No Comment
If you didn't kill your daughter, and someone asked, "Did you have anything to do with your daughter's disappearance?" would you answer:
A) No.
B) Absolutely one hundred percent no.
C) I can't believe you're asking me this!
D) No comment.
Everyone has a right to say No Comment. A lot of people do so as a result of legal advice, for better or for worse.
A "no comment" answer is generally considered to represent non-cooperation with the police. There are a lot of reasons why an innocent person might choose that path, for example:
A) No.
B) Absolutely one hundred percent no.
C) I can't believe you're asking me this!
D) No comment.
Everyone has a right to say No Comment. A lot of people do so as a result of legal advice, for better or for worse.
A "no comment" answer is generally considered to represent non-cooperation with the police. There are a lot of reasons why an innocent person might choose that path, for example:
- Protecting the real guilty party.
- Other illicit activity which they don't want to reveal.
- Concealing adultery.
- Pride.
- Wanting to wait for the police to reveal all their cards.
But in murder cases, it's usually a good idea to deny the offence if you didn't do it.
A short while ago, a colleague dealt with four guys for burglary. They had been found in a van with the stolen stuff from the burglary. Three of them gave the same account in interview: that the fourth guy had picked them up in the van and they had no idea the stuff was stolen. The fourth guy went "no comment".
As a result, the officer in the case had to compile the evidence for CPS advice, then complete a full "not guilty" file when the offenders were charged. The case went to an early hearing a month later.
In court, the fourth guy said the others' account was true, and pled guilty.
Did he get a higher sentence for wasting the police's time by not answering their questions, as he is supposd to? Did he, heck.
Not that I'm making any links to the McCanns, of course... After all, once the police or courts declare a suspect is not being charged, they must be innocent.
A short while ago, a colleague dealt with four guys for burglary. They had been found in a van with the stolen stuff from the burglary. Three of them gave the same account in interview: that the fourth guy had picked them up in the van and they had no idea the stuff was stolen. The fourth guy went "no comment".
As a result, the officer in the case had to compile the evidence for CPS advice, then complete a full "not guilty" file when the offenders were charged. The case went to an early hearing a month later.
In court, the fourth guy said the others' account was true, and pled guilty.
Did he get a higher sentence for wasting the police's time by not answering their questions, as he is supposd to? Did he, heck.
Not that I'm making any links to the McCanns, of course... After all, once the police or courts declare a suspect is not being charged, they must be innocent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
'Diary of an On-Call Girl' is available in some bookstores and online.
posted by PC Bloggs at 12:21
51 Comments:
I beg to differ. I too would "no comment".
This video is about American Law, but makes a good case for sticking with "no comment", even when innocent: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865
Unfortunately, I don't percieve the local police as entirely friendly* and co-operation is likely to backfire. You do have targets to achieve, so even if I'm innocent of what you are discussing with me, you will try and get a detection in some how.
I do sympathise with you all, and will cooperate once I have a defence brief, but that doesn't mean I have to trust you entirely when my personal liberty is at stake.
*This proposterous use of Terrorist Act happened 500m from my house: http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/Quizzed-over-terrorism-and-all.4332791.jp
05 August, 2008 12:50
Actually they are innocent. In this country, at least for now, we presume that a person is innocent until they are convicted by a court.
So if the police or courts have decided that they do not have enough evidence to present at trial for the person to be found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt", then they are innocent.
This is not, however, the same as saying that they did not commit the offence.
05 August, 2008 12:52
You couldn't possibly be implying that Barry George isn't innocent, despite having his conviction ruled unsafe by the courts would you?
I do agree that it's a shame our justice system rely on evidence and that have to allow the defendant to obtain legal (representation that could possibly show cases to be unsound)
Perhaps we should just convict people based on police witness testimony, after all there aren't well documented cases of police officers for lying in the courts! Certainly no cases of them pressing forward with a charge they know to be unsound in an attempt to pad their own figures or carry out some form of retribution.
This case clearly shows (as some people on this blog and others have suggested) that we should bring back the death penalty.
05 August, 2008 13:58
Firstly WPC, please learn how to spell (or at least how to use a spell-checker properly) and how to resort to the correct use of English in order to write your carping little piece.
