Home News Forum Articles
  Welcome back Join CF
You are here You are here: Home | Forum | TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most of the discussions, articles and other free features. By joining our Virgin Media community you will have full access to all discussions, be able to view and post threads, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own images/photos, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please join our community today.


Welcome to Cable Forum
Go Back   Cable Forum > Alternatives to Virgin Media > Other ISPs Discussion

TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 31-08-2010, 23:02   #61
Rchivist
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 831
Rchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of Quads
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?

The discussion seems to be descending into personal attacks which is regrettable. Surely an intelligent person doesn't need to resort to that sort of thing? Wouldn't it be better for us all to stick to the topic rather than go for the person? It looks like the useful part of this thread is over.
Rchivist is offline   Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Old 31-08-2010, 23:04   #62
Ignitionnet
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Leeds, West Yorkshire
Age: 45
Posts: 13,996
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Ignitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny starsIgnitionnet has a pair of shiny stars
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Jones View Post
The discussion seems to be descending into personal attacks which is regrettable. Surely an intelligent person doesn't need to resort to that sort of thing? Wouldn't it be better for us all to stick to the topic rather than go for the person? It looks like the useful part of this thread is over.
Sadly we aren't being given any information to debate just insinuation. With that available there is little recourse but to assess the reliability of the persons making the insinuations.
Ignitionnet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-08-2010, 23:53   #63
Hugh
laeva recumbens anguis
Cable Forum Team
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 67
Services: Premiere Collection
Posts: 42,042
Hugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden aura
Hugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden aura
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Jones View Post
The discussion seems to be descending into personal attacks which is regrettable. Surely an intelligent person doesn't need to resort to that sort of thing? Wouldn't it be better for us all to stick to the topic rather than go for the person? It looks like the useful part of this thread is over.
Quite amusing seeing a "taking the moral high ground" stance from someone who posted on another forum on July 24th
Quote:
Title: Re: TalkTalk alleged to be profiling customers - confirmed
Post by: RobertJ on July 24, 2010, 08:28:16 AM
I suggest we refer to this program as

STalkers

or possibly

STalkTalkers
and on the 26th
Quote:
Title: Re: TalkTalk alleged to be profiling customers - confirmed
Post by: RobertJ on July 26, 2010, 01:04:14 PM
I've been checking logs and arranging for one TT member to visit my site. No sign of followers so far. But then maybe they already white/black listed me? I ws rather hoping to be able to lure them into some honeypot bot traps by arranging for a TT member to visit the traps and get themselves banned from my site then hope that the TT bots would follow.

I see StalkStalk has taken off as a nickname. When do my royalties start arriving? ;D ;D

If anyone can tell me what I need to do to "protect" my site, and also to let Charles Dunstone know about my charges, do send me a PM.
Looks like entrapment to me....

Quote:
Title: Re: TalkTalk alleged to be profiling customers - confirmed
Post by: RobertJ on July 26, 2010, 03:37:00 PM
So far I have decided to ban the entire range of IP addresses for that set of Radius servers which gives me an .htaccess statement
deny from 62.24.128.0/17

(I'm assuming that does not include any TalkTalk ordinary customers)

I've also sent an email to the Opal Telecom email address given in the WHOIS information for that range.

Anyone got any ideas for more interesting things to do with them? Nice sticky places they could be redirected to that might tie them up for a while?

If there was some sort of co-ordinated redirection to a key single TalkTalk location, that made things slow down a bit... no - musn't - that's illegal - inciting a DDoS attack. Sorry.

Or a bit of clever stuff that generated an complaint email to a key TalkTalkexecutive, every time a visit from one of those IPs was registered...? No sorry, that's naughty too.
Or even worse......
__________________
There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it
.
If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
Hugh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2010, 08:58   #64
Rchivist
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 831
Rchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of Quads
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?

Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar View Post
Quite amusing seeing a "taking the moral high ground" stance from someone who posted on another ... (copyright material deleted)
And the relevance of that post to the topic of personal attacks on individuals was...? I think people need to be careful that their lack of factual knowledge about this situation doesn't lead anyone to make statements that they might later regret. There have already been a number of lamentably inaccurate comments above which I will forgive on the basis that they were made in ignorance. Just be patient. Remember that other people may actually know things that you can only speculate about. I wouldn't want anyone to get egg on their face.
Rchivist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2010, 10:50   #65
Chris
Trollsplatter
Cable Forum Team
 
Chris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: North of Watford
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 36,871
Chris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden aura
Chris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden aura
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatari View Post
Sorry, any breach of a Statute is against the law, whether the recourse is via the Criminal or Civil Courts. Statutes passed by the UK Parliament and given Royal Assent under the Royal Assent Act are Laws not something you can obey if you feel like it and ignore if you don’t. Also don’t forget EU Directives and Precedents apply in the UK.
Your argument is circular.

Breaking the law is indeed breaking the law, however you have not demonstrated that the law has been broken.

I'd be quite happy to make an argument that website content caching is a 'permitted act' under either section 31 (incidental inclusion) or section 72 (free public showing of a broadcast) of the UK CDPA.
Chris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2010, 12:57   #66
Rchivist
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 831
Rchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of Quads
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?

Just to try and get back on topic if possible:

The C/F terms and conditions say the following:
http://www.cableforum.co.uk/about/21...and-conditions

Quote:
Terms and Conditions

The following Terms and Conditions will apply to you when using Cable Forum [CF hereafter].
You agree to accept and be bound by these terms and conditions as outlined below. Should you reject the following terms and conditions and not wish to be bound by them, then use of the CF website is prohibited to you.
We may update these terms and conditions from time to time without any notice to You. In addition to the following terms and conditions, You agree also to be bound by any guidelines or announcements that are made during your membership of CF. In addition, when using particular sections of CF, You shall be subject to any posted guidelines or rules applicable to such services which may be posted from time to time. All such guidelines or rules are hereby incorporated by reference into the Terms and Conditions.
Would you expect users of this site to adhere to those T&Cs?
And if they didn't?

For example if someone, did any of the following:

Quote:
Post, transmit, upload, email or otherwise make available any content that in doing so infringes upon a trademark, patent, copyright, trade secret or other proprietary rights of any party.
Quote:
Impersonate any person or entity. This includes but is not limited to, any CF team member or administrator, any Virgin Media employee, or falsely state or otherwise misrepresent your affiliation with another person or entity.
Quote:
Manipulate or forge headers or identifiers with the intention of disguising the origin of any content that you provide to the cableforum.co.uk web site.
You'd do something about it right?
And if they kept doing it, no matter how much you told them to stop?

I'm just using this site's T&Cs as an example of a website asserting it's right to control access and use. I'm not citing the examples above and saying that the TalkTalk system breaks those particular terms.

My experience has been that C/F tend to take a fairly robust attitude to enforcement of their T&C's. As do other websites.
Rchivist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2010, 13:30   #67
Chris
Trollsplatter
Cable Forum Team
 
Chris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: North of Watford
Services: Humane elimination of all common Internet pests
Posts: 36,871
Chris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden aura
Chris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden auraChris has a golden aura
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?

If someone breaches our T&Cs, they get warned. If they do it repeatedly, they get 'banned' - that is, their posting rights are permanently revoked and we actively seek to prevent them from re-registering. What we don't do is attempt to prevent them from accessing all those parts of the site which are publicly viewable without registration.

The fact that a website is published means that the publisher implicitly accepts that certain things may be done with it. The question here is whether the creation of user accounts with additional privileges is analogous to the use of certain lines of code to attempt to control the behviour of other, automated internet systems.

Our membership system requires active human involvement and specific agreement to a set of conditions, in order to gain access to parts of the site that are inaccessible otherwise. I don't see that as being much of a comparison with a line of code that asks a spider or other web cataloguing system not to record certain content when that content is visible and not protected by any password.

Of course, you might then want to argue that the code in question amounts to a password protection against web-crawling systems, and that by ignoring it, the operator of that system is effectively 'hacking' your site. Personally I can't see a judge going for that.
Chris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2010, 14:32   #68
Rchivist
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 831
Rchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of Quads
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
If someone breaches our T&Cs, they get warned. If they do it repeatedly, they get 'banned' - that is, their posting rights are permanently revoked and we actively seek to prevent them from re-registering. What we don't do is attempt to prevent them from accessing all those parts of the site which are publicly viewable without registration.

