FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Business in the USA... pay us $150, or we'll call the cops.





quex
Quote:
Here's some advice for you, the regular customer who doesn't shoplift: never go into the back of a store with a security guard, store manager, rent-a-cop, etc. Never. Someone posted the following story in the Janesville, Wisconsin CraigsList over the weekend. Because the poster cooperated in good faith with the security personnel at her local Menards home store, she had to pay $150 to avoid having the police called on her.


Full story here

Does this happen in other countries, too? Because somehow, my stereotype-addled brain cannot imagine a store in Europe (or Japan, for that matter) invoking paperwork, signatures, a $150 fine and threats of police action on a $5.99 shoplifting case, especially when the offender is cooperative and by all indications, the "theft" was a mistake.
Magicman
I've never heard of anything like this happening and I live in the United States. Although from what I read in the comments on the article you posted, this could have been a poorly executed and applied standard practice. The stores don't want to handle legal fees so they just apply their own fine. However, this is clearly a case of extremely bad judgment of all parties involved and possibly extortion on the part of the security guard.
ocalhoun
Well, just be aware of what private security guards are and are not allowed to do.
(For example, you can only be charged with shoplifting after removing goods from the store without paying. Appearing to shoplift things, but not leaving the store with them, is legal.)
Also, know the law. If you know whether their threat to call the cops is a bluff or not, you're much better off.
And actually... I wonder if the guards might have made criminal actions in this case. Arguments could be made for wrongful imprisonment (if they refused to let them leave, yet did not call the cops) and blackmail (threatening to release information unless payment is made).

I've heard though, that the guards at casinos are the ones you really don't want to go into the back room with.
Afaceinthematrix
Well it certainly was a stupid business tactic. If the article is completely honest, and those were dedicated shoppers that shopped there frequently, then why the Hell would they do that? The employees there should know who the frequent shoppers are (I've worked retail and you tend to see a lot of the same people). So why would they want to do that to a loyal customer? If that happened to me, I would never shop there again and then they'd lose hundreds of dollars in business because of an accidental $5.99 loss that THEY WOULD HAVE GONE BACK AND PAID FOR!
pscompanies
I doubt that this is a common occurrence.. I have relatives living in the US and I've never heard about anything like this..
coreymanshack
pscompanies wrote:
I doubt that this is a common occurrence.. I have relatives living in the US and I've never heard about anything like this..


Everyone in america doesn't experience this..

I don't see what the big deal was after you said you'd pay the $5.99 .... jeez.
Nameless
I've never had anything like that happen to me, or anyone I know, but it doesn't really surprise me to hear about an occasional security guard acting like a complete dick. (And yeah, in that situation, I'd be refusing to pay the $150 because as much as a complete dick as the one security guard might be, I don't see the police (or the actual store owners, for that matter) taking the case anywhere.)
quex
ocalhoun wrote:

And actually... I wonder if the guards might have made criminal actions in this case. Arguments could be made for wrongful imprisonment (if they refused to let them leave, yet did not call the cops) and blackmail (threatening to release information unless payment is made).


This was the exact argument folks on Consumerist made. o.o I wonder if the couple will press charges... It would have been petty larceny at 5.99, but now that the $150 price has been applied, it can go to a higher court, correct?
quex
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Well it certainly was a stupid business tactic. If the article is completely honest, and those were dedicated shoppers that shopped there frequently, then why the Hell would they do that? The employees there should know who the frequent shoppers are (I've worked retail and you tend to see a lot of the same people). So why would they want to do that to a loyal customer? If that happened to me, I would never shop there again and then they'd lose hundreds of dollars in business because of an accidental $5.99 loss that THEY WOULD HAVE GONE BACK AND PAID FOR!


Menards, Stein Mart, and other similarly-sized chains tend to have such clerk/cashier turnover rates that it is difficult if not impossible for employees to get to recognize their customer base. I have worked as a clerk in a large fabric+craft store where the same people would come in three or four times a week, but because we had 40+ clerks on the payroll, sometimes you'd only work 5 hours a week in one shift... I rarely, if ever, had opportunity to help the the same customers twice, even if the manager recognized them as daily guests.
deanhills
From a technological point of view I'm confused. I thought stores had scanners, so if the bigger box had been scanned while it was being processed by the cashier, would the scanner not have picked up on a second scanning inside the box?
coreymanshack
deanhills wrote:
From a technological point of view I'm confused. I thought stores had scanners, so if the bigger box had been scanned while it was being processed by the cashier, would the scanner not have picked up on a second scanning inside the box?


