Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 45

Thread: Moral Dilemma

  1. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Shoreham
    Posts
    309
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    I have decided how can it be immoral if no 1 is losing anything? (Its not like he murderd some 1) all i can say is its smart for him if he cant get it for free...
    The fact that its illegal well we envoke rules as a society and no 1 said it was immoral 2 not abide them jus illegal, so i think no its not immoral just illegal.


    Immoral : violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.

    Where does the word having any meaning of the law?

  2. #22
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by under par View Post
    How did the police know he was illegally using a connection? How did they even know he was using a connection?

    People use laptops in all sorts of places. After all, that's what they're for. It strikes me that the application of a little bit of paint over the amber light that says you're connected would be all that a petty criminal would need to avoid detection.

    The other question I have is "Have all the rapists, murderers, arsonists, violent criminals, etc been caught" - because, it seems, the police have spare time to go out looking for this kind of, easy to detect, crime when there's major criminals who cause death and actual bodily harm at large and, IMHO the efforts of the police should concentrate on this type of crime

    So, the question I have is. Is it "moral" for the police to divert their time from the prevention of further murders and assults to look for people using somebody else's wireless network?

  3. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Waltham abbey
    Posts
    4,610
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Trousers View Post
    Ermmm . . .
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    Which is the very definition of ignorance


    ok, im stupid....
    Last edited by ducasi; 24th-August-2007 at 03:52 PM. Reason: quotes

  4. #24
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    This is a straightforward legal problem, and moral philosophy has nothing to do with it.

    Analogy: it is possible for A to have illegal pictures on his computer without transgressing any moral code. They can be obtained without making payment and anonymously, so that no-one benefits in any way from the transaction, and no one suffers. (Except A.)

    But it's against the law. Why?

    One of the reasons laws are passed is on grounds of 'public policy'. In other words, whilst there may be incidents where one can commit a crime where there is no victim, nevertheless public policy dictates that the action should be condemned and punished.

    This might be thought of as 'pour encourager les autres', for those of you with a smattering of navail history.

    It's a bad thing for people to go around hitch-hiking on others' wi-fi facilities. This is because it can be a prelude to mischievous activity - instal a logic bomb in someone's data store and it couldn't be traced to you, because it was someone else's internet connection. That's just one example.

    Hope that's cleared things up for Mr. Baggini.

    Whether the act is immoral is irrelevant. It's illegal. There may be a debate on whether it should be illegal, but I suspect the inevitable answer is yes.

  5. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    So, the question I have is. Is it "moral" for the police to divert their time from the prevention of further murders and assults to look for people using somebody else's wireless network?
    False dilemma.

    As you well know.

  6. #26
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by straycat264 View Post
    Is trespass not illegal in Scotland? AFAIK it is in England...
    Its not the same law - heres a quote from here

    Trespass

    It is a perpetual myth that there are no trespass laws in Scotland. Even before the recent Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, trespass has long been a delict (civil wrong) which is remediable by the remedies of interdict and damages. However, The Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 amends the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 and establishes a statutory right of access.

    Certain types of trespass have been criminal since the Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 was passed, an Act no-one has ever heard of. Section 3 makes it an offence for any person to lodge in any premises, or occupy or encamp on any land, being private property, without the consent of the owner or legal occupier. Admittedly this section envisages a degree of permanency which will not be present in every situation of trespass.
    Its that last bit thats important i think. Generally (caveat I'm not a lawyer etc..) walking into someones house if the door was open is not illegal, and if the owner WAS there and asked you to leave and you didn't, they could be charged with "breach of the peace" but certainly not trespass.


    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy View Post
    Well, thankfully the law doesn't require the victims to have 'much upstairs' However stupid it might be, having external electricity wires, having a tap in the front garden, having unsecured wireless doesn't actually effect whether or not it's against the law to steal.
    But the law is unlikely to side with the homeowner when someone uses that outside tap in the street with the "drinking water" sign over it - yet they WILL side with the homeowner (or even without the homeowner needing to want a prosecution) in the same situation with a wireless network that the homeowner has also chosen to make available! that makes no sense to me.

