This is the official blog of Sgt Ellie Bloggs, a real live police sergeant on the front line of England. It's not the official opinion of my police force, but 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 pay my salary.


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

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Yet more non-police:

Police numbers are always a hot topic. The government, and the previous government, will boast about how there are now thousands more police "on the streets" than there were before. Boosts in recruitment of PCSOs are described as boosting police numbers. Now more money is being ploughed into Special Constables.

It is fairly clear that the government's strategy is to continually build up funding for non-police police, such as PCSOs, Specials, civilian investigators, etc, whilst reducing it for the police itself. The model of civilians with powers that all link together to form a fully-functioning world of criminal justice is quite a clever one, but here is why I think all this cash should go on more "real" police officers instead:

As a police officer, I can patrol, arrest, bosh doors, deal with motoring, investigate crime, put together a case file, seize evidence, charge and interview prisoners, give evidence in court, and chat to Mrs Jones about the sad demise of her favourite cat. More importantly, because I am trained to do all those things, I can also apply my judgment as to when each is needed.

Here's a real example of some every day police work. I get called to a report of some kids mucking about on the High Street. On arrival, there's a broken window, bits of glass across the pavement and a group of kids a bit further up the road acting nonchalant. A passer-by tells me one of the kids did it, and points out the offender. I go towards him, he legs it into a car with his mates. I leg it to my car and manage to stop him round the corner (he's in a metro, ok!). I arrest him, book him into custody, seize fragments of glass from his hair and clothes, take a statement from the witness and the owner of the window, go back and interview the kid, then charge/caution him. I do my statement, and the file, and later give evidence in court. Yes, I'm out of action for the rest of the shift, but the chances are the kid will be convicted (assuming it's a good identification by the witness).

Under the snazzy twenty-first century model of policing, here is how this would be dealt with: A PCSO attends a report of some kids mucking about, as it is designated "non-confrontational". On arrival there is a broken window and a group of kids up the road. A passer-by points out the offender, whereupon the PCSO immediately requests a police officer to the scene to make the arrest. As the police officer approaches, the kid legs it into a car. A traffic officer is summoned to the scene. Miraculously, the traffic car manages to stop the offender nearby. The police officer is called to arrest the kid. In fact, this will have to be a different police officer, otherwise the identification evidence will be ruined. In custody, a civilian attends to seize glass and clothing. A statement-taker is called out to get witness statements. Then, a trained interviewer is brought in to interview the kid. All seven police employees then do witness statements of their involvement in the case, and pass all the information to a file-builder, who prepares the file for court. Any questions the file-builder has must be directed back to the relevant officer/officers, all of whom are required in court if the offender pleads not guilty. None of this is including the fact that a video identification procedure may be required because there was lack of continuity of the suspect, which will involve a further 4-6 weeks on bail and a special video identification officer who will also become a witness. Nobody is solely responsible for the case, so the victim is confused and gets passed from department to department, and the case ends up so complicated it fails in court anyway, or never gets there.

For murder enquiries, frauds or other complex investigations, all these cogs are useful, and fall into place. For simple day-to-day police tasks, which constitute 90% of what we do, it is absurd.

I haven't even started on how the use of non-police alters how we deal with these incidents to start with, in that the above could well end up classified as unwitnessed crime, therefore not investigated at all, or even attended. This is already happening in Blandshire.

I could go onto describe how PCSOs are being used to stop-check offenders for possible crimes, despite not really knowing what they are looking for or what to do if it is the right person. They are being used to do welfare checks on people we are concerned about, despite little idea of how to assess whether a door needs to be forced or not. They attend serious crime scenes and car accidents, to direct traffic and pedestrians, but would be unable to act if the offender/driver appeared in front of them. Civilian crime investigators likewise are generating investigations into shopliftings, burglaries, frauds, without playing any part in the resulting arrest, file or court case, therefore having no real concept of the goal. Any feedback into their work comes a year down the line when the case has failed at court and the investigator's contract has ended anyway.

