The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Please move sir, lest you molest > Comments

Please move sir, lest you molest : Comments

By Peter West, published 21/8/2012

What is the risk posed to an 'unaccompanied minor' from sitting next to an unaccompanied male on a plane?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
As a male Primary Teacher, I feel the force of this attitude often. Over the 25 years I have been in schools, I have seen a steady decline in the number of males signing up. Is this one of the reasons?

It has certainly changed my practice. I am very careful to ensure I am never alone with a student, I turn sideways to avoid the enthusiastic hugs of kindergarten children and I never offer physical contact for comfort or any other purpose, without the child's permission and adult witnesses nearby.

I am fortunate in that I have built up a strong reputation with the families in my school. Other colleagues have not been so lucky, and accusations have been made.

Children must be protected but this is going too far.
Posted by rational-debate, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 8:07:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is the type of fear that feminists and feminism has tried so hard to install in our society.

If one man is guilty, then all men are guilty. Is that not the message to do with sexual assault, domestic violence.

Somehow as a man I must have this magical 'omni potens' to stop another man from committing the smallest offense.

However statistically a child, on an aeroplane has more chance of being killed in a crash, then of being molested by some undesirable male aboard an aeroplane in full public view.
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 8:10:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You know how to stop this of course don't you. Rile the feminists up and convince them it's an affront to women to stereotype them as natural free unpaid babysitters.

See, the problem is men will never be considered victimised, especially when someone shrieks 'Think of the children!'.

C'mon stop being precious, BE A MAN! Awe, poor little men are offended, wah wah, HTFU!

But, if you turn it into an affront on the Downtrodden Martyrs of Society (ie women for those unfamiliar with my work), you'll have the airlines shaking in their boots in no time. It's sexist!, it's discrimination!, it's misogyny! if it's aimed at women.

So, quiet down on the supposed trivial affront to those privileged entitled paedophile rapist men, and start harping on about how it's sexist to think women should have to look after children.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 9:07:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder if the statistics would bear out that it is mainly women who were responsible for placing these unaccompanied minors onto planes in the first place? But apart from that…

One alternative could be to reframe the public discourse that it is NOT 'sexist to think women should have to look after children' on the basis that the most any man can do is 'start' an egg – it is women who 'make babies' and hence make responsibilities.

Another is…

People who constantly blather on against same-sex marriage with 'think of the children' may be on to something – but not in the way they imagine.

Firstly – allow same-sex marriage – then when the need arises a gay male couple could produce their marriage certificate (as proof of their gayness) and be able to supervise any unaccompanied girls. And vice versa for a lesbian couple supervising any unaccompanied boys.

This could be regarded as providing a social service to mitigate any potential problems created by heterosexuals.
Posted by WmTrevor, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 9:36:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Humans are dangerous creations, especially males. The airline policy regarding children is well founded. Sure, the chance of sexual molestation may be small but it exists.

Problem is that we are half-human and half-animal. The human side of our psyche is taking a long time to displace the animal side. History shows it may never succeed.

We have to deal with the reality of what the bulk of humans are: a very dodgy lot as the interest in child porn demonstrates!

http://dangerouscreation.com
Posted by David G, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 10:16:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Register your disapproval by NOT flying on airlines which have this policy.

It also happened to Boris Johnson.Great read btw

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3634055/Come-off-it-folks-how-many-paedophiles-can-there-be.html
Posted by Atman, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 10:23:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Years back, I responded to a request from the local girl guides to assist at a camp by providing firewood and setting up the toilets, tents, etc. This was done before the camp started.

It transpired that there was a shortage of volunteers to cook the breakfasts, so I was approached and agreed to help, along with a few of my Apex mates, on the understanding that we would not be close to or in contact with any of the girls. This was readily agreed.

Long story short - the head Guide chucked a fit, we were banned, some of the other ladies withdrew because of their embarassment and I have had nothing to do with that irrationally sexist movement since, either as a parent or as a helper. As a member of other community organisations, when any request for support is received from Guides, I always ask whether the anti-male policy still exists. Thus far, the result has invariably been that the request has been declined.

I note that the "problem" in my old town has been permanently resolved. The town concerned no longer has a Guide group and the regional campsite has not been used for ten years, although I know that the owners would, if approached, consider such a request favourably.

Qantas and Virgin, take note: you might be next.
Posted by JohnBennetts, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 10:46:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>We have to deal with the reality of what the bulk of humans are: a very dodgy lot as the interest in child porn demonstrates!<<

Fail. The bulk of humans are decent lot but the dodgy few attract the attention of the media and because they're over-represented in the media people get a skewed impression of their prevalence. An interest in child porn is a very rare aberration not a commonplace hobby.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 1:42:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Long story short - the head Guide chucked a fit, we were banned, some of the other ladies withdrew because of their embarassment and I have had nothing to do with that irrationally sexist movement since, either as a parent or as a helper. As a member of other community organisations, when any request for support is received from Guides, I always ask whether the anti-male policy still exists.<<

The Guides are weird. They were formed back in the days when Boy Scouts was for boys and Girl Guides was for girls. But for some time now the Scouts have been gender neutral: girls are no longer excluded. So the reason for the Guides' existence has disappeared and yet it continues on.