The fact that a website is published means that the publisher implicitly accepts that certain things may be done with it. The question here is whether the creation of user accounts with additional privileges is analogous to the use of certain lines of code to attempt to control the behviour of other, automated internet systems.

Our membership system requires active human involvement and specific agreement to a set of conditions, in order to gain access to parts of the site that are inaccessible otherwise. I don't see that as being much of a comparison with a line of code that asks a spider or other web cataloguing system not to record certain content when that content is visible and not protected by any password.

Of course, you might then want to argue that the code in question amounts to a password protection against web-crawling systems, and that by ignoring it, the operator of that system is effectively 'hacking' your site. Personally I can't see a judge going for that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris View Post
If someone breaches our T&Cs, they get warned. If they do it repeatedly, they get 'banned' - that is, their posting rights are permanently revoked and we actively seek to prevent them from re-registering. What we don't do is attempt to prevent them from accessing all those parts of the site which are publicly viewable without registration.

The fact that a website is published means that the publisher implicitly accepts that certain things may be done with it. The question here is whether the creation of user accounts with additional privileges is analogous to the use of certain lines of code to attempt to control the behviour of other, automated internet systems.

Our membership system requires active human involvement and specific agreement to a set of conditions, in order to gain access to parts of the site that are inaccessible otherwise. I don't see that as being much of a comparison with a line of code that asks a spider or other web cataloguing system not to record certain content when that content is visible and not protected by any password.

Of course, you might then want to argue that the code in question amounts to a password protection against web-crawling systems, and that by ignoring it, the operator of that system is effectively 'hacking' your site. Personally I can't see a judge going for that.
Thanks. I think that all makes my point quite nicely. Of course we are talking about YOUR T&Cs, aren't we, so the things you don't do aren't really relevant to MY case - the fact is - you have terms and conditions and you intend to enforce them.

Some of your comments above suggest you are not aware of the basics of the dispute between certain websites and TalkTalk.

I suggest that you read it all up again, because the things you are saying above, clearly indicate some mistaken assumptions about the actions certain website owners are taking. Especially when you make reference to what judges might or might not "go for".

The TalkTalk members forum should give you a grasp of the basics and it is available to all to read.

Another hypothetical question - how often and how comprehensively does your C/F site get scraped? If I was to use - say - the firefox addon Scrapbook Plus to download the content of the entire C/F site, twice a day? Using a dedicated server and a nice big fat terrabyte level hard drive?

What would you do about that? Let's assume for the sake of argument that I was not a member of C/F - just a commercial operator, compiling a marketing or malware database for which your site's content was a valuable component.

Any comparison to any actual scraping exercise carried out by any particular company is of course, entirely accidental.

Or if I got tired of the screen scraping, and decided on a DdoS attack instead. Would you act to prevent that sort of abuse?

I suspect the point would come at which you would enforce your rights. How?

Website owners have rights. They set Terms and Conditions. They notify those Terms and Conditions. Others can abide by them or not access the sites. I think the way C/F cleverly puts it is like this:

Quote:
You acknowledge and accept that in certain circumstances we have the right to provide information to your ISP at our discretion following but not limited to severe disruption by you, the provision of illegal or abusive content, any attempts made by you to re-register after being banned, or for any other reason that involves you breaking these Terms and Conditions.


You will acknowledge that reproduction of material from this web site without prior written permission is strictly prohibited. All contributions to this site are also copyright of the site owner.


You acknowledge and accept that if you are banned from use of the CF web site, you will not in any way attempt to re-register using any other name or identity not known to us, or any other email address not known to us. If you do so, we will pursue the maximum penalty available under your Internet Service Providers Acceptable Use Policy.


You have the absolute right to free speech. If you find it impossible to abide by this document, then please feel free to contact one of the many good web hosting companies out there and set up an account, create your own discussion board and exercise that right to your hearts content.
It is quite clear that you take website owners' rights to protect their sites very seriously. The C/F Terms of Service show that. Or perhaps I should say - they suggest that YOU clearly take your OWN right to protect YOUR OWN site seriously. I'm not really very sure how you feel about MY right to protect MY sites.

