Upton-upon-Severn woman slams graphic pictures on Facebook

Evesham Journal: Facebook has refused to remove the image Facebook has refused to remove the image

BEING confronted by a photograph of a dead baby lying in rubble has led one woman to call for stricter controls over what pictures appear on Facebook.

Catherine Badham, of Church Street, Upton-upon-Severn, was disgusted to find the picture on her timeline.

She said it was not accompanied with any information about the baby or what had happened and appeared unsolicited after a friend ‘liked’ the picture.

After reporting the photo to the social media giant, the 36-year-old was shocked to be told it did not violate the terms of its community standards as it was not glorifying or celebrating the death.

Fed up with similar images of a graphic or sexual nature, as well as digital chain letters appearing on the site, she now believes Facebook needs to review the policy which allows such posts to appear.

She said: “I go on Facebook all the time and really enjoy using it to connect with friends I don’t see every day, I find it supportive and funny and use it in the same way as most people do.

“But then up pops this photo with a caption saying pray for the baby – and a photo of the child in the rubble. It was really upsetting and I was absolutely gobsmacked by Facebook’s reply. Children as young as 13 can sign up to the site and see these pictures."

A Facebook spokeswoman defended the image, saying the site had long been a place where people had turned to share their experiences, particularly when they are connected to such controversial events as human rights abuses, acts of terrorism and other violent events.

“People share these photos to condemn them, not to glorify them," she said.

"If the photos were being celebrated, or actions in them encouraged, our approach would be different."

Mrs Badham said she did not have information about what had happened to the baby or where the photo was taken. Recently, the site has come under fire for allowing a video of a decapitation to circulate among users, which it eventually removed.

Prime Minister David Cameron criticised the site before the video was removed saying it was “irresponsible, specially without a warning”.

Facebook community standards state: “Images shared for sadistic effect or to celebrate or glorify violence have no place on our site.”

 

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:25pm Thu 12 Dec 13

MJI says...

Best thing to do is keep of the site, they are ran by a bunch of cretins.
.
Show a breast it is pulled, show a beheading, no problem.
Best thing to do is keep of the site, they are ran by a bunch of cretins. . Show a breast it is pulled, show a beheading, no problem. MJI
  • Score: 6

1:42pm Thu 12 Dec 13

truth must out says...

Fed up with similar images of a graphic or sexual nature, as well as digital chain letters appearing on the site, she now believes Facebook needs to review the policy which allows such posts to appear.
You haven't GOT to look at them................
............or didn't you know that??
Fed up with similar images of a graphic or sexual nature, as well as digital chain letters appearing on the site, she now believes Facebook needs to review the policy which allows such posts to appear. You haven't GOT to look at them................ ............or didn't you know that?? truth must out
  • Score: 0

2:05pm Thu 12 Dec 13

TheRealFacts says...

If you don't like facebook.. stay off facebook

If you want to be on a social network site, create your own/ find another or don't moan!!
If you don't like facebook.. stay off facebook If you want to be on a social network site, create your own/ find another or don't moan!! TheRealFacts
  • Score: 15

2:08pm Thu 12 Dec 13

Budweis-her says...

Perhaps she should choose her friends more wisely if they like sharing pictures of dead babies.

Why doesn't she just approach the friend personally and explain she was offended, instead of complaining to Facebook?

Or is her 'friend' one of those virtual friends people have to make themselves look popular and aren't real friends at all?
Perhaps she should choose her friends more wisely if they like sharing pictures of dead babies. Why doesn't she just approach the friend personally and explain she was offended, instead of complaining to Facebook? Or is her 'friend' one of those virtual friends people have to make themselves look popular and aren't real friends at all? Budweis-her
  • Score: 15

3:50pm Thu 12 Dec 13

madamebadham says...

