increased. Weren't we promised by the pro-LTN lobby and councillors that LTNs reduced traffic for everyone?

Mean daily km:

Control: +0.6

Near LTN:  +0.3

In LTN: -0.7

Traffic is up post pandemic (control), but up less near LTNs and down inside LTNs.

In other words LTNs reduce traffic relative to the control not just inside but nearby too. Sounds like a success to me.

 

  • Like 1

It also measures all miles travelled. It includes journeys out of London (which likely are the longest journeys and one's that the LTN isn't going to impact). So for local journey's the effect is probably larger than the average 6% reduction.

It's also only one study, which is part of a much bigger body of work, all of which suggest LTNs are effective.

51 minutes ago, mr.chicken said:

Mean daily km:

Control: +0.6

Near LTN:  +0.3

In LTN: -0.7

Traffic is up post pandemic (control), but up less near LTNs and down inside LTNs.

In other words LTNs reduce traffic relative to the control not just inside but nearby too. Sounds like a success to me.

 

Well that's your interpretation.

 

Here's mine: Driving is down in the LTNs but up outside of the LTNs as drivers try to find other ways around them. Remember this is research by the same group that claimed there was no evidence of boundary roads seeing increases - https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/19/low-traffic-neighbourhoods-boundary-roads-london.

 

Even Peter Walker (who must have seen this thread and posted story! 😉 ) acknowledges there has been an increase in driving outside the LTNs and says:

The authors of the study, led by Dr Anna Goodman, an epidemiologist from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said the increase in average driving outside the LTNs appeared to be due to Covid and other external factors, rather than people skirting the LTNs

"due to Covid"  doesn't tally with what Lambeth was saying about the overall volumes in traffic across the borough throughout much of  the period this new report covers. Lambeth said this in all of the Systra monitoring reports on the various LTNs in their borough (remember Southwark said the same thing in their Systra report?)

 

Traffic has been consistently lower than pre-pandemic, with particularly pronounced drops during lockdowns. 

 

Are we now to believe that was not the case?

And my point remains, LTNs were promised to reduce traffic for everyone and this research suggests they don't. Also, how do you explain the increase in car ownership within the LTNs - is that not counter-intuitive and wasn't that one of the promised outcomes that car ownership reduced within them?

Yes and it appears you have the same bias as they do! 😉

 

But does my interpretation not hold any weight at all in your mind?

 

Does the fact that numerous (both Southwark and Lambeth) council LTN monitoring reports have said overall traffic levels are lower across their boroughs not make you wonder why then Aldred et al are now claiming that increases in traffic outside the LTNs is "due to Covid and other external factors". 

 

Something isn't adding up is it and if it is true that overall traffic levels have been down across the boroughs then what might be causing the increases in traffic outside of the LTNs around the LTNs.........?

1 hour ago, Rockets said:

Does the fact that numerous (both Southwark and Lambeth) council LTN monitoring reports have said overall traffic levels are lower across their boroughs not make you wonder why then Aldred et al are now claiming that increases in traffic outside the LTNs is "due to Covid and other external factors". 

Other way around.

It's not an increase outside LTNs, it's a decrease inside.

This applies across all sorts of studies - you have one control group where you have no interventions and one test group where you put in place an intervention. Could be an LTN, it could equally well be something like having 2 groups of mice and you give one group a growth hormone.

After a while you look at your intervention; the control group is broadly "this is what would have happened to everyone without the intervention", the test group is " here is what happened with an intervention".

Outside LTNs, with no restriction on driving, people continue to drive.

Inside LTNs, where driving is restricted in some way and alternatives like walking and cycling made easier, more convenient, people gradually shift behaviour.

None of this is rocket science.

Unlike your version (let's call it Rockets science...) which is wrong.

  • Like 1

Ha ha...not the first time I have been wrong about something I can assure you (cue pile-on from the usual suspects)! 😉

 

So what does Peter Walker mean when he says:

The authors of the study, led by Dr Anna Goodman, an epidemiologist from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said the increase in average driving outside the LTNs appeared to be due to Covid and other external factors, rather than people skirting the LTNs

 

Also, can you explain what this table below is showing then?

 

The Near LTN figures have risen from a mean daily km of 20.3 pre-LTNs to 20.7 post-LTNs and the Control Area has risen from 20.4 pre to 21.0 post - how is that not an increase?

 

Also. at over 200m away from the LTNs do you feel the control group is far enough away from the LTN not to be being impacted by them or does that not matter?

 

able 2.Average daily driving time, pre- and post-LTN implementation: main analysis
  Inside the LTNs Near the LTNs Control area
No. cars and vans in analysis, pre/post 1700 / 2025 1352 / 1658 5523 / 6598
Mean daily km (SE), pre 20.3 (0.3) 20.3 (0.4) 20.4 (0.2)
Mean daily km (SE), post 19.6 (0.3) 20.7 (0.4) 21.0 (0.2)
Change in km (SE), post minus pre -0.7 (0.5) 0.3 (0.5) 0.6 (0.3)
Difference-in-differences change in km (95% CI), relative to the control area -1.3 (-2.4, -0.3) -0.3 (-1.4, 0.9)  
p-value for difference-in-differences effect p=0.01 p=0.64  

 

 

Any idea why car ownership has gone up in the LTNs - is that not counter-intuitive?

Edited by Rockets
24 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Any idea why car ownership has gone up in the LTNs - is that not counter-intuitive?

It's gone up everywhere.

But by less inside the LTNs than outside.

27 minutes ago, Rockets said:

Near LTN figures have risen from a mean daily km of 20.3 pre-LTNs to 20.7 post-LTNs and the Control Area has risen from 20.4 pre to 21.0 post - how is that not an increase?

I never said it wasn't. That's the control group, you can pretty much assume (with various caveats) that with no interventions, that's what would happen "globally" (ie across the whole area of study) without an intervention.

So your "do nothing" scenario is that driving would increase by 0.6km / day average and car ownership would increase by 10% over that time period.

Your "intervention" scenario (is introducing an LTN) is that the pattern, instead of following the control group trend, has shown a decrease in average daily km and a smaller increase in car ownership.

Outcome (again with caveats) - if you'd have done nothing across the whole area, driving and car ownership everywhere would have increased by the same metric. 

Also overall vehicle mileage is down, ie overall fewer km being driven.

Got it - but that is counter to the messages being put out by councils monitoring LTNs who have, repeatedly and consistently, said that traffic volumes have been/are lower than they were pre-pandemic.

 

Traffic has been consistently lower than pre-pandemic, with particularly pronounced drops during lockdowns. 

 

And then in Peter Walker's article:

The authors of the study, led by Dr Anna Goodman, an epidemiologist from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said the increase in average driving outside the LTNs appeared to be due to Covid and other external factors, rather than people skirting the LTNs

....... is Aldred saying that the increase in the control and near LTNs is from the pre-pandemic or post-pandemic numbers? Because they acknowledge there has been an increase in average driving outside the LTNs - are we presume that is from the lowest pandemic numbers?

 

 

All I know is that the day after LTN was introduced in East Dulwich - especially after Dulwich Village closure - the traffic tripled in front of my flat. I remember talking with neighbours - we thought there must've been a truly serious incident in the area for the traffic to go this bad.

There are no words to describe this ltn idea - how on Earth anyone with even tiny tiny bit of common sense could ever assume that closing roads can force anyone to stop driving? I do not drive - never owned a car and never driven. I walk. Talked to tones of people and not one of them said they stopped driving because the roads have been closed.

It's madness - it's like telling someone from Eastern Europe the communism is great. 

What Southwark council has done is truly scandalous - pandering to cycling lobby, greenwashing, bullying TfL staff, ignoring outcome of the consultation, shoving off people living on the boundary roads with - now - increased traffic and air & noise pollution because of the so-called ltn, having no proof to show that so-called ltn work - and constituents money wasted on all this

 

Edited by ab29
  • Like 1

@Administrator "In general, I'd prefer the General ED forum to contain shorter lived, focused topics about breaking news, rather than seeing the LTN Behemoth topic constantly resurfacing to the top being bumped by a handful of contributors"

Ok so the first world problems like 'celebrity in sainsbury' or 'wagamama coming to ED' are number one.  I get it but In which case, where do you want the serious, real life issues / discussions to go to?

"topic constantly resurfacing to the top being bumped by a handful of contributor" - this is not true. Most of my friends do not post here (and I've looked it up much less frequently ever since the change)- but that doesn't mean the problem has gone away.

Perhaps it is time to create a separate place / topic / folder for real problems and serious issues.

And isn't it high time to reprimand Malumbu who doesn't even live in Southwark, left alone Dulwich but is constantly spamming here?

Edited by ab29

Glad I have been missed.  Had things to do and also it is Springwatch on the Beeb.  The thread that was supposed to be talking about one scheme that had been dropped has reverted yet again to anti LTNs, and at times a tirade against cyclists.  There is a thread on the Lounge where we can discuss LTNs to our hearts content. I'm happy to join in there but not here.  Others could also start thread on why they hate cyclists.  I'll be putting one up on the Lounge shortly about supporting a challenge to government on reduced spending on active travel.

So from my take there are a few of you who at every opportunity present your views against LTNs, other schemes that could make it more difficult to drive and/or own a car, views that Southwark are corrupt/incompetent/in the pockets of the rich/loony lefties, and also go on about how it is all the cyclists fault/how much you dislike (many) cyclists.

Stepping back this all appears rather extreme and disproportionate.  Hence my suggestion of personal reflection and ways of managing this anger.  Be it CBT, yoga, mindfulness, classical music, meditation, deep breathing etc etc.  many months ago I discussed my earlier obsession over planning which became all consuming.  I'm not sure why I can be more relaxed about this now - something suddenly changed, and there continue to be some horrid (in my view) developments in the area.

Yes there are things that I don't like, particularly on a national and global scale.  But generally I do not need to resort to continued repetitive postings on this forum.  And after one 'FFS get a life' moment decided to try to limit my postings to information/positive views.  It's a struggle at times! 

And please don't lecture me about mental health.  We all have our problems, we all have our demons.  I've had and have close family members with issues.  I've had my fair share of workplace stress.   Fortunately most of us can continue to function without significant/professional help.  And I have and will continue to support some with mental disabilities.  But is always worth looking at our own behaviour and why we get so wound up about certain issues .

 

  • Like 3
17 hours ago, Rockets said:

The authors of the study, led by Dr Anna Goodman, an epidemiologist from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said the increase in average driving outside the LTNs appeared to be due to Covid and other external factors, rather than people skirting the LTNs

....... is Aldred saying that the increase in the control and near LTNs is from the pre-pandemic or post-pandemic numbers? Because they acknowledge there has been an increase in average driving outside the LTNs - are we presume that is from the lowest pandemic numbers?

 

Hoping to get an answer to this.

I should also add that for me at least, this is not a debate about LTNs in general. I appreciate that general data will be used to support the idea that they work locally. However, my interest is in being persuaded that local LTNs are beneficial to all ED residents equally.

 

 

Edited by first mate
  • Like 1

Malumbu - you ask people not to lecture you about mental health yet you're quite happy to do the same to others...is that not mightily hypocritical of you?

 

And I remind you, no-one has lectured you about mental health - we are asking you not to weaponise it.

  • Thanks 1
On 14/06/2023 at 06:50, first mate said:

Hoping to get an answer to this.

I should also add that for me at least, this is not a debate about LTNs in general. I appreciate that general data will be used to support the idea that they work locally. However, my interest is in being persuaded that local LTNs are beneficial to all ED residents equally.

 

If it is beneficial, it is to people already living on quiet roads. Am so tired of this. What does Goodman say to people living on main roads or boundary roads:  "We gonna treat you with extra pollution just because my study need it? Shut up and lump it? Go and die? " Curious. South Circular was build in 1921 - I think everyone is capable to see a difference betwen then and now. 

 

I am a frequent cyclist in the area (I commute to work 3 days a week on my bike)  I do not like the LTNS as they have created stationary traffic on East Dulwich  Grove which one has to navigate. I then turn down Carlton Ave to the Junction with the lights. This junction now feels very unsafe - the lack of cars means that there is a free for all - the normal rules of the road don't apply. Lots of cyclists ignoring the lights completely, whilst children on bikes/scooters/scateboards are all over the show. Plus of course those cargo bikes jumping the lights)I do, of course, slow down, (and actually obey the cycle lights) but one never knows whats going to happen. 

The south circular is usually stationary (exascerbated by the thames water works) but again, I can use the shared space cycle paths but the pollution is just not good. 

For me the ultimate negative is the affect on public transport... esp any buses using the south circular - such as the P13 which serves alot of the schools in west dulwich. 

I think alot of people are very keen on active travel anyway - take away the traffic jam LTNs and I suspect all the cycle users will continue to increase. 

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Last week we had no water for over 24 hours and very little support from Thames Water when we called - had to fight for water to be delivered, even to priority homes. Strongly suggest you contact [email protected] as she was arranging a meeting with TW to discuss the abysmal service
    • The is very low water pressure in the middle of Friern Road this morning.
    • I think mostly those are related to the same "issues". In my experience, it's difficult using the pin when reporting problems, especially if you're on a mobile... There's two obvious leaks in that stretch and has been for sometime one of them apparently being sewer flooding 😱  
    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...