    I could leave my inherited 50 caret diamond on the front lawn and go for a pint down the pub. It may be a very, very stupid thing to do but it has absolutely no relevance as to whether it's against the law to walk in, pick it up and steal it.
    It also has no relevance to this argument we are having, so why even bring it up ?

    Most broadband connections are metered now. You get xxx GB's of download and if you exceed that amount, you pay extra. Essentially you pay xxx for yyy. There are very, very few packages where you have unrestricted bandwidth or it's unmetered.
    You have some evidence of this ? I have plenty of evidence that there are NOT "very, very few" packages to have unrestricted access. A fair usage policy is not the same thing. All of which is not helping your argument anyway as if you PHYSICALLY CHOOSE to broadcast your unsecured wireless network - you are offering an explicit invite to logon.

    What is it about...
    (1) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service; and (2) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service, is guilty of an offence.
    that you feel doesn't apply ?
    i'm not repeating myself - i've already answered this question.

    You think it's honest to piggy back on someones else wi-fi without permission and use the bandwidth they have paid for ?
    You think they are going to pop round and pay the charge later ?
    I'm curious.
    What charge? your ISP would prohibit charging on. If they don't want their bandwidth public, why are them making it public ?

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy View Post
    The laptop the guy was using was a computer, yes ?
    The Computer Misuse act doesn't restrict itself to target computers, it's about computer misuse whether they be the target or the originating computer....
    This is my point - how can logging on to an open network be "misuse".

    You're a computer literate type - would you have an open and public network connection and then complain after the fact about people "stealing" your bandwidth. Or would you make it private ?

  7. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Shoreham
    Posts
    309
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    How did the police know he was illegally using a connection? How did they even know he was using a connection?
    It was my belife that u cant be traced... They can trace that ur useing wireless but whos to say its not your own... i think it can onli be traced thro key loggers... but genreally im fairly sure u could just use the internet as much as u want with no fear of being caught the onli affect i can think of is that the persons internet u was stealing would run slower... And i think that even ur I.p adress would be the same the normal users... so nothing would be differnt really... Except that you are not using the network from the normal place becos that wouldnt be in the normal place unless u were hideing in the basement!
    Last edited by Vegetable; 24th-August-2007 at 02:50 PM.

  8. #28
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Vegetable View Post
    It was my belife that u cant be traced... They can trace that ur useing wireless but whos to say its not your own... i think it can onli be traced thro key loggers... but genreally im fairly sure u could just use the internet as much as u want with no fear of being caught the onli affect i can think of is that the persons internet u was stealing would run slower... And i think that even ur I.p adress would be the same the normal users... so nothing would be differnt really... Except the are ur using the network from becos that wouldnt be in the normal place unless u were hideing in the basement!
    traced through key loggers ? what ARE you on about ?

    And in order to trace someone using wireless, you just look to the router itself : it will identify the computer name and mac address of the network card inside it. Your IP address will be different from the computer(s) of the person who owns the network because it will be given to you by the router itself and it has to be different. The IP address of the router will be the same to the internet at large but you are very traceable whilst connected to the router and using the connection. Also a good old fashioned "what are you doing with that laptop Sir?" is a possibility .

  9. #29
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    False dilemma.

    As you well know.
    Moi?

  10. #30
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    Also a good old fashioned "what are you doing with that lapdancer Sir?" is a possibility .
    .. happens to me all the time

  11. #31
    Commercial Operator
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Sussex by the Sea
    Posts
    9,276
    Rep Power
    15

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    .. happens to me all the time
    Now there is a dilemma. You've paid for a lapdancer to dance for you. But some guy stands behind you and watches your show - you didn't know he was watching intil the show finished and the lapdancer said something to the other half of her audience who had been watching, unknown to you. Has he stolen some of your pleasure. Should this "thief" be prosecuted? Of course you still enjoyed the show, so you weren't harmed in any way. But, did you enjoy it less because somebody else was watching. You didn't, because you didn't know he was there. But, do you enjoy the memory less because you now know some other guy was sharing your pleasure? Has he stolen, or soiled in some way, your memory? Can you actually steal a memory? And, would you call the police - who would be bound to ask for the event to be re-enacted...