Secondly, everyone is entitled to plead any way they chose, whether or not it inconveniences you .... and these days, who (especially the innocent!) would be as naive and stupid as to trust the police?
05 August, 2008 15:50
Well said Pete. Nasty little blog, is it not?
05 August, 2008 17:36
The other blog she occasionally links to is worse.
The comments section is frequently full of people who self identify as police officers raging about 'multiculturalism' and the government which is apparently 'the far left elite'.
It's a shame that the police have to be burdened with a new form to fill in every time they pick their own nose, but it's becoming transparently obvious from officers who post online that at least some of these people can't be trusted with authority and have to be constantly monitored.
05 August, 2008 17:53
I wonder why WPC has so many readers of blog and book, and so few nasty comments like above - funny that...
You go girl!!
05 August, 2008 17:57
'chunkybetty said...'
Possibly because a significant part of it's readership clearly aren't able to form evidence based stances on things and lift their opinions of the world wholesale from the Daily Mail.
Considering the word you used was 'nasty' which is a pretty poor way to describe someone challenging your reasoning I'm liable to suspect that this includes you.
Rather than appealing to authority or to a numbers argument, why don't you explain to us why a police officer rejecting the principles our criminal justice system is based upon isn't a problem.
05 August, 2008 18:12
I am a fan but don't agree with you on this one. You are drawing parallels from your own experience in Blandford in the UK justice system and applying to them to Kate McCann's experience in Portugal.
By the time these questions were asked she had answered all relevant questions countless times. However, at this point she was made an arguidio. If they wanted answers to the questions they could have asked them before interviewing her with a view to prosecution. If we assume (for the moment) that she knows that she didn't kill Madelaine, then it would be clear to her that the PJ had run out of leads, are leaking to the press like a sieve and are now using false DNA to try and finger her. In the circumstances, I hardly think it surprising that she elected to go for the "no comment" option.
05 August, 2008 18:17
I love the Barry George defence of "actually, I couldn't have done it because I was stalking someone else at the time".
Only in the British criminal justice system....
05 August, 2008 18:26
'inspectorgadget said...'
Yes clearly that was the entirety of his defense. Nothing to do with forensic evidence that was insufficient for a conviction.
In addition if his alibi was that he was stalking someone else at the time then that implicates him in a separate criminal case, while yes shock horror showing that he may not have been guilty of what he was originally charged with.
Clearly our justice system is hilariously broken because we don't jail people for crimes when there isn't sufficient evidence to do so.
This story is especially hilarious on these network of police blogs, when the same people who complain bitterly about how biased the press are when it comes to the police will unquestioningly and uncritically take the press reports as gospel and make a judgment despite having no personal access to the court case.
It's also hilarious following complaints that police work is being given to people who 'aren't trained', when the lack of knowledge displayed by the police who post here in regards to the basic functions of the justice system would shame a first year undergraduate.
05 August, 2008 18:40
Anonymous 18:12, unfortunately, if I got all my opinions from the Daily Mail I'd only see a great deal of negativity written about Officers in the comments (and articles) from what I've seen when linked to from Police blogs. I'd like to encourage police blog readers to get their side of the story across in those forums, as there are more MOP readers in those forums who need to hear your side of things than there are in the police blog community.
With regards to the word nasty, yes it was a pretty poor way for Melvin t to put across his reasoning for his disapproval of the blog, well thought out argument there (I know this was not you of course so I'll leave that one there).
"why don't you explain to us why a police officer rejecting the principles our criminal justice system is based upon isn't a problem" it is a problem of course, well it would be if they were rejecting the principles. Not being a police officer I can't say 100%, but if you read any police blog for any length of time you realise that the officers are incredibly frustrated that they uphold these principles in their heart and are prevented form carrying them out because of bureaucracy and government initiatives. They took the decision to become police officers, some many years ago, and have experienced a great deal of shit from the public many times. They are stuck in the middle, they have to make decisions to either follow regulation, and accept the consequences, or go against regulation and accept the consequences. Sometimes there is no right decision. They should at least be afforded respect for donning the uniform every day without knowing what to expect, without knowing what might happen to them today, and what decisions they might have to make, for better or worse.
