Discuss The Archers  permalink

Would you want to move back home?

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 51 - 91 of 91
  • Message 51

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by HtoHe (U2335032) on Friday, 6th January 2012

    Message 49

    << You can get to most of the Horrobins via Clive Horrobin, under "close family ties" >>

    Chris, I'm pretty sure Tracy was in tha alphabetical list yesterday - not 100% certain but I don't think I'd have thought of going via Clive.

    The page is almost empty but, as I'm sure you'll have noticed, it claims to have been Last Updated 1st November 2011 and contains a list of immediate family ties. Now I could accept them leaving out her recently estranged partner - but to overlook her children is reminiscent of Emma on a date.

    Report message1

  • Message 52

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Friday, 6th January 2012

    I am cross about the missing character info of the dead people. Why can they not be linked to the live characters ? Easy enough to put a link in - no need to alter their page apart from a date of death.

    There is no consistency either - I think in the family trees some of the dead characters are marked as such - and some are not!
    JPBS

    Report message2

  • Message 53

    , in reply to message 51.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Friday, 6th January 2012

    I think Trac(e)y *was* there recently - her page is probably being updated now
    JPBS

    Report message3

  • Message 54

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by flameofthewest (U14483084) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    It returns the children to their school's catchment area 

    An obvious short-term solution to the "getting the children to school" problem would be for them to live in their old house with Den during the week (I seem to recall Tracy saying he is unemployed so he wouldn't have to find after-school childcare) and with Tracy at Ambridge View at weekends, but this doesn't seem to have occured to anyone.

    Report message4

  • Message 55

    , in reply to message 40.

    Posted by Ginslinger Redux (U14830013) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    One of our local "characters" gets about by bike to mumble incoherently at the populace from a variety of locations.

    I didn't mean that the SS would necessarily get involved if not already due to Garry being more than lazy but if he is then Ivy's death might prompt a reassessment.

    Report message5

  • Message 56

    , in reply to message 49.

    Posted by joe (U13868420) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    Bert exists there but not in the (irritating pseudo-scrolling) index:

    +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
    Bert Horrobin
    Played by Martyn Read
    * Status: Widower
    * Occupation: Retired road worker 
    Although in the entry for "The Horrobins" (filed under "T", naturally…) we read: Mother Ivy also has a respectable reputation, and works as a cleaner. Patriarch Reg, a retired roadman, has disowned evil Clive, and hopes that Gary, Stewart and Tracy don't follow his awful example.  Many of the Horrobin SLs took place when I couldn't access BBC radio, so can anyone enlighten me as to whether Bert /was/ formerly known as Reg? That is to say, is it the Who's Who entry or the current script that's wrong?

    Report message6

  • Message 57

    , in reply to message 56.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    In the chronology and cast list compiled by Peter Hesketh (completed in 1997 and found under `Discuss') we find the following:

    Bert Horrobin William Eedle
    Clive Horrobin Alex Jones
    Ivy Horrobin Cynthia Cherry

    So it looks as though `Bert' is right and `Reg' wrong ..
    JPBS

    Report message7

  • Message 58

    , in reply to message 43.

    Posted by anna kist (U2314477) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    Top post HtoHe.

    Report message8

  • Message 59

    , in reply to message 52.

    Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    I am cross about the missing character info of the dead people. 

    Join me in one of my favourite gripes. I first noticed it when they whipped Betty Tucker out with indecent haste. I got some very sharp reply from Keri Davies when I queried it.

    Report message9

  • Message 60

    , in reply to message 59.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    The point is they could omit the ex-characters from the `character list but still keep their pages so they could be linked to when necessary - eg as part of a family tree
    JPBS

    Report message10

  • Message 61

    , in reply to message 33.

    Posted by Digitalis lividus et niger (U8605497) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    Tracey is quite happy sponging off Neil and Susan and living the life of Riley. 

    Time for Susan to bite the cannon ball and say 'Make up your mind what you'e going to do, you're out of here on Tuesday.'

    And I don't see why it /has/ to be Susan's job, unless she has a stronger voice/influence that Neil.

    Dig

    Report message11

  • Message 62

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by barwick_green (U2668006) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    Tracy has two kids.

    They have to start a new school. Leave their friends, if they had any that is.

    Then share a house with two men they don't know that well?

    Is that such a good idea? 


    One of the men allegedly being a child abuser too. Apart from that and given Bert's very poor parenting skills who would want their children within a mile of the dolt and a 'missing link' uncle? History ius likely to repeaat itself with Brad being borstal before long and Chelsea as sluttish as her mother,

    Report message12

  • Message 63

    , in reply to message 61.

    Posted by HtoHe (U2335032) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    message 61

    << And I don't see why it /has/ to be Susan's job, unless she has a stronger voice/influence that Neil >>

    I think it has to be Susan's job - even forgetting the fact that it's Susan's sister, not Neil's - because she has, so far, overruled Neil's every attempt to tell Tracy anything.

    Report message13

  • Message 64

    , in reply to message 60.

    Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    The point is they could omit the ex-characters from the character list but still keep their pages so they could be linked to when necessary - eg as part of a family tree 

    I'm not quite sure what you mean - you think that's what they should do or that's what they do? because they don't as far as I know. And is it a disagreement with me?

    Report message14

  • Message 65

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by irene (U14262395) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    ss involvement, gins? crikey thats a bit drastic, isnt it?

    Report message15

  • Message 66

    , in reply to message 64.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    The point is they could omit the ex-characters from the character list but still keep their pages so they could be linked to when necessary - eg as part of a family tree 

    I'm not quite sure what you mean - you think that's what they should do or that's what they do? because they don't as far as I know. And is it a disagreement with me?  
    I'm not sure!

    I think that they are right that after a time** the characters should not appear in the character list. However I don't think they should disappear altogether. I think there should be a link to them via present characters and via family trees. In many cases you get an error if you click on the link - why not replace that with their old page?
    JPBS
    **not sure how long for!

    Report message16

  • Message 67

    , in reply to message 66.

    Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    I think that they are right that after a time** the characters should not appear in the character list. 

    I think Betty it was the week after her death - that was too soon. She was very much a live element of storylines still.

    However I don't think they should disappear altogether. I think there should be a link to them via present characters and via family trees. In many cases you get an error if you click on the link - why not replace that with their old page? 

    Quite.

    Report message17

  • Message 68

    , in reply to message 62.

    Posted by joe (U13868420) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    WARNING - AMEX REFERENCE One of the men allegedly being a child abuser too  No real evidence for that. It was mentioned by Clive (on AmEx) that he used be beaten by his father, which was one of the "reasons" he went bad.

    I'm not sure how much credence I'd give that - Clive's not exactly a reliable or disinterested witness. Wouldn't Susan have mentioned something about how "strict" - as it would have been called - their father was when they were growing up, if it were the case?

    Of course it could be another character revision - that particular programme has form in that respect. I'm inclined to disbelieve Clive's account, not on account of his record, but because it hasn't - to my knowledge - been mentioned by anyone else. Wouldn't it be the first thing Tracy would think of as a reason not to move her family in? Of course, we can't know until it's confirmed or denied in TA (if it ever is).

    Suggestions that if he were physically abusive he might also have sexually abused his children are a ML extrapolation. There is NO evidence for this from the programme - but only listeners to AmEx would know this, or have heard about Bert's (alleged) violence in the first place.

    Yet another reason to ditch the AmEx experiment and concentrate on getting /one/ programme right.

    Report message18

  • Message 69

    , in reply to message 68.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    Hear Hear - I've refuted this claim on other threads. C live said his father hit him for nothing and that would not be unusual for those days sadly.

    Susan would not think that remarkable - nor would anyone.
    JPBS

    Report message19

  • Message 70

    , in reply to message 69.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    Susan has stated that Clive was spoilt and that he always got what he wanted and twisted his parents round his little finger, which seems to me to indicate that if he was "beaten", she was unaware of it when she was looking after her younger siblings so much of the time.

    It is entirely usual for people who habitually blame others for their own faults to blame harsh treatment form their parents as a cause for their being criminal. It is generally found on investigation to be at best very much exaggerated, at worst a complete fiction. I think we should not forget that Clive also blamed his having to rob the Post Office with a gun in his hand on George Barford, whose offence in Clive's eyes lay in not allowing Clive to poach unchecked when he was younger.

    There are people here who are very willing to see sexual abuse or predation where there has been no particular evidence for it in the scripts, so if sexual abuse of one of his children has been alleged against Bert Horrobin on this board I am not particularly surprised. It's a similar thing to the perennial "they must be lesbian" silliness, as far as I am concerned: bound to be said ocasionally, needs to be ignored.

    Oh: Clive is now not quite forty. Was beating children for no reason and undetected by anyone really a commonplace in a small village during the 1970s? I am unsure: I think that it would have been known, remarked on and deplored in a village. In a town, where people are less likely to know all their neighbours' business, I would think it more likely than in a place with 600-700 residents who mostly know each other pretty well.