  12. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sunny South Hampshire
    Posts
    873
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    I
    But the law is unlikely to side with the homeowner when someone uses that outside tap in the street with the "drinking water" sign over it - yet they WILL side with the homeowner (or even without the homeowner needing to want a prosecution) in the same situation with a wireless network that the homeowner has also chosen to make available! that makes no sense to me.

    It also has no relevance to this argument we are having, so why even bring it up ?
    I only bring it up because you seem to think there is a difference between someone being smart and being the victim of a crime (wi-fi with security) and someone being not so smart and being the victim of a crime (wi-fi without security). The law makes no such distinction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    You have some evidence of this ? I have plenty of evidence that there are NOT "very, very few" packages to have unrestricted access. A fair usage policy is not the same thing.
    *shrug* As far as I am aware, only Zen Internet and Pipex offer unrestricted bandwidth on there expensive packages. I'm very sure there are others, but they are vastly outweighed by the 'pay xxx and get zzz' packages. I just think your two years out of date. Changes to wholesale charging has meant a severe reduction in unrestricted packages.
    However, it matters not. One can be prosecuted as theft, the other under the Communications act, stealing bandwidth from either results in a crime. And should be a crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    ...as if you PHYSICALLY CHOOSE to broadcast your unsecured wireless network - you are offering an explicit invite to logon.
    Rubbish, Leaving your car open isn't even an explicit invite to listen to the car radio, let alone actually steal something (which is what happens when bandwidth is stolen). It's just stupidity. (see relevance to my first answer. That's why I bring it up )

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    You're a computer literate type - would you have an open and public network connection and then complain after the fact about people "stealing" your bandwidth. Or would you make it private ?
    My wireless lan is encrypted, but this isn't just about wireless lans, it's about stealing bandwidth, which can take many forms, just as an example....

    This forum has images on it. Franck, I presume, pays a fee to host this forum somewhere. Most likely he has a monthly allowance of bandwidth. If he exceeds that monthly allowance, either he gets charged for overages, or the site gets disabled until the start of the next monthly period.
    Some piece of pond scum could decide to link directly to the pictures, movies, avatars, whatever on this public server and use Francks bandwidth to display them on his own, the pond scums, web page for thousands of friends to view. Those images, movies etc are sourced from this web server, it's Francks bandwidth that is used. Result: Franck runs out of bandwidth, this site goes down or Franck has to pay overages. By the sound of it you might make an argument that the pond scum was quite within his rights because it's a public web site.
    And before you say, that's nothing like being a parasite on someones wireless lan and accessing the Internet, your right, it's not, except it's all bandwidth theft. Just the modus operandi is different.

    I think it's morally wrong as well, but that's a personal decision every person has to make.



    Besides, now I refer you to Barrys answer as he has answered some of your questions better than I could.

  13. #33
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy View Post
    I only bring it up because you seem to think there is a difference between someone being smart and being the victim of a crime (wi-fi with security) and someone being not so smart and being the victim of a crime (wi-fi without security).
    No. No I'm arguing that someone connecting to a wireless network that is unsecured and broadcasting its SSID is NOT a crime, and I think where the law is treating it as one is down to a misinterpretation of laws that do NOT cover this.



    *shrug* As far as I am aware, only Zen Internet and Pipex offer unrestricted bandwidth on there expensive packages.
    Well my research involved looking at the first page of broadband recommends of uswitch.com , net4now and broadband.co.uk - the majority listed are unlimited deals. Each company does usually offer some sort of graded bandwidth limit for a decreasing fee and as unlimited is the "top" level if they do do this, its hardly surprising there are "more" bandwidth limited offers is it.
    Its certainly not rare, uncommon or an "out of date" practice. Also, now that I think about it, I don't know anyone who has a bandwidth limited package personally.

    I stealing bandwidth from either results in a crime. And should be a crime.
    Nope. If someone deliberately gets equipment into their house and deliberately makes this bandwidth available for public use, it is ENTIRELY their own fault.

    Rubbish, Leaving your car open isn't even an explicit invite to listen to the car radio
    If you leave a sign saying "please come and listen to my radio it is" - which is what is implied by a broadcasting wireless network.

    Some piece of pond scum could decide to link directly to the pictures, movies, avatars, whatever on this public server and use Francks bandwidth to display them on his own

    ...etc...

