Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 26

Thread: Lidl fail...

  1. #1
    Senior Member Tumble's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Right in the Pickle Barrel
    Posts
    7,217
    Thanks
    271
    Thanked
    315 times in 217 posts

    Lidl fail...

    Quote Originally Posted by BBC News
    A five-year-old Irish boy who was wrongly accused of stealing a bag of crisps has won 7,500 euros damages for defamation of character.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10785859


    Quote Originally Posted by The Quentos
    "My udder is growing. Quick pass me the parsely sauce." Said Oliver.

  2. #2
    <<== UT3 Player spoon_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,071
    Thanks
    113
    Thanked
    139 times in 131 posts

    Re: Lidl fail...

    lmao!

    That little fella is very rich for his age

  3. #3
    Yay a custom user title! =assassin='s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    891
    Thanks
    85
    Thanked
    56 times in 38 posts

    Re: Lidl fail...

    All this suing of companies/people is making us more and more like the US of A every day :/

    Bit of a ridiculously high payout, no reason for something that high at all.

  4. #4
    Admin (Ret'd)
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    18,481
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    3,208 times in 2,281 posts

    Re: Lidl fail...

    Quote Originally Posted by =assassin= View Post
    All this suing of companies/people is making us more and more like the US of A every day :/

    Bit of a ridiculously high payout, no reason for something that high at all.
    On the contrary, there are times when it's good to be able to hold people to account.

    And the payout wasn't just for defamation, but for negligence, false imprisonment and assault.

    What does it boil down to? The shop assistant, according to that report, physically grabbed a five-year old boy, detained him against his and his mother's wishes, and accused him of theft. Even when presented with the receipt for the bag of crisps, the store didn't realise the nature of their error.

    Well, you can just go about grabbing people and detaining them without legal cause, and without risking comeback if you mess it up. What that amounts to was a citizen's arrest, where grounds to arrest didn't exist, which is why I've said before on here that if you're going to use citizen's arrest, you'd better be sure about your grounds, because if you get it wrong, you are likely to be the one in trouble.

    I'm not convinced how much damage can be done to a five year old's reputation, but it was assault and imprisonment, and from that account, was handled very poorly by both shop assistant and manager. It doesn't seem like an excessive settlement to me.

    And finally, while this may have been excessive if levied against an individual, it's a paltry sum to a multinational retailer, and anything less wouldn't be noticed. Even a relatively small supermarket can turn over £100,000 a day, and many will be a lot more than that.

  5. #5
    Geek in training
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    653
    Thanks
    212
    Thanked
    47 times in 31 posts

    Re: Lidl fail...

    The Circuit Civil Court also heard that the action of the shop assistant in grabbing the boy's arm amounted to false imprisonment and assault
    The store assistant didn't detain the child against their will - that's a bit of a lame interpretation by the prosecuting solicitor to strengthen his case.

    Grabbing a kiddies arm and asking if they've stolen a bag of crisps, as opposed to false improsnment and assault upon a child probably wouldn't have grabbed the headlines, nor won the ridiculously high payout.

    Whilst it was a mistake and certainly shouldn't become commonplace - I'm sorry - but it is an over reaction imho.

  6. #6
    Admin (Ret'd)
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    18,481
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    3,208 times in 2,281 posts

    Re: Lidl fail...

    Quote Originally Posted by eshrules View Post
    The store assistant didn't detain the child against their will - that's a bit of a lame interpretation by the prosecuting solicitor to strengthen his case.

    Grabbing a kiddies arm and asking if they've stolen a bag of crisps, as opposed to false improsnment and assault upon a child probably wouldn't have grabbed the headlines, nor won the ridiculously high payout.

    Whilst it was a mistake and certainly shouldn't become commonplace - I'm sorry - but it is an over reaction imho.
    I don't know about Irish law, but under UK (or at least, in England and Wales), it's a pretty accurate interpretation of the law to call it false imprisonment and assault. Or more accurately still, assault and battery, and false imprisonment.

