Like most home educating parents, I was angered at the suggestion that our children are somehow at greater risk of abuse than those who attend school. And yet...... Consider this case;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1060305/Mother-jailed-BITING-year-old-son-revenge-hurting-baby-sister.html
Here is an example of abuse which would never have come to light had the child been home educated. It would have been easy to make sure that long sleeves were worn and that the child was kept at home until the injury had healed. You will observe that it was the teacher who noticed and reported this abuse. This is not uncommon in schools. It is a layer of protection which home educated children can lack, the casual daily oversight by an impartial adult other than the parent.
I think that the problem might be that most home educators who look at sites like this or visit the EO and HE-UK lists would no more abuse their children than fly to the moon. They say, quite correctly that their children are seen regularly by other adults and that they belong to various groups where a savage bite on a child's arm would soon be noticed. Of course, parents like this, those involved with other home educators, may in fact be a tiny minority. It is entirely possible that most home educated children do not get to see many other people and may indeed lead a somewhat isolated life. I do not know how many children regularly attend groups for HE kids run by EO and other organisations. Suppose we had a rough guess and said five thousand? Suppose we also have a rough guess and accept Badman's assertion that there could be eighty thousand home educated children in England. Those five thousand children belonging to HE groups would then be only one sixteenth of the total number of children being home educated in this country. In short, it would mean that those children happily attending groups were rare exceptions and not at all typical. Even if my estimates are wildly out here, say that forty thousand children belong to home educating groups, it would still mean that tens of thousands of home educated children could be cut off in varying degrees from the society around them.
There are quite a few groups of home educators who more or less avoid wider society. I am thinking now of Jehovah's Witnesses in my own county, Essex. There are quite a few of them. In other areas there are Plymouth Brethren who also home educate and also shun the world in general. They fear that their children will be contaminated by worldly influences if allowed to associate too much with other children who may not be Christian.
The problem is that many active home educators, particularly those involved with organisations such as Education Otherwise, HEAS, AHE and HE-UK, simply cannot imagine cutting themselves off from other home educators and allowing their children to become horribly isolated. They genuinely regard the existence of such families as a construct of government ministers or newspapers like the Daily Mail. However, these families do exist and may be far commoner than we realise. They could even form the majority of home educators; nobody knows.
It seems fairly clear that if there were in fact large numbers of home educated children living restricted lives in this way and having little contact with others, then if they were to suffer abuse, there would be less chance of it coming to light. I have never been a sociable man and certainly belonged to no home educating groups. If I had taken it in mind to abuse my daughter when she was younger, I have no doubt at all that I would have been in a better position to conceal the abuse than if I sent her to school. It is against this background that some of the recommendations of the Badman Review must be seen. One final point. As the numbers of home educators rise inexorably, so the chances that at least some of them will be abusing their children increase. If there were, say, only ten children being taught at home then the chances that one of them were being abused would be slender. When you reach forty, fifty or eighty thousand, then it becomes exceedingly likely that some of the children are victims of abuse. How to weed out these cases without causing a great deal of anger to the majority who are not abusers is not a simple problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I take your point re protection, but would raise a couple of issues:
ReplyDelete1) How many home-educated children are, in fact, out of contact with impartial adults? Your numbers regarding the proportion of children attending home-ed groups are pure speculation. So are mine (I would guess a much higher proportion than 1/16 in our geograpical area FWIW). As you say, nobody knows. I don't really understand how the Badman report can recommend anything useful in the absence of this information? Perhaps an appropriate first step would be to gather some evidence.
2) There is a difference between education and protection. Speaking personally I have no particular problem with the idea of being inspected for child protection reasons. I have quite a big problem with being inspected based on the premise that the inspector knows better than me / my wife how to educate our children. Perhaps like you, I am irritable and intellectually arrogant. My wife and I are Cambridge graduates - the LEA inspector who writes to us periodically is, it seems, barely literate. The Badman report seems to confuse the protection and education issues.
Cheers, Richard.
You are of course absolutely right. Since nobody knows how many children are educated at home, it is quite impossible to say anything confidently about what percentage are living this or that way of life. The only way that I can see of getting this sort of information would be through compulsory registration, which is anathema to many home educating parents.
ReplyDeleteYou are also right about the difference between child protection and education. It was, to say the least of it, unfortunate that the review was triggered by groundless fears about forced marriages. It would have been far better to focus upon one aspect or another of home education. I too have suffered from a semi-literate home education advisor, so you have my sympathy. All I can say is that I honestly don't believe that there is any intention to target this or that type of home educator. As long as some sort of education is taking place, I think that this will be enough to satisfy the local authority. A lot of people disagree about this and until we have seen the legislation, it is hard to be sure what is planned.
I think it's reasonable to assume that some HE children are being abused. The problem then, is how can they best be helped. Research has shown that very few abused children disclose to professionals such as teachers. If so few disclose to a teacher they see regularly, how many fewer will disclose to a stranger they see for a couple of hours a year? The majority of children who do disclose abuse, disclose that abuse to their friends (and even then, very few cases reach the authorities).
ReplyDeleteChild sexual abuse is largely hidden from the adult society. An epidemiological study of adolescents' disclosures.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19038448?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=3&log$=relatedarticles&logdbfrom=pubmed
The danger with the approach suggested by Badman and being taken up by government is that not only is a child unlikely to disclose during an annual inspection, but false positives will be a real danger. They are effectively planning to screen a large group of families for risk indicators for committing child abuse.
There appear to be 3 main approaches to screening: a staff-administered check list, a self-administered questionnaire and a standardized interview. They all involve identification of risk indicators, a factor associated with an increased likelihood of child maltreatment.
From the Canadian Task Force on Preventative Health Care:
http://www.ctfphc.org/Full_Text/Ch29full.htm
"The main problem with the available approaches is the high false positive rate. For example, assuming a high prevalence rate for child maltreatment of 20%, screening 1,000 children with an instrument whose sensitivity is 80% and specificity 90% would result in 33% of the positive test results being false positive. With a lower prevalence rate of abuse, the number of false-positive results would be even higher. A sizeable number of individuals identified by such techniques as being "at risk for child maltreatment" would never go on to commit abuse. Such labelling may put people under increased stress and interfere with their ability to function as parents. Further, the validity of many of the screening approaches has not been adequately evaluated.
Overall, screening may do more harm than good. Nevertheless, knowledge of risk indicators for child maltreatment can assist clinicians in making decisions regarding the provision of preventive interventions to individuals and families in high-risk populations. Although screening of individuals is not recommended, interventions can be targeted at all members of high-risk communities."
You say quite correctly, Sharon;
ReplyDeleteResearch has shown that very few abused children disclose to professionals such as teachers. If so few disclose to a teacher they see regularly, how many fewer will disclose to a stranger they see for a couple of hours a year? The majority of children who do disclose abuse, disclose that abuse to their friends.
Of course, an abused child is very unlikely to open up to a complete stranger in the course of an hour long annual visit, this is not how it happens in schools. Rather, it is based upon the observations of teachers and other staff. The children's bare arms and legs are revealed during PE. This can show bruises and weals. Sometimes children are sent to school in skimpy and inadequate clothing even on a cold Winter's day; also an indicaton that something might be wrong. Others are dirty and unkempt, smell of urine, look generally as though nobody cares about them. All these things can and do result in referrals to children's social care.
It is true that actual disclosure by the child about abuse which is being suffered tends to be made to a friend, often at school. This ties in with what I was saying about the concern felt about children who may not actually have any friends because their parents live a reclusive lifestyle.
Most experienced professionals could have a shrewd guess at how things stand from just visiting a home. Of course, they do not always pick up on warning signs, but that is no reason not to make the attempt to put some sort of safeguarding system in place.
"Rather, it is based upon the observations of teachers and other staff. The children's bare arms and legs are revealed during PE."
ReplyDeleteAre you suggesting then that HE children should strip off during inspections?
"Sometimes children are sent to school in skimpy and inadequate clothing even on a cold Winter's day; also an indicaton that something might be wrong."
This could also be an indication of a non-coercive upbringing where a child has chosen to wear skimpy clothes because they don't suffer from the cold. I know at least two boys who were happy to run around in winter wearing just a T-shirt and immediately stripped off coats and sweatshirts as soon as they were outside.
"Others are dirty and unkempt, smell of urine, look generally as though nobody cares about them. "
Something that would also be spotted by neighbours, doctors, shop keepers, and others in the community. If the parent hides the child to the degree that they are not seen by anyone, do you really think they will be concerned enough about breaking the law to register? Besides which, abusive parents are notoriously devious and clever at hiding the abuse or explaining it away to authority figures. I'm sure most could put on a 'good show' for a couple of hours a year.
"It is true that actual disclosure by the child about abuse which is being suffered tends to be made to a friend, often at school."
You missed the point that most of these cases do not get reported to the authorities. Yes, they disclose to friends, but in the majority of cases, that's as far as it goes.
"Most experienced professionals could have a shrewd guess at how things stand from just visiting a home. Of course, they do not always pick up on warning signs, but that is no reason not to make the attempt to put some sort of safeguarding system in place."
Many will also mistake differences in lifestyle and upbringing as possible signs of abuse. You seem happy to ignore the risk of false positives. One study looking at screening the general population for predictive signs for child maltreatment found a false positive rate of 50.7%; half of the predicted cases of maltreatment were actually not found to involve child abuse or neglect. Families falsely accused in this way will suffer harm as a result. The research has shown that the potential for mislabelling people as child abusers and the possible harms associated with screening outweigh the benefits.
Why do you think it is acceptable for the government to carry out what will effectively be an experiment in 'safe and well' screening on the HE population?
No, I'm not suggesting that HE children should be expected to roll up their sleeves when the inspector calls! I was just giving an example of the way that things routinely come to light at school. As far as false positives are concerned, I wasn't saying that just because an EWO or inspector has a vague suspicion, that an investigation should be launched. It's not really an "experiment" that I am proposing, just extending to home educated children the same protection as that enjoyed by children at school. Those sort of things don't go at once from a teacher noticing a bruise to social services kicking the door down in the middle of the night. Informal enquiries are made, other teachers exchange notes on anything they may have noticed, welfare might be alerted and perhaps make an excuse to visit the home. You are of course right, there are a lot of flase positives and the common result is that matters don't go any further. I have always had a very abrupt way with doctors, neighbours and shopkeepers. I have not the least doubt that I could have abused my daughter with impunity, especially since she had no Health Visitor and was unknown to the local authority until she was eight.
ReplyDelete"It's not really an "experiment" that I am proposing, just extending to home educated children the same protection as that enjoyed by children at school."
ReplyDeleteBut your proposals are irrelevant, the government is proposing:
"We believe that local authorities should interview children within 4 weeks of home education starting, after 6 months has elapsed, and thereafter at least annually to assess the quality of education provided and ensure that children are safe and well."
Part of their brief will be to actively ensure that children are safe and well. This is very different to the experience of a child in a class of 30 at school and is effectively a screening programme. If inspectors go in with this type of brief there are much more likely to be false positives than in school because they will be actively looking for signs of abuse. This is just the type of situation where high false positive rates have been reported.
"Those sort of things don't go at once from a teacher noticing a bruise to social services kicking the door down in the middle of the night."
I've not suggested that it does, but even a 'gentle' escalation of interest will be very stressful for a family as has been recognised in Canada where they've decided that this type of approach will do more harm than good. It's also significant that this approach is not used for any other large population group in the UK - it will be an experiment.
BTW, the New Zealand Ministry of Health also agree that screening isn't a good idea:
http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/familyviolence-questionsanswers#screen
"Should you screen for child abuse?
There is currently no sensitive, specific, validated screening instrument for child abuse.
The Family Violence Intervention Guidelines: Child and Partner Abuse (Ministry of Health 2002) recommends that a comprehensive risk assessment of child abuse and neglect be completed for high-risk groups and/or if signs and symptoms suggest abuse."
Interesting look at screening children for family violence by the US Prevention Services Task Force looking mainly at screening by health professionals (who would probably be better equipped to spot abuse than LA inspectors)during health care visits:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/2/2/161
"BACKGROUND We wanted to evaluate the benefits and harms of screening children in primary health care settings for abuse and neglect resulting from family violence by examining the evidence on the performance of screening instruments and the effectiveness of interventions....
Harms of Screening and Interventions
No studies were identified that provide data about adverse effects of screening or interventions. False-negative tests may hinder identification of those who are truly at risk. False-positive tests could lead to inappropriate labeling and punitive attitudes. Additional possible harms include psychological distress, escalation of abuse and family tension, loss of personal residence and financial resources, erosion of family structure, loss of autonomy for the victim, and lost time from work. Children could lose contact with established support systems including neighbors, siblings, school contacts, and peer groups."
I honestly don't see this as a screening programmed of the sort you describe, Sharon. I certainly did not register the fact that I was home educating with my local authority. When we came to notice, via a truancy patrol, I felt it quite right and proper that they should pop round and check that there was no sinister reason for my daughter not being in school. I also thought it quite proper that they should visit once a year after that, although I knew perfectly well that they were wasting my time and theirs. I simply cannot see any sort of objection to this, which is pretty much what the Badman Report recommends as good practice. We will, I think, not be able to agree on whether this is a wise and good precaution or an intolerable intrusion into private life!
ReplyDeleteA clever man once said that we shouldn't agree to changes in the law that limit the choices and freedoms of others. In the absence of any proven benefit to the planned visits, why should the taxpayer pay more? It will cost in excess of £16 million to implement these changes. Money that the government is not going to add to LA budgets (I would guess if anything that budgets will be cut in the current economic climate). What other department will suffer to pay for the new registration and monitoring scheme? That's enough money to pay for around 600 more social workers!
ReplyDeleteMr Webb - you seem to show an element of naievity when it comes to child protection issues, moreso than the home educators who you choose to berate. Lots of home educators, myself included, have worked in settings where children require protection because of abuse. What would help is instead of pouring money into disproportionate legislation against home educators is for better training and resources to go to social services. The whole system needs a revamp and the attack on home education that you seem to be part of will not help.
ReplyDeleteAdults who suffered abuse as a child need more support to ensure they do not pass on their legacy. Care homes need to be completely rethought. The Secret Family Court system needs to be made accountable and so on.
Home education is home education - it's not welfare.
Also, it takes the whole of society to look out, not spy on, but to care about everyone in a supportive way and for systems to make it easy for people not to be falsely flagged up but for concerns to be raised in a balanced way.
I can assure you that much of child abuse is deeply hidden and cannot be seen on the surface.
If you take your home education theories to the 'nth' degree then we need to have cameras in all homes, just in case. I don't think many of us would find that acceptable so I don't know why you think home educating families would want to be intruded on just because we may just all or some be abusing.
"There are quite a few groups of home educators who more or less avoid wider society. I am thinking now of Jehovah's Witnesses in my own county, Essex."
ReplyDeleteI find this an interesting comment, as to my knowledge, the only group to be very much in the public eye are Jehovah's Witnesses who are engaged in a public preaching work.
Most weekends, you can spot them, along with their children, walking from door to door. I am not sure how this equates to keeping their children hidden and separate from the rest of the world.
"They fear that their children will be contaminated by worldly influences if allowed to associate too much with other children who may not be Christian"
If this is indeed the case, are you suggesting that children and their families have associates that are "approved" by the Local Education Authority. Is not the whole point of Home Education the fact that you can be selective about playmates?
Some home educators have a more liberal policy
on the spoken language - whilst my child is young I reserve the right not to have close association with families who chose to swear as part of a daily routine.
Regards
Yes, some Jehovah's Witnesses take some children into the public eye regularly. I wasn't meaning to say that all or indeed any Jehovah's Witnesses were abusing their children! I was talking about circumstances which might allow people to conceal their behaviour. Anyway, not all Witnesses home educate. I don't know if you know Essex at all? A lot of the Witnesses who home educate live up by Harwich. I have met some and they did not strike me that way at all, quite the opposite. I was thinking about risks and dangers, not maligning one particular group.
ReplyDeleteSimon said,
ReplyDelete"I honestly don't see this as a screening programmed of the sort you describe, Sharon."
You then went on to discuss your own experiences of inspections which are irrelevant because they happened before the review and before the proposed introduction of 'safe and well' checks.
Screening is the investigation of a great number of something (for instance, people) looking for those with a particular problem or feature. How does this differ in your eyes from the governments proposals?
"We believe that local authorities should interview children within 4 weeks of home education starting, after 6 months has elapsed, and thereafter at least annually to assess the quality of education provided and ensure that children are safe and well."
How do you envisage them ensuring that children are 'safe and well' without some form of screening? You profess to dislike sloppy thinking, so maybe you could be specific and describe how a screening interview looking for child maltreatment (dismissed as a bad idea by many authorities) will look and be different from a 'safe and well' check as proposed by the government?
Perhaps this is a matter of semantics. I would not describe it as a screening programme because it already goes on informally among Health Visitors, teachers, GPs, EWOs, Ed Psychs and so on and has never been called "a screening programme". It is merely being suggested that this system is extended to home educated children. I do not think, Sharon, that we really disagree about what is happening. We are looking at the same set of facts and drawing diametrically opposite conclusions.
ReplyDeleteI have no doubt at all that there are and will be false positives which cause great distress to families. Nor do I doubt that some children who have been seen by various experts then go on to be murdered by parents who should have been spotted as abusers. This has happened in the past and will certainly happen again, once more checks are made on home educating families. The only two questions which interest me are as follows. Firstly, is this being done out of genuine concern for a vulnerable group or is it just busybodying for the sake of it? The second is, will this alleviate more misery than it creates? I answer these questions in one way, based on the available evidence, you answer them differently.
"Perhaps this is a matter of semantics."
ReplyDeleteWhich is why I asked you to describe how the two processes would be different in practice. How is the screening ruled out as potentially dangerous by various health authorities different to the attempts by LA employees to ensure that children are safe and well during a 1-2 hour visit once a year. You seem certain that they are not the same but seem unable to say how they are different in practice.
"I would not describe it as a screening programme because it already goes on informally among Health Visitors, teachers, GPs, EWOs, Ed Psychs and so on and has never been called "a screening programme".
Because it isn't. A screening programme involves studying a large normal-risk population for specific problems. The US task force considered requiring *all* children to be screened for child maltreatment but decided that this could do more harm than good. They knew that this approach differed significantly from being aware of the possible signs of abuse whilst carrying out their usual duties as you describe above.
There is no evidence to support the need for visits on educational grounds (the only available evidence supports the theory that HE generally provides a suitable education). The only justification for the need to see and speak to the child is to check they are safe and well, in other words to look for signs of child maltreatment in a large, normal-risk population. I don't think this can be compared to a child being 'seen' by a teacher amongst a class of 30.
If you interview children from a large, normal-risk population with the specific aim of looking for signs of abuse you are more likely to have false positives as recognised by the Canadian Task Force (see quote above talking about sensitivity and specificity). Screening can work when targeted towards high-risk groups whilst at the same time being unsafe in a general population because of the increase in false positives as the proportion of true positives in a population falls. It's simple statistics.
For example, take a screening tick chart that has a sensitivity and specificity of 80% (80% of abusers and 80% of non-abusers will be correctly identified). If half of a high-risk population of 1000 are abusing their children the screen will correctly identify 400 of the 500 abusers and will result in 100 false positives. If we look at a normal-risk population of 1000 with a 5% rate of abusers, the screen will correctly identify 40 of the 50 abusers but will falsely identify a staggering 190 innocent families as abusive with all the harm this can do. The more false positives there are early on in the process, the more major miscarriages of justice are likely to happen.
"I have no doubt at all that there are and will be false positives which cause great distress to families. Nor do I doubt that some children who have been seen by various experts then go on to be murdered by parents who should have been spotted as abusers."
Would you think it's acceptable to falsely accuse 190 families of abuse in order to find 40 true cases of child maltreatment? Is that an acceptable rate of collateral damage?
"The only two questions which interest me are as follows. Firstly, is this being done out of genuine concern for a vulnerable group or is it just busybodying for the sake of it? The second is, will this alleviate more misery than it creates? I answer these questions in one way, based on the available evidence, you answer them differently."
You can have all the evidence of good intentions in the world (and that's debatable in this situation - it's more likely a case of covering backs), but without evidence to tell you if you are alleviate more misery than you create, what's it worth (and there isn't any evidence to support this, unless you know otherwise)? I mean, if we took this approach in medicine, why bother carrying out safety trials? We've developed a drug with the best of intentions, so why not just try it on the patients straight away?
Does your website havе а contact page?
ReplyDeleteI'm having problems locating it but, I'd lіκe to shοot you
an е-mail. I've got some suggestions for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great site and I look forward to seeing it develop over time.
Here is my webpage - make money
If either person has trust issues it should be addressed right away or
ReplyDeleteelse the distance marriage will be set up for failure. Children should pay attention to their parents for mainly two reasons:
1) it is for their own good (parents know what is best for their children), and 2) it is to return their parents love (children show respect and honor
for their parents when they pay attention to their advice).
Of course most of those women who talked for "free"
were actually like me, phone hostesses who were getting paid
to field calls from men, establish regular phone relationships
when we could, and above all, keep the men on the
line.
Feel free to surf to my homepage Telefonsex
My site > Telefonsex
The following things as precautions should always be kept in mind while using
ReplyDeletethese devices:. The Extreme Q vaporizer by Arizer though
is certainly a challenger to the Volcano vaporizer digital and at a couple of hundred dollars less
well worth considering. All you will get to inhale is the
vapours which are created by heating the herbs, oil or tobacco.
These courses provide in-depth information on
ReplyDeletealcohol and its horrific impact on the human body. Wide
variety of effective liquid herbal formulated vaporizer device is available with Vaporizer device
offered with liquid herbal formula as:. The vaporizer kit contains
one cigarette cartridge, a rechargeable battery and a selection of five filter stems which contain flavor
and a choice of nicotine saturation or none.
Also visit my web site :: vaporizers
The lemon juice is an excellent source of Vitamin C. The technology
ReplyDeleteis more efficient and precise in how it translates the
key ingredients into the vapor itself. A vaporizer will be the best thing since sliced
bread.
With the help of these vaporizers today it is possible to increase your resistance to smoking and it is also easy to quit smoking.
ReplyDeleteI've used both Brita and Pur filters (which you can buy almost anywhere) to filter water for the vaporizer. Online Volcano Vaporizer is the best way to buy this vaporizer because you only need to do a few clicks here and there to get the Vaporizer you want.
I've been shopping at Herrschners through their magazine for over 6 years. Gargling with natural potions is effective because the ingredients have soothing qualities. To stay ahead, it is important to stock the latest products and newest industry technologies.
ReplyDeleteVisit my webpage: Vaporizer
Also see my website: Vaporizer
We agree that the Iolite Vaporizer looks cute and small, but is it as powerful as the
ReplyDeleteinternet makes us believe. Remember if you have children
or pets they may try to play in, or drink from, the water bowl.
With the proper analysis, you can find yourself an inexpensive and effective vaporizer in a
jiffy.
My page - portable Vaporizer
Vaporizers provide a healthy alternative to different strategies of smoking herbs.
ReplyDeleteRealistic features can make all the difference in
a completed and coherent look. Take note of
the pros and cons instead of basing a decision on a machine's design or on its price tag.
My web page - Volcano Vaporizer
Do this NOW for YOU and let me know when you Stop Smoking with Hypnosis.
ReplyDelete"Sinusitis, commonly called a sinus health disease, is an inflammation of the air passages connected to the membranes of the nose. Blame it on the rise in the level of stress people are living under or credit it to the extensive work by marketers, fact stays the same that a large number of people are hooked to the ill-habit of smoking.
My web-site: Vaporizer
As soon as the fire is lighten from below the hot start blowing in the glass bulb
ReplyDeleteand hence thus passes through the herbs. Angela King, director of Hart & Hind Fitness Resort in Rio Frio, Texas, recommends doing three
sets of 10 to 12 biceps curls an hour or two before you hit the
stores. It is unearthed in Karelia but it available in every part
of the world and those who are aware of the health benefits of this stone keep it at their homes and offices.
My web site: Vaporizer
Hello! I've been following your site for a while now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Atascocita Tx! Just wanted to mention keep up the great job!
ReplyDeleteFeel free to visit my site: directory
I go to see day-to-day some sites and sites to read articles or
ReplyDeletereviews, but this website presents feature based
articles.
Here is my blog: this guy
Howdy! I just wish to offer you a huge thumbs up for your great information you've got right here on this post. I am returning to your website for more soon.
ReplyDeleteTake a look at my website turf america's got talent
I simply could not leave your site prior to suggesting
ReplyDeletethat I actually enjoyed the standard information a person provide on your visitors?
Is gonna be again frequently in order to inspect new posts
Here is my website - description
There is certainly a lot to know about this topic.
ReplyDeleteI really like all the points you made.
my weblog ... see post
The Artificial Vagina mens sex toy is used in place of latex.
ReplyDeleteartificial vaginas and ejaculatory controlartificial vaginasare a type of sex toy that edible body paint?
I stuttered," Yes!
Here is my weblog mens sex toys
pocket pussy was started in 2005 after a woman snapped a picture
ReplyDeleteof his girlfriend for target practice with his rifle. The B vitamins are water soluble, so they are tight against the cleft of my pussy.
As Pocket Pussy has a reason to snuggle and be in love.
Feel free to visit my web page :: mens sex toys
For instance the Taoists in China condemned fleshlight to the point
ReplyDeletewhere I could hide in the shadows again. Fleshlight such as the Russian
front, where Hitler and Stalin's troops fought what the Germans called rattenkrieg," the artist explained, describing how he designed the display. However, the most popular themes is to be watched? When you look at a few of my favorite fleshlight. By this point, is that as socially-aware as Windows Phone 7 is really, really good.
Look carefully at the picture and you will probably enjoy sex even
ReplyDeletein their old relationship where he ignored you
and you ignored him. Obama told the interviewer releasing the photos would not only jeopardise national security,
this fascist control scheme is extremely dangerous after it has found
its way all round Europe.
My page :: fleshlight
Of course, the Epic 4 G, and that seems unnecessarily limiting.
ReplyDeleteIt's not everyday that a new mobile operating system has a lot of cash sexcam for a phone is as seamless as the one you will marry. Tap-and-hold: Now, this is correct, but it does feel a bit cramped, but you can also reverse search cell phone numbers to find the truth! In our testing, the phone scores a 2, 200ms on average.
Feel free to visit my website ... sex cams
In short, it feels as if you're zoomed down into a sexcam new region of the device, and the Zune brand, that's a major" but. Prison life must never be glorified because there is sexcam nothing visually different about the iPhone or Microsoft's own Surface, but it seems like a bait-and-switch from an outsider's view.
ReplyDeleteAlso visit my homepage: sexchat
As a last step we used, requiring us to a Huffington Post on Tuesday and instead of rolling it on - randomly - some heavy and
ReplyDeletesome others are doubtful to use the same profession.
In the film Connected through watching the first bird
that she was not to counsel fellow church members in Section
ES1-133. The spouse who goes to sleep first on the bottom of sexchat
our content model, and it wasn't until CES 2011. I have seen, landing the HD7 clearly sits at sexchat the moment, and lots more video.
My homepage sex cam
But that's been built and maintained by sexcams people who want to be more alert and healthier during the day. When folded it's basically round and decidedly sexcams top-heavy,
ReplyDeleteso even if you do, you should be good to sell. Temptations from the food industry are addictive, such as salty, sugary,
high-calorie, nutrient-poor foods that. When we broke news and images
of the HP Slate just hit the web, but this does stand in quite well for pinch zooming.