    And before you say, that's nothing like being a parasite on someones wireless lan and accessing the Internet, your right, it's not, except it's all bandwidth theft. Just the modus operandi is different.
    Any sensible webmaster will prevent such bandwidth hogging linking. And that is not similar one is bandwidth theft one is not - unless a site gives you permission to link directly, yes you are "stealing" bandwidth - the site owner must have their pics etc..on their site after all. For connecting to wireless networks you can ONLY connect if someone CHOOSES to advertise the fact and make the network available. There is no reason to do this unless you WANT people to use your bandwidth (or don't care if they do).

  14. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sunny South Hampshire
    Posts
    873
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    Any sensible webmaster will prevent such bandwidth hogging linking. And that is not similar one is bandwidth theft one is not - unless a site gives you permission to link directly, yes you are "stealing" bandwidth - the site owner must have their pics etc..on their site after all. For connecting to wireless networks you can ONLY connect if someone CHOOSES to advertise the fact and make the network available. There is no reason to do this unless you WANT people to use your bandwidth (or don't care if they do).

    So pond scum who hotlink to web site images without permission, let say of a new webmaster who hasn't the knowledge to install security, and causes that new webmaster to exceed his monthly limit by bandwidth theft thus incurring overage charges....
    This is bad according to you.
    But, pond parasites who hook upto wireless networks without permission, lets say of a new router owner who hasn't the knowledge to install security, and causes that new network owner to exceed his monthly Internet package limit by bandwidth theft thus incurring overage charges....
    This to you is perfectly acceptable ?

    You've completely lost me now. These two positions are just so inconsistant not much I can say really

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    No. No I'm arguing that someone connecting to a wireless network that is unsecured and broadcasting its SSID is NOT a crime, and I think where the law is treating it as one is down to a misinterpretation of laws that do NOT cover this.
    It's a little bit more than that. The BBC case is the one in question. It involved connecting to a network without permission, and stealing someone elses Internet bandwidth. Not 'just connecting'.
    Again it comes back to the Communications Act 2003;
    The criminal was dishonest and was avoiding Internet charges, both fall foul of the act. It is a crime, whether the laws are being misinterpretated, that's a different kettle of fish. You'd have to take that up with Mr. Judge who fined the guy for exactly this crime.

  15. #35
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy View Post
    pond scum/parasites
    You are quite a nasty piece of work you know! Pond scum indeed Get some perspective and reserve that sort of thing for virus writers


    So pond scum who hotlink to web site images without permission, let say of a new webmaster who hasn't the knowledge to install security, and causes that new webmaster to exceed his monthly limit by bandwidth theft thus incurring overage charges....
    This is bad according to you.
    But, pond parasites who hook upto wireless networks without permission, lets say of a new router owner who hasn't the knowledge to install security, and causes that new network owner to exceed his monthly Internet package limit by bandwidth theft thus incurring overage charges....
    This to you is perfectly acceptable ?

    You've completely lost me now. These two positions are just so inconsistent not much I can say really
    Indeed they are inconsistent , but you still seem to be able to say plenty . A web server, by definition, has to be on the internet - it is possible to steal bandwidth, images etc..a new webmaster who is responsible for paying for his webspace bandwidth (not an issue for most personal sites i would say) has no business having one if he can't take a few basic precautions. Ignorance is not an excuse, BUT the stealing of something by someone else is still wrong - as you are taking advantage of someone else.

    Compare that to someones wireless network. They CHOOSE to make it public. They do NOT have to make it public AT ALL. There is NO GOOD REASON for making it public, unless you want it to BE PUBLIC. So unlike the web server where it HAS to be on the net, the wireless router does not have to be broadcasting its SSID to all and sundry with a free invite to connect. Why , when someone is using what they could quite feasibly see as freely offered internet access, should anyone have any problem? Do people not even care what they are buying when they "go wireless"?

    Its also worth pointing out that the vast majority of public access wireless is also unsecured, it has to be so anyone can connect. They will not give you access to anything other than a pay screen, until you've paid. Where a public body does offer completely free access, its simply click and go. I admit this is far more common in the US - last time i was there, my hotel, the local coffee shop and the airport all had unsecured free wireless. I didnt feel the need to get a written statement confirming free use Why is a wireless network advertising itself if you're not supposed to connect ?


    It involved connecting to a network without permission, and stealing someone elses Internet bandwidth. Not 'just connecting'.
    I thought it was the connecting that was deemed illegal i.e. the judge for some reason thought it was some form of hijacking. Was the amount of "stolen bandwidth" mentioned in court then ? (i cant be bothered to go read it ) Not that it matters- an unsecure network should be viewed as an explicit invitation, so there is never going to be any stealing involved.

  16. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sunny South Hampshire
    Posts
    873
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    You are quite a nasty piece of work you know! Pond scum indeed Get some perspective and reserve that sort of thing for virus writers
    Unfort, I have to deal with these types all the time. I have no sympathy. Bandwidth, whether server or ISP Internet orientated is expensive. Pond scum/parasites is too good a description.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    Compare that to someones wireless network. They CHOOSE to make it public. They do NOT have to make it public AT ALL.
    I think this is the difference between us. I don't think it's all about 'choosing'. You seem to think that other alternatives, lack of knowledge, maybe inexperience or just an accident, leading to making a network public also justifies stealing, in this case bandwidth. Whereas I think it's just a mistake and nobody should have the right to take advantage of it.

    I come back to the open door comparison. You leave a house door accidentally open, which is public and can can seen from the street, I don't think that gives people the right to pop in and nick the family silver.
    The same way, I don't think if someone accidentally makes a network open and public it automatically gives people the right to steal someones bandwidth and in some cases, cost them money.
    To be honest, even if the houseowner CHOSE to leave his front door open, that doesn't justify nipping in and stealing either.


    Anyway, lets agree to differ. It's getting boring now

  17. #37
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy View Post
    You seem to think that other alternatives, lack of knowledge, maybe inexperience or just an accident, leading to making a network public also justifies stealing, in this case bandwidth.
    Not quite. Its not stealing in any real sense at all. People should take responsibility for their own actions.

    To be honest, even if the houseowner CHOSE to leave his front door open, that doesn't justify nipping in and stealing either.
    You've still not quite got it. With the wireless network you are broadcasting what amounts to an invite - equivalent in your front door analogy to a sign above it, in neon, saying "Open". Also, bandwidth use is nowhere near the tangible theft of actual items in a house/shop.


    Anyway, lets agree to differ. It's getting boring now
    but everyone else is riveted

  18. #38
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    Quote Originally Posted by Andy McGregor View Post
    ...The other question I have is "Have all the rapists, murderers, arsonists, violent criminals, etc been caught" - because, it seems, the police have spare time to go out looking for this kind of, easy to detect, crime when there's major criminals who cause death and actual bodily harm at large and, IMHO the efforts of the police should concentrate on this type of crime

    So, the question I have is. Is it "moral" for the police to divert their time from the prevention of further murders and assults to look for people using somebody else's wireless network?
    The perrenial "It's alright for me to be bad, as long as someon else is being worse" argument.

    If someone sprays grafitti on the side of your car I do not think "It's OK, hunt the rapists" would be your attitude.

  19. #39
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    There are many customers who wander into big computer stores and are told that they can access the Internet from anywhere in their house by using wireless internet. They buy the gear with that purpose in mind, for them, not for the public at large. They are not told that they will be making their connection available to others because the thought would frighten them, and they would be less likely to buy the equipment.

    If someone else plugs into your network at best they slow down your connection, they could cost you money, and, at worst end, they could identify your network with nefarious activity and use it to cloak their identity.

    Few of us are "sensible" enough to take measures to prevent other people invading our front garden or parking in our driveway. They are equally made freely available.

  20. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    North Hertfordshir
    Posts
    751
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Moral Dilemma

    I have a FON AP - it explicitly offers people who connect to it free bandwidth

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Starting a new dance dilemma
    By Bravetart in forum Let's talk about dance
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 24th-May-2007, 05:56 PM
  2. Moral outrage, ethical dilemma
    By Barry Shnikov in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 21st-December-2006, 09:37 AM
  3. Smelly Dilemma
    By Swinging bee in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 23rd-September-2005, 01:54 PM
  4. London Wednesday dilemma!
    By Divissima in forum Social events
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 27th-February-2004, 08:34 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •