|
|
|
0 members (),
1,785
guests, and
21
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
Volcano earthquake report for Thursday, 15 October 2026
• M 2.0 - 53 km NNE of Chignik, Alaska
• M 4.3 - 92 km ESE of Tomioka, Japan
• M 2.2 - 5 km SE of Coalinga, CA
• M 1.5 - 6 km SSW of Fortuna, CA
• M 3.3 - 125 km SE of Akutan, Alaska
• M 7.7 - 12 km WSW of Pitaloza Arriba, Panama
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 352
Mission Specialist Level 2
|
|
Mission Specialist Level 2
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 352 |
Oh so true, removed from you because they are deemed 'at risk' and put with other people who could abuse them. Look at my child removed off me due to being a child at risk then actually being abused physically with smacks that lasted one week on his buttocks for pooing his pants.
And 1 in 4 women are sexually abused. Why don't they take every chld off every parent at birth and then the parent has to prove they are worthy to parent. the child could be at risk until proven otherwise. I've argued this before. It sounds mad but do you see my point.
|
|
CMS The Best Conveyancing solicitors conveyancing quotes throughout the UK
For any webhosting enquiries please email webmaster@aus-city.com
|
|
Forums60
Topics877,122
Posts911,918
Members2,960
| |
Most Online102,106 Jul 10th, 2026
|
|
|
|
|
|