Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to bcfcforum.co.uk. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Fairtrade Coffee; and why it hurts the poor
Topic Started: Feb 4 2007, 03:29 AM (576 Views)
Tubs2
Paul Tait
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
bornblues64
Feb 7 2007, 10:00 PM
Do i live in a different world? Never heard of Fairtrade Coffee in my life, who makes it Nescafe?

There is a brand of Nestle coffee that is Fair Trade. It's called Nestcafe Partners Blend.

Though Nestle and Fair Trade aren't really good bed fellows.

Gazza
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
garrybaldy
foley okenla, richie moran
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Tubs2
Feb 7 2007, 10:14 PM
bornblues64
Feb 7 2007, 10:00 PM
Do i live in a different world? Never heard of Fairtrade Coffee in my life, who makes it Nescafe?

There is a brand of Nestle coffee that is Fair Trade. It's called Nestcafe Partners Blend.

Though Nestle and Fair Trade aren't really good bed fellows.

Gazza

Now even i know Nestle is BAD :copno:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The_Bear
Member Avatar
Gil Merrick
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
This is the response I have been set by Oxfam

Quote:
 
Thank you for taking the time to email me with this ‘interesting’ take on
Oxfam’s valuable work.

A great many issues are raised in this email. I don’t think it would be
helpful for me to respond with a systematic rebuttal of this chap’s
arguments, for the large part it is an illogical and misinformed series of
statements. I have a feeling it might inflame the situation. But as a
supporter, I’d like to respond to you for your piece of mind.

Oxfam supports Fairtrade, which is one element of a wide range of issues
that we work on. But I should perhaps make it clear that most of the issues
raised are outside of Oxfam’s remit.
Oxfam was one of the pioneers of Fair Trade more than forty years ago.
Since then, we have been involved in every aspect of Fair Trade and have
contributed to its success in the UK.

The FAIRTRADE Mark is the one independent consumer guarantee that goods on
sale in mainstream shops have been fairly traded.
To find out more about the Fairtrade Labelling Organisation please got to
their website: http://www.fairtrade.net/

To find out in more detail how Fairtrade considers the environment please
do feel free to read the five guarantees which includes 'greater respect
for the environment'. The allegations are simply incorrect.
http://www.fairtrade.org.uk/downloads/pdf/..._guarantees.pdf

Can I reassure you that Fair trade is supported on all levels, from small
scale farmers to larger cooperatives, Multi estates and Factories.
http://www.flo-cert.net/artikel_112_t38.html

For many years, Oxfam worked directly with producers to help them develop
products to sell in our shops. Although we now buy from UK suppliers, the
knowledge Oxfam gained is now used in our Market Access work to help
producers improve their products and access new markets.
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/fairtra...ables/index.htm

Our aims to create fairer trade conditions are clear, we aim to improve the
livelihoods and well-being of producers by improving market access,
strengthening producer organisations, paying a better price and providing
continuity in the trading relationship.

Finally, Oxfam's Make Trade Fair campaign aims to change the unfair rules
of world trade, because we recognise that Fair Trade alone cannot address
the crisis faced by the millions of small-scale farmers and producers whose
livelihoods are threatened by low commodity prices and unfair competition
from rich countries.
As part of our Make Trade Fair campaign, we are lobbying Starbucks to
recognise Ethiopia’s legal ownership of the names of its coffees. Which
will bring about would help to lift millions of farmers and their families
out of poverty.

To find an abundance of links to relevant, authoritative and accurate
information about Fair trade please feel free to check out our website:
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/what_we_do/fairtrade/index.htm

I hope this reassures you that ultimately, Oxfam is committed above all, to
ending poverty and suffering.

If you would like to find out more about Oxfam's core beliefs, values and
approaches, please do have a look at our 'About us' section on our website:
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/about_us/mission.htm

Can I thank you again for taking the time to contact Oxfam and for your
continued support.
QUOTE]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aussiebrum
Member Avatar
Mikael Forssell
[ *  *  *  *  * ]

We all want to end poverty, illness and suffering, we all want to help the poor.