They are part of the small percentage of people in this country who have decided to risk life and limb, day in and day out, in order to protect others. Nobody's perfect but I hold them in the highest regard for that. It's a shame more people don't.
05 August, 2008 18:44
The problem with talking about the police force as a uniform mass is that it ignores that they have the same problems as any institution. Any business you could name will contain staff who are totally incapable of serving public in an acceptable way
I have no doubt that there are good police officers who understand how and why the criminal justice system operates in the way it does and strive daily to uphold these values.
The problem with cutting back on bureaucracy is that in many cases it's in place to make absolutely sure that the police behave properly. Lets not forget that these people wield huge power and have produced countless examples of poor practice. Filling out multiple forms describing a suspects ethnicity probably does seem like a waste of time to the officer on the street, but it creates a traceable record that ensures people are behaving as they should (protecting the police as well as the general public).
It seem like such a simple solution to say 'well get rid of it!', but there never seems to be any thought as to what would happen if this system of checks were suddenly removed from the police. Saying 'we'll have time to catch more criminals' seems like a remarkably thin line of reasoning.
The modern police have to understand that wearing a uniform and doing the job of a police officer doesn't entitle anyone to instant respect regardless of an individual officers actions or attitude.
I'm sure most of the informed public do have a great deal of sympathy for these people in a dangerous job (I certainly do), but that does not give anyone a license to behave in ways that oppose the public good.
05 August, 2008 19:09
I should probably also add that being a police officer is pretty far down the list of the most dangerous jobs.
You're more likely to die working as a lorry driver or as sales person than you are as a police officer.
This of course doesn't make headlines as good as 'Brave Bobbies keeping our dangerous streets safe'
05 August, 2008 19:28
First of all, I don't work in "Blandford".
Secondly, I am not saying that the McCanns are guilty, or that Barry George is, and I am certainly not suggesting that either be prosecuted without good evidence. I do however have the advantage of dealing with a large number of guilty and innocent people on a year to year basis and am therefore just using my experience to point out some common human behavioural traits... what conclusions you draw from my stories are down to you.
Believe it or not, I regard myself as a "liberal", if not "elite" (whatever that means). I'm just a realist at the same time.
05 August, 2008 21:10
Paul Gadd , that was one of his names , also in reality another dirty little sex offender.
Quite fitting that George ,as a convicted attempt raper (served 23 months ), should get 8 years ;that will do as recompense.
The Mcliars ; Yeah right.
"the situation Madeline finds herself in "
Thanks Daddy for really looking after me
05 August, 2008 21:57
Bloggs
Never complain , never explain.
Keep locking them up , makes me smile
05 August, 2008 22:20
Well, I am a police officer and would still answer no comment to all questions until a defence brief arrived.
It's nothing to do with the police officers and their trustworthyness, but I have seen people drop themselves in it accidentally before by making what originally seemed innocent remarks...
It used to be the case that I'd prefer an interview without legal rep sometimes, because you could dispense with all games that briefs sometimes play. Furthermore, they sometimes provide bad advice to coin some more legal aid in after charge.
Recently though, more and more people are representing themselve because, "they have done nothing wrong" and are tying me up with ridiculous enquiries (in order to get an obvious charge through with CPS) when a good defence brief would have simple suggested they have it.
They are always charged in the end anyway, just makes it a lot more expensive and keeps me off the streets for a few hours a day more.
Nys
06 August, 2008 01:23
However:
"This video is about American Law, but makes a good case for sticking with "no comment", even when innocent: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4097602514885833865
"
The big difference is in the caution. In this country, police are supposed to be independent evidence gatherers and, "anything you do say can be used in evidence."
It doesn't stipulate if this is to be used for or against the client and, often, it is used by defence solicitors. Or prosecution solicitors against the police.
Good video though, boy can he talk ;)
06 August, 2008 01:36
Oh and finally...
Most of the "examples" he uses that would lead to a conviction wouldn't even lead to a filebuild for CPS here...
