This is the official blog of ex-Sgt Ellie Bloggs. I was a real live police constable then sergeant for twelve years, on the real live front line of England. I'm now a real live non-police person. All the facts I recount are true, and are not secrets. If they don't want me blogging about it, they shouldn't do it. PS If you don't pay tax, you don't (or didn't) pay my salary.

(All proceeds from Google Ads will be donated to the Police Roll of Honour Trust)

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

The Innocent Man

Today I read that three police forces are being investigated for arresting "the wrong guy" for a firearms incident. Apparently, horror of horrors, they forced the "victim" to lie face down at gunpoint. Highly unpleasant if it happens to you, but most people probably take it lying down.

Maybe as many as half of the incidents I attend in a day involve a victim of crime and their description of the person who robbed/attacked/cheated them. Typically, the information I get as I drive towards a crime scene is:

"Offender is a white male, aged 17, 5ft7, wearing a blue baseball cap, grey hoodie and Addidas tracksuit bottoms."

If I come across someone like that in the vicinity of the crime, and there is no way to disregard them from the enquiry, I am quite likely going to arrest them. Ways of eliminating them as a suspect might be:
  • Having stopped and questioned them, I am happy with the explanation they have given.
  • I get an updated/more accurate description, or the offender is seen again by the victim elsewhere.
  • I feel strongly that it isn't the right guy.
Ways that I generally DON'T choose to eliminate the suspect are:
  • He says he didn't do it.
  • His hat is a different colour than the victim described.
  • He doesn't have the stolen stuff on him (this gets discarded/sold sometimes within minutes of the offence).
Sometimes the description is quite poor, and you have to make a judgment call. Of course the easiest thing would be to get the victim to come down and tell you if you have the right guy. Unfortunately this breaches Code D of PACE and will lead to the person getting off in court. The only option once you've stopped them is to hold an ID parade, which means the person has to be arrested.

The tendency to arrest in these circumstances rises in proportion with the seriousness of the offence. So if a stranger rapist is on the loose, the police won't take the risk of letting the correct offender go, and will arrest more willingly. If it's a trivial theft, they might just take the person's name and address so they can go and arrest them later if it turns out it was the right person.

Occasionally, mistakes are made. I cannot imagine how frustrating it must be to happen past a crime scene wearing exactly the same outfit as the offender and end up spending hours in custody/lying at gunpoint on the floor, but usually police officers are pretty good at judging whether they have the right person.

Traumatic or otherwise, an arrest is just a stage in an investigation.

I've made probably 50-100 arrests based on a mixture of factors such as description/location/suspicion. Over half proved to be the right person. A few proved to be an innocent passer-by. The rest were never proven either way, but I have my suspicions.
I generally try not to shoot the suspect eleven times in the head, just in case (unless I'm sure it's them, of course).

It's a shame we have to log the DNA and fingerprints of those who fall foul at this stage, but then again front-line police officers don't make those laws. You can bet that if we let someone go who matched the description of an offender carrying a gun, and he went onto shoot someone round the corner, there would be just a small inquiry into what the hell we were thinking.

'Diary of an On-Call Girl' is available in all good bookstores and online.


Anonymous weepeecee said...

I was out walking with my mum the other week. A dog-walker failed to pick up some (dog)poo and mum, disgusted, asked if I could do anything about it.
I could, I told her, but I'm definitely not getting my warrant card out for a poo.

Later she grilled me about the 42 day detention proposal.

From dog dirt to national security - we're bound to get it wrong somewhere in the middle.

09 July, 2008 01:13

Blogger Boy on a bike said...

I'm with you. Arrest them all - let the judge sort it out.

09 July, 2008 01:21

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well weepeecee you should have arrested your mum . Arresting the victim is all a la mode

09 July, 2008 06:15

Blogger thinblueline said...

woe betide any of these members of public then match crime scene stains and get banged up for rapes and murders decades ago as well..

what the hell are we thinking !

09 July, 2008 09:24

OpenID inspectorgadget said...

50 to 100 arrests yes, but how many detections? also - almost everyone wearing Addidas trackies, reebok classics and a baseball cap is guilty of something - even if it's just wasting fresh air by breathing. They don't give a monkeys about being arrested anyway - they know nothing will happen to them in Court even if they plead guilty. Getting knicked is part of their day, like playing X Box or watching the plasma telly we bought them with the Benefits cash.
Rant Over.

09 July, 2008 10:19

Blogger uniform said...

"Offender is a white male, aged 17, 5ft7, wearing a blue baseball cap, grey hoodie and Addidas tracksuit bottoms."

Bejesus, that boy don't half get around; I think he is the described offender on a few crime reports I’ve managed.

It just used to be that a local man was "helping police with their enquiries”, printed in the side bar of the local, never read, rag.

But now that flamin CCTV shows us doing everything.

But hold your horses, I'm sure the IPCC will really get to the bottom of it, and lessons will be learned....again.

Shudda, shudda, shudda

By the way Bloggs you seem to be double posting on the same days as Gadget, same rest day pattern? Coincidence or planned? Same person , or perhaps married and living together .

I do like to start rumours.

09 July, 2008 10:37

Anonymous Ben said...

Not very many officers these days seem to care about the necessity test.

(To read the PACE code, the arrest must be necessary for one of the purposes 2.9(a) through 2.9(f). It is not enough that the one of the purposes (a) through (f) exists, the arrest must be neccessary for the purpose.)

If you think they are going to abscond, interfere with witnesses or evidence, or have given a false name or address, that's one thing.

But you don't have to arrest people to put them in an identity parade, or question them under caution. First ask them nicely if they are willing to do it voluntarily. If they are, there is no need to arrest them, is there? You'd have a lot fewer irate citizens if you remembered that.

Of course this may be less convenient, as you may have to arrange it around their appointments, but "to allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person in question." doesn't mean "it's more convenient".

The arrest has to be NECCESSARY for the purpose in PACE Code 2.9, not convenient for it.

Lastly, there is no law REQUIRING you to take fingerprints and DNA of every arrestee. You have the legal authority to do so if you think appropriate. It may be your force's policy to take everyone's, but don't blame the politicians for that, it's squarely at the feet of the force. The same goes for length of time the information is retained.

09 July, 2008 10:39

Blogger uniform said...

Sorry to come back so soon after the last post...

Ben me old mucker, you are of course quite right about the necessity test, but we have a custody suite for a purpose, we don't have a “can you just hang around in the corridor area”. Detention is detention , and in any case you would then have to fill out a stop-encounter form.

And as far as the finger print, DNA thing goes...

Are you mad? A stark raving Looney?

Don’t you realise that a failure to fill in these forms will set in train a series of e-mails, phone calls, from the depths of the admin department concerned will filing these forms, that you will have you name published in a circular form for all to see to your dying shame. The system can not cope with a non-return.

You may as well try to turn base metal to gold whilst performing a frontal lobotomy.

Just do the form son, just do the form.

09 July, 2008 11:14

Anonymous Ben said...


To an officer an arrest is a trivial thing. After all, you make hundreds every year. So what if you deprive a few people of their liberty for a few hours?

To a law-abiding citizen it is not just an affront, a humiliation and a damned nuisance, but a stain on their character which may never be erased, and may have to be disclosed, for example if they want to visit certain friendly countries.

To pretend it has no consequences is naive. Just don't arrest people unless you really need to.

09 July, 2008 13:01

Blogger uniform said...

oh all right

09 July, 2008 14:09

Blogger Geoffrey said...

The problem is "arrested", because in most countries formal arrest is not an automatic procedure, but a fairly serious matter. For instance, once arrested, a person can't travel to the USA without going through a process involving a description of what they were arrested for. Regardless of whether or not their identity was mistaken.

Civil servants are completely unconcerned about errors of this type, because they are only interested in statistics.

09 July, 2008 16:25

Anonymous XTP said...

I've made 50-100 arrests as well. Mind - it took 20-odd years! :-)

09 July, 2008 17:11

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am a great believer in civil liberties, and certainly have no wish to see inocent people arrested and detailed. However when a serious crime has been commited, particularly if a weapon is involved the Police has to act in a way consistent with protecting themselves and the general public. If you stop someone who you suspect is armed then I would say it is reasonable to take appropriate precautions, which may involve pointing a gun at them. I think most reasonable people would accept a certain amout of stress and inconvenience in those circumstances.

The fact that being arrested involved having your DNA and other details recorded in various databases is a problem for me, but as I understand it that is down to regulation and not under the control of the arresting officer.


09 July, 2008 17:11

Anonymous steve said...


In 10years of service, I can count on one hand the number of "innocent" members of the public I have arrested. As a rule, and im sure the others will support me on this, we arrest the same people, for the same things, all the time.For the genuine members of the public who have been a bit silly, then I agree, arrest by appointment is most appropriate. However, If you think Im going to put my self out so as not to inconvenience little johhny scrote, who has been out burgling your house or robbing someones nan than you are sorely mistaken. Their arrest is always to enable a prompt and effective investigation into the matter, whatever time of the day or night I call on them.I like annoying them. It shows them what it feels like to have their lives mucked about with, on a lesser scale than their poor victims feel.

09 July, 2008 17:37

Blogger PC Bloggs said...

"But you don't have to arrest people to put them in an identity parade, or question them under caution. First ask them nicely if they are willing to do it voluntarily."

We do a lot of voluntary procedures, but what happens if the person refuses? If the answer is that you arrest them, then you should be arresting them to start with, because your "nice request" wasn't really a request, and they deserve the protection of being in police custody where everything that happens to them is documented and governed by strict codes.

A nice request doesn't give you the power to do s.18 searches, draw inferences following a special warning, or place bail conditions on them prior to court.

Believe it or not, I generally am polite to most of the people I arrest, but the voluntary options are very often not practical and an arrest is the most efficient way of dealing with someone.

Also, it may surprise you to hear that some people might agree to an ID procedure or interview and then NOT TURN UP ON THE DAY!!!

Finally (sorry to go on), in the circumstances where someone has just committed an offence and is stopped round the corner by the police, are we supposed to just take their name and let them on their merry way to rob someone else around the next corner?

09 July, 2008 18:00

OpenID nooffencesdisclosed said...

Ben -
Consider that the power of arrest allows opportunities to seize items of property - ie clothing - this can then be used to confirm or exclude them from enquiries. This is neither voluntary or practical in the street.
No police officer takes pleasure in depriving a person of their liberty, but the prompt and effective investigation of an offence goes beyond tape recorded interviews and ID procedures as Bloggs points out.
If an innocent person cannot provide a reasonable alibi for their proximity to a recent offence unfortunately they're going to spend time in the pokey until it's all cleared up...
See this blog to build up the picture a bit more if you like, I don't think taking details and "Would you take part in an ID procedure please" would cut the mustard:

09 July, 2008 18:56

Blogger blueknight said...

A wrongful arrest, but what would YOU do?
The scene was a long country road with a pub and a phone box halfway down it. Probably not dissimilar to somewhere in Ruralshire. A very quiet road where the only excitement is the local horse escaping its field.No one walks along it at night, or so we thought.
It was early in the morning and the landlady was awoken by the sound of half a dozen youths smashing up the phone box.
She phoned 999 and we were despatched. The descriptions came through, a skinhead, one with a denim jacket, one with a football scarf, one with long blond hair..
We drove along the road, past the phone box, glass broken, receiver smashed and then we saw them. Half a dozen football hooligan types, a skinhead, one with a denim jacket one with a football scarf and one with long blond hair.
They all got nicked they were all drunk and aggressive and nothing could have been sorted out on the street.
When we got to custody we heard similar calls come over the radio and they were 'in progress'?
It turned out that 200 football fans had got off the night train at **** and they were walking 12 miles across country to xxxx where their team were playing the next day. All 200 were skinheads or wearing denim jackets, football scarves and some would have long blond hair.
We had arrested the last half a dozen at the back of the line. They were innocent. The guilty were mixed up in the other 195, a mile down the road.
But what would YOU do?