None of this inefficiency is measurable. But it is insidious and irreversible, and it is utterly ruining the British police force.

I'm not against change for its own sake, I just have an old-fashioned belief in skilled and versatile employees, well-paid and well-trained, and motivated by a deep-rooted faith in the system in which they work.

Failing that, there's always Beach Volleyball.



Coming soon: "Perverting the Course of Justice" by Inspector Gadget. Expect an early review here...

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

32 Comments:

Anonymous JEA said...

And I suppose after all that you'll attend the ten other calls about nuisance kids where there was no crime, seize three sets of CCTV evidence, spend 3 weeks mediating a neighbour dispute, sit for 2 hours listening to people complaining at a police surgery, give a talk in the local school assembly, blah, blah, blah.

"a real example of some every day police work"?? don't make me laugh!!

20 August, 2008 19:29

 
Anonymous justacop said...

One of the most succinct and accurate examples of the folly of what has become known as workforce disorganisation.

20 August, 2008 19:49

 
Anonymous rosco said...

Since when have Specials been non-police police? Sorry, but you're way off the mark on that one - depending on how much their force lets them do, they are capable of doing all the standard police work that regulars can do. Sometimes, in my area, they might be the only ones on in a rural station.
Otherwise, I would agree with the general sentiment: it seems that there is little desire to streamline processes but just to farm out parts of the job to different civilians. For example, no steps to reduce the hours you spend waiting to complete the custody booking procedure, just more people to do it instead.

20 August, 2008 21:13

 
Blogger IanPJ said...

Another important differential that you did not mention in this excellent post is that Real Police Officers swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown.

PCSO's are only responsible to politicians and the ACPO, and are therefore not bound by the same rules.

When Lisbon is finally ratified by all 27 member states, you will be asked to renounce your oath and swear allegiance to only the EU and Brussels.

This part-trained politically aligned force is being readied to fill the gap that many of your colleagues will leave when they refuse that request.

Likewise the creation of an armed Border Police (also only aligned to politicians) and the expansion of the Nuclear Constabulary (CNC)into the new Critical National Infrastructure police will allow us to partner with the EGF (European Gendarmie Force), a Europe wide paramilitary police force.

There is a method to the madness you have to endure, but unfortunately not the one we taxpayers want to see.

20 August, 2008 21:25

 
Anonymous Dangerous said...

As a PCSO, I should probably be offended. However, I find myself agreeing with a hell of a lot of of your article.
All the best.

20 August, 2008 23:24

 
Blogger swanseajock said...

All I can say is HERE HERE. We are going to Hell in a handbasket and nobody above our level gives a damn. I have 1630 days to do and I am counting

20 August, 2008 23:32

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, you think that "Specials" are non police do you? I don't know where you got that notion from Bloggsy, but you are quite wrong.
I was sworn in as a special, and my loyalty is to the Crown, the Monarch, Her Majesty the Queen.

We are not all government robots.

20 August, 2008 23:53

 
Anonymous Patch said...

I'm a bit confused about this post: who are you ranting about, PCSOs or Specials? I thought it was going to be about Specials, which I thought would be interesting as there's rarely anything about Specials in the blogs I read. Then you started going on about "non-Police", "civilians with powers" and PCSOs.

When I was a Special (admittedly 10 years ago, but I doubt much has changed) I had the same powers as a Regular, so long as I was in my Force area or the adjacents Forces. I've nicked people, put doors in, attended shooting incidents, taken statements, served warrants, done football duty, spent Friday nights on foot patrol round town etc etc. All the stuff that a Regular does. Possibly more, in fact, as I've also done scene-watches a-plenty because even back then there weren't enough Regulars to go round.

21 August, 2008 00:17

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Agree with most of it, however civilian interviewers are a god send. Not having to sit there waiting for solicitors, appropraite adults etc. When getting to custody takes an hr and there is nobody left in area it makes sense. I can then return take statements etc and provide a service, not the one the public should have but at least its a service!!

21 August, 2008 09:35

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don’t think that PC Bloggs is having a go at civilian support staff per se. My understanding of her post is that she is really criticising the over-complication of the police. PCSO’S and other civilian staff are the visible symptoms, not the cause.

Politicians like to change things because to leave something as it is simply wouldn’t give them the media exposure that comes with a big press conference. However a lot of the time giving the object of your reform the big shake up it needs is either a, Too radical or b, Too expensive or c, Both (I’m thinking of the prison service while I write this).

The urge to ‘tinker’ and fiddle about with stuff is therefore irresistible. A lot of senior officers will then buy into this because they get to use all of the latest buzz words in their next promotion application.

This doesn’t just apply to the Police. We are one of many public services like the NHS, education and the armed forces that face big important issues that are completely tinker proof and totally unaffected by fiddling about. I don’t think you can blame all of that on the nearest PCSO in earshot.

21 August, 2008 11:02

 
Anonymous doubletime said...

Politicians have gambled that it is safe to de-power the police.

They have a firm grip on pay , they can alter at will the way in which we do things, and the type of staff we will have.

An academic decision has been reached without any real reference to Police leaders. HMIC is used to rubber stamp future changes.

Ronnie Flanagan is a stooge , look what happened to Keith Haliwell over drugs , and he was a Czar.

As far as I am concerned they can all get on with it.

21 August, 2008 14:35

 
Anonymous PC Michael Pinkstone said...

The irony here is that to have so many different civilian departments (with specific 'specialist' remits within the police) is, supposedly, to make the whole process more efficient. Yet the end result is complete inefficiency, as pointed out in the post. The good old-fashioned Office of Constable has been replaced with dozens of disparate factions, who create nothing more than a tangled, convoluted, impersonal, spaghetti-junction of a justice system, where no-one really knows what the hell is going on. Including the Government.

21 August, 2008 15:27

 
Blogger PCSO Bloggs said...

I agree to a certain extent. However, you do not go on to suggest how we set about solving this, other than to suggest just using more Police Officers. How many are actually needed? How much money needs to get pumped in to the system? Seriously, lets talk figures here. Get rid of all the PCSOs and you could buy, maybe, four to seven thousand PCs, nationally. Is that really going to solve all the issues (one extra PC per response shift).

Although mostly agree with what you've said, I cannot see why putting SOME civilionised roles in place to do the running around for you, the statement taking, the CCTV collecting, the witness viewings, the House to House enquiries, the file building and so on, is a bad thing. I do understand what you're saying. A great example of roles that have worked are SOCO, Comms, custody staff.

I'd love to know the figures on how much 16,000 extra, community-ringfenced, Police Officers would cost. Anyone hazard a guess? I bet it'd be unobtainable.

Looking at this from both sides now, as a PCSO about to become a PC, it's fair to say it appears Officers are, to a certain extent, trying to cling on to some pre-PACE policing where accountability is unnecessary and a quick arrest statement is all that should be required.
Perhaps I'm wrong, it's just the impression I get from many of these blogs. Not that that's a bad thing, I understand it, just cant see it happening.

21 August, 2008 18:36

 
Anonymous Dr Melvin T Gray said...

Tasteful passengers on a nosediving jet would spare themselves the idignity of an argument as to who sits where.