    You have to remember that you don't even have to touch someone to assault them. If you give them a credible reason to fear imminent physical hard, it's assault. If someone comes up to you, red faced and screaming at you, waves a fist under your nose and says they've gong to punch your teeth in, and you believe they mean it and it's not a mate having a joke, then you've been assaulted. You don't often hear of charges being brought because :-

    a) it can be quite hard to prove, and
    b) it's sufficiently minor as to generally not be worth the bother.

    If, in addition to that threat of violence, they actually touch you against your will, it's assault and battery, and it does not require any physical harm to be caused. And of course, from there, if harm is caused then it goes up the scale from ABH, to GBH, to perhaps wounding with intent if the skin is pierced, perhaps to attempted murder and ultimately murder.

    As for false imprisonment, again, in the UK, it would be exactly that. The child was prevented from leaving the store. That's imprisonment. He has a right to expect, in the absence of lawful detention, that he can to be free of interference with his movement. As it turned out, the reason for interfering with that freedom was false.

    Look at it this way, eshrules ..... you come into my shop and I think you've stolen something, so I lock you in, and keep you there for 3 months, against you will. Have you been imprisoned? Suppose I only keep you there 3 days? Still imprisonment? Three hours?

    If you are being deliberately prevented from leaving, it's imprisonment. And if the legal justification for holding you proves false, then it's false imprisonment.

    If I prevent you from leaving, because I suspect you've nicked something, and you then produce the receipt showing that you'd paid for it, my best bet is to rapidly and profusely apologise and let you leave. If, instead, I ignore the receipt and continue to hold you .... well, what would you call it?

    That article doesn't specify how long the shop prevented the child from leaving with his mother for. And all the five year old knows is that strangers have grabbed him. Odds are, he was badly frightened, and very upset. And yet, from accounts, the store didn't back down even when showed the receipt.

    Nobody, but nobody can prevent you leaving a place without a lawful reason for doing so. Nobody can cause you to fear physical harm, let alone actually exert physical force, without legal justification .... and that includes police officers. If you get arrested by the police, they will be doing so under one of a variety of statutory authorities, where a bit of law says under these circumstances, they have the authority to do so. But if they arrest you without such legal authority, then they too would be guilty of false arrest, and if they used force, or threat of force, to do it, assault as well.

    The authority the police use includes some pretty generic authority, which apply to all citizens, and it includes quite a few very specific statutory authorities that only apply to authorised individuals. You and I could not use the latter, but we can use the former. We can quite legally exercise an arrest, and we can use reasonable force to implement it. And if we get it right, the law stands behind us. But .... just as with a police officer, if we get it wrong, then we have committed an offence ourselves.

    All these concepts, arrest, imprisonment, assault, over a wide range of actual events., The scale, if you like, varies. An arrest occurs, for instance, simply when the policeman tells you you've been arrested, because by telling you, you've been put on notice that they have exercised that legal authority, and that they can and will use reasonable force to enforce it. Notice, at this point, they haven't grabbed you, they haven't bundled you to the ground or handcuffed you, they haven't point a taser or gun at you .... the "arrest" comes with the implicit threat of force, which will be applied if necessary.

    The same applies to imprisonment. If four burly, scowling security guard get between you and the door, and tell you you aren't leaving, you would have reasonable grounds to suspect that if you try to, force will be applied. It's imprisonment without them laying a finger on you, for exactly the same reason as the policeman can arrest you without laying a finger on you. And how long you're held for isn't really the point, though it would increase the severity of the incident the longer it went on, but wouldn't much change the nature if the offence.

    And certainly, holding you beyond any time necessary to reasonably establish that you hadn't done what they believed you had is not on. Even with the police, if they arrest you on suspicion of something using those various statutory authorities, as soon as they establish or you demonstrate that their reasonable suspicion is wrong, the grounds for the arrest vanish and either they find other grounds to hold you, or they release you ... or they open themselves up to false arrest (and perhaps false imprisonment) charges too.


    Finally, on this ....