09 July, 2008 21:37

Blogger Metcountymounty said...

excellent post bloggsy.

Ben - We can usually tell within the first 5 seconds if the person detained following a description is the right one or not, if it's not then a quick name and address in the notebook, thank them for their time and off they go.

Considering that in order to arrest someone we have to have reasonable suspicion that they are guilty of having committed the offence in the first place or that sufficient evidence of their involvement exists, funnily enough 'innocent' people are very rarely actually arrested. Even fewer are ever charged and even fewer than that are ever convicted.

Then added to the suspicion is the whether the arrest is necessary for at least 2 of the given reasons (most people don't actually carry passports and a recent utility bill with them and a contemporaneous interview outside of custody takes HOURS to do properly and so on tape in a station wastes less of their time as well as ours) when we get to custody if the custody Sgt isn't happy that there is enough evidence to detain the person then detention isn't authorised then off they go.

The people you no doubt live and work with are nice and don't get arrested and probably have never been in trouble with the police before, the people we deal with day in and day out however aren't nice and we're pretty good at telling the two apart although mistakes will occasionally be made as we're human too.

With regard to the guy stopped at gun point, the allegation was that a firearm was seen and threatened and a description was given and the male was stopped and secured in line with IPCC procedures. If the police officers had just walked up to the guy and it HAD been the right person and they or someone else got shot then they would have been slated and dragged over the coals.

09 July, 2008 23:04

Anonymous Ben said...

Bloke who looks like mugger is a really bad example (although common arrest I appreciate) because the neccessity justification is always going to be "because he will destroy evidence, flee, and/or has given a false name".

@pcbloggs "they deserve the protection of being in police custody"

Self serving claptrap -- sounds like it was written by a lawyer, did you cut and paste? MOPs prefer to spend four hours being dragged off to the cells instead of letting you rummage in their bag? Be serious.

More to the point it's not one of the reasons in PACE 2.9, so if you were really arresting for that reason, which I don't believe...

I think we are coming at it from different positions. You make lots of arrests, almost all of them the same people over and over, most of them guilty of that crime, and if not then plenty of others.

On the other hand if a law-abiding MOP (not career criminal or underclass) is arrested, it is reasonably likely that they are innocent, "in the wrong place at the wrong time", or the victim of a really daft arrest decision such as those which make the papers from time to time, for sausage throwing, hosepipe spraying or attempting to prevent people stealing their bicycles.

(Yes I know all the litter ones are actually arrested for refusing to give their names -- I'm not talking about them.)

So the law-abiding MOP is a lot more concerned about false arrest than you are, and you need them on your side.

"A nice request doesn't give you the power to do s.18 searches, draw inferences following a special warning, or place bail conditions on them prior to court."

No it doesn't. That's on purpose.

If as nooffencesdisclosed believes, wanting to search their house was sufficient reason for arrest, there would be no reason to ever get a warrant would there?

For necessity to be satisified it must be necessary to search the house IMMEDIATELY. If a warrant would satisfy the need you may not arrest. If a summons would satisfy the need you may not arrest.

Yes they may not turn up for the ID parade. Then you can arrest them.

10 July, 2008 09:08

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You haven't answered Bloggs' question: what do you do if they refuse?
Sure you can arrest them if they fail to turn up for an ID parade... so that's two cops out for the next eight hours scouring all known haunts, plus then you have to rearrange the ID parade.
You seem to think there is some sort of possible utopia. There isn't. If we want a police force, they will make mistakes, the wrong people will be arressted and innocent MOPs will occasionally be inconvenienced. There is no way around this, while we have humans in the chain.

10 July, 2008 09:46

Anonymous Ben said...

@anonymous: If they refuse, and you are sure a search is justified, then you will have established that it is necessary to arrest them in order to carry out the search. Generally the innocent will not refuse because they know two things: you want eliminate them, and they want to be on their way.

And ID parade? Assuming you have established name and address so (a) or (b) doesn't apply, nor do you have reasonable grounds for thinking that: (c) they will hurt anyone or themselves, damage property or obstruct the highway, or (d) there is a need to protect a vulnerable person, or (f) that the will abscond. That leaves (e) to allow the prompt and effective investigigation of the offence.

Will it be adequate for the investigation to leave the ID parade till the next day? (Were you going to hold it any sooner? If so are they willing to go to the station with you now?)

If either is true, you don't need to arrest them.

If you've no reasonable suspicion that they won't turn up, then yes, you have to give them the chance to do so. Of course it is inconvenient if they don't attend... The second time they will be known to you as someone likely to not attend and there is your necessity.

@anonymous, I don't think there is any utopia, and of course there will be mistakes, but remember we are talking about arrest without a warrant here, and it is rightly reserved in law for cases when it is necessary. Not convenient, necessary.

Society is not supposed to be run for the convenience of the police, but for that of the public.

Best regards,
(Finally worked out how to spell necessary)

10 July, 2008 12:05

Blogger thinblueline said...

Ben I see where you are going.

However access to FREE legal representation which is a right upon detention is also a factor , a big one which you are missing.

10 July, 2008 15:38

Anonymous weepeecee said...

Ben: so, it's 4am, someone reports a burglary. They have disturbed an intruder inside their house and have a very brief description of the offender because it was dark and they were half asleep.

Police are called and they start searching the area. Someone is found hiding behind a van in a nearby road. He does not really match the description given and says he was just walking home from a mate's house when he saw police cars and hid because he didn't want to end up getting pulled for something he hasn't done. He's smartly dressed in designer gear, doesn't have an obvious drug habit and isn't recognised by the officers who are speaking to him. He is searched and has nothing on him that links him to the burglary.
His details are run through PNC and he comes back as no trace. He hasn't got any id on him which confirms the details he has given but is calm and believable.

Acting on experience and instinct the officer finding him arrests him on suspicion of burglary. Other officers search the area between the house where the burglary happened and the place the suspect was found. No property from the burglary is located but there is a crow bar in a nearby petrol station forecourt which is brought in as evidence just in case.

The suspect is taken to the station where he is booked in and processed, his fingerprints are taken and his footwear is seized so impressions can be taken.
A s. 18 search is authorised immediately. Nothing is found in his flat apart from a large bag of cannabis and lots of expensive clothes and gadgets (complete with receipts).
This could well be a bit of a clanging mistake and I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks so.

A few hours later he is interviewed, under his actual name rather than he pretend one had given to police originally. He has sought legal advice and is happy with it.
He confesses to the burglary and to numerous others. He tells the interviewing officer where the items stolen from the burglary are to be found. He had used the crowbar we found to prise the door open. He has other similar offences pending and is kept in over night for court the next morning. After a short time on court bail he appears in court and is sentenced for six months and the burglary figures in the area drop significantly.
A tin of chocolates arrives at the police station for the team to thank them for returning the stolen property to the owner.

Perhaps, Ben, you would rather we had made a different decision and let the burglar go on account of his apparent co-operation and innocence.

Further, ID parades in the old fashioned sense don't happen anymore, at least not where I work. A VIPER procedure is the only way to go and that takes days to arrange, certainly it can't be sorted out at 4am.

What we're talking about here is practical policing, something which you clearly have very little knowledge of. It takes something above and beyond a parroted knowledge of PACE to go out there and put it into practice.

10 July, 2008 17:13

Blogger Metcountymounty said...

anon 2152 (is that you cuddles?) according to the DPS the wrongful arrests that are confirmed and are paid out are nearly always due to officers and staff not cancelling PNC markers which means people get arrested twice (or sometimes more) for the same offence having been previously NFA'd or dealt with. This isn't actually the fault of the officer arresting as we can only go on the information given, the fault lies with the force who didn't cancel the marker. The standard fee for payback after wrongful arrest is £3,000 per hour for the first 24 then a negotiated amount thereafter.

As for 'innocent' members of the public getting arrested and prosecuted maliciously I've no idea, but I'm pretty sure it would be all over the papers if it was more than a one off occurance, don't you??

10 July, 2008 22:18

Anonymous Anonymous said...

metcountymounty@10 July, 2008 22:18


"The standard fee for payback after wrongful arrest is £3,000 per hour for the first 24 then a negotiated amount thereafter."

That is a very large amount of money indeed. Is it taxable?


12 July, 2008 16:49

Blogger Metcountymounty said...

It is compensation for wrongdoing on behalf of the government, just like criminal injuries compensation, which isn't taxable. The bad thing about it is when you start looking at years of wrongful incarceration in which the amount doesn't increase equally, you would not get ten times the amount for ten years in prison instead of one.

12 July, 2008 21:06

Blogger Clovis Sangrail said...

You might try this
example of some of the problems with wrongful arrest.

As a MOP, an academic and a staunch supporter of the police (not the senior ranks) I always feel really let down by this sort of cavalier attitude to the law by those supposedly upholding it. I was particularly unimpressed with the blog author's claim that she was following the dictates of the law in automatically taking DNA evidence when she was immediately prepared to change her stance to "I daren't not" when challenged as to the validity of that statement.

With regard to the original post, however, I have much more sympathy.
Errors happen-that's human. So long as systems take that possibility into account then you're likely to be doing well. The total absence of an acceptance of that possibility together with what sounded (admittedly from a great distance) like real negligence by the original surveillance team is what went terribly wrong in the Menezes case and is what will increasingly go wrong with the use of DNA database.

12 July, 2008 23:52

Anonymous Definition of Drivel said...

Metcountymounty: Your probbie is either lieing to you or hasn't understood what he's signed when he joined up, there is currently no waiver signed by joining officers saying they'll consent to being armed sometime in the future and as to the rumour that Sir John bought enough pistols to arm everyone in the Met that that rubbish has been trotted around the Met for years and incredibly people still believe it. How do I know this? Well firstly because I deliver the firearms training package to the students at Hendon, currently the only firearms training they receive before they go out onto division, as for the apparently widely known 'fact' that there's a stash of Glocks just waiting to be dished out to waiting officers please for the love of God can you stop passing around such drivel. There isn't such a stash, there isn't a training package to train all frontline police within six weeks and as long as my arse points downwards frontline officers in the Met won't be armed. Think about it for a second, how much would such a cache cots to buy? £600 per Glock plus maintenance and mags, how would you train 10,000 pcs in six weeks when Gravesend is already running at full capacity. The sooner rubbish like that rumour is put to bed the better, no on with the debate. 19

14 July, 2008 21:53

Blogger The Druid said...

"Offender is a white male, aged 17, 5ft7, wearing a blue baseball cap, grey hoodie and Addidas tracksuit bottoms."


Although, down our way, this did change for a while after The Scottish Burglar and his mates did the local surf shop over. Bizarrely, because they nicked whole rails of stuff and flogged it on, this meant that even though we could still stereotype about what the suspects were wearing, at least it was more tasteful...

20 July, 2008 02:04

Blogger 成人 said...

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 21:29

Blogger look said...

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,

15 April, 2009 02:50

Blogger liwo said...

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 10:43


Post a Comment

<< Home


View My Stats
eXTReMe Tracker