No bruise, you lose:
Domestic Violence is a funny old thing. Well maybe not that funny, but certainly old.
In terms of how the police deal with it, the whole process couldn't be simpler. We turn up, we view an injury, we arrest the person without an injury, we leave. If they've both got injuries, we arrest both. If there's no injury, it might be about to swell up later, so we arrest somebody at random. The victim is generally the woman, although I've also arrested a large number of women offenders, and the defences in interview are always the same:
In terms of how the police deal with it, the whole process couldn't be simpler. We turn up, we view an injury, we arrest the person without an injury, we leave. If they've both got injuries, we arrest both. If there's no injury, it might be about to swell up later, so we arrest somebody at random. The victim is generally the woman, although I've also arrested a large number of women offenders, and the defences in interview are always the same:
- I didn't touch her.
- She went for me like a wild animal, I was restraining her.
- She did it to herself, she's MAD.
- She hadn't done the ironing, what did she expect? (I've actually only heard that one once.)
Believe it or not, it's not really that hard to prove Domestic Violence in court. As long as the victim has a decent visible injury, the court will be likely to assume she or he didn't agree to it being inflicted. It helps if the victim is a lot smaller than the offender too, as it then seems less likely he or she was the aggressor, or that the offender felt in danger.
The problem only occurs because the victims of Domestic Violence tend to be rather blase about their predicament and don't get off their lazy backsides to come to court. Or they didn't get hit hard enough to show a bruise, which is their own fault.
On the other side of the coin, police doctors will tell you that nine times out of ten, victims of rape have no visible injuries. Consensual sex, however, frequently results in bruising.
Maybe that's why rape is so hard to prosecute. And maybe it means all the victims of punches and kicks we go to see each day are really lying, and should be quizzed more thoroughly on whether or not they actually agreed to it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright of PC Bloggs.
The problem only occurs because the victims of Domestic Violence tend to be rather blase about their predicament and don't get off their lazy backsides to come to court. Or they didn't get hit hard enough to show a bruise, which is their own fault.
On the other side of the coin, police doctors will tell you that nine times out of ten, victims of rape have no visible injuries. Consensual sex, however, frequently results in bruising.
Maybe that's why rape is so hard to prosecute. And maybe it means all the victims of punches and kicks we go to see each day are really lying, and should be quizzed more thoroughly on whether or not they actually agreed to it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright of PC Bloggs.
posted by PC Bloggs at 21:41
29 Comments:
victims of rape have no visible injuries. Consensual sex, however, frequently results in bruising.
Wouldn't the victim at least have bruising where the aggressor held her down and generally applied force to her? If not, logically I would have doubted the claim.
23 September, 2007 21:40
And lo, the urban myth is born.
23 September, 2007 22:43
Could you expand on why this is so? Happily, my experience in such matters is zilch. I need to be educated.
23 September, 2007 22:53
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=483304&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770
Bloggsy youve made the Daily Mail, well done.
Big Fella.
23 September, 2007 23:31
Found this aswell, sorry to off your topic bloggsy,
WPC Bloggs is a real-life Bridget Jones...with handcuffs, CS gas and sensible shoes. She frets about her make-up, flirts with male officers and, occasionally, arrests some very naughty people. Diary of an On-Call Girl offers an hilarious, insiders look at modern policing - the first to be written by a young serving woman officer - where days are spent with bolshy teenagers, violent drunks and wolf-whistling yobs. Along with her wry humour, WPC Bloggs makes serious, lacerating points about modern Britain.
Turnaround Publishing
http://www.turnaround-psl.com/main/book_search.cfm?bookid=75641
23 September, 2007 23:39
Domestics are a nightmare, I think we have the same policy as you Bloggsy positive arrest even in these times of SOCAP.
I have been to so many domestics which can take the whole 8hr shift to deal with where the so called vicitim doesnt want to press charges the next day. This isnt due to her being oppressed this is usually the third call of the month to her address where three times she has had her partner arrested and three times the charges dropped. Most of these fights happen when both are drunk and they use the police as the referee.
