Payments to Bedford Row (Barristers Chambers)

Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

The request was refused by Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.

From: Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended)

3 June 2011

Dear Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead,

Please will you confirm why there are no costs listed against
Bedford Row in relation to ET Discrimination matters in your
Response to V Gray in relation to FOI 162743?

Bedford Row (Chambers) had a Barrister involved in Disability
Discrimination matters from mid 2008 until March 2010 yet there are
no ET Costs listed in relation to discrimination matters against
Bedford Row for any of those years.

Yours faithfully,

Maxine Jackson

Link to this

From: Chris Daniels
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

6 June 2011

Dear Maxine

 

I am writing to acknowledge your Information request received 3 June 2011

 

It has been allocated reference FOI63145

 

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides Public Authorities with 20
working days to process requests.

 

This period expires on 1 July 2011

 

Regards

 

 

Chris Daniels

Information Management Officer

Transactional Legal Dept

Resources Directorate

Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead

Town Hall, St.Ives Road

Maidenhead SL6 1RF

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

 

Link to this

From: Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended)

6 June 2011

Dear Chris Daniels,

Christopher Walker of Old Square Chambers (Bedford Row) has been
involved in a disability discrimination claim in the Reading
Employment Tribunal since September of 2008. He wrote the
Respondent's ET3 (Response) to that DDA Claim that was filed on 29
October 2008.

In February 2010 he wrote another Response that was filed don 16
February 2010, and in 2009 he wrote a Response to Case:
2703533.2009, that included further discrimination matters that was
filed in September 2009.

In fact Christopher Walker is referred to in the Lawyer publication
in the following way:

"The set at Old Square Chambers receives numerous accolades.
Matthias Kelly, Toby Kempster, Nigel Cooksley, Barry Cotter and
Christopher Walker are all mentioned."

Yet for a Barrister whose speciality Disability actually lies in
'Personal Injury', his three year involvement and work carried out
in connection to Discrimination matters at the Reading Employment
Tribunal, does not appear to have been officially recorded as
having been paid for?

Yours sincerely,

Maxine Jackson

Link to this

From: Chris Daniels
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

15 June 2011

Dear Maxine

 

Further to your information request FOI63145 please find your questions
and our responses below:

 

Please will you confirm why there are no costs listed against Bedford Row
in relation to ET Discrimination matters in your Response to V Gray in
relation to FOI 162743?

    

Bedford Row (Chambers) had a Barrister involved in Disability
Discrimination matters from mid 2008 until March 2010 yet there are no ET
Costs listed in relation to discrimination matters against Bedford Row for
any of those years.

 

Response: I have been advised we do not hold this information.

 

If you are unhappy with the information we have provided in response to
your request please write to:

 

Information Management Team Manager

Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead

Town Hall, St Ives Road

Maidenhead

SL6 1RF

 

or send an e-mail to [email address].uk 

 

We are proud to be one of the leading authorities in England for
consistently responding to information requests within the 20 working days
set down by statute. Information about our performance and summaries of
requests received can be found on our website:

 

http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/dataprotectio...

 

 

This concludes your request FOI63145.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

Chris Daniels

Information Management Officer

Legal Services

Resources Department

Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead

Town Hall, St.Ives Road

Maidenhead SL6 1RF

 

 

 

 

show quoted sections

 

Link to this

From: Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended)

15 June 2011

Dear Chris Daniels,

I do not accept that RBWM do not hold this infoirmation.

Christopher Walker of Old Square Chambers, Bedford Row worked on
disability discrimination matters in 2008, 2009 and in 2010 when he
attended on behalf of RBWM at a 4-day Hearing that began on 1 March
2010.

Therefore, there cannot be 'no details' held in relation to monies
paid to Bedford Row in respect of work carried out by the said
Christopher Walker.

Please treat this reply as a request for an internal review and an
explanatoion as to how the monies paid in respect of discrimination
work carried out by Mr Walker, a Barrister at Old Square Chambers
at 10-11 Bedford Row London WC1R 4BU appears to have 'gone missing?

Clearly, in the work that he carried out for RBWM during 2008, 2009
and in 2010 in direct relkation to discrimination matters, he did
not work for nothing, yet you display 'no costs' associated to
Bedford Row in relation to discrimination matters, as ET Costs at
all.

Why not?

Thank you

Yours sincerely,

Maxine Jackson

Link to this

From: Martin Tubbs
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

17 June 2011

Dear Ms Jackson

Your request has been escalated to me to review.

Our procedure provides 10 working days to conduct a review - this period expires on 29 June 2011.

Regards

Martin Tubbs
Information Management Team Manager
Royal Borough of WIndsor & Maidenhead

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended)

17 June 2011

Dear Martin Tubbs,

Please refer to a different Freedom of Information Act request that
you have already replied to (that is shown directly below, between
the two rows of dotted lines):
......................................................

FOI: FOI63060

Question: Please confirm how many Employment Tribunal Hearings the
Royal Borough has participated in for the period 1 April 2009 to 31
March 2010.

Response: 2

Question: Please confirm at which Employment Tribunal(s) those
Hearings were held.

Response: Reading

Question: Please confirm the description of the Case(s)
involved/Heard (for example: unfair dismissal, discrimination
(which type) constructive dismissal etc) in relation to Case(s)
that reached a full Employment Tribunal Hearing for the period in
question, which is 01/04/09 to
31/03/10.

Response: Unfair Dismissal / Unfair Dismissal and Disability
Discrimination

This concludes your request FOI63060
.......................................................

You 'do' have information on the 'number of Hearings' that RBWM has
attended for the period referred to above (1 April 2009 to 31 March
2010); therefore you will also have the details of payments made in
respect of those Employment Tribunal Hearings, with one of them
having been a claim for disability discrimination (first filed on
30 September 2008) and unfair dismissal that was filed on 8 January
2010 in relation to the same person (two claims heard together in
March 2010).

The March 2010 Hearing relates to the Employment Tribunal Hearing
that was attended from 1 March until 5 March 2010 (with the
Wednesday of that week being a day when there was no Employment
Tribunal sitting at all) which was therefore a 4-day Hearing in
which Christopher Walker, of Old Square Chambers, Bedford Row
represented RBWM as their instructed Counsel in relation to
disability discrimination matters.

However, even thoough you clearly 'do' have the records relating to
Employment Tribunal Hearings that were attended by RBWM for the
period in question, in your reply to V Gray (FOI: 0162743) you have
no lising of monies having been paid to Bedford Row (Old Square
Chambers) in relation to disability discrimination matters at all,
let alone the fact of Mr. Walker 'of' those Chambers, having been
involved with disability discrimination matters in 2008, 2009 and
in 2010 when he attended the 4-day Hearing in direct relation to
disability discrimination matters that had first been filed at the
Reading Employment Tribunal on 30 September 2008.

How therefore, can your reply be (as it has been) that you do not
hold details of payments made to Bedford Row in respect of that
disability discrimination work carried out for the three years
referred to above (2008, 2009 and 2010?

In fact the Response document that RBWM filed at the Reading
Employment Tribunal on 16 February 2010, where on page 1 it refers
quite clearly to the 2008 disability discrimination claim (that at
March 2010 was still a totally unheard case after 73-weeks from its
filing) on page 27 and after the final entry on that page, you will
see the name of Christopher Walker quite clearly listed, as his
name also appears on the original Response that RBWM filed on 29
October 2008 almost two years earlier that this new 16 February
2010 Response replaced.

Yet you have stated that you do not have details of monies paid to
Christopher Walker, from Old Square Chambers in Bedford Row, for
any of his work carried out in relation to disability
discrimination matters from mid-2008 to March 2010, and I would
like to ask why this may be, when clearly as Counsel represting
RBWM from 2008 to 2010, he must have been paid for his work?

Please comfirm why RBWM do not hold official records of Christopher
Walker of Old Square Chambers, Bedford Row having been paid monies
in relation to disability discrimination matters, which, as all the
Tribunal Court Documents provided by RBWM confirm, Mr. Walker was
indeed instructed in relation to such matters for a period of
almost three years.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Maxine Jackson

Link to this

From: Martin Tubbs
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

17 June 2011

Thank you for your e-mail.

Regards

Martin Tubbs

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Martin Tubbs
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

23 June 2011

Dear Maxine

I have now concluded my review of how your information request was
handled.

During my review it became apparent that RBWM codes legal costs associated
with joint claims for unfair dismissal and discrimination under only one
heading - Unfair Dismissal. I am satisfied this explains why in response
to your earlier request, no cost information was disclosed.

In relation to those claims concerning you, and coded under Unfair
Dismissal, the details are:

28/10/2008 - payment made £2691.65
29/10/2008 - payment made £402.50
13/02/2009 - payment made £316.25
18/02/2009 - payment made £575.00
29/04/2009 - payment made £172.50

I hope this meets your needs.

If you are not satisfied please let me know and I will escalate to the
next stage of our review procedure which will involve the Head of Legal
Services.

This concludes my review.

Kind regards

Martin Tubbs
Information Management Team Manager
Royal Borough of WIndsor & Maidenhead
Town Hall, St Ives Road
Maidenhead SL6 1RF
01628 796945

show quoted sections

 

Link to this

From: Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended)

24 June 2011

Dear Martin Tubbs,

You list payments made to Berdford Row Chambers on certain dates
that you say were coded under Unfair Dismissal, and those dates
were:

28/10/2008 - payment made £2691.65
29/10/2008 - payment made £402.50
13/02/2009 - payment made £316.25
18/02/2009 - payment made £575.00
29/04/2009 - payment made £172.50

There was no Unfair Dismssal claim evident until 8 January 2010;
therefore, why would RBWM code payments made to Bedford Row (Old
Square Chanmbers) in 2008 and 2009 in relation to Unfair Dismissal,
which was before there was ever an Unfair Dismissal claim in
existence?

Yours sincerely,

Maxine Jackson

Link to this

From: Martin Tubbs
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

24 June 2011

Sorry but I am out of the office until Monday 27 June 2011. I will deal
with your e-mail upon my return. Please be aware that any e-mails sent to
me are not being forwarded and cannot be accessed by any of my colleagues.
If the matter is urgent and related to Land Charges, FOI or Data
Protection please contact, [email address] (01628 796293) or
[email address] (01628 796568).

show quoted sections

 

Link to this

From: Martin Tubbs
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

27 June 2011

Dear Maxine

I am not able to comment on the point you make.

If you think that the manner in which our records have been maintained is unsatisfactory you should write (an e-mail is sufficient) a formal complaint.

Information about how to complain is on our website:

http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/members_compl...

Regards

Martin Tubbs

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended)

30 June 2011

Dear Martin Tubbs,

I did write in and the details of my letter are shown below:

Recorded Delivery: AH984367136GB sent on 09/06/11
Received on 13/06/11 at 08:09
Signed for by: T H Duncan

However, no one has had the common decency to acknowledge or reply
to my letter.

The 'honesty' of this organisation is already in question, but the
way these 'costs' have been recorded, is not as honest as it should
be.

Those costs were paid by Public money, and there are no costs
listed for DDA matters paid to Bedford Row for any years at all,
when a DDA claim was first responded to and was written by one of
their Barristers in October of 2008 in the ET3 (Response) that he
wrote.

That it appears, from your accounts, he was not actually paid for?

What more is there to say?

Yours sincerely,

Maxine Jackson

Link to this

From: Martin Tubbs
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

1 July 2011

Dear Maxine

I have forwarded your e-mail to my colleague who deals with complaints.

Regards

Martin Tubbs
Information Management Team Manager
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended)

20 July 2011

Dear Martin Tubbs,

Will you please explain why your 'colleague' is finding it so hard
to deal with this issue and has not contacted me at all.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Maxine Jackson

Link to this

From: Martin Tubbs
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

22 July 2011

Hello Maxine

I'm afraid I cannot explain however I have forwarded your e-mail below to my colleague.

Regards

Martin Tubbs

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended)

22 July 2011

Dear Martin Tubbs,

Please could you please you advise me what your colleague's name
is?

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Maxine Jackson

Link to this

From: Martin Tubbs
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

22 July 2011

Hello Maxine

My colleague's e-mail is: [email address]

Regards

Martin

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended)

22 July 2011

Dear Martin Tubbs,

Oh the website has deleted it, please could you send it as an
attachement.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Maxine Jackson

Link to this

From: Martin Tubbs
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

25 July 2011

Hello Maxine

Sorry but I need to know exactly what it is you want. Please advise.

Regards

Martin Tubbs
Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended)

25 July 2011

Dear Martin Tubbs,

The name of your colleague (and contact details) who you refer to
in your 22 July 2011 reply.

In an attachment.

Yours sincerely,

Maxine Jackson

Link to this

From: Martin Tubbs
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

25 July 2011


Attachment Dianna.doc
19K Download View as HTML


There you go.
Martin

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended)

25 July 2011

Dear Martin Tubbs,

Is there any reason why the e-mail address contained in your
previous attachment is just a row of x's?

It is clear that the Royal Borough have something to hide, and the
e-mail address is a secret.

Thank you for confirming this.

Yours sincerely,

Maxine Jackson

Link to this

From: Martin Tubbs
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

25 July 2011

I can't explain that - I'll send it again.

Martin

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Martin Tubbs
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

25 July 2011

It opens perfectly for me - do you have another email address I can send it to? Perhaps it's the WDTK website causing the problems.

Very strange.

Martin

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Martin Tubbs
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

25 July 2011


Attachment Dianna.pdf
4K Download View as HTML


I've created it as a pdf - any better?

Martin

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Dianna Cook
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

26 July 2011

Dear Maxine,

 

I’m sorry if there has been some confusion regarding your communication
with RBWM. I have attached the original message I sent to you on Monday
4^th July. I tried to resend it yesterday and it was returned
undeliverable. I suspect I may have typed an incorrect email address.

 

Original email:

I have been asked to contact you in relation to a complaint you have
against RBWM council. I am responsible for complaints within the Social
care Directorates, this also includes schools. I do not have a copy of
your original request and I’m not sure how I can help. Please let me know
the nature of your complaint so that I can establish which team would be
best to deal with you complaint.

 

Please let me know how I can help you further.

Regards

Dianan

 

 

 

Dianna Cook

Corporate Policy Officer

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

Policy & Performance

Town Hall

St Ives Road

Maidenhead

SL6 1RF

 

Telephone: 01628 683126

[mobile number]

email: [1][email address]

 

show quoted sections

 

References

Visible links
1. mailto:[email address]

Link to this

From: Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended)

6 August 2011

Dear Dianna Cook,

When did I give you my e-mail address?

Yours sincerely,

Maxine Jackson

Link to this

From: Dianna Cook
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

6 August 2011

I am out of the office from 2pm today and I will be back  on Moday 8th
August. I will respond to emails on my return.
Regards
Dianna

If you enquiry is urgent please contact [email address]
Telephone 01628 796155

For Social Care complaints please call
Telephone 01628 796721 and someone will get back to you as soon as
possible.

Information about Council services can be found on our website
[1]http://www.rbwm.gov.uk

If you would like to request any information under the Freedom of
Information Act, please follow the link
[2]http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/foi_access.htm  to make your request and a
colleague will respond to you during normal working hours.

show quoted sections

 

References

Visible links
1. http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/
2. http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/foi_access.htm

Link to this

From: Dianna Cook
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead

7 August 2011

Dear Maxine,  your email was passed to me by my colleague Martin Tubbs.
Please let me know if I can help as stated in my original email.
Kind regards
Dianna
Dianna Cook
Policy and Performance
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
Town Hall
St Ives Road
SL6 1RF
01628 683126
07795 566395
[email address]

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended)

13 December 2011

Dear Dianna Cook,

I never gave my email address to Martin Tubbs.

And neither did What Do They Know.

Yours sincerely,

Maxine Jackson

Link to this

Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended) left an annotation (26 August 2012)

Quote-marks When I asked for copies of my GP records my GP got one of his administrators to call me on 16/02/12 to try and convince me that the records I had requested were unavailable. They were not (which I knew) and after a further 5 weeks of trying to get them, I eventually did, which is when I discovered that a psychiatric history had been created that I ‘do not have’; with it stated that a letter was received from the *** Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust (BHFT) dated 14/04/09 that states I had been seen by a psychiatrist, when I never had been.

I had asked for counselling in 2008, after my former employer's Consultant Occupational Health Physician suggested that it might be helpful so that I could regain some of the self-esteem that my employer's abhorrent behaviour had caused me to lose (which they implemented at a time knowing that after my son had died in tragic circumstances in early 2005 I had developed a disability in depression, when they treated me so badly that I became very unwell for several months in s tress related illness)

In July 2008 I asked my GP for counselling (as had been suggested to me) and I saw a counsellor from October 2008 until April 2009. Among other things that read in my GP held medical records (that my GP clearly wanted to prevent me ever seeing) there is a record of the letter from the BHFT ***referred to above, which just did not happen. This is not the only falsification.

I thereafter asked for my BHFT medical records and was astounded to discover that they too have been falsified. I have now been writing to both my GP and the BHFT and have repeatedly asked for an explanation. However, and at the point of almost exhaustion I contacted the Counsellor who I had been seeing in 2008/2009 and showed her the records that bear her name (that are not signed when they should be) that had been falsified, but she is too afraid to say anything at all being that she is still an employee of the Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust. When we spoke last Friday, she asked me not to contact her again personally, and I agreed not to, and I told her I realised she wa sin a difficult position; we said our goodbyes and there was no animosity either way. I agreed I would not ask her again (and to be honest, as I told her, I do not think she is the one who authored the falsified records).

Also last Friday my GP (who tried to prevent me seeing my GP Held records that have been falsified) and a Psychiatrist from the BHFT (the other offending NHS organisation) turned up at my door together with a female. My GP was frantically ringing my doorbell clearly feigning an emergency situation, and when I answered I told him to b***ger off (and I closed the door) because I thought he had come round to try and worm his way out of the situation, without having to put anything in writing as he had still not replied to my letters.