06 August, 2008 01:50
Maybe times have changed but some 25 years ago a local girl went missing, police turned up doing door to door enquiries and enquired where I was at the time she went missing. I hesitated in my reply and the officer said my name had already been given by others they had questioned and they weren't bothered that I was in a pub drinking illegally after hours but they needed me to confirm that I was there and alos confirm who else was there so they could be eliminated from enquiries. Result, they got the truth, several local people eliminated from enquiries and none of us who were drinking after time ever got prosecuted, nor was the pub ever put on any list for a 'visit' after hours, the police were as good as their word when they said 'they didn't care what they found out in their line of enquiry if it wasn't connected with the case they were investigating', and to be honest I don't think that a few guys drinking after hours was such a big deal.
Some 8 years ago I was interviewed for something trivial, since I was totally innocent I answered everything as fully and as honestly as I could even providing additional details that I thought would help. What a stupid mistake that was. What I should have said was 'no comment' all the way through.
Maybe times have changed or targets have changed the way police treat people.
06 August, 2008 10:53
Anon 05 Aug said: "The problem with cutting back on bureaucracy is that in many cases it's in place to make absolutely sure that the police behave properly."
Hmmm. It all depends what you want to achieve. Somewhere between 'the old days' (very little paperwork) and now (an enormous amount) we have lost perspective and, with it, the plot.
Somewhere between the two extremes, a certain amount of record keeping is essential. However, where we now have millions of hours of police time being used up annually on filling in forms, checking and re-checking them and booking in prisoners, the knock on effect of this is that lots and lots of other crime happens that otherwise might be prevented.
If you read these blogs you will know by now that the frontline police strength in the average town is minimal, and that any arrest takes an officer off the streets for 4/5 hours. While he or she is inside filling in the forms to ensure he or she is 'behaving properly' the criminals have it that much easier.
I think that all the blogs and books do is try to explain this to people - if we want the paperwork, we can't have the cops on the streets. In a democracy, that's a balance the public needs to decide... they just need the information, which until recently wasn't available to them.
PS I would always go no comment.
06 August, 2008 10:54
"I should probably also add that being a police officer is pretty far down the list of the most dangerous jobs.
You're more likely to die working as a lorry driver or as sales person than you are as a police officer"
Depends if you relate the number of deaths to the number of serving police officers in the Country - or just those who get out on the streets !!
If you exclude bosses, beancounters, policy and procedure monkeys and other"trenchdodgers" from the statistics - being a "street warrior" is as dangerous as being a lorry driver !
06 August, 2008 11:38
The police force being below strength seems more like a staffing issue, than anything to do with bureaucracy. If we were recruiting more real officers instead of PCSOs it'd probably function far better.
Also if you're saying that mortality rates among front line police officers is only as dangerous as being a lorry driver then that's not terribly bad. Most police deaths in the UK are as a result of traffic accidents, rather than violent criminals.
06 August, 2008 13:17
There are more than enough police officers. Unfortunately a huge number of them are assigned to (largely) pointless specialist 'squads' or working 9-5 at a desk because they have a poorly back but don't want to lose their salary by quitting for a civilian role.
Until THAT gets sorted out and the numbers on paper start to reflect the truth we will always be short of frontline officers. The recruitment of PCSOs has very little to do with it.
06 August, 2008 13:44
""There are more than enough police officers"" if the criminals we catch would just serve a reasonable amount of time inside.
A few more prisons - or fly them out to "offshore" prisons in 3rd world countries which we give aid too might make things work at a reasonable price.
06 August, 2008 14:06
Making sure that police behave properly....that was my job as a front line Sgt..It meant mentoring the youngsters keeping a weather eye on the old sweats and following the wrong un around till you found enough to get him-or her-
to fill his/her pants cos they realised they wernt going to get away with it.When I retired most of my time was spent checking bits of paper and sitting in front of a computer rather than doing the things above.You see you will never ever be able to find out someones character traits from a bit of paper or a crime report.Its only by watching them listening to them and getting under their skin will you discover what makes a person tick...obviously police discipline is not helped one iota when one reads of the antics of some senior officers..but that is another story
06 August, 2008 14:26
I love the Barry George defence of "actually, I couldn't have done it because I was stalking someone else at the time".
Only in the British criminal justice system....
Did he say that in Court the first time??
06 August, 2008 19:59
Reading this thread is like chatting to a Section 136: Some brief moments of lucidity, interspersed with outbursts of rage, mingled with odd occasions of obscurity beyond comprehension.