I did once ask a Guide leader why girls were allowed into Scouts but boys were excluded from Guides. She said that males are allowed to join but they'd have to wear female uniforms because the Guides didn't have any male uniforms. I think she may have been yanking my chain.

Good luck to the Guides I suppose but the girls I knew in Scouts chose it over Guides because they thought Guides were outdated. That's generally not a good image when you're trying to attract young people.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 2:03:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx4ixXQFUQY
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 2:04:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If this is a feminist conspiracy, it's not very week thought through.

The last place I want to sit on a long flight is next to unaccompanied brats. If we all have an equal risk of this dismal prospect then I suppose it’s fair enough, but if my chances of being placed besides someone else’s kids are double the population average just because I'm a woman, that hardly seems fair.
Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 3:24:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a terrible situation we men now find ourselves in. Though retired from the police, I nethertheless, remained reasonably fit.

As a youth I spent some years in the Scouting movement, thus I still retain a rudimentary understanding of their particular aims and objectives.

Accordingly, some little time ago, having now quite a bit of time on my hands, I was approached by the Boy Scout movement enquiring if I would assist as an examiner for some of the proficiency 'tests' the scouts seek to undertake.

This procedure is embarked upon, in order for a Scout to achieve a particular badge, indicating a level of competency in a specific area.

The thought that I might once more enter into a bygone era that held such considerable fondness and attraction for me, particularly now that I'm in my retirement, I was absolutey delighted at this prospect.

I discussed the proposal with my wife, and took my time to come to a well considered decision.

Then, unfortunately my thoughts sadly regressed back to the reality of my previous occupation, and the ugly spectre of one of the most hideous crimes (in my opinion) that can be occasioned against another, the most vulnerable amongst us...pedophilla ! Immediately, I was launched back into the real world.

There's no way I'd care to jeopardise my good fame and reputation, by knowingly exposing myself to that sort of perilousness and risk.

As I've stated at the beginning...'What a terrible situation we men now find ourselves in' ?

I really do dispair at this ailing even moribund (iniquitous) old world, on which we all reside. What hope is there if a man can never again be trusted, with the care of our young ?
Posted by o sung wu, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 3:27:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would have been moved away from unaccompanied kids long before some officious cabin crew could have accosted me, or have left the plane. I do not pay to travel with kids.

I really am surprised & disappointed that they are not already in court over this insult.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 4:35:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are currently living in Cambodia. There is possibly no country the Western world has pariahed as being "paedophilia central" as Cambodia. The Australian Government has Federal Police here for that exact reason, never mind the Billions in corruption fritted away by corrupt politicians, that sees 1000's or more die a year, let's target paedophilia.

My partner volunteers at a small centre, 4 local Khmer teachers and her. They are insistent on me being there and interacting with the children but there is NO chance of me being involved while there are NGO groups (APLE being the most notorious) going around hiring local Khmers to "dob in a a paedophile" or taking photographs (and publishing them) of those they suspect of being paedophiles.

I have no intention of putting myself in harms way. Does it occur, of course it does but like in the West, 80% or more of child abuse is family/friends, not roaming gangs of pirate paedophile going from village to village, raping and pillaging, like you would think if you listened to loons like Braveheart.

Here's a local example:
http://ltocambodia.blogspot.com/2011/11/pedophile.html
Posted by Valley Guy, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 1:45:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi there VALLEY GUY...

An interesting thread I must say. Not so many years ago a very high profile VIP attended Cambodia (I must exercise great care here) ostensibly for the purpose of observing just that type of unlawful behaviour that you've so precisely described herein.

This person's propensity to be attracted to just this type of disgusting activity, was well know amongst us. But knowing something and proving it, to the required standard demanded by a court, is another matter entirely.

Further, this individual excercised a great deal of 'positional' power.

Thus, any attempt to bring this person to account, without first possessing evidence of a kind that was both exceptional, and irrebuttable - well it was nigh impossible, even if you caught this person cold in the act !

I must apologise for my poor syntax, I don't wish to even identify the gender of this individual. Such is the enormous power and influence this person can if necessary, brandish and wield.

I'm retired now, and I want to enjoy the balance of my retirement, in some degree of relative peace.

I suspect, the only real justice these sad young victims may ultimately be given. Is when this iniquitous individual irrevocably passes through the curtilages of Saint Peter's 'Pearly Gates'? Provided of course that you share a belief in such things.
Posted by o sung wu, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 2:50:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some posters are angry at 'feminists' for 'causing' this situation on planes.

Shouldn't they direct their anger at the paedophiles who have been the sole cause of society's distrust in some men?

Sorry, but unless I was sitting with my child in the other seat, I would not want them travelling next to an unknown male.

I wouldn't like to take that small chance of there being a problem just to please some militant male groups.
Posted by Suseonline, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 7:08:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Sorry, but unless I was sitting with my child in the other seat, I would not want them travelling next to an unknown male.

I wouldn't like to take that small chance of there being a problem<<

I can understand why you'd want to be protective of your child and not want to take the risk of them being molested by an unknown male. What I don't understand is why you don't seem to care if they get molested by an unknown female. I would have thought all molestation was bad regardless of perpetrator's gender. Why is molestation by men bad but molestation by women OK?

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Thursday, 23 August 2012 1:25:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You have to wonder how this would play if nominal skin colour was substituted for gender. Sexism is a alive and well in some circles.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 23 August 2012 6:42:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think people would be quite comfortable with that r0bert. I can imagine watchers of that TV show Border Security would be happier if only MOMA (Men of Middle Eastern Appearance) were searched at the airport.

'I'm sorry Yaqoob, as you have dark skin , and a long beard (ha what were you thinking), we believe you are more likely a terrorist, so we must strip search you behind that screen'.

' He darky, come here, come heeeeere, our risk profile says more of you lot are terrorists.'

I believe this happens anyway, they just don't say it's policy. That would be racist if it was policy.

Suze,

Do you think Employers should be able to say, 'Sorry I cant hire you, you may decide to become pregnant for 9 months. I'd just feel safer hiring a man'?

There's also the issue that their risk assessment is all wrong. It's the parents that are more a danger to the children than strangers, seeing as 92.35% of child molesters are family members.

Really they should attempt to sit all children next to female strangers, then male strangers, then mothers, and at a last resort then fathers.

Yay, I can put my feet up and enjoy a peaceful flight while some chick looks after the kids.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 23 August 2012 8:55:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What chance priests!
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 23 August 2012 9:03:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq that opens a real can of worms. You'd need a super computer to work out seating arrangements and detailed profiles on every passenger.

Is a step dad a higher risk than an uncle or grandfather?
Scout leader vs youth paster?
A single mum is a higher risk to kids than a married father (unless sexual abuse is thenonly thing you care about).
Do you take the time children are normally in someones care into account, on a raw numbers game women are more likely to abuse or neglect kids in their care than men so should only male stewards be allowed to serve food to children?

All sorts of games can be played when you start using risk reduction and think of the children to enforce other biases.

Agreed about the border security shows from the little I've seen.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 23 August 2012 9:54:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My feeling is that the airlines are trying to protect themselves from the risk of being sued if there is an incident. To this end, when they are booking the seats they can use whatever algorithm to arrange the seating. However, when everyone is seated then to try and move someone while openly stating the reason is deeply offensive and should be avoided at all costs.

Similarly, women should be quietly kept out of positions for which their sex makes them not suitable.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 23 August 2012 12:06:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/09/boys-sexual-abuse-childline
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 23 August 2012 12:52:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony I never said it was ever ok to molest kids by females, but not men. It's disgusting and criminal no matter who is the perpetrator. We all know that paedophiles are predominantly male. That is an undeniable fact.

Houlebeck, "Do you think Employers should be able to say, 'Sorry I cant hire you, you may decide to become pregnant for 9 months. I'd just feel safer hiring a man'?"

No, they are not meant to say that, but they find other ways to ensure they don't have to hire them. But then, you already know that, don't you?

As a mother, I will protect my child without a care what others think, and I can understand why airlines have had to take this stand.
My husband feels the same way.
Posted by Suseonline, Friday, 24 August 2012 12:42:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Those who use gender based profiling, should not complain when it is used against them.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 24 August 2012 7:28:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>Tony I never said it was ever ok to molest kids by females, but not men. It's disgusting and criminal no matter who is the perpetrator. We all know that paedophiles are predominantly male. That is an undeniable fact.<<

But you are happy to accept the risk that they will be molested by females but not males. We all some females are paedophiles. This is an undeniable fact. The probability that a given female stranger is a paedophile is lower than the probability that a male but it isn't zero.

>>I wouldn't like to take that small chance of there being a problem<<

Should read: I wouldn't like to take that small chance of a man causing a problem but I will take the admittedly smaller chance of a woman causing a problem. This suggests either:
a) You don't think it's as much of a problem when it's a woman causing it: you've just denied this and I'm happy to accept it.
b) You're willing to accept a small chance of there being a problem just not one as high as if the child was seated next to a male stranger: you've previously denied being will to take any chance of there being a problem.
c) Unreasonable double-standards which don't stand up to scrutiny.
d) Idiocy.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Friday, 24 August 2012 8:43:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'No, they are not meant to say that, but they find other ways to ensure they don't have to hire them. But then, you already know that, don't you?'

