Offshore Casino Sites for UK Players: What to Check
Available in GBA practical look at licensing, payments, bonus terms and player safeguards at casinos that accept UK customers without a UKGC licence.
Table of Contents
- What “Offshore” Means for UK Players
- How to Read a Casino Comparison Without Taking Its Claims on Trust
- What an Offshore Licence Does—and Doesn’t—Tell You
- The Offshore Casino Business Has Connections You Might Not Expect
- Deposits and Withdrawals: Speed Is Only Part of the Story
- Games and Bonuses: Check the Terms Before You Play
- No-Deposit Offers and Bonus Maths
- Crypto Withdrawals: Fast, but Not Risk-Free
- KYC, Age Checks and the Safeguards You May Not Get
- If You Want a Safer Alternative to Offshore Play
What “Offshore” Means for UK Players
“Offshore” sounds like a description of where a casino’s website is hosted. For a British player, the more useful question is whether the operator accepts customers here without a licence from the UK Gambling Commission (UKGC). That is what the term means in this context: an online gambling operator takes British customers but does not hold a UKGC licence.
That distinction matters because a company can be based abroad and still hold the licence required to serve the British market. Conversely, a site can be accessible from Britain without being authorised to offer gambling here. Location alone does not tell you which situation you are looking at.
I used to treat “offshore” as if it simply meant foreign-owned. That was too loose. The key point is regulatory: offshore casinos sit outside the UKGC’s system. They are not regulated by the UKGC, even if they display a licence from another place or use familiar-looking language on their site. A foreign licence is not a UK licence.
When looking at offshore casino sites for 2026, payout timing is one practical detail to check before choosing where to play. Use this list as a starting point and consider what matters to you.
Payout speed: 1-3 business days Zombillion lists payouts at 1–3 business days, giving you a stated timeframe to consider.
Payout speed: 1-3 business days Chanze lists a payout speed of 1–3 business days, a useful detail for you to note.
Payout speed: 1-3 business days BeOnBet gives a stated payout timeframe of 1–3 business days for you to take into account.
Payout speed: 1-3 business days EvoSpin lists payouts as taking 1–3 business days, providing you with a clear timing detail.
Payout speed: 1-3 business days Amunbet’s stated payout speed is 1–3 business days, which you can factor into your choice.
Payout speed: 1-3 business days x3bet lists a payout timeframe of 1–3 business days for you to bear in mind.
Payout speed: 1-3 business days SpinFormula states that payouts take 1–3 business days, giving you a specific timing point to review.
Payout speed: 1-3 business days NightLuck lists payouts at 1–3 business days, a stated timeframe you can consider.
Payout speed: 1-3 business days Britsino gives a payout speed of 1–3 business days for you to keep in mind.
Payout speed: 1-3 business days Dieselwin lists its payout timeframe as 1–3 business days, giving you one concrete detail to assess.
The operator’s position is not the player’s
The law draws an important line between an operator offering gambling and an individual choosing to place a bet. In England, Scotland and Wales, an online operator must hold the relevant Gambling Commission licence to provide gambling facilities to customers. Offering those facilities without one is illegal for the operator. Advertising an unlicensed gambling service in the UK is also illegal.
That does not mean that a British player commits a crime simply by betting with an overseas casino. There is no UK law that makes an individual’s decision to place a bet with a foreign operator a criminal offence, and the Gambling Act does not create a criminal penalty for the player on that basis.
Those statements can sound contradictory until you separate the two sides of the transaction. The operator’s legal obligation is to hold a UKGC licence before offering gambling to customers in Great Britain. The player’s act of placing a bet with a foreign operator is a different matter. A restriction on the business does not automatically become a criminal rule against the customer.
So, when someone says an offshore casino is “illegal”, it is worth asking what they mean. They may be referring to the operator providing services to British customers without the required licence, not claiming that the customer will be prosecuted for playing. Precision matters here. It is easy to turn a rule aimed at a business into a warning aimed at the wrong person.
What the label does not tell you
The word “offshore” does not, by itself, tell you whether a particular operator is trustworthy, how it handles a dispute or what rules apply to its licence. It only establishes the relevant UK distinction: the operator accepts British customers but does not hold a UKGC licence. The details of any foreign licence are a separate subject.
Nor does a site’s presence online make it a UK-regulated casino. A homepage can look polished and its terms can be neatly presented; neither changes the operator’s status. If the casino is not UKGC-licensed, UKGC oversight does not apply to it. That is the central fact to keep in view when reading claims made by an offshore site.
I once let the words “international” and “licensed” do too much work in my head. They sounded reassuring, but they did not answer the question I needed answered: licensed by whom, and authorised to serve which market? A label is not the same thing as UK permission.
There is another practical limit to bear in mind. Offshore operators do not have to provide the affordability checks mandated by the UKGC for its licensees. The absence of that UKGC requirement is not proof that an operator will never ask about a customer’s finances; it means you should not assume the UKGC’s rules apply.
The difference between operator liability and player liability should not be mistaken for an endorsement. Saying that an individual is not committing a crime simply by playing does not make an offshore casino UK-regulated, or give it the standing of a UKGC-licensed service. Those are separate questions. No UKGC protection.
Offshore casinos sit outside the UKGC’s system and do not provide the protections or oversight associated with a UKGC-licensed service.
In short, “offshore casino” describes a foreign operator taking British customers without a UK Gambling Commission licence. The operator is not authorised under the British licensing system to offer gambling here, and its advertising is not permitted under the rules for unlicensed services. The player’s position is different: placing a bet with an overseas operator is not, by itself, a criminal offence in the UK. Keep those two points side by side. They are easy to muddle, and they are not the same.
How to Read a Casino Comparison Without Taking Its Claims on Trust
A comparison page can look precise and still leave out the one thing you need to know: what happens when something goes wrong. I used to read “best” as if it meant tested, dependable and suitable for me. It may mean little more than a set of promotional claims arranged in a tidy table. Treat the page as a starting point, not a verdict.
First, look for evidence behind each claim. If a site is described as “trusted”, “fast” or “player-friendly”, ask what that means in practice. Does the comparison explain how it reached that view, or does it simply repeat the casino’s own wording? Is there a clear date showing when the information was checked? A claim without a method or supporting detail is still just a claim.
Separate facts from sales language
Watch for broad praise that cannot be checked. “Secure” might refer to a technical measure; it does not tell you whether a withdrawal will be approved, how a dispute is handled or whether the operator is overseen by the UK Gambling Commission. Those are different questions.
Some non-GamStop casinos say they use advanced encryption to protect personal and financial information. That can matter for protecting data as it moves between you and a site, but it does not make the casino equivalent to a UKGC-regulated operator. Encryption cannot guarantee fair treatment, payment of winnings or access to UKGC protections. Security is one part of the picture. Not the whole picture.
The same goes for phrases such as “fully protected” or “safe to play”. Check what protection is actually being described, and who is responsible for it. A comparison that treats technical security as proof of overall reliability is asking you to make a leap.
Look for the awkward information
A useful comparison should not only repeat the attractive points. It should make risks visible and explain what is not covered. That includes whether the site is outside UKGC oversight and whether UKGC-mandated affordability checks apply. Offshore operators do not offer those checks as a UKGC requirement. If a page presents safeguards as though every casino must provide the same ones, be wary of the wording.
Pay particular attention to what the page says about complaints and unpaid winnings. Gambling.com has reported cases in which unlicensed sites refused to pay winnings, leaving customers without legal recourse. That is a reported risk, not proof that every offshore casino behaves this way. But it is important enough that a comparison should not bury it beneath a headline about bonuses or a polished badge.
A page that says “fast payouts” without explaining what that claim is based on has not answered the harder question: what happens if a withdrawal is challenged or refused? You do not need to assume the worst about every operator to recognise that the consequences may be serious when you have little practical recourse.
- Look for evidence behind claims like “trusted” or “fast”
- Check for a clear date of information verification
- Make risks and absence of UKGC oversight visible
- Treat a comparison page as a final verdict
- Assume technical encryption guarantees fair treatment
- Trust “fast payouts” without checking the processing terms
Check what the comparison leaves out
I look for a clear distinction between information about a casino and information supplied by the casino. If a page repeats marketing language, does it label it as a claim? Does it explain limits to its assessment? A table can make sites seem directly comparable even when the underlying evidence is thin or inconsistent.
Also notice whether the page explains how it selected the casinos it discusses. A ranked list is not automatically an independent test. If the criteria are unclear, the order may tell you more about the page’s presentation than about the operators. I would rather see a cautious explanation of what was checked than a confident score with no visible basis.
Read the surrounding text, not just badges and summaries. A qualification hidden in a long paragraph can change the meaning of a headline. If you cannot tell who stands behind a promise, what it covers, or what happens when it fails, do not treat it as a guarantee.
Make your own comparison
Before relying on any review, write down the questions it actually answers: what evidence supports its claims, what risks are acknowledged, and what protections are absent? If the page does not answer those questions, its ranking cannot fill the gap.
I know the temptation to find a simple “best” choice. A neat winner feels like someone else has done the hard thinking. But a comparison can only help if it shows its working and is honest about uncertainty. With offshore sites, attractive wording and technical security claims do not remove the difference between them and UKGC-regulated services.
That distinction matters. Take the claims slowly.
What an Offshore Licence Does—and Doesn’t—Tell You
An offshore licence tells you that a casino claims to be authorised by a regulator outside the UK. It does not mean the operator holds a UK Gambling Commission licence, or that the Commission supervises its service. Offshore casinos are outside the UKGC’s regulatory system. That distinction matters more than the badge’s design.
I used to treat a licence logo as a shortcut: see a seal, assume someone was keeping an eye on things. That was too generous. A foreign regulator’s authority is not the same as UK oversight, and a licence issued abroad does not give an operator permission to serve British customers under a UKGC licence. Nor does it make the site subject to UKGC enforcement.
You may see offshore casinos described as licensed and regulated by reputable authorities. A specialist casino review may make that claim about many such platforms, but the description alone does not tell you which regulator has authorised a particular operator, what the authorisation covers, or how the regulator handles complaints. “Licensed” is a starting point for checking, not a verdict on safety.
Read the label, not just the badge
If a site displays an offshore casino licence, look for the regulator’s name and a way to verify the operator’s authorisation with that regulator. Then check whether the licence is presented as belonging to the casino’s actual operating company, rather than being a general claim in promotional copy. If the details are hard to find or do not identify the operator, the logo has told you very little.
A foreign licence identifies a regulator and jurisdiction, but it does not grant the operator permission to serve British customers under a UKGC licence.
Even a genuine foreign licence has limits. It may show that an operator falls under a regulator’s rules in that regulator’s jurisdiction. It does not establish that the UK Gambling Commission has assessed the site, that UK rules apply to it, or that you receive the protections associated with a UKGC-licensed casino. The licence and the player’s location are separate issues.
That can get blurred in lists of offshore licensed casinos. A list may group sites under a broad label, but the label is not evidence that each entry has the same regulator, licence scope or standards. I would want to know who operates the site and what the named authority actually covers before treating the word “licensed” as meaningful. A long list is not the same thing as a reliable endorsement.
What it cannot promise
An offshore licence does not guarantee that a dispute will be handled in the way it would be at a UKGC-licensed operator. It also does not mean the casino provides UKGC-mandated affordability checks. Those safeguards are not something you can infer from a foreign licence badge.
The same goes for claims about security. A site may describe its systems as secure, but that does not make it equivalent to a UKGC-regulated service. Nor does the presence of a regulator’s name settle what happens if you disagree with the operator or cannot get a problem resolved.
So when you see “legit” attached to an offshore casino, pin down what the word means. It might refer only to a claimed foreign authorisation; it does not establish UKGC oversight or the protections that come with it. I learned not to let a tidy badge do the thinking for me.
A licence is a clue. Not a safety net.
The Offshore Casino Business Has Connections You Might Not Expect
A casino site can look like a standalone business: a logo, a set of games and a page explaining who holds its licence. But the companies around it may have their own commercial arrangements, and those can matter when you are trying to understand whose interests are being served.
Santeda and SIS offer a concrete example. Under their contract, SIS received a share of revenue generated by losing bets placed through Santeda’s brands. That detail changes how I read a relationship described simply as a business partnership. The income was linked not just to activity on the sites, but to customers losing money.
That does not, by itself, tell us everything about either company’s conduct, or establish that a particular decision was made because of the contract. It does point to a potential conflict of interest: one party’s revenue was connected to losses by people betting through another party’s brands. When I see a partnership presented in neutral language, I want to know what the agreement actually ties each side’s income to. The label alone tells me very little.
It is also important not to let a licence label blur the geography. Santeda held a Curaçao licence, but that permission did not extend to operating in the UK or the United States. A foreign licence is not a passport into every market. For British customers, the relevant point is that a Curaçao licence is not a UK Gambling Commission licence, and it does not authorise Santeda to offer gambling in Britain.
Operating without a UKGC licence is illegal for the operator and advertising such unlicensed services in the UK is also illegal.
That distinction is easy to miss when a site displays a licence badge prominently. I used to read the badge as a broad sign that the operator was cleared to serve me. It is narrower than that: it identifies a regulator and a jurisdiction, not blanket approval for business everywhere. The arrangement with SIS does not change the scope of Santeda’s licence, either.
There are two separate questions here. One is who regulates an operator and where its licence applies. The other is how the operator’s business relationships are structured. A licence answers neither question on its own. Nor does a commercial connection automatically prove that a site is unsafe; it gives you a reason to look past the polished summary and understand what the relationship involves.
For someone comparing offshore casino sites, this is a useful habit: treat corporate partnerships as part of the picture, not as a substitute for checking the operator’s status. Santeda’s Curaçao authorisation did not cover UK operations, and SIS’s share of revenue from losing bets is a specific feature of the contract—not a generic description of every partnership in the gambling industry.
I find that kind of detail more revealing than a page full of reassuring labels. It does not settle every question. It does make the arrangement harder to mistake for a simple endorsement.
Deposits and Withdrawals: Speed Is Only Part of the Story
I used to treat a quick payout estimate as if it were the whole story. It isn’t. With an offshore casino, the time shown for a payment method may cover only the operator’s processing stage, not the full journey to your account. Read the withdrawal terms before depositing, not after you have requested your money.
E-wallets are often the quickest route described for withdrawals. A specialist review of foreign casinos reports that Skrill and Neteller payments are commonly cleared within 24 hours, with many processed in under 12. Those are reported timelines, not a promise about a particular site or a guarantee that your own withdrawal will arrive by then. A request can still be held while the operator reviews it.
Bank transfers are a slower option in the same review: they can take five to seven business days, and some casinos add an internal processing period before the bank transfer even begins. That makes the phrase “fast payouts” worth treating carefully. It may describe one part of the process, or one payment route, rather than the time from clicking withdraw to seeing cleared funds.
The terms matter. Check whether a withdrawal can sit pending, how the casino defines processing time, and whether the stated timeline is in business days. A specialist review notes that withdrawal limits, pending periods and verification procedures differ considerably between operators. So a payment method that looks familiar does not make the process predictable. Read the cashier page and the withdrawal rules together.
I’d also check the rules for the method you plan to use, including whether the casino allows withdrawals back to that route and whether it applies limits. Do not assume that the method you used to deposit will automatically be available for cashing out. If the rules are vague, that uncertainty matters more than a headline speed claim.
This is still an offshore casino, not a UK Gambling Commission-licensed one. It is outside UKGC regulation and does not provide UKGC-mandated affordability checks. A smooth-looking payment page does not change that, and security language is not a substitute for the protections attached to a UKGC licence.
Before sending money, find the withdrawal section and look for the timing, any pending stage, limits and verification conditions in plain language. If the details are scattered or unclear, you cannot make a fair comparison with another casino. I learned that the annoying way: the deposit was simple; getting a clear answer about the withdrawal was not. Speed is only one part.
Games and Bonuses: Check the Terms Before You Play
A bonus can look generous and still be poor value once you read the conditions. I’ve learned to treat the headline as the start of the offer, not the offer itself. With offshore casino bonuses, the important details are often in the rules attached to the promotion.
A specialist review of foreign casinos serving UK players describes deposit matches, free spins, no-deposit bonuses and cashback as common offer types. They work differently: a deposit match adds bonus funds after you pay in, while free spins are tied to particular games. Cashback may return some qualifying losses, and a no-deposit offer does not require an initial payment. None of those labels tells you by itself whether the bonus is useful or withdrawable.
Specialist reviews also report that foreign casinos can advertise larger welcome packages because they are not bound by UK Gambling Commission restrictions on bonus terms, wagering requirements and promotional language. Bigger, then. Not necessarily better. The conditions can determine how bonus funds may be used and what has to happen before they can be withdrawn. Read the full terms before accepting, rather than assuming the headline amount is cash you can take out.
I check whether the offer applies to the games I actually intend to play, what counts as qualifying play, and whether any restrictions affect withdrawals. If those details are hard to find or written in a way you cannot follow, I would not treat the promotion as clear. A bonus is optional; accepting it can add conditions to your account that you would not otherwise have.
The games themselves deserve a separate look. A polished catalogue or a familiar-looking title does not establish that a site is safe, or that its games are tested to UK standards. Offshore casinos are not regulated by the UKGC, even when they describe themselves as licensed or regulated elsewhere. That foreign oversight is not the same protection as a UK Gambling Commission licence. Nor should security language be mistaken for UKGC-mandated affordability checks: offshore operators do not provide those checks under UKGC rules.
There is also a specific UK rule worth keeping in mind if you play slots: online slot autoplay is banned in Britain. A foreign site’s controls or presentation do not make that restriction disappear. I would avoid treating an autoplay button as a harmless convenience.
My rule is plain: look at the game and the terms, not the size of the banner. If the promotion only makes sense when you skim past its conditions, leave it alone. Better no bonus than a surprise.
No-Deposit Offers and Bonus Maths
A no-deposit offer can look like the easiest kind of offshore casino bonus: there is no initial payment attached to it. But “no deposit” does not mean “cash you can withdraw”. The terms may require qualifying bets before bonus funds, or winnings linked to them, become withdrawable. Read the conditions before you register, not after a balance appears on screen.
The key figure is the wagering requirement. A specialist review illustrates the calculation with a £20 bonus carrying a 35x requirement: the player would need to place £700 in qualifying bets before cashing out. That is the turnover required, not a promise that you will have £700 left afterwards. Bets can lose while you work through the requirement. That’s the part the headline tends to leave out.
A deposit match can produce a larger figure. In another calculation, a 100% match on a £100 deposit gives a £100 bonus; at 35x, the bonus requires £3,500 in qualifying bets before it converts to withdrawable cash. The number is not a standard term for every offer. It shows why you need to check what the multiplier applies to: the bonus alone, or another amount specified in the terms.
I’ve made the mistake of treating a bonus balance as money I had already won. It isn’t. Check which games and bets count, whether the offer expires, and whether a maximum withdrawal or other condition applies. Those details can change the real value of the offer, even when the headline sounds generous.
With a no-deposit bonus, pay particular attention to any withdrawal conditions attached to winnings. If the rules are unclear, or you cannot tell how much betting is required, I would not count the advertised amount as usable money. Offshore casinos are not regulated by the UK Gambling Commission, and they do not provide UKGC-mandated affordability checks. A tempting bonus does not come with the safeguards of a UK-licensed site. No free lunch.
Crypto Withdrawals: Fast, but Not Risk-Free
The appeal of crypto withdrawals at an offshore casino is easy to understand: a specialist review has reported that they can clear in under an hour, faster than fiat withdrawals. That is a reported possibility, not a promise you can rely on at every site. And a quick transfer does not mean the money has held its value.
Crypto’s price can move while you are waiting, while the funds are in your wallet, or before you exchange them. So the amount you eventually have in pounds may differ from what you expected when the withdrawal was requested. A fast arrival can still leave you with less. That part gets less space in the advert.
Before choosing a crypto option, check what the casino says about withdrawals and what your wallet or exchange requires to convert the funds. Make sure you understand how the site expresses the amount, whether there are conditions attached to the withdrawal, and how you would handle a transfer if the value shifts. Don’t assume that “instant” means a fixed cash value or that a payment can be reversed if something goes wrong.
There is also a bigger issue than speed. Offshore casinos are not regulated by the UK Gambling Commission, and they do not provide the UKGC-mandated affordability checks that apply to licensed operators. Crypto does not change that. A smooth-looking payment process is not the same as the protections available through a UK-regulated gambling service.
Crypto payouts can be fast, but the actual value in pounds may change due to price volatility before you exchange the funds.
I would treat crypto as a payment choice with an extra moving part, not as a shortcut to safer or more dependable withdrawals. If you cannot accept the possibility that the value will change before you can use the funds, the headline speed is not much comfort. And if you do use it, decide what you are prepared to lose before depositing; a quick route out does not remove the risk of putting money in.
KYC, Age Checks and the Safeguards You May Not Get
“No KYC” sounds like a shortcut: fewer forms, less waiting. But it is not a promise that a site will never ask who you are. Offshore casinos set their own identity-checking and withdrawal procedures, so requirements can differ between operators and may arise when you try to cash out. Read the rules before depositing; a request for identification can still affect whether and when a withdrawal is processed.
The comparison with a UKGC-licensed casino is important. In Great Britain, those operators must verify your identity before processing a withdrawal, and they must check your age before letting you deposit. With an offshore site, you are outside that UKGC system. Do not assume the same checks, safeguards or routes for resolving a problem apply. Nor should you assume that an offshore casino provides UKGC-mandated affordability checks.
I used to treat “no KYC” as if it meant a simpler, more predictable experience. It doesn’t. Less checking at the start can leave you unclear about what evidence the operator may later request, and what happens if you cannot provide it. The label is not a guarantee.
Self-exclusion is another point to take seriously. GamStop applies to UKGC-licensed operators, not foreign casinos outside the Commission’s remit. A specialist review has reported that a person who has self-excluded through GamStop may be able to register with a foreign casino and deposit without those safeguards. That is a report, not a claim that every site works the same way. If you have self-excluded, bypassing that barrier can undermine the decision you made to protect yourself.
If an operator asks for identification, check what documents it accepts and how its terms connect verification to withdrawals. A site’s sign-up flow can look effortless; that tells you little about what may be required later. “No KYC” is marketing shorthand, not a substitute for understanding the process—or a sign that the protections of a UK-licensed operator are in place.
If You Want a Safer Alternative to Offshore Play
When I want clearer oversight, the difference that matters is whether an operator holds a UK Gambling Commission licence. A foreign casino may accept British customers, but it sits outside the UKGC’s regulatory system. It is not a substitute for a UK-licensed service, even if its website looks polished or uses reassuring language.
UKGC-licensed operators are covered by GamStop. Registering for self-exclusion blocks you from every UK-licensed gambling site, which is the point: the barrier applies across the sector rather than just to one account. Foreign casinos outside the Commission’s remit are not covered by GamStop, so that exclusion does not block access to them.
That distinction matters most if you have already chosen to stop. I know how easy it is to treat a site that lets you sign up as a harmless workaround. It isn’t. A non-GamStop casino can let someone who has self-excluded register and deposit, without the UKGC safeguards that apply to licensed operators. Offshore sites also do not provide UKGC-mandated affordability checks.
If you’re looking for offshore casino alternatives, focus on the protection you need, not on a new welcome offer or a smoother-looking site. For someone using GamStop, a foreign casino is not a safer replacement: it sits outside the very exclusion system they have activated. If the urge to gamble is pushing you towards that gap, pause rather than opening another account. That pause counts.
I’ve learned that “alternative” can sound like a fresh start when it is really just a way around a decision I made for a reason. UKGC oversight and GamStop coverage are not decorative details. They are the practical difference.
Can I play at a casino licensed outside the UK?
Yes. Playing at a casino licensed outside the UK is not, by itself, illegal for a British player, though the operator may be acting unlawfully by offering gambling to customers in Great Britain without a UKGC licence.
Is it legal for UK residents to use casino sites that operate outside the UK’s licensing framework?
Yes, placing a bet with an overseas operator is not a criminal offence for an individual in the UK. The operator, however, must hold a UKGC licence to offer gambling to customers in Great Britain.
Are winnings from foreign casinos taxable in the UK?
No. Gambling winnings are not subject to UK income tax, whether the casino is UKGC-licensed or not.
Can I use cryptocurrency at foreign casinos from the UK?
Yes. Foreign casinos may offer cryptocurrency for deposits and withdrawals; crypto withdrawals can clear in under an hour, but their value can fluctuate.
What is the fastest way to withdraw from an online casino in the UK?
E-wallets are generally the fastest option on the UK market, with most operators processing withdrawals within 24 hours.
Is playing at an international casino legal for UK residents?
Yes. A UK resident does not commit a criminal offence simply by betting with an overseas casino, although offering gambling to customers in Great Britain without a UKGC licence is illegal for the operator.
Are gambling winnings subject to income tax in the United Kingdom?
No. Gambling winnings are not subject to income tax in the UK, regardless of whether the operator holds a UKGC licence.
Written by the editors at Reclamationstudios.org.
