Cruise ship 'Costa Concordia' aground - merged threads - Page 32 - Ships Nostalgia
14:48

Welcome
Welcome!Welcome to Ships Nostalgia, the world's greatest online community for people worldwide with an interest in ships and shipping. Whether you are crew, ex-crew, ship enthusiasts or cruisers, this is the forum for you. And what's more, it's completely FREE.

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.
Log in
User Name Password

Cruise ship 'Costa Concordia' aground - merged threads

User Tag List

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #776  
Old 22nd January 2012, 18:08
duquesa's Avatar
duquesa duquesa is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1953 - 2014
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
My location
Posts: 1,283
Cruise ship "Costa Concordia" aground

One thing worth noting relating to any conviction :-

"Article 1097 of Italy's Maritime Law says that if the commander does not leave last, he risks two years in jail; if the vessel is lost, two to eight years; if the boat is used to carry people, three to 12 years."
Reply With Quote
  #777  
Old 22nd January 2012, 18:25
5036's Avatar
5036 5036 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,065
I'm with Jaguar 06. The principal officers were all in a life boat They were running from their responsibilities as underlined by the mayor and deputy mayor who along with the ship's chaplain seem to have been responsible for the saving of many of the 4100 lives. Had they not taken the initiative, we would be looking at many more casualties and it seems that they wasted 20 minutes looking for officers to get directions but none were there. I am certain that these heroes feel really guilty that the 30 odd tragically succumbed.

Once again we want to bring in the "experts" when the common sense and experience of many on this blog would produce the correct solution. What we will have now is more regulation, more boxes to tick and more jobs to justify themselves on the policing of it.

No amount of design will circumvent arrogance and stupidity and of that this tale is the proof.

I surmised earlier that the emergency generators may have been used to power the bow and stern thrusters in a bold attempt to beach the ship in a safer position. I now realise that I was stupid enough to think that some principled officers might have remained on the bridge. It seems they were helping a ballet dancer pack her bags, wallet and credit cards and put her into a lifeboat. I wonder if she tied their shoelaces.
Reply With Quote
  #778  
Old 22nd January 2012, 19:08
Boatman25 Boatman25 is offline  
member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1958 - 1972
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,044
A lot of you have made up your minds on a lot of Chinese Whispers because that is what the newspapers say, nobody knows the truth publically, only what the papers say, I will wait for the enquiry to give its verdict, this is now getting like the Coastguard one, lots of talking and very big posts and nothing going nowhere except more big posts
Reply With Quote
  #779  
Old 22nd January 2012, 19:20
Barrie Youde Barrie Youde is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 6,923
Comparisons have been drawn here with the Titanic. Those comparisons are of little help to anybody.

More helpful reference has also been made to Captain Lord of the Californian who, in the Titanic incident, suffered much opprobrium simply because he was not informed adequately at the relevant time of the true facts. There was a breakdown in communication aboard Californian, for which it would have been difficult to blame Lord personally.

The facts here are very different. The breakdown in communication was in the conveyance of information to a Master on his own bridge. If it is shown as a matter of fact that Captain Schettini knew all the relevant circumstances at the relevant time, then he is in difficulty. As a matter of law he should (as Master) have known all the circumstances.

Any information which might not have been conveyed to him when it should have been conveyed(if such information exists) would, however, be most helpful in showing that he was not in fact aware of all the circumstances. Nobody is expected to know anything unless he is properly informed.

It seems likely that the vital information will lie in what was said (and by whom) to Captain Schettini in the moments after he arrived on the bridge after having dined in the saloon; and also in what instructions/standing orders he might have given beforehand; and whether those instructions/standing orders had been complied with. On the face of it, any compliance with any orders seems highly unlikely.

In short, what was the state of play when Captain Schettini took the con?

Until these things are known, the factual cause of the entire disaster remains unknown. Humanity has not changed and it seems unlikely that it will do so.

BY
Reply With Quote
  #780  
Old 22nd January 2012, 19:26
John Cassels John Cassels is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
My location
Posts: 2,986
To my mind , the most important annex to the collision regs 1968 ;

" Assumptions made on scanty information are dangerous and should be
avoided ".

How very true and relevent in all walks of life especially on this thread.
__________________
JC ; same initials-but the other guy did the miracles.
Reply With Quote
  #781  
Old 22nd January 2012, 19:35
A.J.McMahon A.J.McMahon is offline  
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 96
Total Agreement

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Cassels View Post
To my mind , the most important annex to the collision regs 1968 ;

" Assumptions made on scanty information are dangerous and should be
avoided ".

How very true and relevent in all walks of life especially on this thread.
With initials like this (JC) I can only say Ahmen
Reply With Quote
  #782  
Old 22nd January 2012, 19:47
Gollywobbler Gollywobbler is offline  
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boatman25 View Post
A lot of you have made up your minds on a lot of Chinese Whispers because that is what the newspapers say, nobody knows the truth publically, only what the papers say, I will wait for the enquiry to give its verdict, this is now getting like the Coastguard one, lots of talking and very big posts and nothing going nowhere except more big posts
Hi Boatman25

Do you believe that the MCA/the Government has made the right decisions about what to do about HMCG? Would you have preferred it if nobody except other HMCG Officers had offered support and encouragement to the HMCG staff? Would you have preferred it if thousands of members of the public had not signed all the various petitions supporting what the HMCG Officers were telling all of us?

What makes you believe that any Inquiry about the Concordia incident will not be just as biased and as unreliable as the MCA/Govt's decisions about HMCG, following their so-called "public consultations" about HMCG, please?

Cheers

Gill
Reply With Quote
  #783  
Old 22nd January 2012, 19:53
sparkie2182 sparkie2182 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
My location
Posts: 21,977
What makes you believe that it will?
Reply With Quote
  #784  
Old 22nd January 2012, 19:58
Boatman25 Boatman25 is offline  
member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1958 - 1972
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,044
To much waffling going on and to much analysing and supposing this happened and supposing that happened and stories not supported about the Captain. Nothing been achieved on the Coastguard one except a lot of hot air been expelled and this one going the same way, nobody knows what really went on yet, wait till you do before condemning
Reply With Quote
  #785  
Old 22nd January 2012, 20:16
Gollywobbler Gollywobbler is offline  
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 485
According to both the DT and the DM, the media have obtained a transcript of the preliminary proceedings held before Judge Valeria Montesarchio.

The DM's version is more detailed than the DT's version. Which is not to say that either version is necessarily accurate but the DM one contains some interesting claims.

According to the DM, Capt Schettino told the Judge that:-

1. Close passes of Giglio and other islands were frequent events, encouraged by Costa because of their publicity value. Allegedly Capt Schettino told the lady Judge that he had passed close to Giglio before, both in command of Concordia and when he was the Captain of the Costa Europa.

2. Capt Schettino had been told to pass very close to Giglio during the previous week's cruise but that had been impossible due to bad weather at the time of the earlier cruise.

3. He insisted that he was in close contact with Costa's Ops Manager several times after hitting Le Scole and that the Ops Manager had agreed with a plan to try to beach the ship close to Giglio Harbour.

4. The DM report also contains this paragraph:
Quote:
Schettino also added how in one final call Ferrarini had asked him to download all the detail from the Voice Data Recorder on the bridge's black box and added: 'I'll be honest with you. For the 15 days beforehand we had been reporting that the VDR was broken and we had asked for it to be fixed but it never was.
Surely an owner is in breach of something or other if it allows a cruise ship to go to sea with a broken VDR unit?

The DM article is here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...l-salutes.html

The shorter, DT version, is here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ail-pasts.html

I seem to recall that after the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster, Capt Lewry and several of the other Townsend Thoresen captains produced letters that they had sent to TT during the preceding months, insisting that the practice of leaving harbour with the bow door open was not safe and that complying with a timetable instead of complying with safety was not a brainy way to proceed.

A new offence of "corporate manslaughter" was then introduced in the UK as a direct result of the evidence of TT's dereliction of its own duties of care as the ship's owner.

I don't think Costa are going to be able to wriggle out of liability for the deaths and other losses as a result of the Concordia disaster as easily as they might imagine.

One of the "corporate lessons" that Costa should be teaching itself straightaway is this one:
"If you don't stick up for your Captain, he won't stick up for you either."

Cheers

Gill

Last edited by Gollywobbler; 22nd January 2012 at 20:25..
Reply With Quote
  #786  
Old 22nd January 2012, 20:20
Alfred Ford Alfred Ford is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 274
As a passenger on several Royal Mail and Blue Star ships on the South America run, we only really saw the Captain during the ten days between Rio de Janeiro and Las Palmas (Canary Islands). He was down to dinner every evening and took part in other social activities. However, at other times: when we were crossing the River Plate, off the coast of Uruguay/Brazil or nearing Lisbon, Vigo and the English Channel we never saw him, his place was on the bridge with his officers. In fact, at these times we seldom saw the Chief Officer either.

Has this changed now? Does the Captain join his passengers for a meal even though his ship is in close proximity to land? Or perhaps Captains nowadays are PR-oriented and leave the sailing to other officers? And exactly what are the duties of a Staff Captain?

I apologize for these questions, as mentioned I am not a seaman but have always been interested in the sea and ships. Obviously my knowledge is very far indeed from so many professionals here.
Alfred Ford
Reply With Quote
  #787  
Old 22nd January 2012, 20:25
Boatman25 Boatman25 is offline  
member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1958 - 1972
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,044
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollywobbler View Post
According to both the DT and the DM, the media have obtained a transcript of the preliminary proceedings held before Judge Valeria Montesarchio.

The DM's version is more detailed than the DT's version. Which is not to say that either version is accurate but the DM one contains some interesting claims.

According to the DM, Capt Schettino told the Judge that:-

1. Close passes of Giglio and other islands were frequent events, encouraged by Costa because of their publicity value. Allegedly Capt Schettino told the lady Judge that he had passed close to Giglio before, both in command of Concordia and when he was the Captain of the Costa Europa.

2. Capt Schettino had been told to pass very close to Giglio during the previous week's cruise but that had been impossible due to bad weather at the time of the earlier cruise.

3. He insisted that he was in close contact with Costa's Ops Manager several times after hitting Le Scole and that the Ops Manager had agreed with a plan to try to beach the ship close to Giglio Harbour.

4. The DM report also contains this paragraph:


Surely an owner is in breach of something or other if it allows a cruise ship to go to sea with a broken VDR unit?

The DM article is here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...l-salutes.html

The shorter, DT version, is here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ail-pasts.html

I seem to recall that after the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster, Capt Lewry and several of the other Townsend Thoreson captains produced letters that they had sent to TT during the preceding months, insisting that the practice of leaving harbour with the bow door open was not safe and that complying with a timetable instead of complying with safety was not a brainy way to proceed.

A new offence of "corporate manslaughter" was then introduced in the UK as a direct result of the evidence of TT's dereliction of its own duties of care as the ship's owner.

I don't think Costa are going to be able to wriggle out of liability for the deaths and other losses as a result of Concordia as easily as they might imagine.

One of the "corporate lessons" that Costa should be teaching itself straightaway is this one:
"If you don't stick up for your Captain, he won't stick up for you either."

Cheers

Gill
I once went to a Court in Liverpool to see what went on and I came out because I was bored stiff, I remember why now

Last edited by Boatman25; 22nd January 2012 at 21:44..
Reply With Quote
  #788  
Old 22nd January 2012, 20:49
Gollywobbler Gollywobbler is offline  
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfred Ford View Post
As a passenger on several Royal Mail and Blue Star ships on the South America run, we only really saw the Captain during the ten days between Rio de Janeiro and Las Palmas (Canary Islands). He was down to dinner every evening and took part in other social activities. However, at other times: when we were crossing the River Plate, off the coast of Uruguay/Brazil or nearing Lisbon, Vigo and the English Channel we never saw him, his place was on the bridge with his officers. In fact, at these times we seldom saw the Chief Officer either.

Has this changed now? Does the Captain join his passengers for a meal even though his ship is in close proximity to land? Or perhaps Captains nowadays are PR-oriented and leave the sailing to other officers? And exactly what are the duties of a Staff Captain?

I apologize for these questions, as mentioned I am not a seaman but have always been interested in the sea and ships. Obviously my knowledge is very far indeed from so many professionals here.
Alfred Ford
Hi Alfred Ford

I had been going to ask many of the same questions as you before I got distracted by the claim that Concordia's VDR was allegedly not working on the fateful night.

I was going to ask:-

1. Does the Captain still dine with the passengers nowadays?

2. Is he required to wear his best evening uniform if he does so?

3. Do these cruise ships carry only one Captain or are there 2 or 3 of them, who alternate between being on duty and being allowed to rest?

4. Are they allowed to walk around the ship in mufti when they are off duty?

I'm curious about this because Capt Schettino is not unusually tall, nor he is unusual to look at. So how can pax who had only joined the ship a couple of hours earlier be sure that they had seen Capt Schettino himself, in mufti, in the passengers' dining room? I'd walk past him in the street without recognising him because there's nothing particularly striking about his appearance.

Thanks for reminding me that I wanted to ask about this, AF.

Cheers

Gill
Reply With Quote
  #789  
Old 22nd January 2012, 21:01
Gollywobbler Gollywobbler is offline  
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boatman25 View Post
I once went to a Court in Liverpool to see what went on and I came out because I was bored stiff, I remember why now
Hi Boatman

Criminal trials are incredibly boring. I went to several when I was a trainee solicitor - apparently convention demands that Instructing Solicitors must be seen to attend their clients' trials, even though Instructing Solicitors just send the cheapest bod they can find. The junior minion sits behind the client's barrister, who is the one actually doing the work.

Inquests are very boring as well. I went to several of those, too, in Kent and in Dagenham since one of our clients was a household name car insurance company and it also insured the Ford works in Dagenham.

People regularly fell into the machinery at the Ford works and killed themselves.

The inquests in Kent were because they spent years doing something to the M20 motorway. I went to one where H&W had both been killed in the accident on a contraflow. The Coroner was livid. He said it was the sixth inquest into a double fatality on that stretch of contraflow in six months. He demanded that the Highways Officer must give evidence.

The Highways Officer said that that particular piece of contraflow was exceptionally dangerous, in his view, but he had set it up in accordance with a Rule Book provided by the DTI or whatever the DfT were called at the time. Apparently insurance for the contraflow depended on following the Rule Book, so it had been followed. It wasn't his fault, Guv. He had done what the Rule Book told him to do.

Cheers

Gill
Reply With Quote
  #790  
Old 22nd January 2012, 21:11
CAPTAIN JEREMY CAPTAIN JEREMY is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Navigation
Active: 1974 - Present
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gollywobbler View Post
Hi Alfred Ford

I had been going to ask many of the same questions as you before I got distracted by the claim that Concordia's VDR was allegedly not working on the fateful night.

I was going to ask:-

1. Does the Captain still dine with the passengers nowadays?

2. Is he required to wear his best evening uniform if he does so?

3. Do these cruise ships carry only one Captain or are there 2 or 3 of them, who alternate between being on duty and being allowed to rest?

4. Are they allowed to walk around the ship in mufti when they are off duty?

I'm curious about this because Capt Schettino is not unusually tall, nor he is unusual to look at. So how can pax who had only joined the ship a couple of hours earlier be sure that they had seen Capt Schettino himself, in mufti, in the passengers' dining room? I'd walk past him in the street without recognising him because there's nothing particularly striking about his appearance.

Thanks for reminding me that I wanted to ask about this, AF.

Cheers

Gill
1. Yes, when circumstances permit.

2. Uniform

3. Only one captain

4. No
Reply With Quote
  #791  
Old 22nd January 2012, 21:14
Don A.Macleod Don A.Macleod is offline  
Senior Member
Department: Electrician
Active: 1963 - 1975
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 398
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Cassels View Post
To my mind , the most important annex to the collision regs 1968 ;

" Assumptions made on scanty information are dangerous and should be
avoided ".

How very true and relevent in all walks of life especially on this thread.
My thoughts entirely JC. Let's wait and see the final outcome whenever!
Reply With Quote
  #792  
Old 22nd January 2012, 21:14
duquesa's Avatar
duquesa duquesa is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1953 - 2014
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
My location
Posts: 1,283
Cruise ship "Costa Concordia" aground

Gollywobbler, I have seldom in a long professional career read such a load of twaddle on one subject. A subject which has a very long road to travel in terms of inquiries. It has been repeated throughout this thread by some highly experienced members that the best policy is to wait official response. I might remind you of your initial posting:-

Hi All

I know this post is feeble and I apologise for that in advance.

I joined this site because I heard about it from someone else. My late hubby was fascinated by boats & ships. He owned various small boats (only 60' to 80' in length but all of them had been workboats before they retired and passed into private ownership.) Via Jim, I learned a bit about it all myself, but really nothing compared to a pro.

I wanted to join the forum because I would like to read some of the topics and find out what SN is all about. I might not actually say anything apart from this post and if I do say anything, I'll probably ask questions. It is very unlikely that I would be able to provide any answers.

Wow, has that changed??
Reply With Quote
  #793  
Old 22nd January 2012, 21:25
Andrew Craig-Bennett's Avatar
Andrew Craig-Bennett Andrew Craig-Bennett is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Office / Administration
Active: 1974 - Present
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,250
For the benefit of the Daily Mail, should any of its staff read this forum, VDR = Voyage Data Recorder* not "voice data recorder".

I am not interested in blaming anyone; we can leave that to the popular Press. I am very interested in two things which I think are a perfectly legitimate subject for discussion here, viz:

1. How did what seems to be an evident failure in bridge resource management (MCRM to be pedantic) come to pass aboard a cruise ship owned by a leading cruise company, with an otherwise excellent safety record, who must undoubedly be very aware of these issues.

2. How was the evacuation carried out so sucessfully?

My professional interest is a shore based general manager, in two shipowning companies sucessively, who has been responsible to the Board for the safe and commercially profitable operations of ships, which over the years have included large tankers and a cruise ship as well as a good many bulkers and boxboats of various sizes.

*http://www.imo.org/blast/mainframe.asp?topic_id=768

Last edited by Andrew Craig-Bennett; 22nd January 2012 at 21:35..
Reply With Quote
  #794  
Old 22nd January 2012, 21:36
Jacktar1 Jacktar1 is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 350
Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by duquesa View Post
"I think we need to wait for some intelligent comment from the man himself about this bit."

The first sensible remark for a while - as far as it goes. Put a full stop after the word comment, and you are spot on.

Too many armchair lawyers on this thread, with little in depth knowledge, an unbelievable willingness to be sucked into any media report being thrown out and with precious little else to do with their time.

Allow the process to evolve. It will in time.


Common sense at last, I totally agree, far too many armchair captains and lawyers.
Reply With Quote
  #795  
Old 22nd January 2012, 21:39
chrisman chrisman is offline  
Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Engineering
Active: 1976 - Present
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2
I have resisted the urge to post on this subject, but now feel compelled to. I have to agree with duquesa's comments on golleywobbler's posts, they are much along the lines of a large proportion of the press comments, full of "twaddle".
I am sure that once the facts come to light it will be seen that though the captain made a gross error of judgment, the shipping company will also be seen to be lacking in its management previous and post incident. Slopey shoulders come to mind!!
Reply With Quote
  #796  
Old 22nd January 2012, 21:44
duquesa's Avatar
duquesa duquesa is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1953 - 2014
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
My location
Posts: 1,283
Cruise ship "costa Concordia" aground

Jacktar 1, I see from your profile you have possibly more right to pass comment here than most and certainly than "some"!
The truth will out I'm sure. ��

Last edited by duquesa; 22nd January 2012 at 21:46..
Reply With Quote
  #797  
Old 22nd January 2012, 21:49
Andrew Craig-Bennett's Avatar
Andrew Craig-Bennett Andrew Craig-Bennett is offline  
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Office / Administration
Active: 1974 - Present
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,250
In defence of "Gollywobbler", SN is a website open to anyone.

This is not the NI nor IMarest nor is it Nautilus.

Given the wonderful twaddle that the general press has been coming out with (Michael Grey remarked twenty-five years ago that the last newspaper to have a Shipping Correspondent was the Telegraph, and he had then retired, whilst the BBC had then, and has now, a Space Correspondent but not a Shipping Correspondent) it is surely better if these questions are asked, and answered, here, where some people do know their stuff, than left unanswered.

In the shipping industry, many of us complain that we are misunderstood and picked on because nobody understands us or cares about what we do.

When someone comes along with a genuine interest, and is met with a chorus of harrumphing old seadogs, are they likely to think better of us - or would we do better to explain?

Harrumph!

rant over.

Last edited by Andrew Craig-Bennett; 22nd January 2012 at 22:03..
Reply With Quote
  #798  
Old 22nd January 2012, 21:51
jmcg's Avatar
jmcg jmcg is online now
Senior Member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1966 - 1983
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,982
Has the Coastguard thread ran its course?

BW

J
Reply With Quote
  #799  
Old 22nd January 2012, 21:58
Boatman25 Boatman25 is offline  
member
Organisation: Merchant Navy
Department: Deck
Active: 1958 - 1972
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,044
No you can still warm your hands with the amount of hot air coming out of it
Reply With Quote
  #800  
Old 22nd January 2012, 22:09
Gollywobbler Gollywobbler is offline  
member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 485
Hi Andrew C-B
Thanks for this link, which I've now read.

Questions, please:

1. What happens if a cruise ship is due to go to sea but her VDR is not working? Does SOLAS say that she must delay going to sea until the VDR has been fixed?

2. Does it affect the validity of the passenger certificate if a cruise ship goes to sea when both the captain of the ship and the owners are aware that the VDR is caput?

3. Can the ship's insurers wriggle if the VDR can be proven to have been caput for several days and it can be proven that requests to fix it have not been actioned?

Many thanks

Gill
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cruise ship Ushuaia leaking in Antarctic - merged threads Santos News and Views from the Shipping World 4 4th December 2008 23:40



Support SN


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.