    Quote Originally Posted by eshrules View Post
    .... nor won the ridiculously high payout.
    ....
    They didn't really win any payout. The store offered a settlement, the 'victims' accepted it and the judge approved it. It wasn't a fine or an award by the court. The shop, if the reports of what happened are correct, were in the wrong, but instead of accepting that, apologising and perhaps offering a prompt compensation, they let it get this far.

  7. Received thanks from:

    Rave (29-07-2010)

  8. #7
    G4Z
    G4Z is offline
    I'dlikesomebuuuurgazzzzzz G4Z's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    geordieland
    Posts
    3,172
    Thanks
    225
    Thanked
    141 times in 93 posts
    • G4Z's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte GA 965P-DS3
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
      • Memory:
      • 4gb DDR2 5300
      • Storage:
      • 2.5Tb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Gigabyte HD4870 512mb
      • PSU:
      • Tagan 470W
      • Case:
      • Thermaltake Tsunami Dream
      • Operating System:
      • Vista 64bit
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dual Acer 24" TFT's
      • Internet:
      • 16mb sky ADSL2

    Re: Lidl fail...

    You know, I was kind of the same opinion as eshrules but you just totally changed my mind on this one Saracen.
    HEXUS FOLDING TEAM It's EASY

  9. #8
    Geek in training
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    653
    Thanks
    212
    Thanked
    47 times in 31 posts

    Re: Lidl fail...

    I'm sorry Saracen, but I'm going to have to disagree completely.

    Whilst I don't agree with preventing people from leaving premises, the wording of this story suggests the 'imprisonment' term has been used rather loosely here. A store assistant grabbed the child's arm and the mother then (presumably, as the details are sketchy at best) approached the store manager who didn't 'take her concerns seriously'.

    It doesn't sound as though at any point, were mother or child prevented from leaving store - it's a nonsense.

    I agree, the store assistant is/was totally in the wrong - no contact should have been made with the child, it's not their place to do so and for that, Lidl should have apologised, before it reached the court - the fact they allowed it to do so is a poor reflection upon them.

    I think we all know however, that this childs mother saw the sensationalism of the situation 'store assistant assaulted my 5 year old child' and ran with it - it's a sure fire way to obtain a payout, agreed settlement or whatever other term you wish to affix to it.

    what concerns me is the direction in which this case suggests our over protective general population is heading. Where does it stop? For instance, I prevented a child from stepping in front of a moving car the other day, is that assault or imprisonment? What if their parent saw my action and assumed the worst? Would it be better to let the child step in front of the car?

    It amounts to a lack of common sense and it worries me.

  10. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    581
    Thanks
    51
    Thanked
    29 times in 28 posts

    Re: Lidl fail...

    I doubt a shop assistant would have done that without reasonable cause to and if their managers have backed them up even when receipts were shown then I imagine this kid had probably been running wild while the parents nonchalantly shopped. I'm sure most folk here that work in retail have seen the same situation and especially in supermarkets seen kids\parents actually stealing and consuming goods instore knowing full well they can do nothing about it as the management and company policy will not back them up if they attempt to tackle them over it.

  11. #10
    The Irish Drunk! neonplanet40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Stirling
    Posts
    5,141
    Thanks
    887
    Thanked
    248 times in 169 posts
    • neonplanet40's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 Wi-Fi
      • CPU:
      • Ryzen 7 2700X
      • Memory:
      • Patriot 16 GB DDR4 3200 MHz
      • Storage:
      • 256 Crucial MX100 +Kingston 256GB SSD and 500GB Samsung F3
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Palit nVidia 1070Ti Rockgamer
      • PSU:
      • OCZ 650W
      • Case:
      • Akasa Eclipse-32
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 10 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dell 27" U2715H & Dell 23" U2311H
      • Internet:
      • 60MB

    Re: Lidl fail...

    The difference is though, that a shop assistant isn't a police office or a security guard. They have no right to pursue someone or restrain them. That falls completely out of their job description. And if the manager backed him up then he should be just as liable.

    Any Lidl i've ever been in here in Northern Ireland has a security guard. Not that they wouldn't be held any more accountable - but the difference is that they would be more trained to deal with the situation.
    Home Entertainment =Epson TW9400, Samsung 65" HDTV, Denon AVRX6300H, Panasonic DPUB450EBK Ultra HD Blu-Ray and Monitor Audio Silver RX 7.0, Monitor Audio CT265IDC(x4) Dolby Atmos and XTZ 12.17 Sub - (Config 7.1.4)
    My System=Gigabyte X470 Aorus Gaming 7 Wi-Fi, AMD Ryzen 7 2700X, Patriot 16 GB DDR4 3200MHz, 256GB Crucial SSD, Kingston 256GB SSD and 500GB Samsung F3, Palit GTX1070 GameRock Edition , Enermax Liberty 620W, Akasa Eclipse-32,Dell 2715H & Dell U2311H
    Home Server 2/HTPC - Ryzen 5 3600, Asus Strix B450, 16GB Ram, Gigabyte 1660 Super, Corsair TX550, Kodi with MadVR & Nvidia Shield Pro (4K)
    Diskstation/HTPC - Synology DS2415+ with 47TB
    Portable=Microsoft Surface Pro 4, Huawei M5 10" & HP Omen 15 laptop

  12. #11
    Admin (Ret'd)
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    18,481
    Thanks
    1,016
    Thanked
    3,208 times in 2,281 posts

    Re: Lidl fail...

    Quote Originally Posted by eshrules View Post
    I'm sorry Saracen, but I'm going to have to disagree completely.

    Whilst I don't agree with preventing people from leaving premises, the wording of this story suggests the 'imprisonment' term has been used rather loosely here. A store assistant grabbed the child's arm and the mother then (presumably, as the details are sketchy at best) approached the store manager who didn't 'take her concerns seriously'.

    It doesn't sound as though at any point, were mother or child prevented from leaving store - it's a nonsense.

    I agree, the store assistant is/was totally in the wrong - no contact should have been made with the child, it's not their place to do so and for that, Lidl should have apologised, before it reached the court - the fact they allowed it to do so is a poor reflection upon them.

    I think we all know however, that this childs mother saw the sensationalism of the situation 'store assistant assaulted my 5 year old child' and ran with it - it's a sure fire way to obtain a payout, agreed settlement or whatever other term you wish to affix to it.

    what concerns me is the direction in which this case suggests our over protective general population is heading. Where does it stop? For instance, I prevented a child from stepping in front of a moving car the other day, is that assault or imprisonment? What if their parent saw my action and assumed the worst? Would it be better to let the child step in front of the car?

    It amounts to a lack of common sense and it worries me.
    Well, all we're going by are reports. That said the more detailed reports are that the mother paid for her shopping, and because she was on the phone, she asked the boy to carry some of it. She left the store, and when she turned round, her son wasn't with her, having been "grabbed" by the assistant, and "pulled" back into the store. If so, then he most certainly was prevented from leaving. It also allegedly left marks on the boy's arm.

    Again, according to reports, the manager apologised, but the assistant refused to. Repeatedly. And it seems to be her concerns over that that the manager didn't take seriously.

    Assuming those reports are accurate, then I can't see how it isn't both assault and, especially as he was dragged back into the store, false imprisonment. And this is the point I made about exercising a citizen's arrest, which is effectively what that assistant did - if you have legal justification and if you get it right, it's a legal arrest. If you get it wrong, it's going to be the person doing the arrest that's in trouble, and if force was used, probably for assault at least.

    It might not be what is commonly understood by "imprisonment", but if you are illegally held in a place against your will, that's precisely what it is. The actual tort of false imprisonment is to unlawfully restrain a person so as to interfere with their freedom of movement. It does not have to be physical restraint. If I tell you I'm arresting you, the very definition of "arrest" is that I'm restraining your ability to come and go as you wish, and implicit in that is that I can use reasonable force to enforce it. Put those two together. If my arrest is illegal, then my restraint of your freedom of movement is illegal, and you have therefore been falsely imprisoned, because your freedom has been illegally restricted. As I say, it may not be the commonly understood meaning of "imprison", but it is the meaning of the term.

    And as for that citizen's arrest .... it's applicable where the offence is "indictable", and only if it's indictable. Did the shop assistant (assuming this had been under English law, or that relevant local law is the same) understand what offences are indictable offences, and which are not? Do many of the public? Because if you get that wrong, and the "offence" you suspect the person is committing isn't indictable, then the power to arrest as a non-constable (PACE s24A) will not apply. Even if it does apply, you may only arrest someone that is either guilty, or that you have reasonable grounds to believe is guilty. So does Joe (or Joanna) Public understand when grounds are "reasonable", and when they are not? Because, if you get that wrong, a legal arrest becomes an assault. And even if it is an indictable offence (and theft is), and even if you do have reasonable grounds to believe someone guilty, you can STILL only use that power under four specific conditions ... and even then, only if it appears to not be "reasonably practicable" for a constable to make the arrest instead.

    In other words, anyone that is not a constable can make an arrest, but only under very specific circumstances, and it is very easy indeed to come unstuck on those circumstances, and if you do, the "arrest" becomes assault, at least.

    Quote Originally Posted by eshrules View Post
    ....

    I think we all know however, that this childs mother saw the sensationalism of the situation 'store assistant assaulted my 5 year old child' and ran with it - it's a sure fire way to obtain a payout, agreed settlement or whatever other term you wish to affix to it.

    ...
    No, we don't know that. It's simply speculation. It may be correct, but it's simply speculation, and not even based on news reports of what happened. You're merely attributing a base motive to the mother.

    Quote Originally Posted by eshrules View Post
    ...

    what concerns me is the direction in which this case suggests our over protective general population is heading. Where does it stop? For instance, I prevented a child from stepping in front of a moving car the other day, is that assault or imprisonment? What if their parent saw my action and assumed the worst? Would it be better to let the child step in front of the car?

    It amounts to a lack of common sense and it worries me.
    But the law does, perhaps surprisingly, include an element of common sense. The area of law we're talking about is tort, and specifically, trespass against the person. One of the defences against, for instance, assault is "necessity". A classic, and oft-quoted, example is precisely the case you give .... it is not assault if you "assault" someone in order to pull then from the path of a moving vehicle. There are other defences too, such as self defence, defence of others, or "consent". Similarly, there are defences against the tort of false imprisonment, not least that you were acting with legal authority or justification.

  13. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    269
    Thanks
    45
    Thanked
    30 times in 26 posts
    • cookie365's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus H87M Plus
      • CPU:
      • i3 4340
      • Memory:
      • 2x Kingston HyperX 4Gb
      • Storage:
      • 250Gb Samsung SSD 840 EVO + Seagate 1TB + WD Green 2TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Whatever comes with the i3
      • PSU:
      • bequiet StraightPower 600
      • Case:
      • Aquacool Dead Silence
      • Operating System:
      • W10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Rectangular
      • Internet:
      • Cable

    Re: Lidl fail...

    Quote Originally Posted by eshrules View Post
    I'm sorry Saracen, but I'm going to have to disagree completely.

    Whilst I don't agree with preventing people from leaving premises, the wording of this story suggests the 'imprisonment' term has been used rather loosely here. A store assistant grabbed the child's arm and the mother then (presumably, as the details are sketchy at best) approached the store manager who didn't 'take her concerns seriously'.

    It doesn't sound as though at any point, were mother or child prevented from leaving store - it's a nonsense.

    I agree, the store assistant is/was totally in the wrong - no contact should have been made with the child, it's not their place to do so and for that, Lidl should have apologised, before it reached the court - the fact they allowed it to do so is a poor reflection upon them.