    Report message20

  • Message 71

    , in reply to message 70.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    He was beaten** for what Clive considered no reason - messing about in his Dad's shed I think was mentioned. When he said this he was badly hurt at the time - he was encouraged to talk to keep him from lapsing into unconsciousness. Possibly he exaggerated and so did Susan - memory can be selective. He might have been hit once or twice - and spoilt by Susan's reckoning on other occasions. His parent may not have been consistent either - with Ivy spoiling him and Bert hitting him.

    ** The word `abuse' was *not* used - but the word `beating' may not have been used either - for I didn't put the sentence in quotes. I can only imagine that the `abuse' idea arose from his allegations of being hit in that episode.
    JPBS

    Report message21

  • Message 72

    , in reply to message 71.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    JPBS, if you told me what episode it was I could go and listen to it to find out exactly what the shitehawk claimed -- but I would far rather not.

    I would continue not to believe it no matter what he claimed, because I have had no reason to believe a word he said about anything, ever: his entire history has been of blaming others for his own faults, and of lying and stealing and ultimately of being prepared to kill anyone who got in his way.

    I also think he is a cowardly little person, as witness his running away rather than face Neil when Neil was angry, and his running away when Phil, a man twice his age, knocked on George and Christine's door when he was holding them up at gunpoint. But that is not particularly relevant to his decision to believe that his father treated him cruelly when he was a child.

    I didn't think the word "abuse" had been used, but thank you for confirming it.

    Report message22

  • Message 73

    , in reply to message 72.

    Posted by joe (U13868420) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    if you told me what episode it was I could go and listen to it to find out exactly what the shitehawk claimed -- but I would far rather not.  To save you the pain (since I've already suffered it!) here's what he /actually/ said:

    "Oh yeah - me Dad? 'E was a git. He'd take his belt to me just for messin' in his shed"

    This seems to have been taken as evidence of Bert being a child-beater, even though none of the rest of the family seem to have noticed.* Whenit was mentioned in ML, someone commented that if Bert was physically abusing his children, there was a possibility of sexual abuse as well, and this seems to have taken on a life of its own. There is *no* suggestion of *either* in what was broadcast. All we heard was Clive's self-pity and self-justification - which given Susan's recollection that he was actually spoilt as a child, should be taken with a hefty amount of salt.




    *Mind you, they may not be that observant: they also don't seem to have noticed that Clive has been run over and presumably saw in the New Year in Felpersham hospital…

    Report message23

  • Message 74

    , in reply to message 73.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    Thanks, joe!

    You know, that desn't even say Bert actually *did* take his belt to Clive: only that the would [have done]. I wouldn't swat a mosquito on evidence like that.

    Well well. My father once hit me with the cane I had been using to cut the rhubarb down -- it is so wonderful the way that if you cut the stem of rhubarb swiftly at top and then at bottom the stalk falls over and the leaf goes sedately down like a parachute, I couldn't resist it, and I hadn't noticed quite how many times I had done this... Funnily enough, I never thought of it as child-abuse: he took the cane away, he whopped me across the backside with it, that was the end of that. Except of course that he prophesied, correctly, that every time anyone said "what's for pudding?" for the rest of the year my mother was liable to say, "Well, it would have been rhubarb, but..."

    Me dad wasn't a git, though. He was a good thing, all my life through until he died a few years back. I still miss him.

    Clive's been run over, eh. Couldn't happen to a better bloke.

    Report message24

  • Message 75

    , in reply to message 73.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    Agree Jo - I was more interested in confirming that the word `abuse' was not used. (And thanks for gritting your teeth and LA'ing!)

    And am afraid `taking a belt to' would not be uncommon then. I think that probably both Susan and Clive exaggerated - Susan thinking he received favoured treatment and Clive thinking of himself as a victim. From what I have heard I would say it was more likely that Ivy spoiled him and Bert beat him. Clive *was* in extremis - in pain - so what he said needs to be taken in the light of that .. JPBS

    **You are right about your comments about Clive in hospital - I don't think they dislike him *that* much!

    Report message25

  • Message 76

    , in reply to message 75.

    Posted by Now Locking for a house (U3261819) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    Were Tracy and Den living in a council place?Surely she and the childen would be able to remain there and Den have to leave. My OH had to leave his council house when his wife got a boyfriend and wanted to divorce. She moved boyfriend in after a very few weeks. There is an order made in favour of the parent who gains custody of the children.

    Report message26

  • Message 77

    , in reply to message 76.

    Posted by HtoHe (U2335032) on Saturday, 7th January 2012

    message 76

    << Surely she and the childen would be able to remain there and Den have to leave >>

    I hinted at this yesterday Ptba. Whether it's entitlement to the tenacy itself or to HB to pay the rent. Tracy +2 would have a much better chance of holding on to the property than Den on his own. In theory he's probably obliged to report a change of circumstances before drawing his next benefit payment though in practice he'd probably wait for them to find out. One obvious tactic for Tracy would be to offer him the chance to move before she informed on him.

    Report message27

  • Message 78

    , in reply to message 73.

    Posted by barwick_green (U2668006) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    < "Oh yeah - me Dad? 'E was a git. He'd take his belt to me just for messin' in his shed" >

    For Cloive, no death could be too painful or too slow in my opinion. However, two wrongs don't make a right and the beating of a child with a belt is abuse and I won't be swayed on that. I wouldn't trust Cloive further than I could throw him but his comment's about his father did have a ring of truth about them in what I thought at the time was effectively a deathbed confession (but the scumbag ended up in nice crisp clean hospital bed and three square a day - boo!)

    Regardless, who is to say that Bert won't take his belt to Brad in similar circumstances?

    Report message28

  • Message 79

    , in reply to message 78.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    Tracy, obviously. IF it was true, which I don't for a moment believe, I think it unlikely that Tracy would not have known that Bert was violent with his children, and she certainly would not allow her father to punish her son -- indeed I doubt she will allow him to have any say about Brad's behaviour whatever, any more tha she allows Neil to have any.

    Report message29

  • Message 80

    , in reply to message 78.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    Yes - I agree it's abuse. However
    (1) it wasn't regarded as `abuse' in the past
    (2) unfortunately if you use the term `abuse' about children some folk automatically assume you mean sexual abuse. Hence the confusion and disagreement

    AS to whether Bert would beat his two grandchildren I think even Bert would be aware of the wrong now. Also grandparents can be very different to their grandchildren compared with the way they were to their children. I remember MiL getting annoyed with FiL - not that he beat anyone but that he was so soppy!

    As to Tracy `knowing' that Bert was violent - that was normal in the past so may have gone unremarked. Or it may have happened just once.. . and yes - I believe Clive also .. that there was some truth in it.

    From the same source - I think Ivy spoiled them and Bert beat them - a recipe for a person like Clive - though some survive..
    JPBS

    Report message30

  • Message 81

    , in reply to message 80.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    If there were a precedent for Clive telling the truth I might credit a word he says, but I can't off-hand think of one, except perhaps when, in trouble, he told Susan she was the only one who would help him.

    Otherwise the truth is not in him, so it would need to have three witnesses before I believed that anyone ever raised a hand to him in his life.

    Certainly his fear of being hurt doesn't go along with being in the least accustomed to ever having been hurt. Generally people become inured to pain rather than scared witless of it if it is a regular part of their lives.

    If his father larruped him on a single occasion and for an offence unspecified but quite possibly serious rather than mild, I can't bring myself to call it "abuse". Sorry and all that, I think the words is grossly over-used.

    Report message31

  • Message 82

    , in reply to message 81.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    Sorry to pursue this as it was broadcast elsewhere -
    he said he was bullied at school in the playground - but was told by his Dad to stand up for himself and hit them harder. Of course it's possible that Bert belted him to make him `hard'. It has been known ..

    Clive was injured and in great pain - he was encouraged to keep talking. He had previously been rambling about his - criminal - activities (from AmEx - you don't want to know ..) and continued saying he was `no good' and went on to mention his Dad.

    JPBS

    Report message32

  • Message 83

    , in reply to message 82.

    Posted by joe (U13868420) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    Sorry to pursue this as it was broadcast elsewhere  A perfect example of why AmEx doesn't work. Knowing - or not - about this has a considerable influence on how we view Tracy's reservations about moving to No 6.

    Report message33

  • Message 84

    , in reply to message 83.

    Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    Sorry to pursue this as it was broadcast elsewhere A perfect example of why AmEx doesn't work. Knowing - or not - about this has a considerable influence on how we view Tracy's reservations about moving to No 6. 

    No it doesn't because there is absolutely NO basis for even talking about "abuse". Clive says his father hit him once. Yes, whatever you think about it punishing children by smacking or using belts or canes on their bottoms used to be perfectly acceptable forms of punishment. That doesn't mean to say it was a good thing or that it was never used in a malicious way. But it does mean that there are people who suffered this who have grown up to be perfectly normal (insofar as what we live in is normal) members of society. It ws not done as abuse and therefore was not experienced as abuse.

    Anyway, as became clear tonight that was not at all Tracy's problem.

    Report message34

  • Message 85

    , in reply to message 84.