In doubt is the best way to go about it. Excessive politicization of groups like Oxfam, the bloated bureaucracy, the political posturing, the fees imposed on individuals or companies wanting to promote “Fair Trade Coffee” and the cruel blending of different farmers coffee …..

The official doesn’t even try to explain or justify their position.

And Bear, please send him/her another email and ask them why Oxfam PAY the collectors who most of us wrongly assumed were volunteers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The_Bear
Member Avatar
Gil Merrick
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Aussiebrum
Feb 12 2007, 03:02 AM
We all want to end poverty, illness and suffering, we all want to help the poor.

In doubt is the best way to go about it. Excessive politicization of groups like Oxfam, the bloated bureaucracy, the political posturing, the fees imposed on individuals or companies wanting to promote “Fair Trade Coffee” and the cruel blending of different farmers coffee …..

The official doesn’t even try to explain or justify their position.

And Bear, please send him/her another email and ask them why Oxfam PAY the collectors who most of us wrongly assumed were volunteers.

Just to let you know Aussie, most charities pay collectors, they also pay lots of other people to sign people up to direct debit etc. There are very few people who will do anything for nothing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tubs2
Paul Tait
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Aussiebrum
Feb 12 2007, 03:02 AM
We all want to end poverty, illness and suffering, we all want to help the poor.

In doubt is the best way to go about it. Excessive politicization of groups like Oxfam, the bloated bureaucracy, the political posturing, the fees imposed on individuals or companies wanting to promote “Fair Trade Coffee” and the cruel blending of different farmers coffee …..

The official doesn’t even try to explain or justify their position.

And Bear, please send him/her another email and ask them why Oxfam PAY the collectors who most of us wrongly assumed were volunteers.

Why do they pay people to collect money?

To raise even more money.

Simple really. I thought you was a business man?

Are you really so blind? To end Poverty we need to legislate against the current crime of trade injustice. We need to end the government subsidies that protect their own markets. Of course Oxfam engage governments. Oxfam aren't trying to build a political empire, they are trying to end inhumane policy. If they don't approach Politicians, they don't get this done. Is this really political posturing? Or is it staying true to their aim of ending world poverty?

Simple really.

I have shown where to find the accounts as submitted to the government. Hardly smacks of "bloated bureaucracy". As I've said, if you have real information (rather than just this idle gossip) this is false I'm sure the authorities would love to hear from you. Until then, how about you give up on this one.

I note you change your position on producers being charged for Fair Trade Status to companies or individuals being charged. Perhaps the entire argument you built is just as flaky as this and your "facts" on Oxfam accounting were proved to be?

Just like to say that I've been promoting Fair Trade for the past 8 years and haven't been charged a penny.

And yes, if companies want to display the FT logo then they must be audited and this costs. How else is the consumer to know if the FT logo is worth the ink in printing it? This is no different to many other schemes such as the Soil Association which audits the products of organic producers who want to assure their customers of their integrity.

The money raised goes back into working for FT. It's all good in the end.

Of course, being a fan of the open market you will approve of such openess, empowering the consumer with knowledge and choice.

No?

You model the real "Open Market". You claim you want openness but as the oppressed fight for openess and fairness an argument is built under a thin guise of fairness but obviously smacks of protectionsim, oppression and injustice. It is formed on misinformation and half facts engineered to represent the poor. It only represents the shareholders.

And this is an interesting point. The argument you raise has a confict of interest. It suggests that market forces will be the answer to 3rd world poverty (despite contradictory evidence of the last 30 years). The argument is designed in the favour of shareholders. Just let them get on with it and all will be right, eh?

On the other hand, the NGO's (Oxfam are not alone here) in favour of protecting the rights of all workers, not just those in the west have no other interest. You see, that's it. They just want to end suffering.

Conflict of interest Vs No conflict of interest.

Hmm . . .

Back to the logo and auditing. Companies that operate ethicly don't have to buy into the FT logo. There are companies such as Clipper who trade ethicly but do not display the FT logo on every product in their range. Doesn't make the product any less ethical and costs nobody. Of course the consumer has to do their research to ensure they really are buying ethicly, and this is how the FT logo helps. It helps the brand, it helps the consumer and at no cost, it helps the supplier.

Aussie, open your eyes. You seem to add 2 and 2 and get whatever figure you wanted to get in the first place.

Gazza
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aussiebrum
Member Avatar
Mikael Forssell
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
To round off, an interesting article from the (quite) left leaning Sydney Morning Herals written by Ross Gittens last year.


AT CERTAIN shops in London, a cup of "fair trade" coffee costs 25 cents more than an ordinary cup. But investigations reveal that, though the Guatemalan farmers supplying the coffee are paid almost double the market price, the quantity of beans used in a cup of coffee is so small that this extra cost works out at only 2.5 cents a cup. So 90 per cent of the higher price of fair trade coffee ends up in someone else's pocket.

It's a similar story for organic fruit and veg. The higher price you pay is a lot more than can be justified by the higher cost of production and higher rate of spoilage.

Then there's the wide range of prices you can pay for a cup of coffee in Starbucks and other fancy coffee shops, depending on the style of coffee and size of the cup. There's no way the difference in price is adequately explained by the differing costs of producing the various styles or sizes.

These cases are from an interesting new book, The Undercover Economist, by Tim Harford. But there are many more.

For instance, I'll bet the higher price of free-range eggs isn't justified by their higher cost of production, just as the extra leg room and better meals don't account for the much higher price of business class air fares.

The cost of cardboard doesn't go near explaining the higher price of hardback books compared to paperback editions.

So how are these apparent rip-offs explained? By a common phenomenon of capitalism economists call price discrimination. I suspect that, the better off we become financially, the more often we're suckered by it.

A funny thing about capitalism is that people can spend a lifetime living in a market economy without acquiring much of a feel for the workings of supply and demand.

Years of propaganda from business interests have left many people with the impression that prices are set by establishing the cost of producing an item, then adding a fixed percentage profit margin.

(Business lobbies inculcate this thinking whenever, in their fight to stave off a new impost some government is proposing, they claim that they'll simply "pass it on to the customer".)

In a free market, price is determined by the combination of the cost of supply with the strength of demand. The bit people underestimate is the role of demand. Its strength relative to supply often determines the size of the profit margin.

The beginning of wisdom is to understand that profit-oriented businesses want to charge "as much as the market will bear". The next point, however, is to understand there are limits to what the market will bear.

The trick is that each of us has our own maximum price we're willing to pay for a particular item. So the ideal way for a business to maximise its profit would be to charge each of its customers a price geared to his or her maximum willingness to pay.

The reason firms rarely do that is not the administrative hassle involved so much as the fact that they don't know how much we're willing to pay.

Harford says the big internet bookseller Amazon used to vary the prices it charged particular customers according to their record of purchases, but it drew too many complaints and had to abandon the practice.

What's a lot easier and more common is for firms to set differing prices for different groups of customers. In the simplest version of this, they set a low price aimed at people with a low willingness to pay and a high price aimed at those with a high willingness to pay.

The trouble is, they can't just advertise two prices for the same item: $1 for cheapskates, $2.95 for spendthrifts. So they have to find a plausible excuse for charging two or more prices.

With some things, it's easy. You charge children, students and pensioners a lower price. You do so not out of consideration for their lesser means, but because their lesser means affects their ability to pay.

Were you to charge a uniform price, many of these people wouldn't buy. And provided the lower price you charge more than covers the extra cost involved in making the extra sale (the "variable" cost, as accountants call it) and the seat they occupy doesn't exclude someone who'd pay full freight, missing such sales reduces your potential profit.

A related trick is charging lower prices for less-well-placed seats in a theatre (your real motive is just to offer a range of prices to suit all budgets), or having bargain days at the movies when you slash the price to attract the budget-conscious on early weekdays when most people don't want to go to the movies.

When you pay a high price for a bigger, fancier coffee in Starbucks, all you're really saying is: "I don't mind paying a bit extra." That's true of people motivated to buy fair trade coffee, organic vegies or free-range eggs. For some, they're paying extra to prove they're a caring person.

In other cases, people are willing to pay extra to demonstrate their wealth or social status. With hardcover books, you pay an impatience premium - because you can't wait to read a book everyone's talking about, or read the latest from a favourite author.

To make higher profits out of charging two different prices, however, you have to be able to keep the markets separate, to stop the high-payers buying the cheaper product - perhaps with the help of some enterprising soul who buys in the cheap market and resells to them in the dear market.

Harford says the no-frills products in supermarkets have unattractive labels not to save on printing costs but to discourage purchases by people prepared to pay more for the big-name products.

He notes that organic oranges are rarely stocked beside ordinary oranges so it's harder to see how much extra you're paying.

Many multinational companies charge higher prices in some countries than others, but the internet is making this harder - as witness, all those spam emails advertising cut-price Canadian pharmaceuticals to overcharged Americans.

The strange thing is that, in practice, price discrimination works to narrow the true gap between rich and poor. The better-off are so easily persuaded to pay extra for essentially the same stuff.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
proccy_blues
Joe Bradford
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
really, you two should get a virtual room.... :rolleyes:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tubs2
Paul Tait
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Aussiebrum
Feb 13 2007, 02:40 AM
To round off, an interesting article from the (quite) left leaning Sydney Morning Herals written by Ross Gittens last year.


AT CERTAIN shops in London, a cup of "fair trade" coffee costs 25 cents more than an ordinary cup. But investigations reveal that, though the Guatemalan farmers supplying the coffee are paid almost double the market price, the quantity of beans used in a cup of coffee is so small that this extra cost works out at only 2.5 cents a cup. So 90 per cent of the higher price of fair trade coffee ends up in someone else's pocket.

It's a similar story for organic fruit and veg. The higher price you pay is a lot more than can be justified by the higher cost of production and higher rate of spoilage.

Then there's the wide range of prices you can pay for a cup of coffee in Starbucks and other fancy coffee shops, depending on the style of coffee and size of the cup. There's no way the difference in price is adequately explained by the differing costs of producing the various styles or sizes.

These cases are from an interesting new book, The Undercover Economist, by Tim Harford. But there are many more.

For instance, I'll bet the higher price of free-range eggs isn't justified by their higher cost of production, just as the extra leg room and better meals don't account for the much higher price of business class air fares.

The cost of cardboard doesn't go near explaining the higher price of hardback books compared to paperback editions.

So how are these apparent rip-offs explained? By a common phenomenon of capitalism economists call price discrimination. I suspect that, the better off we become financially, the more often we're suckered by it.

A funny thing about capitalism is that people can spend a lifetime living in a market economy without acquiring much of a feel for the workings of supply and demand.

Years of propaganda from business interests have left many people with the impression that prices are set by establishing the cost of producing an item, then adding a fixed percentage profit margin.

(Business lobbies inculcate this thinking whenever, in their fight to stave off a new impost some government is proposing, they claim that they'll simply "pass it on to the customer".)

In a free market, price is determined by the combination of the cost of supply with the strength of demand. The bit people underestimate is the role of demand. Its strength relative to supply often determines the size of the profit margin.

The beginning of wisdom is to understand that profit-oriented businesses want to charge "as much as the market will bear". The next point, however, is to understand there are limits to what the market will bear.

The trick is that each of us has our own maximum price we're willing to pay for a particular item. So the ideal way for a business to maximise its profit would be to charge each of its customers a price geared to his or her maximum willingness to pay.

The reason firms rarely do that is not the administrative hassle involved so much as the fact that they don't know how much we're willing to pay.

Harford says the big internet bookseller Amazon used to vary the prices it charged particular customers according to their record of purchases, but it drew too many complaints and had to abandon the practice.

What's a lot easier and more common is for firms to set differing prices for different groups of customers. In the simplest version of this, they set a low price aimed at people with a low willingness to pay and a high price aimed at those with a high willingness to pay.

