UKBouldering.com

Local Lockdowns (Read 64240 times)

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#125 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 13, 2020, 08:39:53 pm
Another +1 here for broadly agreeing with Bonjoy

Yup. Same here. The 'in it all together' avoiding crags mentality has evaporated for me... Lone bouldering outside is ridiculously low risk...

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#126 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 13, 2020, 08:44:11 pm
I don't agree with the idea of a national circuit breaker right now as there are plenty of areas with lower case numbers where businesses could remain open - why shut?

Yes - why not a regional circuit breaker...

My bar owning next door neighbour Brian (who is resurrecting his bars kitchen....) told me today he was totally in favour of a 16-18 day circuit breaker. Thursday night to Monday morning two weeks later.... then open again. He could run a business like that and (like me) felt that without it a full on 2-3 month lockdown was coming in early Nov.

teestub

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2574
  • Karma: +166/-4
  • Cyber Wanker
#127 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 13, 2020, 08:45:42 pm
Another +1 here for broadly agreeing with Bonjoy

Yup. Same here. The 'in it all together' avoiding crags mentality has evaporated for me... Lone bouldering outside is ridiculously low risk...

I guess the only potential residual argument is not wanting to turn up at A&E with a broken wrist when the hospital is overburdened with Covid patients, but on a risk basis the chances of this still seem low.

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#128 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 13, 2020, 08:54:52 pm
I guess the only potential residual argument is not wanting to turn up at A&E with a broken wrist when the hospital is overburdened with Covid patients, but on a risk basis the chances of this still seem low.

True - IF it gets as bad as it was (it may well do up here - if it goes the way of London in March/April)...

mrjonathanr

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5377
  • Karma: +242/-6
  • Getting fatter, not fitter.
#129 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 13, 2020, 08:58:34 pm

Going into stricter lockdowns through winter.. I'd find it completely unacceptable if outdoor leisure in the hills and mountains was actively discouraged, when it's proven to be such a low risk way to rejuvenate and so many other leisure activities were banned.

You can add Outdoor Ed to that, residential trips are not permitted when 30 hours a week in close proximity in school is ... a lot of children would benefit, and the sector and freelance instructors are in real trouble.

Will Hunt

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Superworm is super-long
  • Posts: 7976
  • Karma: +631/-115
    • Unknown Stones
#130 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 13, 2020, 09:34:24 pm
With the circuit-breaker, the SAGE document says that it delays the disease's progress by 28 days. I assume it's 28 days from the start of mini-lockdown. It sounds like a great way to buy time while you put something else in place (I don't think that a "something" exists), but if you end the circuit-breaker and relax things again then you'll be in the same situation in a fortnight's time. So two-weeks-in then two-weeks-out of lockdown, cycling through to the spring when climatic conditions are more favourable. In such a cyclic routine the two weeks of relative freedom would be marked by greatly increased risky activity - everyone piling into pubs/gyms/cinemas/climbing walls etc to pack 4 weeks of fun into 2. Those businesses would be less able to spread trade thinly and keep risk low.

But... just having Tier 2 doesn't work. The only option left is long-term shutdown of risky activities (indoors, poorly ventilated spaces for prolonged periods).


On another note, today I saw two climbers share a post on social media by a gym on the Wirral (Merseyside) stating that the gym would be staying open in defiance of the new rules.