    Posted by joe (U13868420) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    there is absolutely NO basis for even talking about "abuse"  That's been my position from the start. Some posters, however, have extrapolated from Clive's recollections - or reports of his recollections - that he had been abused. It all depends on how much credence you give to his version of events. Speaking personally, very little! It's quite possible that he genuinely believes he was hard done by - repeat a lie often enough and you can end up believing it yourself.

    And I stand by my view that having two series running in parallel can only lead to more of this sort of confusion. TA-only listeners are /not/ in possession of all the facts, and their perceptions are inevitably affected. Anyway, as became clear tonight that was not at all Tracy's problem.  Not heard it yet, so can't comment, except to say that if there /were/ any evidence for Bert's violence it would surely have been the first thing Tracy used as a reason for not moving in - it would be an incontrovertible argument.

    As I'm fairly sure I mentioned before, I've always thought that her main objection was to becoming an unpaid carer - hence the list of conditions.

    Report message35

  • Message 86

    , in reply to message 85.

    Posted by JoinedPeetsBoard_Smeesues_too (U14519481) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    It's quite possible that he genuinely believes he was hard done by - repeat a lie often enough and you can end up believing it yourself. 
    Exactly - yes. But I *can* believe that Bert knocked Clive about - not abnormal for those times. However that is a long time ago ... and that is part of Clive's story and not Tracy's.

    As a matter of interest this is what I wrote in my AmEx synopsis . sorry and all that!
    JPBS

    ***AMEX - beware!!
    At her insistence he tells her some of his background. He was always to blame .. His Dad beat him for nothing .. he had a bad reputation at school and in the playground he was bullied ..his dad told him to `just stand up for yourself - hit em harder!' He is no good ... George also comes into this tirade ..
    ***

    Report message36

  • Message 87

    , in reply to message 86.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    You know, I think that the law and the social mores about beating children were not so very Victorian or mediaeval in 1980 when Clive was a boy. "Not abnormal for those days" makes it sound a great deal worse than the years during which I was growing up; there are people who are tortured to death by their sisters or habitually beaten by their fathers even now, but it is not a norm, and I don't think that casual brutality was a norm in the mid-eighties either.

    The two stories are incompatible, too: why would he expect a father who beat him to help him against playground bullies?

    Report message37

  • Message 88

    , in reply to message 87.

    Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    there are people who are tortured to death by their sisters or habitually beaten by their fathers even now, but it is not a norm, 

    But just upthread (or maybe elsethread) I though you, like me, were disputing the attribution of the word "abuse" to what Bert (according to Clive) did to Clive (took his belt to him). And now you're comparing it to torture or habitually beating. I don't follow.

    Report message38

  • Message 89

    , in reply to message 87.

    Posted by Peggy Monahan (U2254875) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    The two stories are incompatible, too: why would he expect a father who beat him to help him against playground bullies? 

    People aren't logical, people's feelings aren't logical; my dad's got the right to beat me BECAUSE he helps and protects me.

    Report message39

  • Message 90

    , in reply to message 88.

    Posted by Chris Ghoti (U10794176) on Sunday, 8th January 2012

    Peggy, what I was saying there is that I do not believe that random beating was acceptable in the 1980s, any more than torture is now. Neither was/is the norm. Nor (despite all that people seem determined to say to the contrary) do I believe that sexual abuse of children is the norm, unless you count such things as failing to prevent a child from seeing a penis or smacking it on the bottom instead of the upper leg as sexual abuse.

    I think that a lot of exaggeration goes on -- not least from people who want to make themselves "interesting" or to evade responsibility for their own actions and bad behaviour. Let's face it, most people even if they were beaten as a child do not set fire to houses with people in them, or hold up shops using a shotgun; but many people who do this sort of thing do seem to have discovered that if they claim to have been abused in some way as children they will get more sympathy than if they are just seen as nasty little scrotes with no excuse for their bad behaviour.

    Report message40

  • Message 91

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Sashalu (U14420536) on Tuesday, 17th January 2012

    Beggars can't be choosers.

    Tracy and her kids need somewhere to live, and her father is keen for her to move back.

    Meanwhile, Neil is fed up with having Tracy and family underfoot - and who can blame him?

    I wonder what she's up to, getting her father to sign away his rights to the house (or did I misunderstand that bit?). Just imagine if she drove him and his horrible sons out into the snow!

    Tracy and her machinations are introducing an extra element of fun into life in Ambridge.

    Report message41

Back to top

About this Board

Welcome to the Archers Messageboard.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

This messageboard is now closed.

This messageboard is reactively moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.