They have barcode scanners wich is merely a reflective laser, and a magnetic strip they run boxes across to demagnitize the strips inside the product that set the alarm off.
coolclay
Hey if that person was that stupid to just pay a bribery fee than actually fighting it then I guess they deserve what they got. For some people it maybe just easier to pay them off and not deal with all the other bull crap. This definitely happens a lot in other countries but apparently it must be catching on in the US. It makes since, when a store turns a shoplifter over to the cops they will press charges but the business gets none of the fine money. This way they get the fine $ to maybe make up for the shoplifters that got away. Either way it sucks for those folks because it sounds legitimately like an accident. However a lot of people do try and steal things by sticking them in other boxes, so it's not like it's a new tactic.
deanhills
coolclay wrote:
Hey if that person was that stupid to just pay a bribery fee than actually fighting it then I guess they deserve what they got.
If they were really innocent, they would not have participated in a bribe, as participating in a bribe in my mind makes them "guilty" in participating in a bribe, even if they think they were not guilty of theft.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
coolclay wrote:
Hey if that person was that stupid to just pay a bribery fee than actually fighting it then I guess they deserve what they got.
If they were really innocent, they would not have participated in a bribe, as participating in a bribe in my mind makes them "guilty" in participating in a bribe, even if they think they were not guilty of theft.

Though... If they were guilty, a $150 bribe might seem very attractive as compared to criminal court proceedings, which would probably be more expensive and time consuming, then result in punishment.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Though... If they were guilty, a $150 bribe might seem very attractive as compared to criminal court proceedings, which would probably be more expensive and time consuming, then result in punishment.
Very true. But what I meant was that even if they were innocent of theft, which is still unproven, but even if they were, they were guilty of another crime of being party of a bribery. And perhaps even if they were innocent, they may be regarded guilty of the original crime of theft by implication of trying to cover it up. I am very suspicious, as covering up the theft puts huge questionmarks for me against their innocence of theft.
quex
deanhills wrote:
But what I meant was that even if they were innocent of theft, which is still unproven, but even if they were, they were guilty of another crime of being party of a bribery. And perhaps even if they were innocent, they may be regarded guilty of the original crime of theft by implication of trying to cover it up. I am very suspicious, as covering up the theft puts huge questionmarks for me against their innocence of theft.


You cannot be found guilty of participation in a bribery (in the US) if the bribe was first solicited by the party who would receive it, and/or you have reason to feel that your life, livelihood, or the personal reputation of yourself or a family member would be endangered by not providing the bribe to said solicitor.

There's also a clause for if "the bribe was forced upon you in such situation as to otherwise deprive you of an immediate right guaranteed to you by the federal, state, or local law." If I remember properly, this was added to the books to help prosecute cases of corrupt officials or lawmen who would demand bribes from racial minorities at the entrances to polling places. Under the pressure of losing their chance to vote (since polling stations are only open for one day, and local setups often mean a person is assigned to a single polling place and cannot go elsewhere to cast their ballot), many paid the bribe to get in and did not file complaints against the official who took their money, for fear of being counter charged with bribing said official.

This clause still sometimes appears today in corrupt cop cases... if a cop says "pay me $100 bucks or I'll arrest you for <insert made-up charge here>" while you honestly haven't done a single thing wrong and you go ahead and pay the bribe, you can still take the cop to court for threatening unlawful detention and demanding a bribe, and you cannot be counter charged with actually paying the bribe. (This is often very difficult to prove, however.)
ocalhoun
quex wrote:
deanhills wrote:
But what I meant was that even if they were innocent of theft, which is still unproven, but even if they were, they were guilty of another crime of being party of a bribery. And perhaps even if they were innocent, they may be regarded guilty of the original crime of theft by implication of trying to cover it up. I am very suspicious, as covering up the theft puts huge questionmarks for me against their innocence of theft.


You cannot be found guilty of participation in a bribery (in the US) if the bribe was first solicited by the party who would receive it, and/or you have reason to feel that your life, livelihood, or the personal reputation of yourself or a family member would be endangered by not providing the bribe to said solicitor.

Does it even count as a bribe when it is a private security guard? You could just as easily call it a 'settlement'.
deanhills
@quex. Thanks for the explanation. That was very interesting information. OK, let's then say that bribery is not a felony, but even if it were not, my argument still applies. If someone enters into a "bribe" or "settlement" relationship, that to me is to cover something up. And by implication would make them look guilty and make it ten times more difficult to prove their innocence.

Let's say I am the store manager, and this is brought to my attention. Yes, I will investigate the claim about the Security Guard having taken a "bribe" or "settlement", but that obviously has to be proven, and can only be proven by admission of guilt of the Security Guard. I would still be suspicious of how the unpaid product got to land in the open box. If the customer had come to me and let me know without having taken the "bribe" or "settlement" it would have been easier to believe him/her, but if a "settlement" had occurred prior to the incident, without the admission of guilt of the Security Guard, I would be very suspicious of the customer's story.
quex
ocalhoun wrote:
quex wrote:
deanhills wrote:
But what I meant was that even if they were innocent of theft, which is still unproven, but even if they were, they were guilty of another crime of being party of a bribery. And perhaps even if they were innocent, they may be regarded guilty of the original crime of theft by implication of trying to cover it up. I am very suspicious, as covering up the theft puts huge questionmarks for me against their innocence of theft.


You cannot be found guilty of participation in a bribery (in the US) if the bribe was first solicited by the party who would receive it, and/or you have reason to feel that your life, livelihood, or the personal reputation of yourself or a family member would be endangered by not providing the bribe to said solicitor.

Does it even count as a bribe when it is a private security guard? You could just as easily call it a 'settlement'.


Hmm. I have no idea of the intricacies of responsibility between a security guard from a private firm and his/her employer... it would be interesting to dissect where the charge would fall between the actions of a security guard and store management...
deanhills
quex wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
quex wrote:
deanhills wrote:
But what I meant was that even if they were innocent of theft, which is still unproven, but even if they were, they were guilty of another crime of being party of a bribery. And perhaps even if they were innocent, they may be regarded guilty of the original crime of theft by implication of trying to cover it up. I am very suspicious, as covering up the theft puts huge questionmarks for me against their innocence of theft.


You cannot be found guilty of participation in a bribery (in the US) if the bribe was first solicited by the party who would receive it, and/or you have reason to feel that your life, livelihood, or the personal reputation of yourself or a family member would be endangered by not providing the bribe to said solicitor.

Does it even count as a bribe when it is a private security guard? You could just as easily call it a 'settlement'.


Hmm. I have no idea of the intricacies of responsibility between a security guard from a private firm and his/her employer... it would be interesting to dissect where the charge would fall between the actions of a security guard and store management...
Where I am we have a great problem with this. Our Security Guards are reporting to an organization outside our organization, so when it gets to nitty gritty issues, such as serving our visitors/customers more efficiently, we do not have much of a say in it. Most of what we can achieve would be on the basis of goodwill. You may have touched on one of the aspects that could well lead to abuse of security, as in our case we are almost certain the security guards are giving security cards to unauthorized people to enter the building after hours and over weekends. We have a very large building with all kinds of nooks and crannies that are invisible to the eye, and where people can basically "camp" unseen, without actually living there.
Afaceinthematrix
quex wrote:
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Well it certainly was a stupid business tactic. If the article is completely honest, and those were dedicated shoppers that shopped there frequently, then why the Hell would they do that? The employees there should know who the frequent shoppers are (I've worked retail and you tend to see a lot of the same people). So why would they want to do that to a loyal customer? If that happened to me, I would never shop there again and then they'd lose hundreds of dollars in business because of an accidental $5.99 loss that THEY WOULD HAVE GONE BACK AND PAID FOR!


Menards, Stein Mart, and other similarly-sized chains tend to have such clerk/cashier turnover rates that it is difficult if not impossible for employees to get to recognize their customer base. I have worked as a clerk in a large fabric+craft store where the same people would come in three or four times a week, but because we had 40+ clerks on the payroll, sometimes you'd only work 5 hours a week in one shift... I rarely, if ever, had opportunity to help the the same customers twice, even if the manager recognized them as daily guests.


But if the article is true, then I'd be very surprised if many of the employees didn't recognize them.

Quote:
So I will start off saying my husband and I have been shopping at Menards since they opened and because of our business we are there almost daily and sometime twice a day


I have worked in retail/food service for years. Food service was the first job that I got in high school. Even at that job, where I worked the vast majority of my hours after closing because my job involved cleaning and I, at most, spent probably 2 hours per week on the floor with customers, was able to recognize the frequent customers. A year after that, while still in high school, I got a job in retail. A few years later, while in college, I still work at that job. I can recognize all of the frequent customers. I understand your point about low turnout rates and people working few hours (I'd imagine that if my 30-35 hours a week went down to 5 hours a week, I'd recognize fewer people), but according to the article, these people shop there every single day and sometimes twice in the same day! I'd imagine that with people like that, you'd probably run into them twice after working only a dozen 5 hour shifts.

Also, by the sounds of this store (I've never been in), it's not that incredible large either. It's not like a department store to where you can have frequent shoppers in a department that you do not work in so you do not see them. I'm sure there are plenty of frequent shoppers in other departments at my job, but since I sell tools I do not notice the frequent shoppers in the other departments.
deanhills
Afaceinthematrix wrote:
Also, by the sounds of this store (I've never been in), it's not that incredible large either. It's not like a department store to where you can have frequent shoppers in a department that you do not work in so you do not see them. I'm sure there are plenty of frequent shoppers in other departments at my job, but since I sell tools I do not notice the frequent shoppers in the other departments.
I would have imagined that the other staff, and the manager would have picked up on this as well. Surely they would have noticed the security guard coaxing customers away into a back room and asked the guard questions about it? The manager may also have picked up on vibes from a crooked security guard. The store space is just so public and open, very difficult to hide anything from anyone in it.
SunD3R
I haven't heard of this kind of thing before and i sure hope it doesn't happen to me. If it does happen, then i would be stuffed because i don't usually carry large sums of money on me or even have that much money. Sad
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Surely they would have noticed the security guard coaxing customers away into a back room and asked the guard questions about it? The manager may also have picked up on vibes from a crooked security guard. The store space is just so public and open, very difficult to hide anything from anyone in it.

The guard could be sneaky and sly about getting customers into the back room.
And, some people are very good actors; you won't pick up vibes from them.
The space is public, but a security guard is the kind of person normally granted automatic trust... they can get away with a lot right out in the open before anybody notices.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Surely they would have noticed the security guard coaxing customers away into a back room and asked the guard questions about it? The manager may also have picked up on vibes from a crooked security guard. The store space is just so public and open, very difficult to hide anything from anyone in it.

The guard could be sneaky and sly about getting customers into the back room.
And, some people are very good actors; you won't pick up vibes from them.
The space is public, but a security guard is the kind of person normally granted automatic trust... they can get away with a lot right out in the open before anybody notices.
Hmmm .... I don't know. First of all, he would not be where he is supposed to be, he would have disappeared from where he is usually seen, someone is bound to notice his absence. I'm not saying that he did not succeed in getting the people and the trolley to a back room, but if he were in the habit of doing that, someone had to have noticed something, and there would at least have been one customer who would have raised the alarm along the lines mentioned by you. I.e. that no crime has been committed and the customer is prepared to see the manager in this regard. He was taking an enormous chance on playing on people's guilt and ignorance.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
He was taking an enormous chance on playing on people's guilt and ignorance.

And got caught, apparently... Perhaps this wasn't the first time he did this, only the first time it went wrong for him.
quex
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
He was taking an enormous chance on playing on people's guilt and ignorance.

And got caught, apparently... Perhaps this wasn't the first time he did this, only the first time it went wrong for him.


I tend to think it was something like this... people (usually those on the more law-abiding end of the scale) really do accord a lot of trust to security personnel. They see persons in uniform as present to protect them, often equating them with police, not realizing that these personnel are usually trained by a private business and hired out by stores. The top priority of these hired guards is to protect the merchandise and employees. This can easily lead security guards to see almost everyone who enters "their" store as a potential thief. I'm sure anyone can see where the combination of a trusting customer and a paranoid guard can lead to trouble.
deanhills
If it were me the security guard probably would have given up as I would have asked too many questions. Although I must say, I can't picture myself throwing a product accidentally into an open box and then on top of it forget about its existence when I am paying for all the items in my trolley when I get to the check out point. If I had thrown it by accident into an open box, I would have wondered where it was when I got to the till, and in all likelihood searched for it.
coreymanshack
deanhills wrote:
If it were me the security guard probably would have given up as I would have asked too many questions. Although I must say, I can't picture myself throwing a product accidentally into an open box and then on top of it forget about its existence when I am paying for all the items in my trolley when I get to the check out point. If I had thrown it by accident into an open box, I would have wondered where it was when I got to the till, and in all likelihood searched for it.


Even if they were stealing this intentionally and playing the pitty game, the security was a little harsh... imo
deanhills
coreymanshack wrote:
deanhills wrote:
If it were me the security guard probably would have given up as I would have asked too many questions. Although I must say, I can't picture myself throwing a product accidentally into an open box and then on top of it forget about its existence when I am paying for all the items in my trolley when I get to the check out point. If I had thrown it by accident into an open box, I would have wondered where it was when I got to the till, and in all likelihood searched for it.


Even if they were stealing this intentionally and playing the pitty game, the security was a little harsh... imo
Personally, I am very skeptical about the incident, along the lines of it not making sense. It is difficult for me to understand that it could have happened: 1. Very difficult for people to hide in a store, someone would have noticed that something was up with the security guard and the people he was conning, 2. A personality of someone who cons would have been noticeable in his behaviour towards others, probably arrogant, would not have sit well with the management, they would have been watching him. 3. Difficult to accept that customers could be so gullible, AND then admit what happened long after the fact. 4. Also difficult to understand that someone won't check through their purchases carefully when they get to the till. 5. I also do not understand why the story was told, what had been the motive to come forward with it?

If this story were true, exactly has it had been told, I would not describe the security guard's behaviour as "harsh", just simply dishonest and fraud and deserving of being fired on the spot. And the people he/she conned, also dishonest by paying him the bribe and empowering him to commit fraud. Although as I said, it is difficult for me to visualize this having happened. Some of it does not make sense to me.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Personally, I am very skeptical about the incident, along the lines of it not making sense. It is difficult for me to understand that it could have happened: 1. Very difficult for people to hide in a store, someone would have noticed that something was up with the security guard and the people he was conning,

It is surprisingly easy to hide in a store. Everybody else inside is focused on shopping, not paying attention to much else. And some security guards walk around in plain clothes, the better to watch people without them knowing about it.
Quote:
2. A personality of someone who cons would have been noticeable in his behaviour towards others, probably arrogant, would not have sit well with the management, they would have been watching him.

Some con men are good. Any con man worth his salt can get just about anybody to trust him.
Quote:
3. Difficult to accept that customers could be so gullible,

Humans are stupid. Very stupid. A very few exceptional individuals give the species a good reputation, but most of them just dumbly go with the flow.
Quote:
AND then admit what happened long after the fact.

They were probably outraged, and they may have known that the guard was behaving criminally.
Quote:
4. Also difficult to understand that someone won't check through their purchases carefully when they get to the till.

That may just be their excuse for real shoplifting. Just because they are a victim of the security guard doesn't mean they are innocent of wrongdoing.
Quote:
5. I also do not understand why the story was told, what had been the motive to come forward with it?

Anger, and revenge. (And maybe wanting to get their $150 back!)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Personally, I am very skeptical about the incident, along the lines of it not making sense. It is difficult for me to understand that it could have happened: 1. Very difficult for people to hide in a store, someone would have noticed that something was up with the security guard and the people he was conning,

It is surprisingly easy to hide in a store. Everybody else inside is focused on shopping, not paying attention to much else. And some security guards walk around in plain clothes, the better to watch people without them knowing about it.
They should make a movie about it. One of those Kafka type thrillers as I believe you are right. Not many people pay attention to their surroundings.
ocalhoun wrote:
Quote:
3. Difficult to accept that customers could be so gullible,

Humans are stupid. Very stupid. A very few exceptional individuals give the species a good reputation, but most of them just dumbly go with the flow.
Totally agreed as well. People may be reading a magazine while the teller is scanning the products and be completely distracted.
ocalhoun wrote:
[
Quote:
5. I also do not understand why the story was told, what had been the motive to come forward with it?

Anger, and revenge. (And maybe wanting to get their $150 back!)
Both are good reasons. Still, just can't believe they gave him his way in the first instance. Justifiable punishment would probably have been more of the variety of breaking knee caps or finger joints Smile
watersoul
Wow, pretty bad story, I know if I was innocent I wouldn't be handing any money over to anyone in a store as a pseudo punishment/justice!
Horrible situation to be in, and I hope it never happens to me.
We have a similar thing thats been running in the UK, where the stores contract recovery firms to seek high costs through a civil recovery scheme, intimidating people into paying a charge or risk going to the civil courts. This could even happen when nothing has been actually been proven by police! Shocked

(Here's a news link about it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8403000/8403379.stm)

...I personally would chose the court/police option every time if I knew I was innocent. Whatever corruption exists in all sections of our society, I trust British police, judges, & jury's far more than any private security company.
deanhills
watersoul wrote:
...I personally would chose the court/police option every time if I knew I was innocent. Whatever corruption exists in all sections of our society, I trust British police, judges, & jury's far more than any private security company.
I'd want to stay away from stores like that in the first place. I don't like the large Department stores anyway, I use them sparingly and as little as I can.
quex
watersoul wrote:
Wow, pretty bad story, I know if I was innocent I wouldn't be handing any money over to anyone in a store as a pseudo punishment/justice!
Horrible situation to be in, and I hope it never happens to me.
We have a similar thing thats been running in the UK, where the stores contract recovery firms to seek high costs through a civil recovery scheme, intimidating people into paying a charge or risk going to the civil courts. This could even happen when nothing has been actually been proven by police! :shock:

(Here's a news link about it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8403000/8403379.stm)

...I personally would chose the court/police option every time if I knew I was innocent. Whatever corruption exists in all sections of our society, I trust British police, judges, & jury's far more than any private security company.


Ah ha, so it DOES happen in other countries as well... -_- Sorry to hear that.
Flakky
Simple, never go there again, ever. And maybe making it public the loud way will make them feel sorry.
quex
Flakky wrote:
Simple, never go there again, ever. And maybe making it public the loud way will make them feel sorry.


Indeed. :3 Behold the power of the Internet... if you screw with one customer, they will tell one-thousand (or more).
jwellsy
Similar things happen all over the world. Usually it's a threat of physical violence 'give us $XXX or we'll kick your butt'. Sometimes it escalates to kidnapping for ransom. It can happen anywhere anytime. I saw it happen in Paris France inside a cabaret right next to the Moulon Rouge.
Flakky
I just remembered an old classmate who got caught stealing stuff from a supermarket. He was taken to a back room and was asked to confess and they will confiscate the stuff and call his parents or deny the fact that you have been stealing and we call the cops. It is also a situation where honesty isn't there in case you are there by their mistake.
quex
jwellsy wrote:
Similar things happen all over the world. Usually it's a threat of physical violence 'give us $XXX or we'll kick your butt'. Sometimes it escalates to kidnapping for ransom. It can happen anywhere anytime. I saw it happen in Paris France inside a cabaret right next to the Moulon Rouge.


O.O

Can I ask for details of this story, or do you worry about retribution...?
Related topics
future of instant messaging
NY Times: A perfect example of lieberals spreading...
Hooters...
Suggestion
The Whole "GOD" Thing
Macbeth Ebook
scientology
John McCain will really keep taxes low
Plan to Strengthen the Economy
What if God does exist. Can sin exist exist then? No?
are you proud of your country? why?
how bad is it where you are
Should criminal cases always go to full trial?
National Institute for Civil Discourse - what ever for?
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.