Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Southall Guilty

220 replies

Bunglie · 20/06/2004 21:48

I am so very pleased that he has been found guilty on most of the charges. I do not understand how he did what he did to the Clarke family.
What disturbs me is that he has not been struck off. There is still the posibility that he could just be reprimanded.
If he were allowed to continue to practice would you trust him and take your child to him?

OP posts:
Piffleoffagus · 06/08/2004 14:15

only for 3 effing years though
sickening

Bunglie · 06/08/2004 16:38

If I wrote what I thought, it would be considered abusive language, so I shall just say I am disgusted, which is probably the biggest understatement I have ever made.
I am very , and so very that the GMC really could not do the right thing.

Still, is it 7 0r 8 more cases they have against him waiting to be heard.....I have such little faith in our system now that I doubt that they will do anything with regard to these cases.

What I think is worse is that in my opinion, and I know I have a personal interest here because Meadow's was the one who said I had MSbP, but I think Southall was WORSE than Meadow, and responsible for far more heartache. What about those poor babies on ventilators? I could go on.....

The fact is if they are not going to strike him off, There is NO CHANCE they will strike Meadow's off, especially now he is retired.

Oooh I could......

OP posts:
Bunglie · 06/08/2004 16:39

I feel another email to the GMC coming on.......

OP posts:
edam · 06/08/2004 16:41

Bunglie, the positive side of the verdict is, of course, that he was found guilty, but also that the other seven cases will now be heard; if he had been struck off they would have gone by default.
Can't believe that he refuses to acknowledge any fault in the way he acted in the Clark case though. Amazing.

Janh · 06/08/2004 17:32

edam, do you suppose that's actually the reason why they didn't strike him off? It will be v interesting to hear the other cases...

Bunglie, I know this result isn't what you hoped for, but I would think this public chastisement and condemnation will be very very humiliating and hard for him to live with, despite the support from some colleagues.

Are you listening to R4 atm? There is going to be a piece on PM (prog before 6 o'clock news) shortly, with someone who has dealt with him. The words "Jekyll and Hyde" have been used.

MummyToSteven · 06/08/2004 18:21

have i misunderstood, or is there no suggestion of Southall having to undergo retraining/supervision when he returns to child protection work in 3 years time?

Jimjams · 06/08/2004 18:29

I almost felt sick listening to someone from his HA saying that if he had been struck off it would have been doing children a great diservice. No way would I allow a child of mine within 100 foot of the man.

Bunglie · 06/08/2004 19:28

Well I have sent an email to Mr Steve Haywood. If you recall he replied to my initial email on 15th July, a copy of his reply is posted on that date. He thanked me for pointing out MNers as a useful resource, so I suggest that if we are so useful then we should tell them what we think. (I mean what you personally think, not what I think!) We should now bombard him with emails, telling him what we think.

The address is [email protected]
For Attn. Mr S Haywood.

I say if you are not prepared to let your child be treated by Southall then you should tell them that.
Let MUM POWER RULE !

It's OK Bunglie will go and take a tablet in a minute and calm down, but I am really angry, but yes I do see the point that we will now hear the other 7 cases and he was found guilty, but if this is what the GMC calls punishment, it is us, who have to endure the punishment in fear that we might be refered to him or something along those lines, so who is the GMC thinking they are protecting, the public or their own members?

OP posts:
LunarSea · 11/08/2004 11:41

From the Staffordshire Sentinel :

08/11/2004 12:19:01 AM EDT -- The Sentinel

Mum's legal battle to get vital records

A Mother who claims beleaguered paediatrician David Southall falsely accused her of abusing her daughter is planning legal action to obtain official records to prove he has again shown serious professional misconduct.

Prof Southall has already been found guilty of the charge in a separate case heard last week by the General Medical Council which banned him from child protection work.

The GMC's professional conduct committee ruled he had abused his professional position by wrongly accusing Cheshire lawyer Stephen Clark of murdering his two children on the strength of watching a TV documentary.

Now Justine Durkin's complaint to the GMC is one of seven additional counts against the University Hospital of North Staffordshire specialist to go before the committee at a hearing due to start on January 10.

Ms Durkin, aged 34, lost custody of 13-year-old daughter Rosie, for nine years after Prof Southall secretly filmed the two together.

The youngster eventually volunteered to leave her father's home in North Staffordshire and move in with her mother who lives near Retford, Nottinghamshire.

In Ms Durkin's statement to the GMC she tells how the finger of suspicion was pointed at her after the girl - then aged two - suffered a night-time cough which could not be explained by medics.

Mother and daughter were eventually admitted to the Hartshill hospital where they were subject to Prof Southall's pioneering covert video surveillance(CVS) for five days.

Today, Ms Durkin told how she had been left to "fight tooth and nail" to try and get hold of records to back her case.

Correspondence from the GMC's lawyers reveals social services records for Rosie "no longer exist" and the file recording on a family court hearing in Leeds which gave Rosie's custody to her father cannot be located. Ms Durkin said today: "These would seem to be delaying tactics so when the case reaches the GMC hearing I will not be armed with all the relevant records to pursue Prof Southall."

She has secured medical notes to cover Rosie's stay in a Doncaster hospital where she was a patient before being referred to Stoke. Although she has twice written to the Hartshill complex she is still awaiting a response. The letters were only sent in the past two months.

Prof Southall has declined to discuss the Durkin case but during last week's GMC hearing, nearly 100 doctors, nurses and other professionals gave glowing testimonials to his inspirational record.

He was described, however, as arrogant, and a danger to the public by Mr Clark's lawyer Richard Tyson

The GMC ruling allows him to keep his job as a general paediatrician so long as all potential child abuse cases are handed to colleagues.

LunarSea · 11/08/2004 11:57

Also - from the Western Mail:

Welsh parents 'accused' by shamed doctor

A welsh mother last night spoke of how a doctor found guilty of serious professional misconduct had accused her husband and her of abusing their sick son.

Davina Hollisey-Mclean said Professor David Southall had accused them of harming their son, Ben, and in 1991 of arranging to have tests performed on him at the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, behind their backs.

The doctor was yesterday banned from taking part in any child protection work either in or outside the NHS for the next three years.

The General Medical Council (GMC) heard how he had accused Steve Clark of killing his children Christopher and Harry after he watched a Channel 4 Despatches documentary about the case in April 2000.

The consultant paediatrician will now face the GMC again in January when seven further sets of parents' complaints are heard.

Prof Southall had said it was 'beyond reasonable doubt' that Mr Clark had killed his children and expressed concern for the Clarks' remaining child, Child A.

Denis McDevitt, chairman of the professional conduct committee, said it was 'extremely concerned' the doctor had formed a 'definite view' without interviewing the Clarks or seeing medical reports.

Mrs Clark, 40, was convicted in 1999 of murdering her two sons but cleared by the Court of Appeal in January last year.

Mrs Hollisey-Mclean told the BBC last night how her family had been drawn into a nightmare after encountering the paediatrician.

She said, 'On the first visit he was absolutely charming. Quite honestly, he could have charmed the birds out of the trees.

'However, I got to know and see a very different side to Dr Southall.

'As long as things are going his way he's fine but it seems to me he changes if anyone stands in his way.

'Ben was born in 1985. He was born with breathing difficulties. He was under the care of Great Ormond Street [children's hospital].

'He was a very happy, courageous, superb little boy who taught us so much and especially gave us his love.

'The idea was that Dr Southall had developed a new monitor which would alarm when a child's oxygen levels were dropping.

'It was an early warning system and we wondered whether this would have been of benefit to Ben, rather than the system we were using which only told us when he had stopped breathing.

'On the second visit in 1990 his attitude had changed. We were asking questions about the test he intended carrying out on our son and the treatment that he was suggesting that was totally different to what Great Ormond Street said should happen,' Mrs Clark said.

When the parents consulted the doctor who had been treating Ben, he advised them to disregard Prof Southall's suggestions.

She said, 'When we said no to Dr Southall and said no to his tests [. . .] Dr Southall, unbeknownst to us, started to pursue us and made allegations of child abuse in relation to both myself and my husband.

'We were the first couple worldwide to be jointly accused of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy and, eventually, Dr Southall intervened in the treatment plan of Great Ormond Street and contacted social services in London - even though the ones in Wales had said they weren't concerned, [that] we were loving caring parents and Ben was in a loving, caring home.

'Dr Southall wouldn't take any notice and he activated social services in London,' Mrs Clark said.

'It was decided in a case conference that Ben should go into hospital away from us for 28 nights and tests should be carried out on him.

'We were totally against Dr Southall being involved in tests in any way.'

On July 18, 1991, Ben was admitted to the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff.

His mother said, 'Unbeknownst to us, on the very first night Dr Southall's technician and Dr Southall's equipment was brought into the University Hospital of Wales and behind our backs the tests were carried out.

'The technician had no contract to be in the hospital and on his own admission wasn't qualified to assess any damage that may have occurred to Ben while the investigations were taking place.

'What happened to our son while away from our care in hospital is the subject of a police investigation.'

Mrs Clark said she was surprised by yesterday's judgment.

'To be honest, I didn't expect anything to happen because of our experience over the last 13 years. We have lost faith in justice and the child protection system.'

When asked how different her family's lives would be today if they had never had contact with the doctor she said, 'My husband says our lives are not what we would chosen for ourselves.

'For Ben, life, I believe, would have totally different.

'Ben will never fulfil the potential that he had and Ben is frozen in time, really, at the age of about five.

'He has profound speech and language difficulties.

'For him, life will never be what it should have been,' Mrs Clark said.

After the hearing Prof Southall's solicitor, Margaret Taylor, said, 'Prof Southall is very relieved that the GMC has decided that he should be permitted to continue to work as a paediatrician.

'Although disappointed that the committee has applied conditions to his registration, he sincerely hopes that the decision will not deter other paediatricians from continuing to act in the particularly difficult area of child protection and speaking out when they suspect a child has been abused.'

===
And from the (Birmingham) Sunday Mercury:

JUSTICE FOR JULIE: More complaints for shamed Prof

DISGRACED Midland paediatrician Professor David Southall has kept his hospital job despite being found guilty of serious professional misconduct.

But campaigning parents who say they have been wrongly accused of child abuse, last night warned that there are more complaints to follow.

The child expert, who works at the University Hospital of North Staffordshire, will face seven more charges at the General Medical Council in February.

And Andrea Dean, from Newcastle-Under-Lyme in Staffordshire, said she is waiting for her case against the doctor to to be reviewed, too.

Like Stephen Canning, Mrs Dean was accused of being a threat to her children by the paediatrician - even though he had never met her.

On Friday the GMC found Professor Southall guilty of serious professional misconduct after he alleged that Mr Canning killed his children after simply watching him being interviewed on a TV programme.

He had conditions placed on his licence which means he is banned from child protection work for three years.

But he can continue to work at the hospital in his other roles.

Professor Southall had previously claimed that Mrs Dean might kill her children after reading a vet's report into the brutal deaths of the her pet dogs.

Following his reports to child protection agencies, her two young daughters and son were taken into care.

A court battle had to be launched before the children were eventually returned to Andrea.

'More allegations have been made against Professor Southall,' she said last night. 'Stephen's case is just the beginning.

'He will face seven more charges in February and my own case against him is also being reviewed.

'It is strange that he has kept his job, I can't imagine anyone wanting to be treated by him after this.'

A spokesman for the University Hospital of North Staffordshire said: 'Professor Southall is an enthusiastic and energetic doctor who has contributed immensely to the welfare of children, not just in North Staffordshire, but across the UK and abroad.

'This penalty will allow him to continue to use his clinical skills for the benefit of sick children.'

And from the Guardian:

08/07/2004 12:38:44 PM EDT -- The Guardian

Couple accused of abuse suffered 17 years anguish: Censured paediatrician faces further hearings into claims that infants were removed from families because of his 'overzealous beliefs'

The controversial paediatrician David Southall, faces a further professional misconduct hearing into allegations by parents that he wrongly accused them of child abuse.

Six of the seven cases, some of which date back 17 years, involve parents who claim that he abused his position to have their children taken from them because of his overzealous belief that they were suffering from Munchausen's syndrome by proxy (MSBP), a diagnosis that parents deliberately harm their children to draw attention to themselves.

He was found guilty yesterday by the General Medical Council of serious professional misconduct for accusing a father of killing his two babies on the basis of a television programme.

Among the parents are mothers who were secretly filmed at the Royal Brompton hospital, south-west London, and North Staffordshire dis trict hospital, Stoke-on-Trent, in a research project intended to catch women whom Professor Southall believed were abusing their babies.

The allegations will be considered in January. Prof Southall denies wrongly diagnosing abuse. He could not comment on the pending cases.

Included in the list of complaints is that of Janet and Robin Alexander from Ludlow, Shropshire, who have waited 17 years for the chance to air their allegations against him. "The shadow of David Southall has hung over our lives all this time," Mrs Alexander said. "We have waited 17 years and we want to see the evidence we have against him heard."

The Alexanders claim that Prof Southall subjected their baby Lawrence to research without their consent and when they tried to remove him from the hospital, wardship proceedings were initiated.

Mrs Alexander said her son, who was born in 1986, suffered from repeated life-threatening collapses between the ages of six weeks and nine months.

"He would lose all his muscle tone, he gradually started going blue-grey around his mouth, and his heart would go practically down to nothing. To all intents and purposes he died. These attacks were happening three or four times a day."

They were referred to Prof Southall, who was described as a "world cot death expert" and at the time worked at the Royal Brompton. They claim that he was "rude, abrupt and confrontational" and told them their baby would have to be attached to "state-of-the-art" monitoring equipment.

"He never told us that we were part of any research project . . . and consent was not discussed," Mrs Alexander said. "But what we were really being sent to him for was covert video surveillance."

She alleges that she found out years later that they had been suspected of poisoning their child, although tests of his blood and the mother's milk proved negative. Over 10 days the couple lived with their baby in a hospital ward while he was monitored.

"The equipment was horrendous," Mrs Alexander said. "He had to be kept in a high-sided cot with bars for 10 days and nights continuously. He could barely move."

It was only later, she said, that they discovered from medical notes that they were being filmed. "We had no idea we were guinea pigs."

Lawrence was then tested for gastro-oesophageal reflux, a condition that can cause life-threatening episodes. Mrs Alexander claims Prof Southall continued to pursue his theory that the couple had MSBP and that their child was normal.

Exhausted by the tests on their baby, they told the doctor they wanted their son to be discharged from his care.

In response, they claim, the paediatrician asked them to attend a final diagnostic meeting. When they agreed he led them to a room full of lawyers and social workers, where wardship papers were served.

"I remember clinging on to a metal chair in the room and thinking, 'If I let go of this chair and take those papers my life is going to be finished, they are going to take him from me'," Mrs Alexander said. "I remember the sister prising my hand off the chair so that I could accept the papers. All the time Dr Southall kept saying, 'Your child is perfectly normal'."

An interim high court order gave care of the baby to the Royal Brompton. But eight months later, after the case was investigated by social services and the Alexanders were examined by a psychiatrist who said they were not suffering from any psychiatric disorder, wardship proceedings were dismissed.

They lodged their complaint against Prof Southall in 1987 and say for the past 17 years the smear of child abuse has affected their son's education and their job prospects.

"David Southall sees MSBP everywhere," Mrs Alexander said. "He failed to respect our privacy and dignity and his incorrect diagnosis left my husband and I with the stigma of being accused of being child abusers."

===
Lots more in the same vein in the last week if anyone wants the links/stories.

Bunglie · 11/08/2004 14:15

Thanks Lunarsea, it is a lot to read, but I personally am greatful to you for posting it. You remain the 'Queen of the links'.
I think after I got rid of my initial anger about him not being struck off....I thought about it and you know you MNers do talk such sense, you put me to shame.
Not only will the other cases be heard as said by Edam, and those parents deserve 'their day in court to', but I think Steve Clarke was very brave to do what he did, after all he had been through (and his wife of course). He stood up to Southall and brought it out to the public attention, making a complaint to the GMC is no little thing! He and his wife should have been reconstructing their lives at this time, not still having to 'fight for justice'. I think it was a very un-selfish act on his part and I hope that the press will now leave both he and his wife alone, to live their lives in peace, they deserve that after all they have been through. I for one wish them both the very best for the future.

OP posts:
beachyhead · 11/08/2004 14:20

Did you see that Steve made a press release on this issue this week. It's on www.sallyclark.org.uk.

Thought you might be interested.

aloha · 11/08/2004 14:47

It's only for three years, but I believe this ruling, let alone all the other pending cases, have destroyed his reputation, and his evidence will, I hope, never be put to a jury again. I am appalled by the way the medical establishment have rushed to defend him in these cases. It confirms all my prejudices and makes me very unlikely to ever want my son to come under the eye of a paediatrician. I think he's a terrifying man with a dangerous obsession.
It also makes me sick that government ministers say the alternative to getting rid of him is more child abuse. IMO it is child abuse to take a child away from his loving parents and put them in the hands of social services.

JanZ · 11/08/2004 15:26

In the contect of expert witnesses that can't be trusted, this story illustrates the case of a doctor who was over-zealous in pursuing his own agenda - but in this case resulting in children being RETURNED to parents.

My dad was a paediatric radiologist and used to be called on occasion to testify in cases of "Non-Accidental Injury" and I can remember long before this got any publicity, him talking about this doctor being the bane of their (ie Scottish radiologists) lives with his (in dad's view) irresponsible theories - and the danger that was putting children in.

I am not meaning in any way to detract from the horror of what has happened to Bunglie, Postsue, Cheeseball, Inkogneeto et al - but just to point out the difficulties the courts face when faced with such conflicting evidence.

Interesting though that he was struck off (albeit he had already retired), whereas Southall has just been reprimanded and only banned from taking part in child protection for three years.

Bunglie · 11/08/2004 16:53

Do you think they did it so the other cases could be heard????

I agree with Aloha on this one though.

OP posts:
Bunglie · 17/08/2004 11:44

Have you heard this, I found a link to it on another site, but I am feeling calmer now, as this mother does deserve her day in court, so listen HERE

I believe although it does not say, it was on Radio4's Today Programme.

OP posts:
LunarSea · 17/08/2004 15:53

There was also this item last week in the Daily Mail

'He took away my life when he took away my children'

SHE has lived through years of unspeakable torment, yet hope still shines bright from her tired eyes. Every day she wakes with the undying belief she will see her children again - children taken away from her on the say- so of disgraced Professor David Southall.

It was six years ago that he accused the Scots mother, who cannot be named for legal reasons, of abusing her 10-year-old son.

Social workers swooped on her home and the youngster was taken into care after Professor Southall said he believed the woman had harmed him.

Later, her daughter was also taken into care. Both children are now almost grown up but Mrs A has seen neither since they were taken from her.

The 38-year-old blames Professor Southall for wrongly diagnosing her with Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, a condition whereby adults harm children to get attention.

Mrs A said: 'To say it has ruined our whole lives is an understatement. It takes away your life. It's with you every minute of every day. I'm normally up until five every morning before I manage to drop off. Then I wake and try to figure out what to do.

'No words can ever explain how it feels. It has never gone away.

This has taken away every single thing. My marriage fell apart, I went to prison and I almost lost my house. But worst of all, it took my children. And fighting to get them back is the only thing that keeps me going.' THE distraught mother added: 'I sometimes wonder how it could take so long for a scandal like this to break, but you are fighting against the establishment.

Doctors are seen as God - it's so difficult to challenge their authority.

'When a doctor is at the top of his field, social services and the courts do what they are told.' Mrs A first came into contact with Professor Southall late in 1997 shortly after she moved from her native Scotland to the North of England to be near a better school for her son.

Her son, whom she says is autistic and suffers from cystic fibrosis and slight brain damage, was being treated at a local hospital.

Mrs A, unhappy at his treatment there, asked for a second opinion.

She was referred to Professor Southall. She said: 'At our first meeting, my son and I spent 15 minutes in his office. He didn't have my son's medical records and all he did was take off his boot.

'I later learned that during that 15 minutes he had made up his mind that I had Munchausen's syndrome by proxy and behind our backs he told my GP.'

Professor Southall then arranged for further assessment over a two-week period in February 1998.

Mrs A went on: 'They got a child psychologist in to see if he was autistic and a neurologist to see if he had cerebral palsy. They also did an MRI scan.

'The psychologist said my son was definitely autistic, the neurologist that he definitely had cerebral palsy and the scan showed a small amount of brain damage.

' His autism was the biggest problem. He was a fussy eater and had some behavioural problems and difficulties with communication, but really we managed fine.

He was very happy.' Despite the findings, Mrs A claims Professor Southall then wrote to the local social services, saying she 'definitely' had Munchausen's syndrome by proxy.

'He thought I had learned it from my own mother,' said Mrs A.

'She had twin boys and a little girl who all died from conditions related to cystic fibrosis when they were children. I explained this during the assessment and as soon as he found out about it he jumped to the conclusion that my mother had possibly suffocated or poisoned her children.' He then wrote to social services and on September 16, 1998, two social workers turned up at Mrs A's house to say they would be taking her son into care.

RECALLING the moment, Mrs A went on: 'They had phoned to say they were coming round for a word with me. Two people turned up and handed me a report from Professor Southall.

'That was the first time I had seen the words Munchausen's syndrome by proxy. I didn't even know what that was.

'They said there would be a case conference next day and said they were planning to take my son into care. At the case conference they accused us of physical and emotional abuse. To be accused like that was just devastating.

'My whole world came down on me. I knew nothing about it and all of a sudden I was confronted with my worst nightmare. There is no feeling like it in the world and the feeling never leaves you.' Her son was initially supposed to be in care for four weeks and his mother comforted herself with the thought that the horrible mistake would be realised. But she never got him back.

Further tests were carried out by an occupational therapist who, according to Mrs A, cast doubt on Professor Southall's diagnosis.

She said: 'My son just couldn't understand why he couldn't come home. When we went to see him he would say, "Please, I want to come home". It broke my heart. I must have cried for about two years solid. I just spent most of the time in tears.' Mrs A claims that bruising appeared on her son while he was in care but that her concerns were never properly investigated.

Then social workers tried to include her nine-year-old daughter in the care order.

In 1999, claims Mrs A, her mother was so worried about the girl also being taken into care that she took the girl without Mrs A's knowledge and absconded with her, first to Ireland and then to Stirling.

'She was so worried about my son and afraid the same thing would happen with my daughter.

My daughter wanted to go, she was quite happy with her gran, although she missed her dad an me terribly.' Mrs A maintains she only realised they were hidden away in Scotland when her father gave her a mobile number where she could contact them.

However, when Mrs A and her husband drove to see them police swooped and the girl was taken from them.

Mrs A, her mother and her husband were all jailed in 2001 in connection with the 'abduction' and two campaigners, Penny Mellor and Stuart Carnie, were imprisoned for conspiracy to abduct a child. Mrs A and her mother, who was then 63, spent 10 weeks in prison before being released on a tagging order.

Her husband served three months.

WHILE she was behind bars social workers were granted a further court order banning contact with her children.Her marriage to her husband, who is in the Navy, had already crumbled and her health followed.

'It was the strain that broke us up,' she said. 'There became no common ground except the kids and that just reminded us of what had happened.

'My health went downhill and I'm unemployed. The stress has left me damaged emotionally and damaged physically. I haven't been looking after myself and that, with all the running around, hits your system.' Her son is now 17 and Mrs A says social services have applied for another order to keep him in their care until he is 21.

She does not know where either child is, nor what they look like now. 'I am allowed to write to my daughter four times a year, but I never get an answer,' she said sadly. 'They say she can write back but I can't understand why she never has.' At present her fight to get the children back is at a standstill.

She has been refused legal aid to carry on the fight because she was deemed to have less than 50 per cent chance of success.

Now she is waiting to see what effect the Southall decision will have on her own case.

'I don't know at the moment,' she said. 'Maybe this will bring a breakthrough, although so far nothing seems to have done that.

'But I do know that while there's breath left in me I'll do whatever I can to make sure that I get my children back.'

LunarSea · 20/08/2004 09:44

Quite a good article, from the Staffordshire Sentinel here

MummyToSteven · 20/08/2004 09:55

Thanks for the link LunarSea. Interesting and in many ways perceptive article. Is there any proof though that Southall is a brilliant paediatrician? Just think that that is being assumed and not being questioned - which is another sign of what the article talks about in itself.

Bunglie · 23/08/2004 01:10

Good point M27, (I must stop calling you that!)

It's like me saying my Goldfish is brilliant, but it is only brilliant to me.

All of Southalls testimonials were from colleagues and a judge weren't they. I wonder if any were from patients?

After my initial 'disgust' at him not being struck off, I am glad now because I think it is important that we hear the other 8 cases against him.

I wonder how Meadows is feeling?

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page