21 August, 2008 20:14

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are sensible arguments coming from all corners in this discussion. From memory, there have been some tremendous Special Constables without whom it would have been difficult to provide even an adequate level of policing in my little corner of the world.. Likewise, there have been a number of PCSOs who have supported investigations and provided intelligence which has produced some fantastic results. Is it really necessary to have a warranted Police officer to cover a road closure when a PCSO could do the job just as well? Is it necessary to have a warranted Police officer to take a statement and seize items of evidence when a retired Detective Constable, employed as Police staff, can do the job just as well, and possibly better? There are roles for all within the Police Force as long as they are used intelligently and logically. The main problem is a political one in that our political masters, currently headed Gordon Brown who tells Jacqui Spliff what to say and do, recall the use of Police to break up the strength of the miners, and ultimately, the powers of the main supporters to the Labour Party, and are thereby exacting their revenge by reducing the status of the Police to no more than Council employees. They change the legislation to suit themselves but retain that all powerful legislation which prevents the Police from taking strike action. In this way, the Police will eventually become totally subservient to the, currently, rule political party. It's already starting - how many members of Senior Management have degrees in Political Science, Sociology, Humanities or Media Studies, all of which are traditionally Labour or socialist controlled qualifications. What the answer is, I have no idea but, as a retired Police officer, I daily shake my head at the slow denigration of what used to be a proud profession. Anyway, Bloggsy, if it all comes to a shuddering, grinding, halt, are you aware of the regulation which states that the hip width of the womens beach volleyball trunks must be no more than 1 inch wide. Send us a pic will you?
Plodnomore

21 August, 2008 20:29

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Two pearls of wisdom I learnt in my early days....
(1) Keep the job simple
(2) Limit the number of cops as witnesses - it just complicates matters. In fact limit the civilian witnesses too.

This new Government approach of "involving every man(and woman) and his dog(or cat)" seeks just to bugger things up.

But then - what have the Government to gain from more prosecutions???
Only more problems with prison spaces.
Why not bugger things up for the cops - say it's the cops fault and hey presto...an instant excuse to overhaul the whole of the Policing system with paid State employees rather than
"thinking for themselves, sworn officers holding the office of constable".
Brilliant !
More central government policy and procedure control of everything is a legacy of NUlabour or Socialist Government...a legacy of the Soviet tractor factories - not the free West true market economy.

21 August, 2008 21:33

 
Blogger staghounds said...

"...an old-fashioned belief in skilled and versatile employees, well-paid and well-trained, and motivated by a deep-rooted faith in the system in which they work."

I believe that there are medications to clear that up for you.

(I quit taking mine right away though, I prefer hope to despair.)

21 August, 2008 22:27

 
Blogger PC Bloggs said...

Just an update regarding Specials: yes I did rather drift off the linked article. However, Special Constables ARE NOT the same as full police officers, and I speak as someone who has a lot of experience of both good and bad Specials and has no bias against them whatsoever. But Specials lack a fundamental understanding of evidence/investigation due to not having their own cases seen through to court (in most forces). They also have no accountability because the rank structure is feeble and it is virtually impossible to take disciplinary action against them.

It is dangerous to consider them as full officers, because they really lack an awful lot of law knowledge/training and experience which is not apparent from their outward guise as what might be a very competent police officer. Yes, they provide shelter from the barrage of fists and broken bottles on a Friday night, and I'd rather have them than not, but they are not replacements for police officers. I don't think most Specials realise how little they actually know or can do - and this is said without malice. The exception is the handful of very seasoned Specials, some of whom also work as police staff or who have been doing it for many years.

21 August, 2008 23:55

 
Anonymous Captain Slow said...

At the moment, our Civilian Statement takers are the solution to keeping my lengthening queue of crimes manageable however it always comes down to the same problem and that is numbers. The powers that be continue to try to bolster the pathetic numbers of officers actually available with ever increasing numbers of support departments. In my nick there are whole armies of bobbies on duty but only 6 or 7 actually available to answer calls. (Nothing's changed since the opening chapter of Copperfield's book). I cringe when I hear comms asking for someone to attend the front desk where a victim has come to report an assault and they ask for someone in the nick to come up and deal. The silence is deafening and yet there could be 50 or 60 officers on-duty in there all with their own tiny remit that apparently prohibits them from dealing with crime. If there were 30 officers on my shift instead of as little 6 (on some occasions), I would be able to do my own files (no file unit), be out and be pro-active (no Burglary/volume crime), interview my own prisoners (no need for prisoner processing teams) and I'm betting that people wouldn't have to wait as long for an officer to turn up.

22 August, 2008 09:30

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good post, Bloggs.

22 August, 2008 23:02

 
Blogger jane said...

Whilst I agree with most of what you say PB Bloggs, I have to disagree with

"It is dangerous to consider them as full officers, because they really lack an awful lot of law knowledge/training and experience which is not apparent from their outward guise as what might be a very competent police officer."

Because full time officers also lack knowledge of the law in many respects. Not their fault though, there are too many laws for one person to remember, even battle weary solicitors have to refer to the books now and then.

One area that is of particular interest to me is photography, and most photographers know the law on taking photos in public better that the police officers enforcing it. But I wouldnt complain if an officer got it wrong, because its a minor crime (or lack thereof) compared to assaults, theft etc where you'd expect an officer to be fully aware.

So please don't say specials lack the knowledge of the law, until every full time officer knows everyone of the several thousand laws and amendments.
People know as much as they are prepared to learn, and there will be specials that know more than your average copper, same as there will be specials that know less.

22 August, 2008 23:53

 
Blogger uniform said...

The point of this post ?

The point is that there is NO qualitative advantage in replacing sworn constables with underpowered replacements.PCSOs or come-day-go- day specials.

Like Bloggs I'm not guessing, I've seen the operational results .

Usual niceties, thanks for helping , thanks for doing very basic work , but to say it makes a very real difference to hardcore persistent policing priorities is a con!

Here's the thing;if everything was just about OK , Why do they want the illusion of "more" specials .

Its a political answer to managing the "fear of crime" NOT to bearing down on tough , hard to fix problems.

Forget what politicians tell you, that's a Home Office, London centric view, it's pants.

To say this new extended policing family changes much for front line, 24/7 policing,well, it's just not true.

23 August, 2008 10:11

 
Anonymous Forest Cop said...

"To say this new extended policing family changes much for front line, 24/7 policing,well, it's just not true."

Minor point (and not really one that I suspect you'll be interested in, but hey ho.) Specials aren't "new": they've been around 175 years, in fact. Not quite sure what the "come-day-go-day" crack is about, either.

Very , very few Specials would presume (wrongly) to say that they are in any way "instead of" regular officers: we live in the same communities and KNOW how few officers there are - that's why we try to *help*. Most of us are pretty cost-effective, really, and while I totally accept we can't be as well trained or as fully versatile as a good regular officer, when trained and deployed properly we can, and do, make a difference.

I suspect the same is true of most PCSOs as well - I've certainly had the pleasure of working with some very good ones, who get involved - with good grace and enthusiasm - with the jobs that many (but not all) regulars would turn their nose up at as being "LOB".

Surely the root of the problem is policies and legislation (such as the widespread application, against the intent of the drafters, of the Harrassment Act) that force us to attend at and deal with jobs that even ten years ago would have been boxed off by the experience call-taker as "not a police matter". That's not the fault of the indviduals (in whatever role) who try to deal with them.

23 August, 2008 23:40

 
Blogger uniform said...

Forest cop

no offence , but ,yes, I know specials have been around for 175 years.

That kind of makes my point.

I'll say again , why does the worlds worst ,ever ,home cypher have to walk down the street with more specials ?

That's a con.

24 August, 2008 08:26

 
Anonymous Forest Cop said...

Sorry, maybe I'm being thick here but I still don't see your point. You implied (or seemed to) that Specials are "new" - that was what I picked up on. Maybe I did miss your point, but if so I've done it again despite looking really hard this time.

In no way am I saying that having more specials is better than having more PCs (although how many PCs would you get for the funding, compared to the number of SCs?) But if you got those new PCs, wouldn't they be swiped off to some new squad or team? Would they really be on the 24/7 response?

I firmly believe that there are in fact enough regular officers - they're just not doing the right things, and that's the government's fault (mainly). The fact that some of us choose to give up our time to stand alongside you when the wheels come off is surely a good thing, as an *addition* to fully resourced response teams.

At the end of the day, we do need more bodies on Fri/Sat than the rest of the week, and short of regular shifts being adjusted to surge officers at that time (which would hardly be popular, I submit), then specials seem to fit that gaps. IF properly trained and tasked. They shouldn't ever be part of baseline cover, but should be on top of that.

That said, I totally agree that trying to address the root issues by recruiting more specials is not the best solution and may well be more to do with PR. And when you examine this latest flurry of publicity carefully, a lot of that money is actually going to go on "regional cordinators" rather than warrant-card-carrying SCs. I'll be watching with interest to see what difference that actually makes.

So I'm not really sure we're disagreeing that much...

24 August, 2008 09:54

 
Blogger PC Bloggs said...

"short of regular shifts being adjusted to surge officers at that time"...

Good lord, where on earth do you work, forest cop, if your shift pattern is NOT designed for overlapping shifts on a friday and saturday night???

I don't think anyone is saying that Specials don't have a use. The point is they are not the same as regular police officers. To the commenter who seemed to think this is only a valid point if regular police know EVERYTHING in the world, my point earlier was that most Specials not only lack vast knowledge of the law, but actually lack the knowledge of what areas of law there are that they don't know, so that their work really has to be quality-assured and monitored by police supervisors to a much greater extent than regulars.

That said, without them we'd be in deep trouble.

25 August, 2008 01:20

 
Anonymous Forest Cop said...

Well, I suppose they do overlap, a bit. For three hours. If they aren't all abstracted. And there's only 2 only a shift normally when they are all there! Rural policing...

That's an interesting, and important, point about not knowing what you don't know. Here we focus specials training (after the initial course) onto the issues that they are going to deal with on their duties - POA, assaults, criminal damage, etc. I totally agree you can't cover everything, but forces can - and should - try their best to use a (nearly) free resource to it's best effect.

25 August, 2008 07:04

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is all police officer recruitment on hold? I live in the SW and was looking at joining one of my three local police forces - none of them are recruiting police officers. They are however advertising for hundreds of PCSOs.

25 August, 2008 16:20

 
Anonymous PT COP said...

Speaking as one of the 'seasoned' Specials, everybodies viewpoint is valid from their perspective.

We don't know what we don't know.

We do get the training that is relevant for the types of incident that we are most likely to face.

Those of us who want to know more, ask, and by doing the full variety of shifts and working with regulars learn far more that the Saturday night warriors (thats not a put down in anyway). But it does take time, I guess its called experience for a reason.

The real skill is judgement. Asking for help when you need it.

A bigger concern is around any push for numbers. We've seen poor quality officers, some of whom don't even come in for duty held on the books to keep the numbers up.

Also the quality of SOME officers being recruited is questionable because the the recruitment system is a simple pass / fail and takes no account of the experience of the recruiters (of which I'm not one) or for that matter the way in which the candidate presents themselves. We have seen new candidates who are clearly 'Walter Mitty' types or uniform carriers join and cause damage to the reputation we have with our regular colleagues, damage on the street with MOP's and a whole host of supervisory issues.

I agree the rank structure is generally poor. Roles get filled with the next person in terms of service or because someone wants to do it (if there isnt an obvious candidate) because they have to be. Its not like you can recruit someone in to take on a leadership role off the street. Hence it can start to go down hill rapidly.

The points Bloggs makes about case files and seeing things thru is a valid one. I think forces that get Specials to do this are short sighted. We will never be able to do this aswell as the regulars because we just don't get the number of arrests as frequently as they do, and so our exposure is limited. (I accept there will be some Specials somewhere, who may well work more often than the rest of us that feel they can do this. Good for you!)and hence mistakes happen and decent jobs can be lost.

There are some amazing SC's out there, as has been said, and of course some real dross. With extra funding comes the need for numbers, and I fear the results.

Help us upskill the career specials who already produce results. It will cost less and produce more. Who knows it may well help recruitment and improve hours. The more we can do, the more we want to do. When I got my Stinger training I ended up doing more hours because I wanted to put it to use. The same for my Speedace training. You get the picture.

The rest of the funding should go into more regulars. Can't see why we wouldn't want that.

27 August, 2008 12:09

 
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 21:30

 
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 02:52

 
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 10:46

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 

View My Stats
eXTReMe Tracker