Ok so first of all the image wasn't 'liked' by a friend, it was spam that appeared on my news feed so no avoiding it. I delete any of my friends that regularly post the 'like this page or you'll have bad luck for year' rubbish that often clogs up newsfeeds - these are the things that lead to spam. I love Facebook. I don't like to see a picture of a dead baby in rubble with no context other than to say to 'pray for it'
IT was someone's child. If an anonymous dead baby on Facebook is acceptable to you then I feel for you.
As for 'you don't have to look' well, other than avoiding the site completely which I am not going to do please tell me how you 'un-look' ?
This photo appeared to me much the same as any other on social networks, I just didn't expect to see such a graphic image.
I appreciate every one had an opinion but it is extremely troubling that the overwhelming opinion seems to be about me and my use of Facebook. A dead baby is fine? Excellent.
Ok so first of all the image wasn't 'liked' by a friend, it was spam that appeared on my news feed so no avoiding it. I delete any of my friends that regularly post the 'like this page or you'll have bad luck for year' rubbish that often clogs up newsfeeds - these are the things that lead to spam. I love Facebook. I don't like to see a picture of a dead baby in rubble with no context other than to say to 'pray for it' IT was someone's child. If an anonymous dead baby on Facebook is acceptable to you then I feel for you. As for 'you don't have to look' well, other than avoiding the site completely which I am not going to do please tell me how you 'un-look' ? This photo appeared to me much the same as any other on social networks, I just didn't expect to see such a graphic image. I appreciate every one had an opinion but it is extremely troubling that the overwhelming opinion seems to be about me and my use of Facebook. A dead baby is fine? Excellent. madamebadham
  • Score: 3

4:07pm Thu 12 Dec 13

IGeoTre says...

It wasn't spam, a friend of yours 'liked' the picture, so it appeared in your news feed.

People use Facebook as a source of news and as a way of spreading news and commenting on it. The Facebook spokesperson is absolutely right, people share/like these pictures in the vast majority of cases because they are appalled by them, or trying to spread awareness etc.

Facebook have some odd policies, as referred to above, but they won't censor the world for you.
It wasn't spam, a friend of yours 'liked' the picture, so it appeared in your news feed. People use Facebook as a source of news and as a way of spreading news and commenting on it. The Facebook spokesperson is absolutely right, people share/like these pictures in the vast majority of cases because they are appalled by them, or trying to spread awareness etc. Facebook have some odd policies, as referred to above, but they won't censor the world for you. IGeoTre
  • Score: 8

4:09pm Thu 12 Dec 13

IGeoTre says...

edit - I see my first paragraph is apparently incorrect. Still, I don't get random images in my news feed that aren't shared or liked by friends. You might want to look into that.
edit - I see my first paragraph is apparently incorrect. Still, I don't get random images in my news feed that aren't shared or liked by friends. You might want to look into that. IGeoTre
  • Score: 3

4:27pm Thu 12 Dec 13

madamebadham says...

Totally agree. However this 'post' had zero context, no mention of who why when or how. This isn't news. It's exploitative. You are lucky you don't get this stuff on your fb pages. Unfortunately I see a lot of the 'angels will love you and protect you if you recite the alphabet backwards and share this 40 times' ****. I usually delete these people (often good mates in reality) or I hide them because these ate the posts that eventually lead to the one I received. I checked the friends timeline who supposedly posted it and contacted her. It wasn't her. It wasn't there. This IS the first time I've had a picture of this nature. Usually it's just irritating. A gratuitous picture is not news in my opinion. That's why I was aggrieved.
Totally agree. However this 'post' had zero context, no mention of who why when or how. This isn't news. It's exploitative. You are lucky you don't get this stuff on your fb pages. Unfortunately I see a lot of the 'angels will love you and protect you if you recite the alphabet backwards and share this 40 times' ****. I usually delete these people (often good mates in reality) or I hide them because these ate the posts that eventually lead to the one I received. I checked the friends timeline who supposedly posted it and contacted her. It wasn't her. It wasn't there. This IS the first time I've had a picture of this nature. Usually it's just irritating. A gratuitous picture is not news in my opinion. That's why I was aggrieved. madamebadham
  • Score: 0

4:29pm Thu 12 Dec 13

madamebadham says...

Just don't see the purpose of it?
Just don't see the purpose of it? madamebadham
  • Score: -2

4:45pm Thu 12 Dec 13

the truth man says...

facebook is outdated when it comes to stopping this crap... beheading is OK for facebook to put it on there.... kids use this site to talk to friends and this comes on there page ....what are the people in Westminster doing to stop this ? if the government was to ban facebook till they got there act together bet you within a few days they will sort this out its only because there aloud to do as they please! **** /dead baby/ rape videos/ beheading what next snuff videos BAN THEM REMEMBER YOUR KIDS USE THIS SITE WITHOUT YOU KNOWING WHAT THERE LOOKING AT !!!!!!!!!!!!
facebook is outdated when it comes to stopping this crap... beheading is OK for facebook to put it on there.... kids use this site to talk to friends and this comes on there page ....what are the people in Westminster doing to stop this ? if the government was to ban facebook till they got there act together bet you within a few days they will sort this out its only because there aloud to do as they please! **** /dead baby/ rape videos/ beheading what next snuff videos BAN THEM REMEMBER YOUR KIDS USE THIS SITE WITHOUT YOU KNOWING WHAT THERE LOOKING AT !!!!!!!!!!!! the truth man
  • Score: 8

6:42pm Thu 12 Dec 13

goodygoody says...

madamebadham wrote:
Ok so first of all the image wasn't 'liked' by a friend, it was spam that appeared on my news feed so no avoiding it. I delete any of my friends that regularly post the 'like this page or you'll have bad luck for year' rubbish that often clogs up newsfeeds - these are the things that lead to spam. I love Facebook. I don't like to see a picture of a dead baby in rubble with no context other than to say to 'pray for it'
IT was someone's child. If an anonymous dead baby on Facebook is acceptable to you then I feel for you.
As for 'you don't have to look' well, other than avoiding the site completely which I am not going to do please tell me how you 'un-look' ?
This photo appeared to me much the same as any other on social networks, I just didn't expect to see such a graphic image.
I appreciate every one had an opinion but it is extremely troubling that the overwhelming opinion seems to be about me and my use of Facebook. A dead baby is fine? Excellent.
Well said. Who ever put a dead baby pic on facebook did it because they like looking at it and want their friends to see it too, because I fail to see any other reason someone would put this picture on there. What does it achieve? The baby couldn't be saved. It was put on to shock. Same as pictures you find suddenly appearing of animals being tortured. Nothing anybody can do about it so just featured to shock. Very upsetting. Social networking isn't supposed to be about beheadings, dead babies, cruelty to animals and so on. The people that need to put this on their walls are the ones that shouldn't be on Facebook.
[quote][p][bold]madamebadham[/bold] wrote: Ok so first of all the image wasn't 'liked' by a friend, it was spam that appeared on my news feed so no avoiding it. I delete any of my friends that regularly post the 'like this page or you'll have bad luck for year' rubbish that often clogs up newsfeeds - these are the things that lead to spam. I love Facebook. I don't like to see a picture of a dead baby in rubble with no context other than to say to 'pray for it' IT was someone's child. If an anonymous dead baby on Facebook is acceptable to you then I feel for you. As for 'you don't have to look' well, other than avoiding the site completely which I am not going to do please tell me how you 'un-look' ? This photo appeared to me much the same as any other on social networks, I just didn't expect to see such a graphic image. I appreciate every one had an opinion but it is extremely troubling that the overwhelming opinion seems to be about me and my use of Facebook. A dead baby is fine? Excellent.[/p][/quote]Well said. Who ever put a dead baby pic on facebook did it because they like looking at it and want their friends to see it too, because I fail to see any other reason someone would put this picture on there. What does it achieve? The baby couldn't be saved. It was put on to shock. Same as pictures you find suddenly appearing of animals being tortured. Nothing anybody can do about it so just featured to shock. Very upsetting. Social networking isn't supposed to be about beheadings, dead babies, cruelty to animals and so on. The people that need to put this on their walls are the ones that shouldn't be on Facebook. goodygoody
  • Score: 4

7:37pm Thu 12 Dec 13

DarrenM says...

Is anyone else tired of listening to these 'professionally offended' Daily Mail readers banging on about things they've seen on the internet all the time, and trying to enforce their supposedly superior morality on everyone else?

I'm sure there's some "compensation" they could claim from facebook or maybe or some counselling they could have?

How does the line of thought go? Is it - Booo hooo I saw a nasty picture on facebook, I must write into the Evening News because I'm sure as soon trans-global multi-billion dollar corporation hears about 3 paragraphs in a obscure newspaper down in old "Englandshire" they'll soon come round to my way of thinking?
Is anyone else tired of listening to these 'professionally offended' Daily Mail readers banging on about things they've seen on the internet all the time, and trying to enforce their supposedly superior morality on everyone else? I'm sure there's some "compensation" they could claim from facebook or maybe or some counselling they could have? How does the line of thought go? Is it - Booo hooo I saw a nasty picture on facebook, I must write into the Evening News because I'm sure as soon trans-global multi-billion dollar corporation hears about 3 paragraphs in a obscure newspaper down in old "Englandshire" they'll soon come round to my way of thinking? DarrenM
  • Score: 5

8:16pm Thu 12 Dec 13

pinkfluff says...