Yes I do.

So you're happy for women to be excluded from jobs due to profiling or not?

If you were, it would mean you are consistent.

If not, and you are happy for airlines to profile men, then that would make you a hypocrite.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 24 August 2012 9:03:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We still have no answer to the question...

"What is the risk posed to an 'unaccompanied minor' from sitting next to an unaccompanied male on a plane?"

We do know the risk of going down in a plane is more than 53,000,000:1 against and that the survival rate of this is over 95%.

I reckon any 'unaccompanied minor' would be happy to sit next to anyone who could help them deal with their sense of abandonment.
Posted by WmTrevor, Friday, 24 August 2012 9:51:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>We do know the risk of going down in a plane is more than 53,000,000:1 against<<

Curses! I'd really like to go down in a plane one day. Surely there must be some way to stack the odds. I should seek advice from He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named: Ralph Fiennes. Apparently it's one of the Dark Arts he's mastered ;)

>>and that the survival rate of this is over 95%.<<

Well over 95% by my reckoning.

Statistically speaking aeroplanes are very safe places to be - safer than homes or workplaces where we spend most of our time. The chances of your death on a plane are scarce enough: the chances of your death whilst going down in a plane are so infinitesimally tiny that it doesn't bear thinking about. Which is kind of shame because it would make for one hell of an obituary.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Friday, 24 August 2012 4:22:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Obviously Tony, the problem of seating unaccompanied kids next to men on airlines IS considered a serious enough potential problem for the airline to take this stand.

No mention of a problem seating them next to women has been suggested.
Maybe all those airline managers aren't aware of all the female paedophiles out there?

The airlines apparently have been quietly doing this for years,
They will just have to be even more subtle now,,,,
Posted by Suseonline, Friday, 24 August 2012 11:01:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SOL,

If adult men molesting unaccompanied children on flights is such a problem, then why can I not find a single record of this?

This appears to be managing perception by unsubstantiated gender bias.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Saturday, 25 August 2012 6:44:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Its catering to biggots rather than managing a real risk.
Just a minor tweak and it could be a great policy, if a male is moved without specific cause the move should include an automatic upgrade. If there is insufficient seating in the front end then perhaps a woman could be moved back (for the sake of the children).

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 25 August 2012 8:08:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I enjoyed your mention, R0bert, of a 'minor tweak' even if in the context of this thread, it may have been misinterpreted…

But the idea of an automatic upgrade is a good one and should be publicly available – passengers would be falling out of their seats to volunteer not to be seated next to unaccompanied minors.

I think the original instance could have been avoided if instead of the male passenger being asked to move, the children were.

Alternatively, if the risk is so concerning to airlines (and the parents getting rid of their kids) they should adopt a policy of no unaccompanied minors on flights – apart from showing consideration of other passengers this would have the additional benefit of an extra ticket sale.

The whole thing still seems to me like a poor solution in search of a problem.
Posted by WmTrevor, Saturday, 25 August 2012 12:30:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>>No mention of a problem seating them next to women has been suggested.
Maybe all those airline managers aren't aware of all the female paedophiles out there?<<

Oh. Apparently you are just denying the existence of female paedophiles. That's a new one: I've heard some dumb ideas in my time and that one is right up there alongside Flat Earth theories. I'm afraid I'll have to end the discussion at this point because there's no point trying to argue with somebody who will cling so firmly to notions that are so obviously and easily disproved.

Have you met runner yet? He thinks that God created we humans and the rest of the universe about 6,000 years ago and that the fossil record was laid down in one cataclysmic flood rather than slowly over millions of years. He also thinks that science is an elaborate conspiracy maintained and funded by satanists trying to lead people astray. You should talk to runner. I think you two would get along great. You're both in favour of beliefs that are totally at odds with all the available evidence.

Cheers,

Tony
Posted by Tony Lavis, Saturday, 25 August 2012 2:13:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lol Tony, no one has ever put me in the same basket as Runner before!
He would be totally mortified....

With the greatest respect though Tony, you continue to misrepresent my posts.
I never said there weren't any female paedophiles out there, because we know there are a few that have been caught before.

I agree with the wise words of Wm Trevor though. It would be far better if parents weren't allowed to send unaccompanied minors on airlines at all.
Posted by Suseonline, Sunday, 26 August 2012 2:38:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Spot on Shadow Minister. I hav'nt heard of this either. I brought my daughter up on my own. I also have a government clearance to work with the aged, vulnerable adults and children. If i'm ever asked to move under these circumstances the stewardess will be told less than politely to p--s Off and i will sue their arses off.
Posted by eyeinthesky, Monday, 3 September 2012 10:51:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy