Letter from John Key to Party Leaders on Smacking
Even though Sue Bradford has said she will not back it, John Key has written to all party leaders seeking support for his compromise amendment. That amendment will defuse all the controversy from the bill and it will probably then pass with 110 or more votes.
The Key letter is:
I am writing to seek your support for a proposed amendment to the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Bill currently before the house. As you may know, I met with Sue Bradford MP to discuss this amendment with her on 25 April, and she has indicated she will not support the amendment.
The amendment proposes removing the new subsections 59(2) and 59(3) and inserting a clause justifying the use of light smacking that is “minor and inconsequential”, while leaving in place the general prohibition on force for the purpose of correction in the purpose clause of the bill. A copy of the proposed amendment is attached.
This amendment will allow good parents to feel reassured that they will not be criminalised by the new legislation, rather than relying on Police procedure to avoid investigation and prosecution. The clause will also provide clear guidance to the Police that light smacking of a minor and inconsequential nature should not result in prosecution.
It is unfair to rely on the Police to exercise their discretion to make this legislation work, simply because we as a Parliament lack the courage to codify the law in the way we expect it to be enforced. The reality is that there will be widely differing interpretations of this law, and of any procedures and guidelines attached to it, by Police around the country.
We all agree that the purpose of this legislation is to reduce New Zealand’s terrible rate of harming children, but we all probably agree that we do not want to see good parents criminalised for engaging in actions no one considers criminal. I simply believe it is bad law for Parliament to pass a piece of legislation outlawing an activity absolutely, and then expect the Police not to prosecute minor breaches.
My proposed amendment achieves the outcome that I think we are all after, and I seek your support for this change to the bill.
The amendment John Key proposes, to replace the 59(2) and 59(3) is:
Every parent of a child and every person in the place of a parent of a child is justified in lightly smacking the child in the course of their parenting duties if the smacking used was minor and inconsequential, notwithstanding Section 3 of the Crimes (Abolition of Force as a Justification for Child Discipline) Amendment Act 2007.
If an MP votes against that amendment, it will make it pretty clear they are voting to ban correctional smacking.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
Interesting gambit. Save face now or be damned. Either way is good for Key.
April 27th, 2007 at 12:18 am
S59 debate and law
Sue Bradford needs to be reminded some say, law is more based on who can win the argument then truth or justice. Did you know that lawyers can lie in court? Example if a lawyer knows someone committed a crime they have to do there utmost to try and get them off in the way of a good defense.
Sue Bradford needs to remember the law can be an ass. I know someone who confessed to murder on video and signed a written confession. They got off because the police made a technical error by mistake. I know of a rapist who got off because the police mixed the clothes in the bag for DNA evidence and there was a 0.1% chance of cross-contamination. None of these things are fair and certainly is not justice for the victims. But that’s the system we have and take the good with the bad it is not perfect by any means.
People might be asking what’s this got to do with S59 being removed, well everything in my view.
If people used S59 reasonable force to discipline their child and got off then that’s the system we have as unfair as it may be. If a jury let someone off for using a plastic pipe to discipline a child (which I don’t agree with) then it proves my aforementioned points about the law and our system anomalies.
Murderers, rapists can get off sometimes on a technicality, that’s the price we pay for having this type of system. Are you now going to change all the loopholes or flaws Sue?
I know someone who killed a person claiming self-defense because they said it was reasonable force under the circumstances, are you going to remove that as well Sue?
Years later the truth came out but because of the double jeopardy law the person could not be charged again. Not everyone using S59 gets off and in fact it’s hardly used when you compare it with the amount of child abuse cases. The only issues I have with removing S59 is that innocent parents will suffer which will be another injustice.
In the same way I know of guilty people getting off I know of the innocent who have been wrongly convicted. Again that’s the price we pay for the system.
You are taking away peoples right to justice if light smacking on the bottom with the hand would result in parents being convicted by the removing of S59. That’s equally as wrong as the people who get off using a pipe under the guise of discipline.
Sue you need to let the court and justice system run its course and we all live with the consequences right wrong or otherwise, unknown like David Bain, Arthur Allan Thomas…
I think Sue’s idea equates to the cure being worse then the cause because it will put so many other people in an unfair position. It also gives CYFS even more power then ever when they can’t be trusted to handle what they already have.
I am in favor of stopping any excuse for child abuse but don’t see your idea as the way forward. There are other factors that need to be addressed that could make a bigger difference and not penalize good parents in the way your current idea does.
I think physical punishments should be the absolute last resort and only used when the child is in danger of hurting themselves or others. While Sue might say her Bill allows for this I disagree. It takes away any defense and relies on the police discretion.
April 27th, 2007 at 12:19 am
S59 debate and law
Sue Bradford needs to be reminded some say, law is more based on who can win the argument then truth or justice. Did you know that lawyers can lie in court? Example if a lawyer knows someone committed a crime they have to do there utmost to try and get them off in the way of a good defense.
Sue Bradford needs to remember the law can be an ass. I know someone who confessed to murder on video and signed a written confession. They got off because the police made a technical error by mistake. I know of a rapist who got off because the police mixed the clothes in the bag for DNA evidence and there was a 0.1% chance of cross-contamination. None of these things are fair and certainly is not justice for the victims. But that’s the system we have and take the good with the bad it is not perfect by any means.
People might be asking what’s this got to do with S59 being removed, well everything in my view.
If people used S59 reasonable force to discipline their child and got off then that’s the system we have as unfair as it may be. If a jury let someone off for using a plastic pipe to discipline a child (which I don’t agree with) then it proves my aforementioned points about the law and our system anomalies.
Murderers, rapists can get off sometimes on a technicality, that’s the price we pay for having this type of system. Are you now going to change all the loopholes or flaws Sue?
I know someone who killed a person claiming self-defense because they said it was reasonable force under the circumstances, are you going to remove that as well Sue?
Years later the truth came out but because of the double jeopardy law the person could not be charged again. Not everyone using S59 gets off and in fact it’s hardly used when you compare it with the amount of child abuse cases. The only issues I have with removing S59 is that innocent parents will suffer which will be another injustice.
In the same way I know of guilty people getting off I know of the innocent who have been wrongly convicted. Again that’s the price we pay for the system.
You are taking away peoples right to justice if light smacking on the bottom with the hand would result in parents being convicted by the removing of S59. That’s equally as wrong as the people who get off using a pipe under the guise of discipline.
Sue you need to let the court and justice system run its course and we all live with the consequences right wrong or otherwise, unknown like David Bain, Arthur Allan Thomas…
I think Sue’s idea equates to the cure being worse then the cause because it will put so many other people in an unfair position. It also gives CYFS even more power then ever when they can’t be trusted to handle what they already have.
I am in favor of stopping any excuse for child abuse but don’t see your idea as the way forward. There are other factors that need to be addressed that could make a bigger difference and not penalize good parents in the way your current idea does.
I think physical punishments should be the absolute last resort and only used when the child is in danger of hurting themselves or others. While Sue might say her Bill allows for this I disagree. It takes away any defense and relies on the police discretion.
April 27th, 2007 at 3:21 am
Graeme
A little off topic but a lawyer is not allowed to knowingly lie in court. Their highest duty is to the Court and this basically means you are unable to mislead court. A defence lawyer canot claim this man did not do this if they know that person in fact did do it. What they are there for is to make sure the crown proves their case.
Anyway back to the thread, John Key is once again showing real leadership. Rather than outright opposing the Bradford bill he is attempting to heal the huge rift between supporters and opposers. He has proposed a sensible amendment, which will fail, but only because the Prime Mininster has said to many things now for her to take any step towards compromise.
April 27th, 2007 at 5:31 am
key is playing media-politics/posturing with this sensitive subject..
nothing more…nothing less..
trotting out the burrows amendment in ‘drag’..
(quite shabby really..but does fit with the other media stunts (that have ‘been’ keys tactics as opposition leader..(muesli-bar-welfare etc..)
once again because he’s so lame in parliament..?
phil(whoar.co.nz
April 27th, 2007 at 7:56 am
What about Key getting on board with the idea that 85% DO NOT WANT THIS BILL in any form.
Has he grown to love the label “Labour Lite”?
April 27th, 2007 at 8:02 am
National are silly liberal wimps- any clever non pc and ruthless opposition in government could destroy the riff raff red/green freakshow mob who are destroying our nation.
Is 85% of the voters not enuf John Key !? What a mess , a country of soft cocks !
April 27th, 2007 at 8:17 am
Key’s move is smart. His proposal is so moderate, reasonable and even left wing that, if Labour won’t accept it, it positions them as absolutely mad head-in-the-sand leftists. Clark’s move now.
April 27th, 2007 at 8:23 am
Dear anon – is it Check Mate? – I mean PTF and Destiny Church – oh great – corruption ?Hows the police investigtion going on that Taito thing going -yeah right !!
What a mockery of family values !!!
What’s in that little black book ????
April 27th, 2007 at 8:29 am
Key’s move is smart, but only if voters fall for it. Key and Clark are pretty similar. I think Key is thanking his lucky stars that the UN/HRC cracked their whip on S59 during Clarks reign and not his.
I think I’ll vote for a small party.
April 27th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Dad4justice, maybe you could enlighten us all by defining what is meant by ‘family values’ it is thrown around so much these days that it seems to be a largely meaningless term.
April 27th, 2007 at 8:46 am
…it is thrown around so much these days that it seems to be a largely meaningless term
Sort of like ‘plunk’.
April 27th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Rocket boy, it’s not rocket science.
You will understand what ‘family values’ are once you have a family.
It certainly DOES NOT include the values of HELLen KKKlarKKK and her KKKommie chums.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Ah, innuendo by stutter.
How politically adept.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:33 am
Family values are impoosible in a cuntry that has twice voted at UN level not to endorse mum and dad as equal parents. Poor kids don’t understand .These bastards have no family values or principles .
Simple as that, and all the blow hard huffing and puffing bullshit and silly pc letter writing from overpaid political geeks should all be chucked in the offal pit .
How Mr Politician – do you know why stupid you jerks really look . What a mess !! The Key to the door is a FAMILY FRIENDLY GOVERNMENT .
Got that yet JOHN BOY or are you on the feminazi payroll as well ?
April 27th, 2007 at 9:40 am
That was supposed to read hey Mr Politician -do you know how stupid you jerks look to a bewildered public . This cuntry is a f..king disgrace !!!
April 27th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
> I know someone who confessed to murder on video and signed a written confession. They got off because the police made a technical error by mistake.
Well, they got off because 12 of their peers apparently didn’t think there was sufficient evidence in which to convict. Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.
April 27th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
“…justified in lightly smacking the child…”
Great, John Key will really bring NZ into the 21st Century with this sort of legislation, showing the world ‘what a bunch of loving parents we are’. Do we like living in the dark ages secure in the fact we can hit our kids? How is it that a dozen or so European countries can manage to bring up their kids without having to physically punish them? And don’t give me this bullshit about child abuse in those countries ’soaring’ etc, it just isn’t true.
“… if the smacking used was minor and inconsequential…”, oh, that’s really kind and considerate of you, John Key. Doesn’t leave any room for argument does it?
Proud to be a Kiwi? NOT!
Linda A
April 27th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
The scientific evidence has not shown that loving parental correction using physical methods (and NOT BEATINGS) where appropriate, is any worse than anti-smacking alternatives. In fact, it appears that such children fare better (reference Uni of Otago study released last year).
Consequently, there is no grounds for State interference in such parenting. Nor should such parents be the targets of this bill, when the objective (of all but the ideologically motivated) is to stop the child abuse (that is, the KILLING and DAMAGING of children).
As a law-abiding parent, I find this State interference reprehensible. They have no place telling me that I am a criminal, because I love my children and my rational brain knows that the occasional smack will do them long term BENEFIT. Not harm.
And I am not the only voter with this view.
April 27th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Proud to be a Kiwi, in a country whose govt favours state interference over personal liberty? NOT!
April 27th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
One thing that “family values” do not include is values that the labour party and sonic have, which are pretty much the opposite of family values.
Here are a list of Labour party values
1)That its okay to steal $800 000 of taxpayers money for a pledge card and other advertising if it helps you win an election.
2)That if caught for the above, its best to refuse to pay the money back until public pressure forces you to promise to do so, and even then you wait a long time before repaying the money. (Labour still hasn’t paid one cent of the stolen money back).
3) If someone (like Bernard Darnton) tries to sue you for stealing the money, pass retrospective legislation under urgency to legalise your theft.
4)Its okay to, once reelected into power using stolen money and overspending, rewrite election laws in your favour by banning people from spending $60 000 in one year criticizing you, but of course aloowing unions to spend as much money as they want attacking National.
5) Giving a child the lightest possible smack to discipline them is a horrendous form of abuse that deserves to be banned, but the things David Benson Pope did to pupils as a teacher (such as putting a tennis ball into a students mouth) is perfectly okay.
6) That its okay to force your MPs to vote for abill banning smacking they don’t like against their consceinces. Not to mention the fact that 80% of NZers don’t like the anti-smacking bill.
7)If one of your MPs (like Phillip Field) uses their position as an MP to give somone a work permit who has done lots of free labour for you, the “only thing” that you are “guilty of is trying to helpfull to someone”. (quote comes from Helen Clark source http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0702/S00315.htm
). Unless of course you get behind in the polls.
8)That same sex couples should have the same rights in law that married couples have.
9) Its okay to drive at speeds of 180 kph if it helps get you to a rugby game on time.
10) That its okay to force students to join a student assosciation against their will and fund the promotion of political views they don’t like.
11) That its okay to sign a painting that you didn’t paint, to seel it at a charity auction.
12) That its okay to have seperate race based Maori seats in parliamet.
13) That all New Zealanders are equal, but Maori are more equal than other New Zealanders, and Labour MPs are more equal than all other New Zealanders (including Maori). In fact Labour MPs are so equal that they can’t be prosecuted for anything. Unless you drive a tractor up the steps of parliament (sorry that was a Natioanl MP, not a Labour one).
14) That prostitution is a valid career choice for young women.
15) That its okay for girls under 16 years of age to have abortions without their parents knowing.
16) That women should have a choice about wether or not they should have an abortion, but taxpayers shouldn’t have a choice over wether or not they want to fund abortions.
17) That the state, not the bar owner gets to decide if smokings allowed in their bar.
18)That if you work hard and earn $60 000 per year, you must give 39% of any pay rise you get to the government.
19)That tax cuts are unaffordable, even if you have a $9.5 billon budget surplus.
20) That the folowing constitutes good use of taxpayers money,
- $15 millon, working for families vote labour adds.
- $1 millon treaty information campaign
-$45 000 taxpayer funded “working and growing together” calendar promoting Labour.
-$500 000 to treat only 34 problem gamblers.
-$5 000 0000 (thats right 5 millon) on computer couses involving no teaching, no qualifications and no tests.
-$1 millon on cultural consoltation to build new prisons
-$490 millon (a big sum of money) to build a 500 bed prison, thats almost $1 millon per prison bed. Even property prices are cheaper than that.
-$100 000 per month to fly prisoners between prisons.
-$5 000 on playstations and video games for prisoners
-$8 000 on new state of the art flat screen TVs for prisons.
-$11 millon on prison landsaping.
Sorry that this post has got a bit of topic, but I don’t share these Labour party values. Listed above a 20 good reasons to vote Labour out. If your name is sonic, Tony Milne, James Sleep or Phil u and you like these values you can vote Labour in 2008 (sorry James Sleep you won’t be old enough to vote in 2008). The rest of us who don’t share these values can vote Labour out.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Nicholas O’Kane should get into politics. Well said!
April 27th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
John is not only clever but I reckon he genuinely believes in his amendment. I hope he gets the numbers; it’d be a major coup against Kruella.
‘Could the real Prime Minister please stand up, please stand up’.
Phil U, it doesn’t matter if you say this 1 thousand times or a 1 million times because it’s your perspective & it’s rubbish.
Clark’n Cullen maybe robust performers but their caustic & condescending style doesn’t exactly inspire the average voter (just hacks like you). That is why even on his worse day Dr Brash still managed to look good against Clark.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
nx said..”..That is why even on his worse day Dr Brash still managed to look good against Clark…”
(let’s just pause..and digest that on..eh..?..
sorta blows everything else he/she says out of the water..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 27th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
> How is it that a dozen or so European countries can manage to bring up their kids without having to physically punish them?
Really, so no kids are punished in Europe?
That truly is amazing. So why is the rate of child abuse in Austria – which banned smacking in about 1989 – only marginally better than ours? Why is the rate of child abuse in countries like Spain and Germany – where there is no smacking ban – even lower than in Sweden? Why has there been a huge increase in reported child abuse in Sweden since their smacking ban?
April 27th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Eh…?
April 27th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
To Ross: I found this on the Council of Europe website:
Increased sensitivity to violence to children in Sweden has led to an increase in reporting of assaults, but there has been a declining trend in prosecutions of parents, and a substantial reduction in compulsory social work interventions and in numbers of children taken into care. Public attitudes towards hitting children have changed which has facilitated early supportive intervention in individual cases.
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1008209&BackColorInternet=99B5AD&BackColorIntranet=FABF45&BackColorLogged=FFC679
I’ll find the answers to your other questions later, unless you want to.
Linda A
April 27th, 2007 at 8:35 pm
Linda A said…
Do we like living in the dark ages secure in the fact we can hit our kids?
Who’s WE Linda? My kids are not your kids, and whenever I discipline them for correction purposes, it is my fuck’n business and not the State’s to interfere.
Let me ask you, do you have kids? If you do care about WE , US, OUR kids, then how about you publish your name, phone, address where people with bad mannered kids can call you to come and deal with them, using your non-smacking methods, similar to calling the nanny TV program? If you care so much ,then you must be willing to do what I am suggesting here. The reality is, that you don’t give a toss because if you do then I would hear about your nanny services being advertised, it is just hot air from the likes of you and Bradford. You’re not going to lose your home , your car, your refrigerator is someone smack their kids for correction purposes, so it is none of your fuck’n business to tell me what to do? If you’re going to lose your home over someone else’s smacking their kids, then I can see that you have a point. Look after your own house and don’t try to tell me of what to do in my own house.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
Jim, now that was a witty post, anyway:
Q: “Who’s WE Linda?”
A: NZers, duh, just substitute WE for NZers.
And: “You’re not going to lose your home , your car, your refrigerator is someone smack their kids for correction purposes,…”
Your refrigerator too? You’re kidding me right?
You sound very angry, btw.
Linda A
April 27th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Actually Linda Axford, Jim is correct and you are wrong. Very wrong. You obviously have little ‘life experiences’ on which to base your opinion. You most certainly have no life experiences on how the police (read ‘people’)and the judiciary (read ‘people’), can get it all so wrong, either deliberately or through down-and-out bias and stupidity.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
…Of course, you can add to those qualities …Predjudice and naivety.
April 28th, 2007 at 8:20 am
Hi Paul, so what are your arguments in defence of what Key has to say? I would love to hear them.
By the way, seeing I am so wrong, all these organisations must be wrong too, what do you think?
1. UNICEF New Zealand 2. Save the Children 3. Barnardos NZ 4. Royal Plunket
Society 5. Office of the Children’s Commissioner 6. Families Commission
7.Jigsaw – Child Abuse Prevention (representing 14 member
organisations) 8. IHC 9. Amokura Family Violence Prevention (representing 7
iwi Chief Executives) 10. Churches Agency on Social Issues (represents
Presbyterian, Methodist, Quakers and Churches of
Christ) 11. NZ Council of Christian Social Services (represents 6 major
church social agencies) 12. National Council of Women New Zealand 13. NZ
Federation of Business and Professional Women 14. National Network of
Stopping Violence Services (33 members) 15. Relationship Services NZ 16.
Paediatric Society Of New Zealand 17. Action for Children and Youth Aotearoa
18. NZ Foster Care Federation 19. National Collective of Independent Women’s
Refuges (49 member refuges) 20. NZ Psychotherapists Society Parents Centre
21. NZ Psychological Society 22. NZ Child Care Association 23. NZ Playcentre
Federation 24. NZ Federation of Graduate Women 25. CCS 26. Brainwave Trust
27. Child Development Foundation 28. Pacific Foundation (founder Lesley Max)
29. National Council for Young Catholics 30. Women’s International League
for Peace and Freedom 31. ParentingWorks 32. Youth Law Project 33.
Wellington Community Law Centre
34. NZ Association of Counsellors 35. EPOCH NZ 36. Children’s Issues Centre
University of Otago 37. Child Poverty Action Group 38. Parent Centres NZ Inc
39. Presbyterian Support NZ 40. NZ Family Planning Association 41. Home and
Family Society Christchurch 42. Waipuna Youth and Family Trust 43. Quaker
Peace and Service 44. ParentingWorx 45. Starfish Charitable Trust 46.
Women’s International League on Peace and Freedom 47. Queenstown Family
Lakes Centre 48. Inner City Group for Men 49. Child Helpline Trust 50.
Childspace Early Learning Centres 51. Your Day Trust 52. Peace Movement
Aotearoa 53. Hauraki Safety Network 54. Home and Family Counselling Auckland
55. North Shore Women’s Centre 56. Across Social Services Palmerston North
57. Parent and Family Counselling Services Whangarei 58. Violence Free
Waitakere 59. Youthlaw
Linda A
April 28th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Reading the court reports about that poor little 3 yrs old boy that died at the hands of his parents makes me sick and angry. True, this is abuse and would not be covered under sec 59 by any stretch but I wonder how many bruises would be acceptable/permissable by anyone who thinks “light’ smacking is OK. Any subjectivity in the law will result in defences like “It was only a light smack”, “He’s an easy bruiser”, “That bruise and that bruise were from different smacks” and “That bruise was for a more serious breach of behaviour”. Accordingly,a bruise scale could be created to quantify ‘light smacking’. If you smack your child, ask yourself “Am I angry and stressed when I smack them” and be fuckin honest. If you are, you might be able to come to some rationale toward the problem being with the parents and not with the children. Be done with it, ban smacking and learn other ways to discpline or correct the behaviour of your kids. No excuses, like “Its my right as a parent”
April 28th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Axel said…
Reading the court reports about that poor little 3 yrs old boy that died at the hands of his parents makes me sick and angry.
Did you feel angry because you lose your house over that incident? Or because your partner heard that brutal news and left you for someone else? Tell me, what did you lose over that? Get fuck’n real, you and the likes of Linda, Sue Bradford don’t give a toss about those kids? If you cared enought as it seemed from your expression here, then why don’t you go over to Otara and take care of the remaining kids? Can you do that? If your answer is NO, then why on earth are you so distressed about something that you didn’t do? I didn’t do it. My friends didn’t partake in that? Whos responsibility? The parents (or guardians) of this kid, not me, not my uncle, not my mates, that means there was no WE here, because I wasn’t part of it and thousands other NZealanders. It should be HE, SHE, THEIR problem(s) and not mine. Where is the personal responsibility here?
Axel, if you cared enough about those remaining kids, then I would expect the Herald on Sunday to have a front page of yourself turning up at to collect those kids from Otara. That would be a proof that you really care.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:47 pm
Your point of view is loud and clear Jim.
Its a me society. If it doesn’t afect ME, then why give a damn. Yeah, roll on because by that definition, there in no problem. Its a ‘Who gives a fuck society’. After a career in the police, I had to give a fuck, although its amazing I still do. So continue to put your head up ypur arse Jim and don,t give a fuck.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
“If you smack your child, ask yourself “Am I angry and stressed when I smack them” and be fuckin honest. If you are, you might be able to come to some rationale toward the problem being with the parents and not with the children. Be done with it, ban smacking and learn other ways to discpline or correct the behaviour of your kids. No excuses, like “Its my right as a parent”"
Well said.
May 21st, 2007 at 8:50 am
hqwvpkmg prqtjifly vaqrxp qolmafpw cgajyep ztayisc ufcrqnwy
May 21st, 2007 at 8:51 am
hqwvpkmg prqtjifly vaqrxp qolmafpw cgajyep ztayisc ufcrqnwy
May 21st, 2007 at 8:52 am
msuqxp cufmn iaqkremt zludxgw avpobykqd vugwzj pklbam http://www.pdtbc.jivsteaqb.com
May 21st, 2007 at 8:53 am
msuqxp cufmn iaqkremt zludxgw avpobykqd vugwzj pklbam http://www.pdtbc.jivsteaqb.com
May 21st, 2007 at 8:55 am
ofbuqcav bhwy tukgyld eptjwaf fwjeopdiu tjzownacf yezg [URL=http://www.qetuip.uzeptqj.com]walces wenbd[/URL]
May 21st, 2007 at 8:56 am
ofbuqcav bhwy tukgyld eptjwaf fwjeopdiu tjzownacf yezg [URL=http://www.qetuip.uzeptqj.com]walces wenbd[/URL]
May 21st, 2007 at 8:57 am
ngwcfivxu hsviza tsxnfh fveyc daxyqbos uwlv eybdmx [URL]http://www.vjexckmor.jiazhrf.com[/URL] plbdct mipeu
May 21st, 2007 at 8:59 am
ngwcfivxu hsviza tsxnfh fveyc daxyqbos uwlv eybdmx [URL]http://www.vjexckmor.jiazhrf.com[/URL] plbdct mipeu
May 21st, 2007 at 9:00 am
ngwcfivxu hsviza tsxnfh fveyc daxyqbos uwlv eybdmx [URL]http://www.vjexckmor.jiazhrf.com[/URL] plbdct mipeu
May 31st, 2007 at 1:44 am
Cool site. Thank you.
May 31st, 2007 at 1:45 am
Cool site. Thank you.
May 31st, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Very good site. Thank you:-)
May 31st, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Very good site. Thank you:-)
June 1st, 2007 at 3:58 am
Cool site. Thank you!
June 2nd, 2007 at 5:42 am
Nice site. Thanks!
June 4th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Good site. Thank you!
June 4th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Good site. Thank you!
June 4th, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
June 5th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Cool site. Thanks.
June 8th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Good site. Thank you.
June 9th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Very good site. Thanks:-)
June 11th, 2007 at 10:01 am
Good site. Thank you:-)
June 11th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
June 13th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Good site. Thank you.
June 13th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Nice site. Thanks:-)
June 14th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Cool site. Thanks!
June 15th, 2007 at 2:47 am
Nice site. Thanks!!!
June 15th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Very good site. Thanks.
June 19th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
June 19th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Cool site. Thanks!
June 20th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Nice site. Thank you:-)
June 24th, 2007 at 8:15 am
Nice site. Thank you:-)
June 24th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
June 24th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
June 27th, 2007 at 1:41 am
Good site. Thanks:-)
June 27th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Good site. Thanks.
June 27th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Good site. Thanks.
June 27th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Good site. Thanks:-)
June 28th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Nice site. Thanks!
June 28th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Nice site. Thanks!
June 28th, 2007 at 11:07 am
Very good site. Thanks!!!
June 29th, 2007 at 8:34 am
Nice site. Thank you!
June 29th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Cool site. Thank you.
June 30th, 2007 at 3:03 am
Cool site. Thank you.
June 30th, 2007 at 3:03 am
Cool site. Thank you.
June 30th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Good site. Thank you!
July 1st, 2007 at 9:46 am
Good site. Thank you.
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:31 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
July 2nd, 2007 at 8:32 am
Very good site. Thank you!!!
July 3rd, 2007 at 1:26 am
Cool site. Thanks:-)
July 4th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Good site. Thanks.
July 5th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
July 5th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Nice site. Thank you!!!
July 5th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
July 5th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
Nice site. Thanks.
July 5th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Nice site. Thanks!
July 5th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Nice site. Thanks!
July 5th, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Cool site. Thank you!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 12:30 am
Very good site. Thank you!
July 6th, 2007 at 6:42 am
Good site. Thanks!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 6:43 am
Good site. Thanks!!!
July 6th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Very good site. Thank you!
July 6th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Very good site. Thank you!
July 6th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
Very good site. Thanks!
July 6th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Cool site. Thank you:-)