However, after he drove off the other two people rang on my door again, and we spoke through my kitchen window (with my CCTV on that was also voice recording).

The female was an Approved Mental Health Professional ( we all know what they are for) and because I had been asking awkward questions such as "why have my medical records been falsified by both my GP (who tried to prevent me from seeing them at all) and by the BHFT too".

They had come round to ‘assess my mental health’ because I had been - wait for it (writing letters) and I had been asking for written replies to questions like "why have you falsified my medical records and given me a psychiatric medical history when I do not have one?"

My goodness is what I retain evidence of since two corrupt Reading Employment Tribunal Judges participated in the formation and use of a totally fabricated claim in my employment tribunal proceedings, one of whom fully sanctioned a dishonest Court Document that my now former employer had faxed (with every confidence) to the Reading Employment Tribunal on 16/02/10), which evidences theirs and their self-employed barrister’s intention to pervert the course of justice in the same tribunal proceedings, that the President of the Employment Tribunals for England and Wales has denied that particular Judge had done (in his 04/11/10 complaint response letter to me) this good?

So much so that other gov.uk organisations are now making a collective effort to claim that I am crazy and need to be sectioned.

Yes, this is good old GREAT Britain, where plebs like you and me must tow the line and keep to the letter of the law, but when certain others (a bit higher up the status tree who have influential mates, who may or mat not bee Freemasons) commit crimes or assist others to do so, a collective effort is then made to portray the victim of those crimes and abhorrent behaviour, as being quite mad (to get themselves off the hook).

Look up 'organised stalking' on the web, or 'Cointelrpo' - and yes it does happen in good old Blighty today - believe me I know.

It is far better for them who ''think they can, try to have an innocent person sectioned, because those that not only ‘ have known better’ - but ‘did know better’ yet ‘did it all the same’, would rather this than risk losing their very high PUBLICY FUNDED SALARIES (paid by us mugs) and carry on ‘pretending’ that they are the upright and proper people that that actually the complete opposite to what they actually are.

I really never thought it would got to the point where I have had my medical records falsified by both my GP and the BHFT (just another gov.uk organisation, who also employed the two corrupt Reading Employment Tribunal Judges and the highly paid (BY US) President) to create this totally untrue situation, to save their own slimy skins?

They say absolute power corrupts absolutely, it does (or it tries to) believe me I know (as the documentary evidence that has been retained – proves beyond any doubt what so ever).
So if I end up in a mental establishment, having been dragged off there for some reason that does not exist (playing music too loud on a Sunday, or telling others how abhorrently I have been treated) by the men in white coats (all because I am unable to accept the total injustice of my situation) - you will now all know why?

Link to this

zi left an annotation (11 December 2012)

Quote-marks Dear Maxine

I have been doing some investigations into the conduct of officers at the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead.

It is true to state that I have found your comments in relation to them being dishonest and failing to comply with the data protection act when complaints are made against them. This however is prevalent in discrimination cases.

You advised that data was not forthcoming. A huge error made by this LA was providing in error a range of their internal emails. Staff across the LA were instructed to mark emails " legally priviledged" If this is the case in the data that you have been trying to retrieve they are not obliged to submit this.

I would be grateful if you are still on this site to contact me. Infact any person reading this correspondance who has had a complaint with this local authority

My contact is ams.smith1970@googlemail.com

Regards

Link to this

J. Jefferson left an annotation (18 December 2012)

Quote-marks Another of this persons aliases graces us with its presence. I mean....an official investigation by somebody with a googlemail address?? lol

Or a private person with similar prose also with a grudge against the same LA. And happy for all and sundry to email them.

Nice try.

Link to this

zi left an annotation (19 December 2012)

Quote-marks i rather like the sound of elodie, maybe the next one should be
elodie.smith@watchingyouwatchingme.com. I wonder if Martin Tubbs likes the ring of that. such a pretty name

Link to this

Wendy Wilson left an annotation (18 February 2013)

Quote-marks I think that J Jefferson may be unwell, and is now imagining all sorts. He was an active annotator of a person known to me who has since left this site.

J Jefferson claimed she had been wrong not to want to work for free under the DWP Jobseeker's scheme.

I wonder if JJ has read the recent High Court decision in that respect?

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Name removed 30 November 2012 (Account suspended) only:
Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead only:

Follow this request

There are 4 people following this request

Offensive? Unsuitable?

Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid for FOI purposes (read more).

If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators

Report this request

Act on what you've learnt

Similar requests

More similar requests

Event history details

Are you the owner of any commercial copyright on this page?