Jump to content

You're currently viewing the forum as a Guest
register-now-button_orig.png
and join in with discussions   
ask migration questions
message other members

..and much much more!

Guest Glenn Pereira

Future of migration for existing applicants

Recommended Posts

Guest Glenn Pereira

Future of Migration

 

It is important that we take stock of what has happened and look forward to the future.

DIAC has a sophisticated computer system that can prepare reports Under individual headings or combination of headings. FOR EXAMPLE

 

• By agents

• By sub-class

• By occupations

• By Country

 

Hence DIAC officer at all times had access to various models.

 

The Minister has made a determination indicating that a new on-shore GSM and off-shore GSM will be announced shortly.

 

The 23 rd Sept announcement and the MODL review gives a clear indication that DIAC has a number of models in mind and was seeking input from the public including registered Migration Agents.

 

It is a fact based on statistical data that the Independent off-shore GSM and Off-shore GSM did not target labour shortage.

 

It is a fact that there was a lack of “checks & balances” of the State sponsorship.

 

It is a fact that both off-shore and on-shore GSM was scammed.

 

In my opinion Timelines for both on-shore and offshore announcements has been finalised.

 

In my opinion there will be two queues

• Old policy

• New Policy

 

I am sure DIAC will give an applicant an opportunity to move to the new policy if it is advantageous without payment of fee. They have used it in the past with Reg 2.11.

 

I think the time to change the Minister’s mind to revoke his decision has past.

 

I think it is time to make a submission to the Minister on behalf of POMSINOZ how to manage the old policy applicants rather than keep them in a queue for an unspecified period.

 

REGARDS

GLENN PEREIRA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gollywobbler

Hi All

 

It is obvious that DIAC have lost the compass. They read Poms in Oz and they report to the Minister (whose own staff also read Poms in Oz.)

 

All of them, from the Minister downwards, are in zero doubt that the Ministerial Direction issued on 23rd September 2009 has gone down like a lead brick.

 

The clear demand from the majority of applicants is, "Give us what you promised us in the first place - as long ago as 17th December 2008 - or give us our money back and let us have done with this Australian nonsense once and for all."

 

DIAC do not have any machinery in place to enable them to provide refunds. They have thus proven that they are nothing like as well organised as the Canadian Government.

 

DIAC have no practical solutions to offer to the problem. They are simply clutching at straws, imagining that a few U-turns on policy and a bit of fiddling about with the edges might somehow produce a Miracle Cure. It won't. Miracles happen in parables. They do not happen in real life.

 

However lynching the architects of this mess will not sort it out either. The Australian Government does not have any viable ideas of its own for how to solve the problem.

 

Instead of beating up the culprits, the better way is to suggest concrete, viable solutions that the culprits can say "Yes" to.

 

The purpose of Glenn's new thread is to ask all the existing applicants to tell the Minister:

1. What you want him to do next; and

2. To couch that in concrete proposals which he can agree to.

 

Let us abandon the grumbling and start helping to solve the problem instead, with some constructive ideas of our own, please.

 

At the end of the day, the members of the public decide whether to move to Australia or not. All that Australia actually does is to issue the visa - the travel permit - to enable somebody to enter Australia and to start work once s/he gets there. They cannot force a visa holder to move to Australia. They abandoned that notion 150 years ago.

 

What solutions could you live with, please?

 

Cheers

 

Gill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest english reject

Two great posts, thank you both for bringing some calm and sense to the issue.

 

ER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jamie Smith

Start with those whose applications were wrongly processed by DIAC and finish them off.

 

Offer a refund to any new cases who want to withdraw.

 

Set up online reporting by visa subclass showing cases in hand, cases allocated, cases processed monthly on average and also the number of expected months to decision if lodged today.

 

Glenn DIAC's system is not as sophisticated as you think. It might capture data but the subsequent suite of reports that were designed still leave a lot to be desired. And not everything is captured.

 

How many times have you seen in Hansard where questions have been answered with "that info is contained in every file but it is not analysed and it would take forever to answer the question by opening each file individually to get the info."

 

DIAC system can tell you the ratio of agent to non-agent cases by visa type, but cannot as yet tell you the success rate for agetn v non-agent by visa type.

 

I would thave thought that was a pretty important stat to have as it might reshape DIAC attitude to agents and the public.

 

What you don't measure you can't manage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of Glenn's new thread is to ask all the existing applicants to tell the Minister:

1. What you want him to do next; and

2. To couch that in concrete proposals which he can agree to.

 

 

Response to #1,

Going with Jamie on this one, "Start with those whose applications were wrongly processed by DIAC and finish them off."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Response to #1,

Going with Jamie on this one, "Start with those whose applications were wrongly processed by DIAC and finish them off."

 

To add, I don't think it's even fair to say that existing applicants were wrongly processed. It's not fair to say that we're wrongly processed just because it's their fault for messing up internally.

 

We've paid fees, met criterias and did what you told us to provide. We followed rules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gollywobbler
To add, I don't think it's even fair to say that existing applicants were wrongly processed. It's not fair to say that we're wrongly processed just because it's their fault for messing up internally.

 

We've paid fees, met criterias and did what you told us to provide. We followed rules.

 

Hi Merlino

 

I fully understand how you feel but this post is a perpetuation of the earlier threads which grumble without suggesting constructive solutions. Glenn is trying to move right away from that, to see whether he can help to formulate some concrete proposals which the applicants would agree to go along with and the Government might feel able to accede to.

 

Thanks

 

Gill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest WJK

Could be biased as Iam one but still think a good starting point would be process the applicants who have had a co allocated amd medicals etc completed not sure the numbers involved ? and would think these could be quickly processsed ? and not reduce the quota by a great deal do we know the number of appicants that fall into this category ?

 

WJK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gollywobbler

Hi Jamie

 

Offer a refund to any new cases who want to withdraw.

 

 

I understand that DIAC have already said that they will consider refunds in cases which are so new that no initial human checking of the application has been done. I do not anticipate many such cases. Why would anybody who knows the current score submit a GSM application only to withdraw it very quickly thereafter?

 

Do you recall that at the MIA Conference, you told Peter Speldewinde that DIAC should reimburse applicants who obtained and pccs on the instructions of COs but the applications were then summarily dumped? You have described this in your own thread. Mr Speldewinde told you that he was not unsympathetic to the idea but that the problem is that there are "thousands" of such cases.

 

I wondered why and how? 50 COs can't process "thousands" of applications simultaneously, after all. Listening to Mark Webster on the radio, every single onshore visa applicant has to do meds and pccs in advance of submitting the application. The majority of onshore applications have been summarily dumped.

 

If this is what Peter Speldewinde meant, then I can see where his "thousands" comes from. Do you think this is what he meant, though?

 

Set up online reporting by visa subclass showing cases in hand, cases allocated, cases processed monthly on average and also the number of expected months to decision if lodged today.

 

I reckon this is the least they can do for the applicants, PROVIDED that DIAC can be made to understand that they need to do this properly. Left to their own devices, DIAC describe Tail End Charlie with these things, which confuses everyone else.

 

What you don't measure you can't manage.

I couldn't agree with you more and it is how they got themselves into the current mess.

 

However Glenn is looking for a way to convince the Minister that he can't simply leave people waiting indefinitely, which is the current proposal.

 

Can you think of something they could agree to which would get the applicants out of indefinite limbo?

 

Thanks

 

Gill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest:

 

1. First of all, DIAC should finalise those applications which are decision ready, in other words, everything is "MET" and medicals "finalised".

 

2. Start processing every application in date of lodgement. Should they want to add priorities DIAC may give different time (or number of stuff) for different applications. Say, 40% time is devoted to CSL, 30% to State sponsored, 20% to old MODL and 10% to other. But, don't leave somebody in "limbo".

 

3. Last but not least, stop making changes with retroactive effect. Don't spoil Australian migration image.


Living in Perth since June 2010 :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mach

Can only agree with those who posted before me. If DIAC's COs asked their cases for documents prior to 23/9 and they were uploaded or medicals were undertaken before that date, they they ought to honour those instructions and that deal. Sure it might not be the letter of the law, but it flies in the face of a country that prides itself in "always giving people a fair go".

 

Otherwise I wholly agree with Glenn's observation of reinstating "checks and balances" with regard to State Sponsorship. I think every party can agree that Federal control of State skills needs is both heavy handed and unnecessary if there are adequate regulatory measures in place to stop scamming in the future. Indeed, the idea that the varied state economies with their different needs and shortages can be resolved centrally with a single list is likely to just cause friction, more badwill, delays and further disappointment.

 

And if, as Glenn says, DIAC has the opportunity to vet its system to perhaps identify high risk SS applicants (and by high risk, I mean dodgy, not country of origin), then surely it is better off investing money NOW in weeding out the bad eggs rather than just writing off everyone in the old system as being flawed? The majority of us are bloody good at our jobs and were entirely honest on our applications. Talk about throwing out baby with the bathwater otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gollywobbler
Could be biased as Iam one but still think a good starting point would be process the applicants who have had a co allocated amd medicals etc completed not sure the numbers involved ? and would think these could be quickly processsed ? and not reduce the quota by a great deal do we know the number of appicants that fall into this category ?

 

WJK

 

Hi WJK

 

Could be biased as I am one but still think a good starting point would be process the applicants who have had a co allocated amd medicals etc completed not sure the numbers involved ?

 

In principle I agree with you completely as far as offshore visas are concerned because the meds and pccs for these are not required up front. I'd be surprised if there are more than 500 applicants for offshore visas who fall into the same group as you.

 

The question which is less easy to resolve is that *every* applicant for an onshore GSM visa has already had meds & pccs done. Apparently this is compulsory with onshore visas according to Mark Webster, who is a very able and experienced migration agent so he is sure to be right on this technical point.

 

Hence I have asked Jamie to dredge his memory to see if he can remember anything more about this part of his conversation with Peter Speldewinde.

 

Mark Webster said in the radio interview that there are about 140,000 applicants in the GSM backlog, that the split between onshore and offshore visa applications is about 50/50 and that DIAC were planning to make no more than about 65,000 GSM visas available in 2009/10. If the number of employer sponsored visas rises, so the 65,000 or so GSM visas will fall because only 108,100 skilled PR visas are available in total during 2009/10. (NB: Only the main applicant is counted in the 108,100. Partmers & children are not counted for the purpose of this set of stats.)

 

Seemingly DIAC expect that all remaining GSM visas available during 2009/10 will be given to applicants with occupations on the CSL. Apparently the "onshore pile" contains just as many CSL applications as the "offshore pile" contains because of all the Students who have been learning Accountancy and various types of Engineering at universities in Australia.

 

It would be helpful if DIAC could publish a complete set of figures for the period 1st July 2009 to 30th September 2009 so that we can work out how many of the 108,100 visas are still available for 2009/10.

 

I believe that DIAC and their Minister will have to accept that in view of the SNAFU they have managed to create, the very least they can do it to operate with total transparency from now on (despite DIAC's traditional preference for opacity instead.) I reckon they need to publish accurate, up to date figures at the end of each quarter.

 

They managed to publish a table of planning levels for 2009/10:

 

Migration Program Statistics - Statistics - Publications, Research & Statistics

 

Having published the plans, they must be producing monthly stats on the number of visas granted each month because Andrew Metcalfe and the other senior DIAC honchos are sure to be holding meetings at least once a month as they try to manage they way through the mess. There is no reason why the figures available to them cannot be made available to the public as well. Voluntary publication of the figures is a lot less burdensome than dealing with thousands of FOIA demands for them instead.

 

In my opinion Timelines for both on-shore and offshore announcements has been finalised.

 

In my opinion there will be two queues

• Old policy

• New Policy

 

I am sure DIAC will give an applicant an opportunity to move to the new policy if it is advantageous without payment of fee. They have used it in the past with Reg 2.11.

 

I think the time to change the Minister’s mind to revoke his decision has past.

 

I think it is time to make a submission to the Minister on behalf of POMSINOZ how to manage the old policy applicants rather than keep them in a queue for an unspecified period.

 

I quote Glenn Pereira. I will happily write a submission to the Minsier as Glenn suggests but before I do that we need to work out what to propose.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mach
Hi WJK

 

Seemingly DIAC expect that all remaining GSM visas available during 2009/10 will be given to applicants with occupations on the CSL. Apparently the "onshore pile" contains just as many CSL applications as the "offshore pile" contains because of all the Students who have been learning Accountancy and various types of Engineering at universities in Australia.

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but that sums up the problem in a nutshell. The Government is basing its whole socio-economic outlook for the next ten years on a few occupations that happen to be demand today.

 

What about diversity?

 

It frustrates me to see this perpetual short-termism being applied to every bump in the road they come across. If they are going to do it this way, then they will have the problem of scrambling to attract certain trades and occupations every time the economy booms. And by that time, they will have disillusioned enough people about the way Australian migration lottery is run that a whole generation of talent will instead have moved to, or be on its way to, Canada, the US and New Zealand. They might think they can firefight at the moment, but they'll find it a lot harder when the water is turned off.

 

Frankly, their brand is sullied and they need to start thinking seriously about how they can perform a credible service recovery. Showing leeway to those who were asked to provide meds and docs might be a tenable first step towards proving they are at least listening to the market and are indeed open to correcting errors made in haste.

 

As for the idea of using students to fill all of the remaining places - a group they have already identified as woefully undercooked when it comes to job readiness - are they intentionally trying to put Australia's economy back thirty years, or is this all part of some elaborate bet they lost with the rest of the G12 countries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pippa1

I agree with McKlaut who quoted:

40% time is devoted to CSL, 30% to State sponsored, 20% to old MODL and 10% to other. But, don't leave somebody in "limbo".

 

I am onshore family sponsored applicant and yes you do have to do your medicals, pcc before applying for GSM (mine will expire in Dec). I think the Minister should have some concession for those of us who applied prior to 17th December 2008 when the first indication of priority processed appeared. Even if one case officer was working on non modl / CSl applicants at least that would be something!

 

Also, many onshore applicants are working in their vocation but are unable to secure ENS for one reason or another, couldn't this be taken into account in some way, rather than leaving them in limbo too? We are not all 'woefully undercooked when it comes to job readiness' either! (or was undercooked a pun i missed?)

 

This 'one size fits all' policy is just too unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Glenn Pereira

Can we make a spread sheet of all members with following headings

 

Name

 

Dt.of Appl.

 

Class/sub-class

 

CSL*

 

MODL*

 

State sponsored

 

Family sponsored

 

Medicals completed

 

PCC (Police) completed

 

 

 

 

* CSL or MODL on date of Application

 

this will give an idea of the occupations, class and impact on existing applicants.

 

The covering letter will go with the above spread sheet

 

Regards

Glenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest siamsusie

Glen, Mark Webster RMA is being interviewed by ABC right now if you're interested .

Celvin Thompson is now speaking (Labour)

 

 

ABC have just reported they are trying to get Chris Evans to be interviewed by them next Sunday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. First of all, DIAC should finalise those applications which are decision ready, in other words, everything is "MET" and medicals "finalised".

 

2. Start processing every application in date of lodgement. Should they want to add priorities DIAC may give different time (or number of stuff) for different applications. Say, 40% time is devoted to CSL, 30% to State sponsored, 20% to old MODL and 10% to other. But, don't leave somebody in "limbo".

 

 

McKlauts suggestion does have merit but I think if overhauling the system is likely, I would make the following suggestions.

 

Firstly, I would like someone at DIAC to explain why family sponsored applicants are part of the GSM (apart from the fact they still need qualifications and a skills assessment). Whilst not denigrating geniune loving relationships, I find it difficult to accept that partners only have to show 2 yrs in a defacto relationship, which is then deemed preferential to reuniting a brother/sister or father/daughter, for example. This completely flies in the face of Kevin Rudd's stance as leader for working families.

 

It is obvious to all, that just prioritising CSL applicants is not only unfair but isn't working. Some CSL PR visas have been issued to people who applied only 2 months ago. They are now panicking that they can't make the move because they still have houses to sell, concerns about the exchange rates, etc, etc. This makes the priority issuing of a PR visa worthless. They are also not compelled to work in their field, so in many cases the shortages will still be there (e.g. a doctor could choose to go to Sydney because he doesn't want to practise in Coober Pedy, and become a tutor or landscape gardener. There is nothing in the process to stop this.

 

With the above in mind, I would like to see all family sponsored 475 visas issued immediately and taken out of the GSM stream - they are only a temp/provisional visa initially, have sponsorship/assurance of support and will cost the Govt nothing. They become part of the GSM stream when they have to prove eligibility for PR in 2-3 yrs time as an onshore applicant. They can only do this if they have employment and settled into the Australian way of life. If they are willing to take this route, they are no different to students, working holiday visa holders and 457 temps who can get employer sponsorship to stay.

 

Permanent 176 family applicants and State Sponsored applicants should also be offered a 475 visa immediately if they are in a position to move in the next 12 months, particularly those who are willing to go to a regional area. This would not only reduce the immediate backlog for PR, but would provide an alternative to many applicants currently in limbo and would also satisfy the State Govts, who are currently holding expos in the UK and still insisting they are desperate for migrants. Any applicants who can't, or are unwilling to, accept the conditions of the 475 visa can choose to stay in the queue and wait offshore for their PR to come through.

 

The Govt could continue to issue PR visas, if it wishes, to applicants on its CSL/revised MODL list and process others who want to wait for offshore PR after these.

 

In two to three years time, the processing priority list could then look something like:

 

1. Onshore applicants who have satisifed 475 conditions along with ENS/RSMS

2. CSL/MODL or equivalent

3. State and family sponsored who wanted to wait for offshore PR

4. All other applicants.

 

All applications should be processed within each category on a first come/first served basis, with points score and low risk/high risk country of origin also taken into consideration.

 

Cheers, Kazza

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VickyMel
Can we make a spread sheet of all members with following headings

Name

Dt.of Appl.

Class/sub-class

CSL*

MODL*

State sponsored

Family sponsored

Medicals completed

PCC (Police) completed

 

* CSL or MODL on date of Application

this will give an idea of the occupations, class and impact on existing applicants.

The covering letter will go with the above spread sheet

Regards

Glenn

 

If you want something like this you might speak with someone like Grant6607 who set up the aussietimeline who might be able to set something up, you don't want to have to collate a load of info from posts.

http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/migration-issues/65328-new-timeline-monitor-site.html#post544313

aussietimeline.com | Australian Visa Application Timeline Tracker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jamie Smith
Could be biased as Iam one but still think a good starting point would be process the applicants who have had a co allocated amd medicals etc completed not sure the numbers involved ? and would think these could be quickly processsed ? and not reduce the quota by a great deal do we know the number of appicants that fall into this category ?

 

WJK

 

I understand that there are a few thousand with that description. A little more than could be accommodated by making a kind gesture, it needs to be an organised commitment by the Minister.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also like to see some form of medical officer who is able to look at a case before you apply for a VISA. Many people have medical issues (I am one of them) and I know the only part of my application that may fail is my medical. Why cant I have my medical and have it assessed instead of my OH spending £1200 on Vetassess then £1500 for the Visa application, then paying for police and medicals then just getting a sorry no Visa due to medical issues.


SS Vic recieved after appeal 8/10/2009, 176 Visa application 9/10/09, OH Electrician, Nov 2010 moved to Cat 2, 9th Nov Case Officer, extra information requested, medicals 18th Jan, medicals finalised now just the police checks!!! We got our visa !!! Yey soooo happy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest OZSEEKER

McKlaut is 100% correct for his suggestions, this sounds a real logic in handling the existing applications based on percentage mode (CSL:50%, STATE SPONS:35%, OTHERS:15%)

 

my case status: filed subclass 136 in August 2007, application pooled in April 2009 with 115 points, State nominations recd in Oct 2009 and waiting for decision now, my occupation is in CSL, MODL with state nomination.

 

Based on minister's 23rd sep 2009 timelines, how long it will take when all health checks and clearances already submitted prior to the case officer's decision in April 2009.

Ozseeker

 

I would suggest:

 

1. First of all, DIAC should finalise those applications which are decision ready, in other words, everything is "MET" and medicals "finalised".

 

2. Start processing every application in date of lodgement. Should they want to add priorities DIAC may give different time (or number of stuff) for different applications. Say, 40% time is devoted to CSL, 30% to State sponsored, 20% to old MODL and 10% to other. But, don't leave somebody in "limbo".

 

3. Last but not least, stop making changes with retroactive effect. Don't spoil Australian migration image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tomatohead

hi Gill , I hope you dont mind me joining in , as someone who has been through the nightmare that was the closure of pathway D , for me it was the sweeping and knee jerk reactions to perceived problems by the DIAC and the lack of clear and concise decision making that caused me the most pain , for those of you do not know they closed pathway D to all countries because of supposed dodgy applications from a few countries it would have been fairer to just close applications to people from the countries involved , i feel that the fairest way for them to deal with peoples applications is to say that anyone who`s application was in before they make a change should be processed under the guidelines that were in place when the application was lodged this would stop the backlog getting any worse as applications would still be getting processed , i hope this is not too far off the mark of what you are saying

 

Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gollywobbler

Hi Glenn

 

aussietimeline.com | Australian Visa Application Timeline Tracker

 

We already have a spreadsheet, thanks to a PiO member called Grant 6607. I think people can add their details by themselves.

 

When we set the idea up several months ago the only thing we didn't think of was to ask people to say what their occupations are but I think an extra boz could be added which would take care of that and I think people can then complete their occupation details on their own.

 

Poms in Oz, by itself, can't provide a huge sample but what we can provide would be a good cross section of applicants according to their occupations, I reckon.

 

I will ask Grant to take a look at the parameters you suggest for a spreadsheet to go to DIAC and the Minister. Grant can probably write a small program that will extract the data from Aussie Timeline in the way that you want it extracted. It might need nothing more than an extra sheet on the main timeline website.

 

I will enquire about what is possible and I will report back (or I will ask Grant to do so) on this thread.

 

Many thanks for your excellent suggestion.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Permanent 176 family applicants and State Sponsored applicants should also be offered a 475 visa immediately if they are in a position to move in the next 12 months, particularly those who are willing to go to a regional area. This would not only reduce the immediate backlog for PR, but would provide an alternative to many applicants currently in limbo and would also satisfy the State Govts, who are currently holding expos in the UK and still insisting they are desperate for migrants. Any applicants who can't, or are unwilling to, accept the conditions of the 475 visa can choose to stay in the queue and wait offshore for their PR to come through.

 

 

Cheers, Kazza

 

 

brilliant idea!!!, with a bit of thought on the part of the diac, im sure these 2 subclasses could be linked in a way that would beneficial to both parties, im sure i speak on behalf of alot tradespeople like myself in saying, we just want to get out there, get settled, and do the job we know we are good at, am i being to simplistic or is this a win win situation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gollywobbler

Visa Subclass Numbers

 

Hi Glenn and/or Sheelagh (Migration Help for anyone wondering who Sheelagh is.)

 

I have been looking at Grant's Aussie Timelines spreadsheet. When we originally had the idea of the spreadsheet we did not include space for any of the onshore visas because very few PiO members were applicants for those at the time and although there are a few more now, the number is not large.

 

However we could add space for onshore applicants to add their details and hope that a big enough sample would do so.

 

I am stuck on the visa numbers for the onshore GSM visas.

 

885 = 175

886 = 176

476 = 475??????? Is this correct, please?

 

Subclass 485: Is this a GSM visa? Is it relevant to the information that we want to give to the Minister? I know it is a temporary visa so I am guessing that it does not form part of the GSM backlog but I am not sure?

 

Many thanks for the technical help. We will get into an avoidable muddle if we get the subclass numbers wrong.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

×