They waste so much of our time, which stops us/slows us going to proper domestics where the female has been almost beaten to death and we end up getting her out of her home into a shelter to safety out of his reach.
This happens with rape too, you wouldnt believe it but some women lie to us about being raped because their parents or partner finds out they have been having sex with someone they shouldnt or just that they have regretted it. We treat each investigation as a real incident as we always do and end up having our time and resources wasted. Officers have to deal with the scene, the vicitim and the offender. Different officers and different vehicles and different police stations have to be utilised so that there is no cross contamination, this can sometimes leave an area with no local police officers to react to new calls for assistance.
23 September, 2007 23:55
I was unfortunate enought o live next door to a pair of chavs for a few months before I packed up and fled the UK. As well as not being able to sleep because of his loud drug-sales parties and friends peeing on my back door, I had to put up with constant cries of "don't hit me, I'm pregnant!" from his hoop-earinged up-the-duff minger of a girlfriend.
Every day.
For months.
And the police could do nothing about it. believe me, I felt for them when they came round. Their hands are tied in these situations. No visible bruises and the victim saying that it never happened and the guy next door's just trying to cause trouble.
I was just pissed off the first time as I rang the police who couldn't spare the staff that evening. So they called him on the phone and spoke to both of them remotely and TOLD them that a neigbour had reported it - I'm his only immediate neighbour. Cue me coming home to find five of his mates surrounding my car asking why I'd "dobbed him for doing domestic violence" (sic).
Still, one cockup by a person in a control room doesn't dent my respect for the poor buggers who do the hard work in the police force. It's just a shame they're not allowed to drag scum like him off down the street by his stupid thick gold chains and beat some sense into him.
24 September, 2007 00:04
AAAH Domestics, went to one Sat night. As we arrive blokey legs it out the back, can't find him. Nevermind start taking the statement from the girl. She says he's kicked her etc (no marks mind). A page and a half through the statement she says, well it all started when I slapped him, ok fair enough. Then she says shall I mention the fact I got a knife and shouted I'm gonna F**king kill you? (this was confirmed by the neighbour who called us) She then says what about when I threw the chair at him?
AAAH! In the end no complaint PNB signed.
24 September, 2007 11:56
The problem with domestics from my perspective is this:
Loud verbal argument between husband and wife overheard by neighbours who call police.
Police arrive and are invited in. Couple explain to officer what's happened. Officer checks for injuries and any allegations. There are none. Officer asks if the couple have children. They have. Officer asks to see the kids to check on their welfare. Couple think this is a bit intrusive but being good citizens they agree. kids are asleep - officer looks in - all is well. Couple think that is the end of the matter. No dear member of the public it is not. In my force the following occurs:
1) Personal details are taken of the couple and recorded. Why? A permanent record has to be made by the officer at the police station detailing the incident in full. What we call a 'non crime book domestic'
2) Officer has to complete a 'form 124D' at the scene which asks some very personal questions e.g. "Does you partner abuse your pets?" - yes I am serious.
3) The childrens details are recorded again on a separate permenant data base for 'children coming to notice'.
4) The officer has to record an intelligence report on the forces intelligence system. The details of the incident are once again recorded in full.
An abuse of civil liberties? I think so and I'm a copper. The police have come into your home, looked around your house, recorded very personal family information on computer data bases and dear member of the public you HAVE DONE NOTHING WRONG.
The officer certainly does not want to do this. He has been forced to record the incident in the manner described, which will have taken him/her about two to three hours paperwork to complete.
Is it in the public interest to record this incident in this way? Why do we do it then? Yet another example of the obsessive statistic gathering by the home office to say how well we are doing.
serving the public? We're having a laugh
24 September, 2007 13:44
Much of the above seems to be proof that Darwin was wrong. Human beings are de-volving - though I suspect that no self-respecting primate in the jungles of equatorial Africa or Latin America would countenance the kind of behaviour described.