TalkTalk are of course free to NOT visit my site, NOT to scrape it, NOT download material from it, or NOT impersonate their customers while visiting it. I've told them that very very clearly. It's a very simple point but one they are struggling to grasp - and they don't seem to be the only ones.
Rchivist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2010, 19:08   #69
Tarantella
Inactive
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 286
Tarantella will become famous soon enoughTarantella will become famous soon enoughTarantella will become famous soon enough
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?

The US instinctively understand that isps are in a position of responsibility which is easily capable of being abused. It is one thing to ignore the privacy of individuals but by doing that en masse an isp can profile other online businesses merely by data analysis of ingoing and outgoing traffic of individuals.

What happens when a large multinational conglomerate (possibly foreign owned) acquires an isp and starts analysing traffic to UK competitors businessess?

Online businessess have to cry foul to the UK government till a rigorous set of laws are made regarding isp activities and these laws are properly policed and properly enforced.
Tarantella is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2010, 20:52   #70
Rchivist
Inactive
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 831
Rchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of QuadsRchivist has a fine set of Quads
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?

Further information on the ICO involvement so far on this issue is here http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...ncoming-111620 and http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...alk%20talk.pdf http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...e%20tt.pdf.pdf Seems to be something of a slap on the wrist for TalkTalk from the ICO and it is ongoing.
Rchivist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2010, 21:25   #71
Hugh
laeva recumbens anguis
Cable Forum Team
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 67
Services: Premiere Collection
Posts: 42,042
Hugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden aura
Hugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden aura
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?

Quote:
Originally Posted by R Jones View Post
Further information on the ICO involvement so far on this issue is here http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...ncoming-111620 and http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...alk%20talk.pdf http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reques...e%20tt.pdf.pdf Seems to be something of a slap on the wrist for TalkTalk from the ICO and it is ongoing.
You seemed to have ignored this part of the Talk Talk email (and there are you going on about breaches of privacy... )
Attached Images
File Type: jpg talktalkfooter.jpg (237.0 KB, 13 views)
__________________
There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it
.
If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
Hugh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2010, 21:40   #72
Sir John Luke
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 562
Sir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful one
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?

Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar View Post
You seemed to have ignored this part of the Talk Talk email (and there are you going on about breaches of privacy... )
Since the e-mail was published by the ICO under the freedom of information act, surely it is the ICO who would be ignoring that statement? I can only assume the FOI cannot be overridden by notices in e-mail footers.
Sir John Luke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2010, 21:53   #73
Hugh
laeva recumbens anguis
Cable Forum Team
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 67
Services: Premiere Collection
Posts: 42,042
Hugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden aura
Hugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden aura
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sir John Luke View Post
Since the e-mail was published by the ICO under the freedom of information act, surely it is the ICO who would be ignoring that statement? I can only assume the FOI cannot be overridden by notices in e-mail footers.
Ah, it's ok if someone else does it for you......

And from the whatdotheyknow website

Quote:
It says I can't re-use the information I got!#

Authorities often add legal boilerplate about the "Re-Use of Public Sector Information Regulations 2005", which at first glance implies you may not be able do anything with the information. You can, of course, write articles about the information or summarise it, or quote parts of it. We also think you should feel free to republish the information in full, just as we do, even though in theory you might not be allowed to do so. See our policy on copyright.
__________________
There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it
.
If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
Hugh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2010, 22:07   #74
Sir John Luke
Inactive
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 562
Sir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful oneSir John Luke is the helpful one
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?

....but, but ....

The information hasn't been republished in full, it's been linked to, which is the established way of complying with copyright laws on the 'net. (Even the Daily Mail fan-boys do that)
Sir John Luke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-09-2010, 23:10   #75
Hugh
laeva recumbens anguis
Cable Forum Team
 
Hugh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Age: 67
Services: Premiere Collection
Posts: 42,042
Hugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden aura
Hugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden auraHugh has a golden aura
Re: TalkTalk tracking you, phorm?

Strange - it looked to me as if whatdotheyknow were publishing it in full........
__________________
There is always light.
If only we’re brave enough to see it.
If only we’re brave enough to be it
.
If my post is in bold and this colour, it's a Moderator Request.
Hugh is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

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

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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:56.


Server: osmium.zmnt.uk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.