The trouble is, they can't just advertise two prices for the same item: $1 for cheapskates, $2.95 for spendthrifts. So they have to find a plausible excuse for charging two or more prices.

With some things, it's easy. You charge children, students and pensioners a lower price. You do so not out of consideration for their lesser means, but because their lesser means affects their ability to pay.

Were you to charge a uniform price, many of these people wouldn't buy. And provided the lower price you charge more than covers the extra cost involved in making the extra sale (the "variable" cost, as accountants call it) and the seat they occupy doesn't exclude someone who'd pay full freight, missing such sales reduces your potential profit.

A related trick is charging lower prices for less-well-placed seats in a theatre (your real motive is just to offer a range of prices to suit all budgets), or having bargain days at the movies when you slash the price to attract the budget-conscious on early weekdays when most people don't want to go to the movies.

When you pay a high price for a bigger, fancier coffee in Starbucks, all you're really saying is: "I don't mind paying a bit extra." That's true of people motivated to buy fair trade coffee, organic vegies or free-range eggs. For some, they're paying extra to prove they're a caring person.

In other cases, people are willing to pay extra to demonstrate their wealth or social status. With hardcover books, you pay an impatience premium - because you can't wait to read a book everyone's talking about, or read the latest from a favourite author.

To make higher profits out of charging two different prices, however, you have to be able to keep the markets separate, to stop the high-payers buying the cheaper product - perhaps with the help of some enterprising soul who buys in the cheap market and resells to them in the dear market.

Harford says the no-frills products in supermarkets have unattractive labels not to save on printing costs but to discourage purchases by people prepared to pay more for the big-name products.

He notes that organic oranges are rarely stocked beside ordinary oranges so it's harder to see how much extra you're paying.

Many multinational companies charge higher prices in some countries than others, but the internet is making this harder - as witness, all those spam emails advertising cut-price Canadian pharmaceuticals to overcharged Americans.

The strange thing is that, in practice, price discrimination works to narrow the true gap between rich and poor. The better-off are so easily persuaded to pay extra for essentially the same stuff.

There is some truth there. Some people are paying too much for Fair Trade goods.

There's no need. Reputable vendors do not increase and in the case of some products, actually reduce the prices of fairly traded goods.*

If only all suppliers were so honest eh?

But then, that's capitilism for you >;o)

Still, I'd rather be ripped off by western companies if I was assured they weren't stealing from the developing world. It'll cost me less than a penny per cup of coffee (bought from a supermarket) and will help provide a sustainable supply free from exploitation.

Less than a penny per cup of coffee. That's a bargain.

Obviously the claims regarding market forces in the above are a tad naïve. While it talks of end product demand, it glosses over the market supply. In an open market a producer would have competing customers seeking their produce. However, if the customers operate as a cartel creating an effective monopoly for the end product, the producer is left in limbo. They have the option of selling at the price dictated by the buyer or letting their produce rot. This is the situation that coffee farmers find themselves in now. Their produce is in demand, but they have no open market in which to sell their goods. They are forced to sell at a loss. They are forced to put their children to work as they can't afford to send them to school. They are forced to forego safety measures in the production of their crop. They are forced to forego food. They are forced to, ah you get the picture.

The same is true of the dairy industry in this country. The supermarkets have forced down prices below which it is possible to produce milk. This forces dairy farmers to seek subsidies from government to keep operating. These subsidies are effectively keeping supermarket profits artificially high. Not a true open market.

The answer is to allow Dairy farmers (or coffee producers) to name the price of their goods. Trade fairly and give them a true open market, not one protected by those who have the money. We still want coffee and milk. Let's end the trade injustice that favours the shareholder to get it.

Gazza


* For instance, premium own brand fair trade coffee at Co-op is cheaper than their main stream expoiltative counterparts. Costa no longer charge a premium on their fair trade options. If only Starbucks followed suit.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aussiebrum
Member Avatar
Mikael Forssell
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Tubs2
Feb 13 2007, 08:34 AM
This forces dairy farmers to seek subsidies from government to keep operating.


At least we agree the government should keep its grubby grubby paws totally out of industry and commerce.

You are so right that their invovement distorts the market operation with the losers being us taxpayers.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tubs2
Paul Tait
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
We don't quite agree here, but it's as near as were going to get >;o)

The government shouldn't subsidise the farmers. They should investigate the highly unethical, monopolistic trading practice of the supermarkets. They pay a farmer a sustainable price and there is no need for the subsidy.

Job done!

Even Adam Smith advocated regulation to protect against exploitation.

Gazza
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
davekermito
Paul Tait
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Tubs2
Feb 14 2007, 12:09 PM
The government shouldn't subsidise the farmers. They should investigate the highly unethical, monopolistic trading practice of the supermarkets. They pay a farmer a sustainable price and there is no need for the subsidy.

Wow, I agree with something you've said Tubs! :D
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tubs2
Paul Tait
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
davekermito
Feb 14 2007, 12:12 PM
Tubs2
Feb 14 2007, 12:09 PM
The government shouldn't subsidise the farmers.  They should investigate the highly unethical, monopolistic trading practice of the supermarkets.  They pay a farmer a sustainable price and there is no need for the subsidy.

Wow, I agree with something you've said Tubs! :D

I wouldn't admit to that on an open forum.

People might think you're a wierdo.

>;o)

Gazza
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
proccy_blues
Joe Bradford
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
Tubs2
Feb 14 2007, 12:18 PM


People might think you're a wierdo.


:D

oops.........anybody else see an open stable door that needed bolting?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
davekermito
Paul Tait
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
proccysotv
Feb 14 2007, 12:29 PM
Tubs2
Feb 14 2007, 12:18 PM


People might think you're a wierdo.


:D

oops.........anybody else see an open stable door that needed bolting?

:LOL: And having >13000 posts on a messageboard makes you sane?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
proccy_blues
Joe Bradford
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
davekermito
Feb 14 2007, 12:31 PM
proccysotv
Feb 14 2007, 12:29 PM
Tubs2
Feb 14 2007, 12:18 PM


People might think you're a wierdo.


:D

oops.........anybody else see an open stable door that needed bolting?

:LOL: And having >13000 posts on a messageboard makes you sane?

:rolleyes:
touchy nerve time mate...?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
davekermito
Paul Tait
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
proccysotv
Feb 14 2007, 12:34 PM
davekermito
Feb 14 2007, 12:31 PM
proccysotv
Feb 14 2007, 12:29 PM
Tubs2
Feb 14 2007, 12:18 PM


People might think you're a wierdo.


:D

oops.........anybody else see an open stable door that needed bolting?

:LOL: And having >13000 posts on a messageboard makes you sane?

:rolleyes:
touchy nerve time mate...?

Not really pal, hence this little chap > :LOL:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
proccy_blues
Joe Bradford
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
davekermito
Feb 14 2007, 12:35 PM
proccysotv
Feb 14 2007, 12:34 PM
davekermito
Feb 14 2007, 12:31 PM
proccysotv
Feb 14 2007, 12:29 PM
Tubs2
Feb 14 2007, 12:18 PM


People might think you're a wierdo.


:D

oops.........anybody else see an open stable door that needed bolting?

:LOL: And having >13000 posts on a messageboard makes you sane?

:rolleyes:
touchy nerve time mate...?

Not really pal, hence this little chap > :LOL:

**thumbup good, i love all this pish taking - and getting paid for it....
:wub:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
davekermito
Paul Tait
[ *  *  *  *  * ]
Haven't had a good hijack for a while anyway!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
proccy_blues
Joe Bradford
[ *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * ]
davekermito
Feb 14 2007, 12:39 PM
Haven't had a good hijack for a while anyway!

is that what you call it...?

it's all got a bit dull and serious recently, glad you and doc came back into form... :rolleyes:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · General Chat · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Forum Design by Hirsty.