J. Edgar Hoover once said, "The bulwark of religious training is vital if the line is to be held against the forces or corruption, crime and disloyalty. I believe that men imbued with spiritual values do not betray their country. I believe that children reared in homes in which morality is taught and lived rarely become deliquents."
Though no saint himself, since Hoover dealt with a great many villains, including some of the worst on record, his observations were probably sound.
24 September, 2007 14:06
This is but one reason that we think you english police are twats.
24 September, 2007 14:12
Many women claim rape once they realise that they have had unprotected sex. Once they have had the abortion, they decline to take matters any further: read the law for more details.
24 September, 2007 14:21
bloggsy... they said you were young!!!!
24 September, 2007 14:44
northern echo reader:
firstly, going round calling people 'twats' is hardly the way to go on.
secondly, though, i agree that this was mad and disgraceful stuff. BUT the whole point of this and the other police blogs is that there are officers (eg Copperfield, Bloggs, Gadget, etc etc) who completely agree with you (outside the swearing bit). we know the law is mad, but it's not the PCs who make it, it's the government and the ACPO ranks
24 September, 2007 14:51
Went to an apparent 'domestic' last night. Woman downstairs alone pissed up, rest of family upstairs knocking out loads of Z's. Mother starts headbuttng the kitchen door like a woman possessed for no apparet reason.
Daughter calls police because she is worried about mum who is not being hostile towards anyone but herself, the bloody call taker puts it on a domestic! Domestic my arse!
I bugs the hell out of me, they won't re-classify it to a straight forward disturbance and insist on giving it crime numbers.
Anyway, I got it sorted in the end armed with my writing pad and a million pens!
24 September, 2007 16:26
Read the linked comments from John Stevens - it's a great shame he wasn't shouting this from the rooftops when he was the Met Commissioner, but then of course, if he had, he'd still be Mr John Stevens wouldn't he? Must get one's priorities right.
Back in the dark days (pre-PACE) it was not unusual to put both parties before the court for a bind-over to keep the peace for 12 months or so. Once it was explained to them what would happen if they didn't keep the peace, very few domestics resulted from then on. Unfortunately, the Guardianistas took over the country and we now know the result of that.
Congrats on making the Daily Mail but hope the buggers paid up this time.
Plodnomore
24 September, 2007 21:25
It's no wonder that most rapes/sexual assaults go unreported if the views expressed in the comments here are representative of the general public or any police officers.
Why would any woman or girl think she might be taken seriously by a police officer who holds such stereotypical, victim blaming views? Why do some of those people who are in the best possible position to advocate for justice for rape victims choose to bang on about the infinitely small number of false allegations - 3 - 5% according to the Home Office commissioned report A Gap or Chasm? - no higher than false allegations of any other reported crime?
Many women decide against reporting rape or sexual assault purely because they expect to be met with the attitudes on display here. I wouldn't report it if I was raped because I doubt that I would be taken seriously. A serving police officer said the same thing in a Channel 4 documentary not so long ago.
It's wrong.
And an equally scathing attitude is shown to domestic violence incidents. I realise they're tiresome for police officers to deal with but the dynamics of an abusive relationship (from 'chavs' to high court judges and even, yes, police officers themselves) are extremely complicated. Sometimes, the very fact that the police have shown up at all can make life even more dangerous for the woman (because mostly, it is women) who has to make a very tricky decision.
I'm not dissing the police here - indeed, some of my local police officers have shown incredible intuition and sensitive support to women when called to domestic violence incidents. It's that very sensitivity that has often given the woman the courage she needs to start planning her escape even though she may have declined to press charges or retacted her statement.
Sorry about the length of this comment. My buttons have been pushed.
25 September, 2007 00:48
anotheranon-
Don't automatically assume that everyone posting here is a cop.
My experience with domestics is as follows, in a misdemeanor prosecutor's office in the US.
Two types exist. Those with marks, and those without.
Those with get fast tracked prosectution and extra attention.
Those without get skepticism. Frequently, the person claims that they were struck in a manner unlikely to not have left marks, and then backtracks when you ask to see the place they were hit. Often they claim they were simply pushed over onto a couch, and have no marks, but assure you that they were beaten up really badly 6 weeks ago. They don't have any witnesses from then. Many have a history of reporting similar offenses in the past, but not showing up for court.
We feel kind of hopeless about these cases. Some are definitely real. Others are this stupid cycle where the two parties get drunk, fight, one pushes the other, the other reports the first to the cops and "wins" the fight by having them arrested, and the next morning they're happy because they're on top and they forgive the arrested party. Its a waste of everyone's time and our assistance just facilitates the horrible, destructive relationship. Who the real victim is I honestly have trouble saying. Its hard to feel sympathy for someone who pushes his girlfriend in a drunken fight, but its hard to feel sympathy for someone who maintains domestic superiotity by calling the cops.
I was fortunate that I didn't have to deal with felony cases there. I'm sure those are much scarier.
25 September, 2007 04:49
anotheranon
unless you personally are present in the house every time an alleged domestic takes place, you're in the same position as the cops - ie, you have two sides to the story.
actually, scratch that - you're in a worse position that the cops, cos you don't attend afterwards and speak to the two parties, you just read statistics and draw conclusions from them.
the ONLY way to guarantee getting to the bottom of every allegation is to install CCTV cameras in every home and have them monitored, 24/7, by the State. a bloke called George Orwell wrote a book about this, and it scared the living daylights out of me. could it happen? i used to say no. now i'm not so sure.
anyway, back to domestics. 99% of coppers love banging up aggressive, violent bullies. if a woman called the cops to her house and she is hurt and distraught the man WILL be arrested.
however, in an awful lot of cases, the woman calls the cops, it's the fifth time she's called them this year and in every previous case there was no evidence other than her word and she later withdraws her statement. they're both pissed, nasty, aggressive people and she got to the phone first.
this is the reality on many cases, whatever your homne office stats tell you.
25 September, 2007 09:45
Re anotheranon
I think you are mistaken about the police attitude to rape
Rape investigations are one of the few jobs the police throw serious time and resources at and we actually do properly. Unfortunately, rape accusations for the main part boil down to one persons word against another and as any officer will tell you, rape and domestic violence are actually jobs that the CPS will put to court despite the lack of other evidence. Any other job; a crap assault, damage etc the CPS will bin prior to court as there is “no realistic prospect of a conviction”. A rape allegation will probably make it to court before being dismissed and this is why the conviction rate is so low.
This does NOT mean the police don’t take it seriously.
I know this is hard to hear but simply because someone says something happened, it does not mean it DID happen. When it comes to rape, this seems to promote howls of anguish; the crime is SO awful that we want to believe that noone would make up such a story. For all sorts of reasons (shame, revenge) sometimes they do, and if the police are not aware of this, they are not doing their job properly.
On another matter, Alanorei quotes that well known crook (and fanatically religious homosexual cross-dresser) j edgar hoover "The bulwark of religious training is vital if the line is to be held against the forces or corruption, crime and disloyalty. I believe that men imbued with spiritual values do not betray their country. I believe that children reared in homes in which morality is taught and lived rarely become deliquents."
As far as I am aware, the 7/7 bombers had had a fair amount of religious and moral training. See also 9/11 and other terrorist acts, and see the history of Ireland since around 1171.
I think Nietzsche had it right “Morality is the herd instinct of the individual”.
For more on Hoover's own refreshing approach to "corruption, crime and disloyalty" feel free to look up the COINTELPRO projects of the FBI.
25 September, 2007 10:06
pcr said:
On another matter, Alanorei quotes that well known crook (and fanatically religious homosexual cross-dresser) j edgar hoover...
As far as I am aware, the 7/7 bombers had had a fair amount of religious and moral training. See also 9/11 and other terrorist acts, and see the history of Ireland since around 1171.