Quote-Social networking isn't supposed to be about beheadings, dead babies, cruelty to animals and so on. The people that need to put this on their walls are the ones that shouldn't be on Facebook. End.


It is for some people, some want to confront this rather than bury our heads in the sand and head off to Ikea to do some shopping. Some of us actually want to raise awareness so that things will change. However, I do agree that it should not be forced on anyone, that won't help anyone.
Quote-Social networking isn't supposed to be about beheadings, dead babies, cruelty to animals and so on. The people that need to put this on their walls are the ones that shouldn't be on Facebook. End. It is for some people, some want to confront this rather than bury our heads in the sand and head off to Ikea to do some shopping. Some of us actually want to raise awareness so that things will change. However, I do agree that it should not be forced on anyone, that won't help anyone. pinkfluff
  • Score: 3

8:50pm Thu 12 Dec 13

madamebadham says...

I'm not a Daily Mail reader but your suggestion I might take up 'counselling' or gain 'compensation' and the tone of your message suggests you probably should be. I don't like seeing Dead Babies. Can I make it clear, once again, that 'News' is one thing. A random/untitled/bere
ft of any relevance or sense photo of a dead child serves precisely zero purpose. I do not expect Facebook to change anything in reality. I was merely commenting that I, and others, don't see the relevance or need for it. As for my 'Superior Morality' I don't offend people behind a computer by suggesting that they read The Daily Fail! (quite frankly an abhorrent idea to me but each to their own) I stated an opinion. MY opinion.
Which seems to offend you more than people posting despicable photos on a site that children can and do regularly use.
If I was a Daily Mail reader I'd have put the name of the page it came from.
If I had have done I imagine the responses on here would have been quite different.
I'm not a Daily Mail reader but your suggestion I might take up 'counselling' or gain 'compensation' and the tone of your message suggests you probably should be. I don't like seeing Dead Babies. Can I make it clear, once again, that 'News' is one thing. A random/untitled/bere ft of any relevance or sense photo of a dead child serves precisely zero purpose. I do not expect Facebook to change anything in reality. I was merely commenting that I, and others, don't see the relevance or need for it. As for my 'Superior Morality' I don't offend people behind a computer by suggesting that they read The Daily Fail! (quite frankly an abhorrent idea to me but each to their own) I stated an opinion. MY opinion. Which seems to offend you more than people posting despicable photos on a site that children can and do regularly use. If I was a Daily Mail reader I'd have put the name of the page it came from. If I had have done I imagine the responses on here would have been quite different. madamebadham
  • Score: 4

2:30am Fri 13 Dec 13

TinFoilHat says...

And there goes another 2 minutes of my life.

If you little rascals at Worcester News keep up this level of pointless journalism you'll end up owing me some serious days back.
And there goes another 2 minutes of my life. If you little rascals at Worcester News keep up this level of pointless journalism you'll end up owing me some serious days back. TinFoilHat
  • Score: 2

2:17pm Fri 13 Dec 13

MJI says...

IGeoTre wrote:
It wasn't spam, a friend of yours 'liked' the picture, so it appeared in your news feed.

People use Facebook as a source of news and as a way of spreading news and commenting on it. The Facebook spokesperson is absolutely right, people share/like these pictures in the vast majority of cases because they are appalled by them, or trying to spread awareness etc.

Facebook have some odd policies, as referred to above, but they won't censor the world for you.
They do censor, they remove breasts and anything suggestive.
.
A joke I have seen a few times.
.
"A bloke took a picture of his wife naked and posted it to Faceache - it was pulled. So he cut off her head uploaded that and Faceache accepted it."
.
They are ran by nutcases.
[quote][p][bold]IGeoTre[/bold] wrote: It wasn't spam, a friend of yours 'liked' the picture, so it appeared in your news feed. People use Facebook as a source of news and as a way of spreading news and commenting on it. The Facebook spokesperson is absolutely right, people share/like these pictures in the vast majority of cases because they are appalled by them, or trying to spread awareness etc. Facebook have some odd policies, as referred to above, but they won't censor the world for you.[/p][/quote]They do censor, they remove breasts and anything suggestive. . A joke I have seen a few times. . "A bloke took a picture of his wife naked and posted it to Faceache - it was pulled. So he cut off her head uploaded that and Faceache accepted it." . They are ran by nutcases. MJI
  • Score: 3

3:30pm Fri 13 Dec 13

broken6 says...

I am shocked! That in this day and age, people are still surprised to find inappropriate pictures on the internet! Facebook has hundreds of millions of pictures uploaded evrey single day. How on earth are they supposed to vet evrey single one? Most are taken off after someone complains, but unless you are prepared to wait several weeks/months to have a picture approved for uploading, then you either accept the inevitable or turn off Facebbok.

Come on people. Free speech isn't conditional!
I am shocked! That in this day and age, people are still surprised to find inappropriate pictures on the internet! Facebook has hundreds of millions of pictures uploaded evrey single day. How on earth are they supposed to vet evrey single one? Most are taken off after someone complains, but unless you are prepared to wait several weeks/months to have a picture approved for uploading, then you either accept the inevitable or turn off Facebbok. Come on people. Free speech isn't conditional! broken6
  • Score: 2

7:59pm Fri 13 Dec 13

MJI says...

broken6 wrote:
I am shocked! That in this day and age, people are still surprised to find inappropriate pictures on the internet! Facebook has hundreds of millions of pictures uploaded evrey single day. How on earth are they supposed to vet evrey single one? Most are taken off after someone complains, but unless you are prepared to wait several weeks/months to have a picture approved for uploading, then you either accept the inevitable or turn off Facebbok.

Come on people. Free speech isn't conditional!
They do vet them, a hint of flesh off it comes, but they are happy to show extreme violence.
[quote][p][bold]broken6[/bold] wrote: I am shocked! That in this day and age, people are still surprised to find inappropriate pictures on the internet! Facebook has hundreds of millions of pictures uploaded evrey single day. How on earth are they supposed to vet evrey single one? Most are taken off after someone complains, but unless you are prepared to wait several weeks/months to have a picture approved for uploading, then you either accept the inevitable or turn off Facebbok. Come on people. Free speech isn't conditional![/p][/quote]They do vet them, a hint of flesh off it comes, but they are happy to show extreme violence. MJI
  • Score: 1

8:13pm Fri 13 Dec 13

DarrenM says...

madamebadham wrote:
I'm not a Daily Mail reader but your suggestion I might take up 'counselling' or gain 'compensation' and the tone of your message suggests you probably should be. I don't like seeing Dead Babies. Can I make it clear, once again, that 'News' is one thing. A random/untitled/bere

ft of any relevance or sense photo of a dead child serves precisely zero purpose. I do not expect Facebook to change anything in reality. I was merely commenting that I, and others, don't see the relevance or need for it. As for my 'Superior Morality' I don't offend people behind a computer by suggesting that they read The Daily Fail! (quite frankly an abhorrent idea to me but each to their own) I stated an opinion. MY opinion.
Which seems to offend you more than people posting despicable photos on a site that children can and do regularly use.
If I was a Daily Mail reader I'd have put the name of the page it came from.
If I had have done I imagine the responses on here would have been quite different.
As for my 'Superior Morality' I don't offend people behind a computer by suggesting that they read The Daily Fail!

I rest my case - you're offended by someone suggesting that you might read a certain newspaper........ Whatever you do don't turn on the news, you might find a whole list of things to be offended about....


Which seems to offend you more than people posting despicable photos on a site that children can and do regularly use

1) Children under 13 are barred from facebook, if they use it that's a parenting issue. 2) Given the nature of violent video games and films they seem to continually enjoy I doubt many children would be 'offended'
3) From the story and the comments, it wasn't an open post anyone could view it appeared on your list because one of your 'friends', apparently 'liked' it - -Perhaps you should raise this with your 'friend'?


A random/untitled/bere

ft of any relevance or sense photo of a dead child serves precisely zero purpose

I completely agree, but I didn't need to write to the paper about it.


I stated an opinion. MY opinion.


Agreed, but this may come as a shock, but there are thousands of people myself included who are completely uninterested in your opinion, and I'm unsure why its been published in the paper.
[quote][p][bold]madamebadham[/bold] wrote: I'm not a Daily Mail reader but your suggestion I might take up 'counselling' or gain 'compensation' and the tone of your message suggests you probably should be. I don't like seeing Dead Babies. Can I make it clear, once again, that 'News' is one thing. A random/untitled/bere ft of any relevance or sense photo of a dead child serves precisely zero purpose. I do not expect Facebook to change anything in reality. I was merely commenting that I, and others, don't see the relevance or need for it. As for my 'Superior Morality' I don't offend people behind a computer by suggesting that they read The Daily Fail! (quite frankly an abhorrent idea to me but each to their own) I stated an opinion. MY opinion. Which seems to offend you more than people posting despicable photos on a site that children can and do regularly use. If I was a Daily Mail reader I'd have put the name of the page it came from. If I had have done I imagine the responses on here would have been quite different.[/p][/quote]As for my 'Superior Morality' I don't offend people behind a computer by suggesting that they read The Daily Fail! I rest my case - you're offended by someone suggesting that you might read a certain newspaper........ Whatever you do don't turn on the news, you might find a whole list of things to be offended about.... Which seems to offend you more than people posting despicable photos on a site that children can and do regularly use 1) Children under 13 are barred from facebook, if they use it that's a parenting issue. 2) Given the nature of violent video games and films they seem to continually enjoy I doubt many children would be 'offended' 3) From the story and the comments, it wasn't an open post anyone could view it appeared on your list because one of your 'friends', apparently 'liked' it - -Perhaps you should raise this with your 'friend'? A random/untitled/bere ft of any relevance or sense photo of a dead child serves precisely zero purpose I completely agree, but I didn't need to write to the paper about it. I stated an opinion. MY opinion. Agreed, but this may come as a shock, but there are thousands of people myself included who are completely uninterested in your opinion, and I'm unsure why its been published in the paper. DarrenM
  • Score: 2

11:55pm Fri 13 Dec 13

broken6 says...

Bu the way, who has the right to decide what is acceptable and what isn't?

Picture of Hitler? Right or wrong?

I personally find endless pictures of recently deceased "celebs" and "selfies" unacceptable. Do we ban them?
Bu the way, who has the right to decide what is acceptable and what isn't? Picture of Hitler? Right or wrong? I personally find endless pictures of recently deceased "celebs" and "selfies" unacceptable. Do we ban them? broken6
  • Score: 3

2:06pm Sat 14 Dec 13

redtail65 says...

gchq,nsa,facebook ,,,,all the same
gchq,nsa,facebook ,,,,all the same redtail65
  • Score: 2

10:05pm Sat 14 Dec 13

Geep says...

Be a member of Farcebook, Twatter, or Fleabay, reap what you sow...Get a Life!
Be a member of Farcebook, Twatter, or Fleabay, reap what you sow...Get a Life! Geep
  • Score: 3

11:01pm Sun 15 Dec 13

madamebadham says...

Well, as entertaining and enlightening this has been I'm signing out.
Next time I feel like raising an issue I'll go on Jeremy Kyle ;)
Well, as entertaining and enlightening this has been I'm signing out. Next time I feel like raising an issue I'll go on Jeremy Kyle ;) madamebadham
  • Score: 1

9:30pm Mon 16 Dec 13

scolesy says...

Get a grip all of you,,,,,.Nothing is real,,,only made up,,unless of course you want to be offended,,,,,,
Get a grip all of you,,,,,.Nothing is real,,,only made up,,unless of course you want to be offended,,,,,, scolesy
  • Score: 0

10:58pm Tue 17 Dec 13

MRSDEAKIN says...

ive had a photo of a dead baby in the park with the umbilical cord intact encouraging people to pray for the poor dead abandoned baby on my wall despite blocking the picture it still cropped up for over a month off different pages and prayer requests a, who the hell is sick enough to take a picture of the poor thing and b, what the hell were they doing uploading it to facebook! im normally pretty immune to those things "its not real its only facebook" but those pictures were pretty nasty
ive had a photo of a dead baby in the park with the umbilical cord intact encouraging people to pray for the poor dead abandoned baby on my wall despite blocking the picture it still cropped up for over a month off different pages and prayer requests a, who the hell is sick enough to take a picture of the poor thing and b, what the hell were they doing uploading it to facebook! im normally pretty immune to those things "its not real its only facebook" but those pictures were pretty nasty MRSDEAKIN
  • Score: 1
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree