Feeds

back to article Geordie cops arrest two for Wi-Fi squatting

Two men have been arrested for "dishonestly obtaining a communications service" after they used a householder's wireless network to check their emails. The offence happened on Sunday in Tweedmouth, south of Berwick-upon-Tweed. A spokeswoman for Northumbria Police told the Reg: "I can confirm that two local men were using a …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Coat

Geordie? in Berwick?

One thing people in Berwick definitely aren't is Geordie. They don't routinely claim to be English or Scottish either... Berwicker is the term they prefer.

Mine's the tweed jacket.

2
0

Just as well...

...there aren't more important crimes being committed that require lots of police time to solve, eh?

Oh, but of course there is! the obviously **VERY** important crime of copying a CD or downloading an MP3 file. VERY VERY serious;

Thank goodness the police have their priorities right. Phew...

Sorry... what's that? No no no - you've got it wrong - these things are MUCH more important than burglary, murder, rape, assault, theft....

0
0

Dishonest?

How were they dishonest? Did they claim they were only waiting for a bus? Or did the householder complain they they had refused to pay when asked?

I've just realised that I've been dishonestly enjoying the view of the flowers in my neighbour's garden. I even absorbed reflected coloured visual radiation from them for hours, without ever asking permission. Will I have to go to jail now?

0
0

Kinda different

Yeah, there's a rather large difference between operating a scheme like Fon and using your wireless router as it came out of the box and someone nicking your inet connection.

If you don't have permission you have to accept the risk (as low as it is) of getting nicked.

0
0
Thumb Up

Wireless Internet

I have secured my wireless router but I have let my next door neighbour use it as she pays me for it! As I get it free from BT, I effective get paid to use the Internet. AC because she might read this!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

It's not a crime, but war crimes are

""However, this is an offence and people pay good money to get the internet in their homes. It is worth reminding people who use a wireless connection to ensure they follow the manufacturer's instructions when setting it up and make sure all security systems are in place to keep computers safe."

No it's not.

The police continue to ignore that the device requests permission and the router says 'yes' and gives them a session id. No different than when their telephone connects to a GSM tower, says 'can I register' and the GSM tower says "yes no problem, here have a session id"

If you say that permission is not enough, then how is it enough when the phone connects to the GSM tower???

It's the exact same thing and the person connecting has no way of telling if that router is intentionally open or not.

So now lets compare that with the METs response to an arrest warrant for an Israeli general. Something that pisses me off no end, since I've wanted to see one of those bomb happy generals on war crimes charges for years.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7251954.stm

Attacking civilians is a war crime, and it's an arrestable offence in the UK even if it was committed abroad. The judge issued an arrest warrant. Then something strange happens, the person to be arrested is pre-warned of the warrant and stays on the plane. To pre-warn someone to avoid a warrant is a crime, even if it's done by the Foreign Office minister himself.

Then even stranger, the police decide not to go into the plane to arrest him. And now totally bizarrely strange, the plane is given clearance to leave the UK with the suspect on board. Permitting his escape to freedom.

It seems the police selectively implement the laws, straining interpretation to arrest someone for doing nothing more than using an 'intentionally?' open wifi connection.

So:

In the lobby is a wifi point 'lobby#4'. I assume it's an open wifi, so I use it. I assume it's provided by the company so I assume they put it there. But I don't know, it may be a neighbours wifi. There's no way to tell, the router says it ok, so I think it's OK.

NOT A CRIME.

Blowing up civilians homes, sometimes with them in it, dropping bombs on civilian targets killing lots of children.

CRIME.

Perhaps if I blew up the Wifi router, killing the inhabitants of the house, instead of simply connecting to the net, that this would be legal then? At least in the MET's region?

1
0
Bronze badge

Intent

So here's a question...

If my Satnav/whatever says that I am in the area of a Public WiFi point and my laptop actually picks up a residential unsecure/unencrytped point instead am I breaking the law? I can see that if I carry some form of scanner to search for access and use some from of cracking to get in them I am clearly intending to get unauthorised access to the Internet (gosh what a heinous criminal I am) but if someone chooses NOT to secure their Wifi (and I understand that all WiFi boxes have some form of security as default) then is that not implicit permission for open access in much the same way as removing any clear boundary markers (hedges etc) for your garden blurs the distinction between public and private land?

Sorry for the length of that last sentence, just getting my hand in at long sentences

Mines the one with the arrows on it :{>

1
0
IT Angle

How did they get caught?

Surely most people with wireless broadband wouldn't even realise it was happening. I'd have to go and deliberately look at the modem status pages to see it on mine. How many people do that regularly? I don't.

1
0

Just a stunt to improve crime figures...

Y'know, so that while the 'murderers mislaid/ ignored/ forgotten' column goes up, the 'evil WiFi-stealing gnomes arrested, locked away for good' column can also increase...

0
0
Flame

Oh **** off

If you freeload off someone's WiFi connection, you know damned well that a)they've paid for it and you haven't, b)unless specifically authorised to do so you're not supposed to, and c) that it's illegal to do so. Look at flowers all you want, Steve; you're not depriving anyone of anything, but when you consume a service that someone else has paid for, you're either depriving them of the bandwidth that you're using, or (in these days of "fair use" and traffic management) may well be consuming their allowance. And Rich? It IS theft; theft of a service, specifically, just the same as theft of gas or electricity. Perhaps their WiFi network should have been secured; that doesn't excuse stealing their service.

0
1
Unhappy

How is that dishonest?

Did they have to hack the encryption or was it left wide open? If it was wide open, what was dishonest about it? By that token you could apply the same "dishonestly obtaining communication services" to anyone stepping into a public phone box.

I'm intrigued to know how they got found out though.

0
0

If I can help somebody as I pass along,

If someone was piggybacking my wireless account I'd want the tigh-arsed little runt named and shamed. It's on the same level as low-life scum petrol-pinching or nicking milk of your doorstep. It's theft and the sarcy comments about looking at the neighbour's flowers miss the bloody point by a mile.

Whether plod have better things to do is similar rubbish. Let me put this another way to the likes of Rich; Are you advocating the persons should not have been brought to book for breaking the law? You even mention that the Police should be concerned with theft amongst other crimes some people commit. So what's this then, morris dancing?

But yes, you would also expect plod to have better things to do. It's a simple collar and it will help their stats, don't forget that.

0
1
Anonymous Coward

Entrapment?

Seems strange that the owner of this wifi was not bright enough to secure it, yet was able to identify that it was being used by an.other and work out who that was?!

2
0

Continuing Enquiries?

What enquiries are they continuing with? Is it not an open and shut case of, were they using a wireless point illicidly, yep.

Does the wireless owner wish to file charges? Its not stated in the article.

And Neighbourhood Inspector Shazza stating "This is a very unusual offence". Umm, not round here it ain't, if anyone would care to check their AP logs...

I'm off to Berwick where apparently the local fuzz don't have the problems of hoodies, terrorists and other ne-er do wells and can spend their time protecting dumb people who should consider their actions before being allowed to try this majicalistic wireless-fi.

0
0

Rubbish

How is someone supposed to know if a Wi-Fi connection is open and free or not? That and alot of devices will connect to any open Wi-Fi connection (like my phone).

Surely it's up to someone to secure it. If it's hacked - that's a different matter all together.

0
0

no truth

there is no truth in this story whatsoever!

please implement scare tactics as soon as possible!

0
0
Stop

apples and apples ?

In Holland if you leave your car door/window open and something is stolen it is YOUR fault, because you gave free access to the thief and nothing has to be broken.

But if you are willingly or/and stupidly give free access to a wireless router it is NOT your fault ...

0
0
Thumb Down

I leave my WIFI open

And I'd prefer that the police didn't go around arresting people for using it.

Open wifi = fair game. why else would it be open?

1
0
cor
Black Helicopters

Wtf? Who is watching who?

So the 'Polis' found them out?

Did they intercept their datastream? That is far more serious than hitching a ride on an unsecured WiFi.

My laptop has its wifi interface set to 'roaming' and dhcp. I work in an office location where I regularly move from my desk to a colleague at the other end of the building, or a conference room. I often stay in a hotel with wifi... etc.

So if I leave my laptop on and it inadvertantly uses someone else's a.p. then I could be arrested? Don't make me laugh (or cry, seeing how pathetic this is).

I will be watching the courts' ruling with great interest...

0
0
Black Helicopters

Again, I'm baffled

I know this subject has been done to death. I'm not massively technical when it comes to networks (wired or wireless). But surely wireless network connections work on some kind of handshake authentication? In essence, my computer will request access and the wireless network router will accept, deny or request authentication.

If my request is accepted, surely that is all the permission I need?

Of course, if I hack/guess/brute force/spoof my way onto a network that requests authentication or denies my request, then I'm commiting an offence.

Imagine you're visiting my house. You knock on the door and there's an automated response that opens the door and invites you in. You go in and you have free access to my home (TV, tea/coffee, biscuits, magazines etc). You have a cup of tea, watch some TV and then you leave. 2 days later you're arrested for entering my house and stealing my tea and watching my TV.

My point is that it's not like someone breaking into a house that has an upstairs window left open, but more like entering a house after knocking on the door and being invited inside.

Paris? Because even

1
0
Bronze badge

Law and common sense

A nice common sense rule would be that if a WiFi configuration has no security on it is reasonable to assume that it is intentionally made free access (some people do that, although I wouldn't recommend it).

After all, the criminal law requires that to be found guilty then it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Clearly if you crack the security system then that's clear evidence of intention. As an analogy, trespassing is not a criminal offence (except in a few special cases like on railways), but breaking a lock in order to enter is.

Perhaps if the police (and courts) followed this common sense rules the police can do something useful - like tracking down the people who have compromised my credit card security twice in three months.

0
0
Coat

On the same vein as ...

.. adding this to the crime figures: I would guess that it's more about the police being seen to be tackling 'hi-tech' crime. Just throw in all the relevant techno jargon: wireless WLAN no-encryption security e-mail wardriving etc. That way all the Daily Mail readers can rest snugly in the beds knowing that plod is doing a good job.

0
0
Thumb Up

HAHA

HAHA, tight bastards got caught... Hope they get a nice fine

0
0
Thumb Up

lets hope

Lets hope its the acknowledged broadband thieves Simon and Mark

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re:Entrapment

Well, my own network is only 'secured' by WEP (because of the kid's WEP only DSs), so is trivial to crack. But I *do* know how to spot someone nicking my bandwidth.

WEP, as insecure as it is, does serve one major purpose (and is why its better than no security at all). A WEP based network is clearly private and, therefore, anyone accessing it without its owners permission is very likely in contravention of the Computer Misuse Act and, possibly, the Wireless Telegraphy Act too.

Illegal access of an insecure network *may* be harder to prove. If you are broadcasting an SSID of, say, "Hi Everyone" on an insecure network, then it could easily be construed as public. An SSID of "Smith Family", (though possibly not smart to put your name in the SSID), indicates that the network is *probably* private.

I would imagine that not broadcasting the SSID would be construed as a good indicator that the network is private, too.

0
0
Bronze badge

@AC

Agree with all your point, but can't help but point out that you can't really pre-warn someone. You either warn them or you don't.

I'm afraid I have to turn down the kind invitation of those across the pond to stick pre in front of everything to make it sound more exciting. I think I'll only accept pre if you can post it as well (not in a post box clearly).

So, I'll allow pre-paid because you can post-pay but you can't have pre-planned because you can't post-plan (unless your a government spin doctor).

0
0
Stop

There should be a difference between...

...using someones unsecured wireless internet connection and hacking it.

If my neighbour is dumb enough to use an unsecured wireless net connection, then others should be able to use it and not get prosecuted.

However, if my other neighbour has secured his, and two young punks are caught outside his house with a laptop running Kismit or AirCrack, then they should get cuffed and slapped good and proper by the courts.

This is of course, after the police have solved all the murders, rapes, armed robberies in the area...

0
0
Pirate

LEaving the WiFi unlocked

So are you lot seriously suggesting that because someone doesn't have the technical know-how to lock down their WiFi YOU should be allowed to steal it?

What if someone suffers from Alzheimers and forgets to lock their front door? I suppose you consider that justification for walking into their house and nicking their telly? Forgetfukll fuckers! Serves 'em right!

Someone didn't get their Maths O Levels so I'm alright to short change the thick bastards. Should have tried harder at school shouldn't they!

You're a bunch of fecking theives and, worse than that, with your fucked-up pseudo logic and pathetic "Freedom Fighter" bullshit, you're theives who don't even have the balls to admit it!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Smell the pretty flowers Freeloaders!

"If you freeload off someone's FLOWER GARDEN, you know damned well that a)they've paid for it and you haven't, b)unless specifically authorised to do so you're not supposed to, and c) that it's illegal to do so. Look at flowers all you want, Steve; you're not depriving anyone of anything, but when you consume a service that someone else has paid for, you're either depriving them..."

Well your depriving them of nothing because they agreed you could use it.

I pull out my iPod, there's a Wifi point 'TSS-Public'. Now you can say that TSS Public is a WiFi point of a charity that desperately needs maximum bandwidth to save dying puppies. But I reckon it's the petrol stations public Wifi point because they're all competing to provide free connections here.

Even if their connection was called 'TSS-Public' I have no way to tell if that 'TSS-Public' is *their* 'TSS-Public' since the names don't even have to be unique.

Well one way to check, I'll try to connect to it and see if it accepts my connection. Oooo look it does. I asked, they accepted.

If they stuck a tap in the middle of the street, labelled 'TSS Public' would you be happy for me to use it? Here (south France) there are taps in the street for people to drink from. I am not stealing when I drink the water, but I don't have permission to use it. I assume I have permission because it's there in public.

With Wifi it's one better than that, not only is it there in public, the iPod asks to connect before actually using the connection! Imagine that! It asks first!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

@Holland

"In Holland if you leave your car door/window open and something is stolen it is YOUR fault, because you gave free access to the thief and nothing has to be broken."

Fibber.

On the other hand if you ask the driver for a light and he gives you the light, you aren't stealing his fire. If his car had flames coming out the back and you lit your cigar on it, then you still wouldn't be stealing his fire.

You have implicit permission to light your fag.

In the case of WiFi it's simpler, you have *explicit* permission, the iPod asks permission first before sending any data and your router grants that permission.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Nick Palmer

My wifi signal can be a little bit weak at the far end of my house and my neighbour has an unsecured wifi connection.

I therefore imagine that occasionally I piggyback on their connection without knowing it.

Am I breaking the law and should I be arrested?

And what about the fact that my neighbour has "given me permission" to use their connection as my computer asks permission of the router, which then says yes.

0
0

Trespass

Trespass is a civil matter. If the wireless network is unsecured there is no breaking and entering involved. If the law of the land were to be followed, these trespassing guys would be able to sue if their machine caught a virus.

What are the pigs doing getting involved in a civil matter? How could they prove the "offence" took place? Either they have no evidence or someone has equipped the filth with electronic surveillance devices and neglected to inform, er, anyone.

The law is divided into criminal and civil, if you start to make civil matters criminal that means the polis control civil interaction. How much fun is that going to be?

0
0

@oliver Stieber

Do you leave your front door open as well?

0
0

Hmm...

There isn't a large pool of police that get dished out to the next crime, they tend to specialise, at least to a certain extent. I for one would not want a murder squad copper investigating a Tech Crime or vice versa, those complaining about 'don't they have better crimes to investigate' should probably consider this. Also if the police have had a crime reported to them (not made clear in the article), they aren't going to look very good if they don't bother to investigate it.

Now, the article didn't say weather or not the WiFi was secured, even if it wasn't that isn't an open invitation to use it, although would probably be accepted as a genuine accident if there were public free open access points in the vicinity. The article also doesn't say how the perps were nabbed, it is highly likely though, that they were using sufficient bandwidth to be noticed, or the owner of the access point noticed the access light flashing when they didn't think it was in use. You don't need to run monitoring to find this out.

As a further point, I'm not sure if this is still the case but, when I first got broadband it specifically and clearly said that no-one else, other than the inhabitants of the house are allowed to use it.

Also, how many OSes automatically connect to any WiFi access point that they can? My XP laptop certainly doesn't, I would regard this as a massive security flaw if it did.

0
0
Stop

Here we go again...

@Pete James & Nick Palmer

Every time one of these stories breaks it's the same old argument.

Once more with feeling...

An open WiFi connection with a broadcast ID is an invitation. That's not an opinion, it's the how the protocol works. Accepting a public invitaion should not be illegal. The fact that the law fails to understand even the most basic principles of this technology doesn't make it right - just badly informed.

A better analogy for this situation would be to install a series drinking fountains in your neighbourhood, each with a sign on saying "water here" then support a law that has people arrested for 'stealing water' when they stop for a drink.

The only reason wireless routers default to open connections is laziness on the part of manufacturers and end users. There are straight-forward solutions to improve the situation but no-one's interested - if the sale of the router is made and the user has a connection everyone's happy to ignore the obvious and easily addressed issues.

I think people being upset by use of police time to support this slack/ignorant behaviour is warranted although we should bear in mind that they are still going to check up on kerb-side laptop users in case there in genuine criminal intent (like hacking secured connections to trade kiddie-porn on someone else's account).

Until next time... K

0
0
Happy

its simple

I don't know what all the fuss is about - if someone physically BROADCASTS an OPEN and UNSECURED WIFI CONNECTION - thats an implicit invitation to connect. You can butter it up, put metaphorical wings on it then crowbar in all the burglary and theft related analogies you like, but it doesn't make it anything the police should be bothering themselves with.

0
0
Pirate

Entrapment

Now if I had say milk dilivered and it was left on somebody else's dorrstep and they took it in not knowing that it wasn;t for there use - would they be breaking the law (no Pete James they wont).

If somebody broadcasts a `open` unsecure connection into my property and my equipment has defaults dictated by microsoft am I breaking the law - or are they by invading my space with there signal.

The fact that they leave there connections open then means they want you to be able to use there (not abuse) connection, is that braking the law. Of course the other side is they are utterly clueless and have an internet connection which by default means there BOT city ruining the internet for others thru there ignorance.

bottom line people who leave open wifi connections without the intent and no disclaimer saying dont use this are frankly the ones who should be hung and drawn and generaly dealt with by the law. Why, well its those fraggels who have by definition weak insecure computers and enable criminals to create BOT-nets.

Why should the innocent be prosecuted at the expense of preserving the stupid - this is a general trend we live with today - get somebody who is ill and sick and somebody who isn't and have both say homless thru equaly bad luck/events and its the sick ill person who is housed whilst the healthy pearson is tossed aside until there damaged enough to not be able to contribute to society - then they get help when its too late.

Bottom line I've used open wifi connections, my computer asks for permision by asking for a IP, the router goes yes I'll allow you. Now give me my day in court and I'll prove legaly that not only is that legal and valid but also countersue for defimation of character and loss of earnings/time and I would win.

Remember its not the UK anymore its EU and all the bells and whistles.

Bottom line - if you run wifi and dont have a clue how to set it up then pay somebody to sort it you ignorant plebs - very very simple. Stop penny pinching and entraping innocents wasting police time because your ignorant. Very very clear and simple.

posted anon to avoid the trolls and ingorants who can only vent and not fix things.

0
0

No crime

If I leave my WiFi unencrypted, it's because I WANT people to be able to use it. If I don't want them to, I turn on the encryption. It's not that difficult.

Hopefully the police checked with the homeowner in question; I would think that the homeowner would have to press charges; they're the (possibly) wronged party. If not, IMHO there's no case.

0
0

I'm sorry but

if I'm going to have "look at me I'm base station NETGEAR, I'm accepting all connections, you're welcome" penetrating my skull at 2.4GHz I really fail to see why I'm beyond my rights to connect to this service.

This is not theft at any practical level. If I phone my neighbour and as such make use of their phone line rental and equipment am I committing a crime. No. Because by paying phone rental they have implied permission for others to connect to this service. As such leaving their base station totally unsecured expresses permission.

It should be plainly clear to anyone if they buy a wireless router then connect there equipment without any sort of authorisation that so can anyone else. If you are paying by the byte, its your responsibility to secure it.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Fon peculiarity !.

So lets say someone has joined up to FON to offer Wifi connections to all and sundry, for a fee paid through FON. Lets say that offeror then decided he dont want to be one of FON's local hotspots anymore BUT by mistake left his connection open. What would the case be then if some poor unsuspecting FON user used his opne connection thinking he was still part of the FON network ??.

I think the law needs to be changed so the Pigs have to prove that the person using the connection knew that he was not allowed to access the open wifi.

0
0
Alert

Eh?

Obviously the crime stats are so low in Newcastle that not only do the cops have nothing to do, but they are forced to venture as far as the Scottish borders to get a whiff of anything illegal.

It's such a shame things are this bad - I might even drive down to Geordieland this weekend and drop some litter in the town centre. I would be disappointed if numerous squad cars and an armed response unit didn't surround me immediately.

0
0
Black Helicopters

No such thing as ...

There is no such thing as "Unsecured" in this context. The WiFi router will grant access to the service if, and only if, the criteria established by the owner of the system has been meet. If that owner, despite the manufacturers instructions and the service providers advice, choses to allow remote connections from computers he or she does not personally know, that is a lifestyle choice, but I fail to see how somebody can be accused of accessing the system without consent.

0
0

@ Killian

....and all the other people assuming that the connection was open.

Go back and read the story.

Nowhere does it say the wireless network was open.

At the end there is a comment about people making their network secure.

But NOWHERE does it say the network was open.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Look, you don't even have to lock it

If you turned off the 'broadcast my id' option, it's 1 checkbox, it's not even necessary to lock your connection with passwords and stuff if you don't want people connecting.

You connect what you want, then turn off your broadcasting of the invitation to join your network and bingo end of story. Your devices already know the id of your network and others don't.

Or you can specify only the devices you want to connect. Connect them, go to the Mac filtering web screen and click 'allow' the ones you want to connect, then click 'enable filtering' and that's it.

If you want to you can enable the password and lock the network too. Up to you, but these people just want to check their email on one of the half million open hotspots around the world.

0
0
Thumb Down

Computer Misuse Act

AFAIK, for the purposes of the Computer Misuse Act, a router *is* a computer. To be in contravention of the act you merely have to access a computer that you *personally* have *not* be given permission to use.

The onus is on the accessor to ascertain that they *do* have permission and not on the owner to prove they *don't*.

In the case of public hotspots, that *explicit* permission is given by advertising the hotspot, either at its location or on TV, radio, etc. Permission can be granted as a group as with subscribers to FON.

So, as I read it, if you access a WiFi node without ensuring that it *is* public you *are* liable under the Computer Misuse Act and can face up to 5 years in the slammer if caught.

Nasty, possibly unfair, but that appears to be the way UK legislation on this matter works. And, of course, you do have to get caught first.....

Maybe if there are some legal types with experience of the CMA they could check on this.

0
0
cor
Paris Hilton

"..especially as the price includes free wifi internet access.."

Cruizin tha Googlenet I found this LOL:

"When looking for somewhere to stay in Berwick we consulted Trip Advisor and decided to go for the number one ranked B&B in Berwick.

Well the place certainly lived up to expectations!

I cant praise the Old Vicarage enough. From the gorgeous little touches like homemade cakes on the tea tray in the room to the superb choice of breakfasts. What a delight.

The bed was supremely comfortable with lovely high quality bed linen and fluffy white towels. It really was like home from home.

Great value for money (especially as the price includes free wifi internet access).

The breakfasts were superb too.

I wouldnt think of staying anywhere else in Berwick!"

See for yourselves if you like :

<link> : www.tripadvisor.com/ShowUserReviews-g504038-d620173-r10036172-Old_Vicarage_Guest_House-Berwick_upon_Tweed_Northumberland_England.html

0
0
Flame

Amazing.

I find the responses in here Totally Amazing.

Just because someone doesn't have the technical knowledge to secure a router doesn't make it fair game for someone else to use.

Would you appreciate it if someone was using your wireless router to download child porn? To review bomb making information? To download movies over bit torrent and using up your bandwidth so you got throttled?

It is a crime in the UK, the US and Canada (and probably other countries) to use communications devices without permission of the owner. It doesnt matter if the connection is unencrypted, or un passworded it is still a crime.

Personally, I configure the most powerful encryption I can, preface the name of the router with "()" to indicate closed, and turn off broadcast invitations of the SSID. On the other hand, I do this stuff for a living so it is no problem for me.

Flames because I expected better of everyone here.

0
0
Paris Hilton

How did it come to this

How did it come to this? Whether it's legal or not, why are we even bothering to enforce it?

Which raises a much more interesting question. What were these two people doing and how did they come to be caught? Sitting in a car engaging in Ugandan discussions while admiring pictures of Paris perhaps?

0
0
Jobs Horns

iPhone?

I look forward to the first iPhone owner who is picked up by the Police for using someone else's wifi to read Google maps and work out where they are.

0
0
Coat

It's not real Wi Fi..

This is the Geordie version,

Way aye Fi

Mine's the raincoat and flat cap, next the whippet.

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.