2 points:
1. I stated that JEH was no saint himself - arguably his worst misdemeanour was his vilification of fellow FBI senior, Melvin Purvis, which led to the latter's eventual suicide. My comment was based on JEH's experience of villains, which was considerable, his 'lifestyle' notwithstanding.
2. My understanding of the context of JEH's comment is that it referred to 'middle America,' which at the time was largely Protestant and biblical, neither Catholic nor Muslim.
Finally, since you appear to be a police officer, I have a question.
What proportion of individuals have you or any of your colleagues arrested for actual crimes* who:
a) Professed to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour.
b) Professed to believe the bible as their rule of faith and practice for day-to-day living?
Note I said proportion. Roughly 5-10% of the UK population would answer yes to a) and b) above.
*I am not referring to cases of victimisation, e.g. where PC Nicola Gandy arrested the now-deceased Christian pensioner Mr Harry Hammond in Bournemouth in October 2001 for lawfully preaching in public against fornication and sodomy.
Consistent with your earlier comment, in order not to clutter up this blog unnecessarily, you may wish to forward any remarks here, http://alanorei.blogspot.com/
or simply contact me directly on alan.oreilly@ntlworld.com
The latter option would be more convenient for me.
P.S. For what it's worth, I don't believe that Muslims were directly responsible for 9/11, although they were quite pleased when it happened, i.e. "My enemy's enemy etc."
25 September, 2007 15:57
"What proportion of individuals have you or any of your colleagues arrested for actual crimes* who: a) Professed to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. b) Professed to believe the bible as their rule of faith and practice for day-to-day living?"
Alanorei, in reference to the above, do "actual crimes" include mass murders and frenzied stab attacks on strangers? Quite a few of the people who perpetrate those profess to (a) and (b).
There's a lesson there somewhere...
25 September, 2007 16:06
PC Bloggs said:
Alanorei, in reference to the above, do "actual crimes" include mass murders and frenzied stab attacks on strangers? Quite a few of the people who perpetrate those profess to (a) and (b).
Thank you for the response. I'd be interested in the names - if, for example, you mean individuals like Jim Jones (as a mass murderer), it can be demonstrated that he was an imposter. See scripture citations below.
I think you may find that these supposed believers turn out to be Satanists (e.g. Crowley), IRA supporters (e.g. Count Plunkett, 1916), inquisitors, (e.g. Ignatius Loyola) or national figureheads schooled by inquisitors (e.g Hitler, Hoess etc.).
Various of the above have been known to counterfeit Christian belief, e.g. like the notorious paedophile priests (overwhelmingly from one denomination only).
Thinking, however, in the context of the ordinary church-going public in the UK (such as it is) as a proportion of the general public, which is what I had in mind, I have a list of 15 multiple murderers who were highlighted on various documentaries, going back as far as Haigh, the acid-bath murderer and up to Harold Shipman.
None of these appear to have had any identifiable Christian testimony.
You are in a position, obviously, to have access to much more data but I am not aware of any recent high-profile cases, e.g. Shipman, West, Huntley etc. where New Testament Christian belief was featured as part of the killer's mentaility.
Otherwise, the mass media would have had a field day, as I'm sure we'd agree.
The Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 19:18 "Thou shalt do no murder" so by definition no mass murderer or frenzied stabber could be abiding by b), even if he professed a), which according to St John would have to be a lying profession. See 1 John 3:15b.
"No murderer hath *eternal life abiding in him."
*which is what is meant by a).
Overall, of course, we may have to agree to disagree.
Again, I've no wish to extend the topic unnecessarily. Though feel free to email me if you want to take it further.
Please understand, I'm trying to be practical. Everyone wants a way forward. I am simply proposing one that has historical and testimonial precedent that it works.
25 September, 2007 18:09
alanorei your not a murderer are you?
26 September, 2007 12:32
I interviewed Jesus Christ once.
28 yr old male had been arrested for criminal damage to his mothers house, and assault on his mother. He seemed Ok prior to interview.
SDN went something like
PCR: Introductions acording to PACE. Caution
PCR: You were arrested on suspicion of assault on your mum and criminal damage this evening at 1800hrs. Can you talk me through the events leading up to your arrest in your own words?
JC: Well I would just like to say that I do believe that I am the resurrection of our lord Jesus Christ and I have the right to persecute those unbelievers that will not listen to the word"
PCR: Errr....(long pause on tape).
In retrospect, I should have asked for his autograph
26 September, 2007 13:25
This thread is getting bizarre...
pc pc said...
alanorei your not a murderer are you?
Not that I know of - unless I suffer from altered states of consciousness, of which I am unaware as yet.
pcr said...
I interviewed Jesus Christ once.
etc.
Reminds me of the incident where the German Reformer Martin Luther threw his ink bottle at the Devil, also masquerading as the Second Person of the Godhead.
I realise you can't do that in a police interview but you can read about it here, http://www.sacred-destinations.com/germany/eisenach-wartburg-castle.htm.
If it happens again, ask the interviewee, "How did Jesus Christ come?"
If he doesn't answer "Jesus Christ came in the flesh," (and your intervieweee appears not to have said this), then you are dealing with a demoniac, not simply a felon who happens to be a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic, as they say.
When I said "Professed to etc....", perhaps I ought to have added, "as confirmed by reliable witnesses."
There are a lot of counterfeits out there. You'll probably encounter more by-and-by as things get progressively worse.
I can forward further clarification if required.
Again, feel free to email me at the address given earlier or here, http://alanorei.blogspot.com/.
26 September, 2007 14:46
成人電影,情色,本土自拍, 一夜情, 辣妹視訊, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊, 視訊美女, 美女視訊, 視訊交友, 視訊聊天, 免費視訊聊天室, 情人視訊網影音視訊聊天室, 視訊交友90739, 成人影片, 成人交友, 本土自拍, 免費A片下載, 性愛,
成人交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人電影, 成人, 成人貼圖, 成人小說, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人遊戲, 微風成人, 愛情公寓, 情色, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 做愛, 色情聊天室, 美女交友,
嘟嘟成人網, 成人貼圖, 成人電影, A片, 豆豆聊天室, 聊天室, UT聊天室, 尋夢園聊天室, 男同志聊天室, UT男同志聊天室, 聊天室尋夢園, 080聊天室, 080苗栗人聊天室, 6K聊天室, 女同志聊天室, 小高聊天室, 情色論壇, 色情網站, 成人網站, 成人論壇, 免費A片, 上班族聊天室, 成人聊天室, 成人小說, 微風成人區, 色美媚部落格, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人論壇, 情色聊天室, 寄情築園小遊戲, AV女優,成人電影,情色,本土自拍, A片下載, 日本A片, 麗的色遊戲, 色色網, ,嘟嘟情人色網, 色情網站, 成人網站, 正妹牆, 正妹百人斬, aio,伊莉, 伊莉討論區, 成人遊戲, 成人影城,
ut聊天室, 免費A片, AV女優, 美女視訊, 情色交友, 免費AV, 色情網站, 辣妹視訊, 美女交友, 色情影片 成人影片, 成人網站, A片,H漫, 18成人, 成人圖片, 成人漫畫, 情色網, 日本A片,
愛情公寓, 情色, 舊情人, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 情色交友, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 色情遊戲, 情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 色情a片, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 寄情築園小遊戲, 色情遊戲情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 言情小說, 愛情小說, 色情A片, 情色論壇, 色情影片, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊美女, 視訊交友, 視訊聊天, 免費視訊聊天室, a片下載, aV, av片, A漫, av dvd, av成人網, 聊天室, 成人論壇, 本土自拍, 自拍, A片,成人電影,情色,本土自拍,
03 April, 2009 20:25
免費A片, 本土自拍, AV女優, 美女視訊, 情色交友, 免費AV, 色情網站, 辣妹視訊, 美女交友, 色情影片, 成人影片, 成人網站, A片,H漫, 18成人, 成人圖片, 成人漫畫, 情色網, 日本A片, 免費A片下載, 性愛, 成人交友, 嘟嘟成人網, 成人電影, 成人, 成人貼圖, 成人小說, 成人文章, 成人圖片區, 免費成人影片, 成人遊戲, 微風成人, 愛情公寓, 情色, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 做愛, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 寄情築園小遊戲, 色情遊戲, 情色視訊,
情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 言情小說, 愛情小說, 色情A片, 情色論壇, 色情影片, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊美女, 視訊交友, ut聊天室, 視訊聊天, 免費視訊聊天室, a片下載, av片, A漫, av dvd, av成人網, 聊天室, 成人論壇, 本土自拍, 自拍, A片, 愛情公寓, 情色, 舊情人, 情色貼圖, 情色文學, 情色交友, 色情聊天室, 色情小說, 一葉情貼圖片區, 情色小說, 色情, 色情遊戲, 情色視訊, 情色電影, aio交友愛情館, 色情a片, 一夜情, 辣妹視訊, 視訊聊天室, 免費視訊聊天, 免費視訊, 視訊, 視訊美女, 美女視訊, 視訊交友, 視訊聊天, 免費視訊聊天室, 情人視訊網, 影音視訊聊天室, 視訊交友90739, 成人影片, 成人交友,
14 April, 2009 16:50
爆爆爽a片免費看, 天堂私服論壇, 情色電影下載, 成人短片, 麗的線上情色小遊戲, 情色動畫免費下載, 日本女優, 小說論壇, 777成人區, showlive影音聊天網, 聊天室尋夢園, 義大利女星寫真集, 韓國a片, 熟女人妻援交, 0204成人, 性感內衣模特兒, 影片, 情色卡通, 85cc免費影城85cc, 本土自拍照片, 成人漫畫區, 18禁, 情人節阿性, 做愛的漫畫圖片, 情色電影分享區, 做愛ㄉ影片, 丁字褲美女寫真, 色美眉, 自拍俱樂部首頁, 日本偷自拍圖片, 色情做愛影片, 情色貼圖區, 八國聯軍情色網, 免費線上a片, 淫蕩女孩自拍, 美國a片, 都都成人站, 色情自拍, 本土自拍照片, 熊貓貼圖區, 色情影片, 5278影片網, 脫星寫真圖片, 粉喵聊天室, 金瓶梅18, sex888影片分享區, 1007視訊, 雙贏論壇,
免費成人影音, 彩虹自拍, 小魔女貼影片, 自拍裸體寫真, 禿頭俱樂部, 環球av影音城, 學生色情聊天室, 視訊美女, 辣妹情色圖, 性感卡通美女圖片, 影音, 情色照片 做愛, hilive tv , 忘年之交聊天室, 制服美女, 性感辣妹, ut 女同聊天室, 淫蕩自拍, 處女貼圖貼片區, 聊天ukiss tw, 亞亞成人館, 777成人, 秋瓷炫裸體寫真, 淫蕩天使貼圖, 十八禁成人影音, 禁地論壇, 洪爺淫蕩自拍, 秘書自拍圖片,
aaaa片, 免費聊天, 咆哮小老鼠影片分享區, 金瓶梅影片, av女優王國, 78論壇, 女同聊天室, 熟女貼圖, 1069壞朋友論壇gay, 淫蕩少女總部, 日本情色派, 平水相逢, 黑澀會美眉無名, 網路小說免費看, 999東洋成人, 免費視訊聊天, 情色電影分享區, 9k躺伯虎聊天室, 傑克論壇, 日本女星杉本彩寫真, 自拍電影免費下載, a片論壇, 情色短片試看, 素人自拍寫真,
15 April, 2009 08:46
Post a Comment
<< Home