    I think we all know however, that this childs mother saw the sensationalism of the situation 'store assistant assaulted my 5 year old child' and ran with it - it's a sure fire way to obtain a payout, agreed settlement or whatever other term you wish to affix to it.

    what concerns me is the direction in which this case suggests our over protective general population is heading. Where does it stop? For instance, I prevented a child from stepping in front of a moving car the other day, is that assault or imprisonment? What if their parent saw my action and assumed the worst? Would it be better to let the child step in front of the car?

    It amounts to a lack of common sense and it worries me.
    Assault? Yes. False imprisonment? Yes. Textbook examples of both. In fact the assault was also a battery. Some might find that shocking

  14. #13
    Mike Fishcake
    Guest

    Re: Lidl fail...

    The only people that truly know what happened are the people that were there. Anything else is just guesswork on our part. Whilst it's fun and easy to jump on the "OMG WERE BECOMIN COMPENSATION FREAKS" bandwagon at any opportunity, in some cases it's simply not true and the outcomes are justified.

  15. #14
    Registered+
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Lodnon
    Posts
    30
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    0 times in 0 posts
    • xiao's system
      • Motherboard:
      • ASUS P5K Premium
      • CPU:
      • Intel Core 2 Duo Q6600
      • Memory:
      • OCZ 4GB Reaper HPC / Dual Ch. DDR2 PC6400
      • Storage:
      • 2 x Barracuda 7200.9 SATA 500-GB Hard Drive
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Sapphire ATi Radeon HD3870 512MB
      • PSU:
      • Thermaltake Toughpower W0103 600-Watt ATX 12V 2.2
      • Case:
      • Antec Performance One P182 [Gun Metal Black]
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Ultimate x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Hannstar HW191D [19" LCD]
      • Internet:
      • O2 ADSL2+ 8 Mb/s

    Re: Lidl fail...

    I wonder how many crisps he will buy with his new money

  16. #15
    HEXUS.social member finlay666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    8,546
    Thanks
    297
    Thanked
    894 times in 535 posts
    • finlay666's system
      • CPU:
      • 3570k
      • Memory:
      • 16gb
      • Graphics card(s):
      • 6950 2gb
      • Case:
      • Fractal R3
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 8
      • Monitor(s):
      • U2713HM and V222H
      • Internet:
      • cable

    Re: Lidl fail...

    Quote Originally Posted by cookie365 View Post
    Assault? Yes. False imprisonment? Yes. Textbook examples of both. In fact the assault was also a battery. Some might find that shocking
    Was he falsely imprisoned in a Duracell?
    H3XU5 Social FAQ
    Quote Originally Posted by tiggerai View Post
    I do like a bit of hot crumpet

  17. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    269
    Thanks
    45
    Thanked
    30 times in 26 posts
    • cookie365's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Asus H87M Plus
      • CPU:
      • i3 4340
      • Memory:
      • 2x Kingston HyperX 4Gb
      • Storage:
      • 250Gb Samsung SSD 840 EVO + Seagate 1TB + WD Green 2TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • Whatever comes with the i3
      • PSU:
      • bequiet StraightPower 600
      • Case:
      • Aquacool Dead Silence
      • Operating System:
      • W10
      • Monitor(s):
      • Rectangular
      • Internet:
      • Cable

    Re: Lidl fail...

    Quote Originally Posted by finlay666 View Post
    Was he falsely imprisoned in a Duracell?
    These kinds of threads always attract people who aren't lawyers but are ever ready to offer some legal advice

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. My system is FAIL to overclock ! ! ! PLEASE HELP ! ! !
    By khchan3501 in forum Help! Quick Relief From Tech Headaches
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 23-11-2009, 07:06 PM
  2. FAIL article is full of FAIL
    By Funkstar in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-11-2009, 09:09 AM
  3. 3.3V Fail error in bios
    By sswats in forum PC Hardware and Components
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-12-2007, 06:08 PM
  4. Is this doomed to fail?
    By Wufflez in forum SCAN.care@HEXUS
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-11-2007, 01:36 AM

Posting Permissions

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