06 August, 2008 22:45
If you have a defence, use it
Dont keep it for court as its to late then ,
A charge is in essence a criminal record, the next stage is a conviction.
If its a reasonable defence and is worth explaning and can be backed up for god sakes use it.
It is stupid beyond belief to wait until court.
Ps any legal reps who go " ah ha but my client can get off at court and it address's "police" building a stronger case against my client are arseholes in getting there "client" charged inthe first place
07 August, 2008 00:53
As a reviewing Inspector I see plenty of cases where solicitors advise 'no comment' in the face of strong evidence, getting their clients a charge and guilty verdict at court when they were eminently cautionable under all the circumstances. We don't care either way, both count as a detection. (Although the charge wastes everyones time).
Likewise in weaker cases where all CPS would have needed was a half decent explaination and they would refuse to charge, the 'no comment' swings it to 'charge'. Like Thinblueline says, just getting charged can do a lot of harm, so avoid it if you can.
Back in the day, when I used to do interviews, I would often pray the prisoner went 'no comment' in a weak case.
We tend to get on our hind legs about defence solicitors but in my experience most of the ones who attend custody aren't very good and care less about their clients than we do!
Does anyone know if legal aid pays out more if a case goes to court?
07 August, 2008 02:25
WPC - you are a dolt.
07 August, 2008 07:48
Sorry about my last comment. I have convictions for indecency and stealing from defenceless old ladies, and as a result I don't like the police much.
07 August, 2008 11:56
Legal aid is a flat rate now regardless of how many hours are spent on the case. Solicitors who have more years of experience will earn more.
The problem is that legal aid isn't terribly profitable anymore, so the brain drain has started to affect the justice system.
Funnily enough solicitors don't want to use their exceptional educations to earn £20,000 a year.
07 August, 2008 17:32
Strange then that many graduate police officers use their exceptional educations to earn £20,000 a year?
Perhaps it's because they are on the "right" side of the law (although of course, the accused deserve fair and thorough legal assistance!)
I'd never have guessed that they'd do it soley for the money :)
07 August, 2008 18:23
Someone with a history BA from the local poly isn't really comparable to someone in a profession that has traditionally been filled with some of the best and the brightest. I also doubt the average front line police officer has especially impressive academic qualifications.
If you're expecting Cambridge graduates who've gone through the solicitor training process to accept 20k a year for criminal work, when they could earn two to three times that in private practice then you're mad.
Practices all over the country are stopping legal aid work because it's become a loss maker, but keep on banging on with those Daily Mail taking points concerning the greed of the legal profession. In reality these people have given their lives to the justice system and have never been paid what they're worth.
07 August, 2008 20:31
In case anyone is interested legal aid is a flat rate a the police station unless the legal rep is actively doing something for more than 19 hours eg in a serious case like murder. Once charged, if the client is financially eligible there are a series of fixed fees depending on amount of time spent on the file etc etc, but outside london it's about £180 for a guilty plea with one or two hearings. So yes, we do get paid more if the client is charged, but anyone who thinks that we will deliberately stuff our own client's in interview to get them charged is about as intelligent as anyone who thinks that you get paid per detection.
No comment is entirely legitimate in numerous circumstances, unfortunately it's just that the most common reason (where you have given full disclosure) is because "I did it and don't want to admit it as I'm not sure you have enough evidence to charge". Generally, if a client is bang to rights I'll get them to admit it to maximise credit, assist mitigation and to get it put in to court as an EFH file rather than EAH file. That's because in our court the EAH file ends up in front of a district judge instead of a lay bench.
Sometimes no comment is appropriate though because you haven't told us the full story, and I've learnt that that is often because you know you don't have enough to charge yet and are hoping for an easy confession.
07 August, 2008 21:44
"Sometimes no comment is appropriate though because you haven't told us the full story, and I've learnt that that is often because you know you don't have enough to charge yet and are hoping for an easy confession."
This is true. However, we also withhold information so that the suspect cannot make up a story based on the information we give you, which happens frequently - sometimes with the clear collusion of the solicitor although I am not saying all of them do this.
I usually tell the solicitor everything apart from one or two salient facts which I can use to check the suspect is telling the truth. But it is perfectly valid to withhold everything apart from the elements you have to disclose by law.
07 August, 2008 23:45
WPC- wake up: you are not a crime buster.
You are a skinny and weak slip of a girl of mediocre intelligence, who may even have a crappy degree that ends in "ology"
You do no good and you affect no good. You pursue sanctioned detections and targets .
You criminalise law-abiding people because you cannot catch the true crims, who p*ss in your face on a daily basis... and carp about it endlessly in cyber-space.
Crocodile tears.
Do the honest thing and quit. Then go on to that job on the supermnarket check-out or PA in some a service indusrty and snare a husband.
The Earth will certainly continue to spin without you and. When you die, you will be buried and forgotten, and that is all. And for all the good your living might have accomplished, you might just as well never have lived at all.
08 August, 2008 00:26
Harrybelly,
I wasn't suggesting solicitors deliberately 'stuff' their clients, rather that they seem to overuse the 'no comment' advice through incompetence. The two 'anonymous' comments about the (lack of) money to be made make sense to me as I see it more as a case of lazy/incompetent advocacy by people at the very bottom of the profession. The fact that they don't earn any more if it goes to court should focus the mind even more to make sure it's necessary.
There was a time when I would deal with certain solicitors and think to myself 'If I'm ever in the s**t that's who I'm asking for', but I just don't ever think that about anyone I deal with now.
I'm anti-criminal but not anti-solicitor.
08 August, 2008 01:19
Yeah that's down to the brain drain as previously stated. I've spoken to solicitors who've been practicing for 20/30+ years and they're all worried about both the current state of the profession and it's future.
It's just a shame that more funding for legal aid isn't a vote winner.
08 August, 2008 02:34
"Someone with a history BA from the local poly isn't really comparable to someone in a profession that has traditionally been filled with some of the best and the brightest."
You're assuming a lot? My shift of 6 staff has 5 graduates, 3 from Durham including MEng, BSc/MSc and more in wet sciences and, iirc, the others are also non-Mickey Mouse qualifications.
Of course, we have on one hand people telling us that we are thick because we are cops and on the otherside we have cops telling us how much we apparently lack common sense and policing ability by simple virtue of having qualifications.
One can't win ;)
There is also the possibility that some people joined "the job" because it was what they actually wanted to do, rather than simple monetary recompense...
Furthermore, if you're going to tell me that most defence briefs I meet are "Cambridge Graduates" of the highest calibre and simply knock the socks off my lowly Oxbridge reject education, then I'll call your bluff.
Perhaps they should be happy with fighting the good fight for the underrepresented or the side of good rather than sitting back and picking up the big salary?
Maybe they should try the CPS instead? (lol!)
08 August, 2008 06:28
Oh and just LOL at bringing up a Daily Mail retort against a police officer. Sure, the Daily Mail just LOVE the police!
08 August, 2008 06:30
WPC, I'm sure you've put up with enough of this crap before not to take it to heart, but what I think is amazing is that these people don't like you, and still keep reading your blog - that's the height of stardom that is!
08 August, 2008 10:50
chunkybetty, they can't help themselves! renfrew, you know you are banned, but your hatred was so eloquent I've decided to leave it up for others to enjoy.
08 August, 2008 23:30
"...I've decided to leave it up for others to enjoy."
I certainly enjoyed it :0) What a put down.
You've goota hand it to the guy. He has a way with - harsh - words.
12 August, 2008 16:02
Well. Some people commenting here are being plain spiteful. So I'm going to shower you with praise Bloggs. I read your blog because it's a fascinating, well-researched and reasoned blog on policing. Plus you're very witty which is always nice.
Sarah
30 August, 2008 16:19
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 21:32
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 10:48
...please where can I buy a unicorn?
11 December, 2009 23:17
Perdonen, he pensado y ha quitado la pregunta http://nuevascarreras.com/ cialis precio espana Grazie per aver scelto di informazioni. Non sapevo che. cialis 5 mg 28 comprimidos cmeyjnhvxt [url=http://www.mister-wong.es/user/COMPRARCIALIS/comprar-viagra/]comprar cialis[/url]
25 December, 2009 10:16
Post a Comment
<< Home