NSFW  TL;DR = We're staying open:
WE ARE STAYING OPEN TO OUR MEMBERS
Today the UK’s Government has took it upon themselves to close gyms in the North West, despite the overwhelming evidence that gyms are not a major spreaders of COVID.
.
We respected the last lockdown although we financially suffered and only survived because of our amazing members. However they now want us to close, with minimum financial support for 6 months. We get no rent break, bills break both personally and as a business.
.
We are not staying open for financial gain but more for our members mental and physical well-being. Gym’s should be supported in fighting against COVID, obesity, mental health and many other conditions and diseases. So let’s look at the facts and evidence that has lead us to this decision and what the Government should be looking at:
.
UKActive published this study - https://www.ukactive.com/.../fitness-and-leisure-sector.../
- 22,000,000 (22 million) gym visits resulted in a mere 78 Covid cases
- Uk gyms showing just 0.35 cases per 100,000 visits
.
Then we have the latest (unpublished study) since the increase in positive tests https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-54464470
- Gyms are still only showing 1.7% percent of cases, but they want to close us and keep restaurants open which have a higher rate of 9.6% cases, which is still CRAZY LOW so these should also stay open.
.
Mental health - the gym helps so many people with their mental health daily.
- Male suicide is now at an all time high -  https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3431
Data published by the Office for National Statistics on 1 September showed that in 2019 the suicide rate among men and boys was 16.9 deaths per 100 000, the highest since 2000 and slightly above the 2018 rate of 16.2 per 100 000. The suicide rate among women and girls was 5.3 deaths per 100 000 in 2019, up from 5.0 per 100 000 in 2018 and the highest since 2004.
Overall, 5691 suicides (4303 in men and boys) were registered in England and Wales in 2019, giving an age standardised rate of 11 deaths per 100 000 people. A total of 5420 were registered in 2018 (10.5 per 100 000).
.
Further supported by this https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article/113/10/707/5857612 which discusses suicide, mental health and COVID
.
The Government has ignored all the above facts and evidence and even ignored the calls of the Great Barrington Declaration 7,000 scientists & medics worldwide calling for a new strategy to allow us to live our lives. https://www.independent.co.uk/.../coronavirus-lockdown...
.
Joe Anderson, the Mayor of Liverpool has also today, stated he does not agree with the measures the government are enforcing on Merseyside  and they did not let him have a say about HIS REGION and that the government are “more interested in what they look like, rather than the evidence” .
So Joe I ask you to stand with us, stand with our members, our members who have worked the front line throughout who need a place to escape, to turn off and look after both their body and mind.
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/.../liverpool-mayor-joe...


The "science" behind their decision doesn't stand up to much scrutiny, but the widespread approval in the comments section was telling. People are determined to carry on doing the stuff that they like and will come up with justifications accordingly. Surface transmission isn't likely to cause a problem in gyms - it's the fact that the gym in an enclosed space that people have gone to with the specific intention of breathing heavily for a prolonged period!

Reading the SAGE PDF this morning was eye-opening. There isn't one setting which you can point to and say with confidence that it is the root of the issue. Closing schools completely looks to have the biggest impact but we don't really understand why because we don't fully understand transmission between children and stopping education is commonly understood to be a complete last resort. Transmission is spread relatively thinly across many different types of settings. If schools are to stay open AND R is to be driven to less than 1 then lots of indoor stuff is going to have to shut. No idea how deep the government's pockets are to fund the recovery packages though.

moose

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Lankenstein's Monster
  • Posts: 2931
  • Karma: +228/-1
  • el flaco lento
#131 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 13, 2020, 09:37:23 pm
Another +1 here for broadly agreeing with Bonjoy

Yup. Same here. The 'in it all together' avoiding crags mentality has evaporated for me... Lone bouldering outside is ridiculously low risk...

Same here. I was a good boy: I worked from home since mid-March, and for the 8-9 weeks of "proper" lockdown my only exercise was walking on the moors over the weekend and finger-boarding in my attic.  To me, the main driver behind the block on leisure activities other than walking or cycling was a desire to reduce the load on the NHS from accidents.  When the NHS seemed at risk of collapse that seemed fair enough.

After the relaxation of lockdown, the only significant change in my life was bouldering outdoors on my own.  I've admittedly rarely walked away if others have arrived at the same crag, but I reckon any increase in my exposure to viral load has been minimal.  I have not been to a pub, eaten out, or been to a friend's house since March. I have seen my parents once since Christmas.

Now, I am very ill inclined to give up what little freedom I have as a completely token step to mitigate a crisis due to other factors (a complete failure to test & trace, crowded workplaces, Universities needlessly repopulated, pubs etc.).  Whatever the intricacies of rules for Tier 2 and 3 etc. Unless the NHS again nears collapse, so that risking a broken ankle seems unconscionable, I am minded to continue my programme of low ball bouldering until fined / punished into compliance.

Stu Littlefair

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1836
  • Karma: +283/-2
    • http://www.darkpeakimages.co.uk
#132 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 13, 2020, 10:00:30 pm
Everyone’s defiance is admirable but it might be worth remembering we know a lot more now than we did the first time round. It’s extremely unlikely outdoor exercise will be curtailed completely.

More likely is that you’ll have to ignore advice such as that in-place now for Tier 3 locations, such as travelling into or out of such locations.

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5776
  • Karma: +621/-36
#133 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 13, 2020, 10:14:36 pm
Stu, I already face risking a £60 fine simply for the heinous behaviour of going bouldering in the Pass. Doubling every subsequent time I'm stopped up to a maximum in the £thousands. We're past the point of ignoring 'advice' in Wales, due to the Welsh government restricting travel in law not guidance.
For this reason I don't feel very relaxed that the powers that be won't once again introduce (even more) ridiculous restrictions, on activities that have zero impact, and that other 'powers that be' such as the BMC won't once again feel inclined to toe the government line and start trying to be authoritarian.   
« Last Edit: October 13, 2020, 10:20:17 pm by petejh »

Stu Littlefair

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1836
  • Karma: +283/-2
    • http://www.darkpeakimages.co.uk
#134 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 13, 2020, 10:25:47 pm
Point taken, but surely once the travel band are in law and enforced by fines, the position of the BMC is frankly irrelevant?

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5776
  • Karma: +621/-36
#135 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 13, 2020, 10:35:35 pm
Said no trespasser ever.

TobyD

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3827
  • Karma: +88/-3
  • Job offers gratefully accepted
#136 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 13, 2020, 10:55:29 pm
Okay so this is me thinking aloud and playing devil’s advocate to an extent, but I’m voicing it because I’m interested to hear if other people are drifting in the same direction. A direction which is very worrying if extrapolated across the whole population as not everyone has the rarified levels of good judgment routinely displayed by the average UKB poster.
 As this thing drags ever on I get more and more of the mindset that I’m going to do what I deem low risk if the law doesn’t strictly prohibit it and possibly where it does if I personally risk assess it to be fine and I know I can get away with it.
This grows out of a feeling that if I’d mindlessly followed the guidance about what is safe I’d probably have caught COVID by now and it’s my own hypervigilance  that has kept me virus free so far not the blunt instrument of politically/economically driven ever changing rules. I know how to keep myself virus free as far as practically possible and quality of life considerations dictate I trust my own judgement. During lockdown there was a strong argument that you had to go along with nonsensical measures in the name of social cohesion and unity of purpose, but at this stage it feels like this has largely gone to rat shit and middle class dads sticking rigidly to the rules is not going to save the world after all.
In short I didn’t ‘eat out to help out’ but I might go on my remote and isolated holiday in Scotland if it’s not strictly illegal.

Yeah I'd agree , both that this is how I feel,  and that its extremely worrying.  Ukb users going bouldering on their own is likely to have no impact whatsoever,  on the other hand I think that people in general lost all faith and trust in the government,  starting with the Dominic Cummings incident,  and exacerbated by incompetence since then with the testing system,  and yoyo messaging like 'eat out to help out ' alongside 'everyone needs to lose weight so they have less chance of dying from CV 19'.

This will mean many people will just have house parties if all the pubs are closed,  which is likely to have a significant impact. 

The government needs to have the confidence to just say that some businesses and indeed industries will not survive a pandemic world. Travel is knackered, at least one more airline will go before Christmas I'd guess; I can't see theatres surviving and many if not all cinemas look like going the same way.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2020, 11:02:17 pm by TobyD »

spidermonkey09

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2814
  • Karma: +159/-4
#137 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 14, 2020, 07:28:29 am

The government needs to have the confidence to just say that some businesses and indeed industries will not survive a pandemic world. Travel is knackered, at least one more airline will go before Christmas I'd guess; I can't see theatres surviving and many if not all cinemas look like going the same way.

That's the rhetoric of the fiscal Conservative, but it's tantamount to economic vandalism without funding in place to help these people. An extra 20 quid a week on universal credit is simply not going to cut it and is frankly insulting. What jobs are they supposed to go and get? Airily saying "they just won't survive" doesn't really suffice. 2/3 of minimum wage if you end up on the local furlough scheme is going to leave people going hungry.

The government not supporting the arts and the numerous other industries affected is a political decision. There is no reason debt built up can't be treated as wartime debt and paid off over many years. Even some conservatives are beginning to argue this, but Sunak is a slave to fiscal conservatism in the face of all the evidence (see his recent conference speech). This might belong in the old "how to pay for the crisis" thread.


AJM

Offline
  • ***
  • obsessive maniac
  • Posts: 454
  • Karma: +24/-0
#138 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 14, 2020, 08:29:58 am
Everyone’s defiance is admirable but it might be worth remembering we know a lot more now than we did the first time round. It’s extremely unlikely outdoor exercise will be curtailed completely.

More likely is that you’ll have to ignore advice such as that in-place now for Tier 3 locations, such as travelling into or out of such locations.

I hope you're right, although the fact that some of the enhanced regulations already apply to outdoor gatherings does make me worry that there's a risk that the sort of things we want to do fall foul of a need for simple broad brush measures to target other things.

I'm a pessimist, in that I think the only thing which is likely to regain the consensus support for lockdown (given the existing agitations for light restrictions/personal choice/let it rip) is deaths, lots of them, at which point measures will have to be severe, broad brush and probably indiscriminate. And I think Boris is too weak and desperate to be loved to actually lead and outpace the consensus.

Probably in line with many others here in that I can see a lack of consensus nationally around new measures and can see it in myself - I'm far more likely to adopt an attitude of minimum compliance to any restrictions on access to the outdoors because I just don't believe in the risk but conversely (and I do appreciate this isn't that hard for me to say as a parent of young children) already don't really go into heavy socialising - ability to see our parents would be the biggest impact of renewed lockdown.

abarro81

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4287
  • Karma: +341/-25
#139 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 14, 2020, 08:44:57 am

The government needs to have the confidence to just say that some businesses and indeed industries will not survive a pandemic world. Travel is knackered, at least one more airline will go before Christmas I'd guess; I can't see theatres surviving and many if not all cinemas look like going the same way.

I can't work out if you're saying that you don't think these industries are viable post-pandemic, or just that keeping them afloat through a pandemic (in which they're not viable) isn't a prudent use of money?
 I don't really know the ins and outs of trying to keep things afloat vs letting them go bankrupt and then emerge from the ashes as those with capital buy up the assets (the latter sounds a bit wank and will exacerbate wealth disparity, but I guess is way cheaper for the gov)... but if you were saying the former then I disagree. Travel market will be a little smaller, but IMO there'll be plenty of both business and leisure travel coming back post-pandemic

TobyD

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 3827
  • Karma: +88/-3
  • Job offers gratefully accepted
#140 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 14, 2020, 09:28:16 am

The government needs to have the confidence to just say that some businesses and indeed industries will not survive a pandemic world. Travel is knackered, at least one more airline will go before Christmas I'd guess; I can't see theatres surviving and many if not all cinemas look like going the same way.

I can't work out if you're saying that you don't think these industries are viable post-pandemic, or just that keeping them afloat through a pandemic (in which they're not viable) isn't a prudent use of money?
 I don't really know the ins and outs of trying to keep things afloat vs letting them go bankrupt and then emerge from the ashes as those with capital buy up the assets (the latter sounds a bit wank and will exacerbate wealth disparity, but I guess is way cheaper for the gov)... but if you were saying the former then I disagree. Travel market will be a little smaller, but IMO there'll be plenty of both business and leisure travel coming back post-pandemic

I think that for example, propping up an airline isn't good use of money, I agree that there will be a market again whenever 'after the pandemic ' is, but as noone knows if that will be six months,  six years or longer it just doesn't make sense to try desperately to keep companies afloat. If there is a market, new airlines will start up when they are viable. 

Spider monkey, I agree that people in the relevant industries need proper support,  and, having recently become unemployed,  and worked out what UC I would be eligible for,  that it isn't great. But it's all very well crying economic vandalism,  but how long would you pay a theatre to remain closed for? 6 months?  6 years? I'd be all for diversification,  using the theatre example,  perhaps by filming performances and putting them out on a streaming platform,  or the actors doing podcasts but trying to maintain everything as it was this time last year just isn't going to work long term.
Even if someone made a vaccine tomorrow,  it would be months before it had any effect,  and that just isn't likely.  I know this sounds very pessimistic,  but I think that you need to be realistic. 

tomtom

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 20282
  • Karma: +641/-11
#141 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 14, 2020, 09:32:02 am
I think the only thing which is likely to regain the consensus support for lockdown (given the existing agitations for light restrictions/personal choice/let it rip) is deaths, lots of them, at which point measures will have to be severe, broad brush and probably indiscriminate. And I think Boris is too weak and desperate to be loved to actually lead and outpace the consensus.

This. He wants to be loved too much to make a really tough decision. We could have been coming out of a circuit breaker right now. Interesting MEN article today looking at how circuit breakers have worked around the world... inc most recently Israel.

teestub

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2574
  • Karma: +166/-4
  • Cyber Wanker
#142 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 14, 2020, 09:34:18 am
You aren’t offering much in the way of an alternative for the interim period Toby, there’s only so many jobs in cyber for those ballerinas to train for!

spidermonkey09

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2814
  • Karma: +159/-4
#143 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 14, 2020, 09:42:58 am
Given that we've all just spent the last 6 months imbibing more of the arts and culture than ever before, they'd be approaching the top of my list for government support. In terms of timing, I'd have no problem with another 6 months of government support to be reviewed in due course. Ditto with regard to any industry forced to close; hospitality, leisure, whatever. The cost is a straw man as far as I'm concerned; if it was wartime they would find the money, and we can pay it off incredibly slowly for years to come. I don't particularly understand why the Tories aren't more keen on this view anyway as it would allow them to avoid controversial tax rises. Then again, maybe people would indeed begin to ask 'what is the point of you?' as Sunak's speech suggested.

I think that most of these jobs are viable even outside of a vaccine being available. NZ will have 47,000 people in a rugby stadium at the weekend. Cinemas and theatres should be able to reopen again as soon as the government pull their finger out and address test and trace. As Alex says, travel will be in high demand as soon as its allowed.The industries aren't unviable, the government strategy is.

If you take the view that a given industry is fucked and is not going to be viable in the short to medium term (perhaps nightclubs might fit this template) then I would look to how other countries approach unemployment benefit as a lesson. In Sweden you are entitled to up to 80% of your salary for 200 days after you are made unemployed. In Germany it is 2/3 of your salary for a year. If we are going to adopt a hardline view of stopping support for certain industries then proper individual support isn't a nice-to-have, its a necessity. What we cant do is adopt that hardline approach and then stick two fingers up at the newly unemployed offering them the pathetic excuse for support that UC represents. Its callous as well as economically illiterate.


abarro81

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4287
  • Karma: +341/-25
#144 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 14, 2020, 09:56:21 am
I'd largely defer to the economists on whether accepting mass unemployment is a wise idea, or whether it's better to borrow to attempt to mitigate it and avoid all the cascading impacts. No doubt they all disagree anyway. Clearly some things would be worth supporting for strategic reasons, in order to maintain expertise in certain areas.

spidermonkey09

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 2814
  • Karma: +159/-4
#145 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 14, 2020, 10:02:24 am
I'd largely defer to the economists on whether accepting mass unemployment is a wise idea, or whether it's better to borrow to attempt to mitigate it and avoid all the cascading impacts. No doubt they all disagree anyway. Clearly some things would be worth supporting for strategic reasons, in order to maintain expertise in certain areas.

I always think of economists as ideologically driven mathematicians. They have a political view just like the rest of us, which explains why they band together in like minded think tanks, are funded by people who would benefit from their ideas, and are quoted by people who align with them politically because it lends a veneer of objectivity to their ideas, whatever their politics.

Nigel

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 1755
  • Karma: +165/-1
#146 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 14, 2020, 10:03:29 am
I'd largely defer to the economists on whether accepting mass unemployment is a wise idea...

Its not a wise idea, it never has been, and it never will be in future, except in the scenario where we are either all hunter gatherers or have a UBI that covers all essential living costs and sufficient public services. Is that not self evident? Signed, a non-economist.

No doubt qualified economists will disagree, but I would check their allegiances first before quoting.

abarro81

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 4287
  • Karma: +341/-25
#147 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 14, 2020, 10:05:48 am
I always think of economists as ideologically driven mathematicians. They have a political view just like the rest of us, which explains why they band together in like minded think tanks, are funded by people who would benefit from their ideas, and are quoted by people who align with them politically because it lends a veneer of objectivity to their ideas, whatever their politics.

I'll just defer to whatever Stu thinks then. Unless it's about footwork or tactics.

petejh

Offline
  • *****
  • forum hero
  • Posts: 5776
  • Karma: +621/-36
#148 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 14, 2020, 11:21:12 am
I'd largely defer to the economists on whether accepting mass unemployment is a wise idea, or whether it's better to borrow to attempt to mitigate it and avoid all the cascading impacts. No doubt they all disagree anyway. Clearly some things would be worth supporting for strategic reasons, in order to maintain expertise in certain areas.

I always think of economists as ideologically driven mathematicians. They have a political view just like the rest of us, which explains why they band together in like minded think tanks, are funded by people who would benefit from their ideas, and are quoted by people who align with them politically because it lends a veneer of objectivity to their ideas, whatever their politics.

This.

I'd largely defer to the economists on whether accepting mass unemployment is a wise idea...

Its not a wise idea, it never has been, and it never will be in future, except in the scenario where we are either all hunter gatherers or have a UBI that covers all essential living costs and sufficient public services. Is that not self evident? Signed, a non-economist.

No doubt qualified economists will disagree, but I would check their allegiances first before quoting.

And this.


Employment provides much more than just income, it provides purpose and community. Long-term unemployment is one of the biggest predictors of unhappiness. For most people even a job you dislike is better than no job.

I wonder if Toby saying airlines should be allowed to fold comes from a general sense of dislike for ultra-wealthy airline owners (Branson, for e.g.). If so it cuts off a lot of people's noses to spite one face.
Far better would be a government that thought outside the box and re-directed as many workers as possible from currently-defunct industries into some useful and productive work paid for in part by gov and part by the employer, with perhaps a future tax credit promised from the government for the employer to offset costs.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2020, 11:28:11 am by petejh »

yetix

Offline
  • ****
  • forum abuser
  • Posts: 610
  • Karma: +33/-0
#149 Re: Local Lockdowns
October 14, 2020, 11:30:33 am
 If I remember my studies correctly unemployment being too low is considered a negative in some models/to some economists. Essentially if the rate goes below 5% (in the US?) then it can have negative effects on wage inflation and labour force productivity (pretty sure this is referred to as slack). I imagine that in the UK the rate is above this so its probably a none factor really

 

SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal