LES BALKWELL UPDATE: High Court hearing 2 July (was: Media release 12noon, Thursday 19 March 2015 - HIGH COURT HEARING – ROOM E111, QUEENS BENCH DIVISION, MONDAY 23 MARCH, 11.30AM)

View previous topic View next topic Go down

LES BALKWELL UPDATE: High Court hearing 2 July (was: Media release 12noon, Thursday 19 March 2015 - HIGH COURT HEARING – ROOM E111, QUEENS BENCH DIVISION, MONDAY 23 MARCH, 11.30AM)

Post by Tony Bennett on Thu 19 Mar - 11:59

LES BALKWELL: Media release 12noon, Thursday 19 March 2015


Les Balkwell will again be conducting his own case against the Chief Constable of Essex Police, Stephen Kavanagh. As before, I shall accompany him as his ‘McKenzie Friend’.

The hearing is a Case Management Hearing and is open to press and public.

It is scheduled to take place before Master Eastman in Room E111 or, if not, in one of the adjacent Master’s rooms.

The main feature of the hearing will be Les Balkwell’s application for summary judgment. In its formal defence, submitted last month, Essex Police made 28 separate admissions about its failures. Please see the full list below.

On 30 January 2012, after a 4-year-long investigation, the IPCC ruled that eight senior Essex Police officers had committed 26 separate misconduct offences.  

However, despite that extensive list, their Defence states (quote): “It is not admitted that the accepted failures in the investigation amount to a breach of the Defendant’s obligations to carry out an effective investigation into the death of Lee Balkwell”.

If Les Balkwell’s application succeeds, judgment will be given in favour of Les Balkwell, and the parties will then need to agree the level of compensation. Les has claimed £50,000. The claim is based on the long-held principle that any failure to carry out an effective investigation breaches the human rights of the victims and, in the case of a killing, the surviving relatives of the deceased.

Les will also be asking for permission to amend his pleadings, to file replies to the Defence, and for a production order for the Chief Constable to reveal key documents which, Les says, will prove the ineffectiveness of the investigation and may well shed further light on his persistent allegations that the investigation was corrupt from the start.  

Les Balkwell said: “I am completely baffled. On the one hand, they admit to 28 serious failings, then on the other, they say they carried out an effective investigation. How long can they go on doing this to me and my family?”

Comment on Theresa May’s statements this week on the misuse of the Official Secrets Act

This week, Home Secretary Theresa May said that she ‘hopes and expects’ that police officers would not misuse the 1989 Official Secrets Act by threatening whistleblowing police officers with prosecution under the Act. Last year, the nation’s most senior police complaints officer, Alaric Bonthron. Head of the Metropolitan Police Professional Standards Department, was brought in to the Balkwell case by Chief Crown Prosecutor, Grace Ononiwu.

We submitted details of two whistleblowing police officers who had spoken to Les Balkwell and told him that his son had been murdered and that top Essex Police Officers were covering this up.  They had been threatened with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, dismissal, and loss of all pension rights if they disclosed secrets held by the Head of Intelligence and other senior Essex Police officers.

Alaric Bonthron was repeatedly asked by us if, in order to get at the truth, he would assure those officers in advance that those officers would suffer no adverse consequences from disclosing their evidence. He refused. I still hold the text message to this effect he sent me on 19 June 2014 at 18.07 and 28 seconds.

The 28 admissions made by Essex Police in the High Court case of Les Balkwell v The Chief Constable of Essex Police

1. Failed to carry out an effective investigation [ADMISSION 1]

2. Failed to promptly seize the clothing of Simon Bromley [ADMISSION 2]

3. Failed to identity all potential witnesses when he initially attended the scene  [ADMISSION 3]

4. Failed to keep an open mind as to how Lee Balkwell died [ADMISSION 4]

5. Had already decided that his death was an accident [ADMISSION 5]

6. Failed to consider the relevant legal elements of the offence under investigation [ADMISSION 6]

7. Lacked sufficient knowledge of the mechanics of the cement mixer, normal working practices and the ‘gunning out’ procedure [ADMISSION 7]

8. Failed to consult with the Health & Safety Executive [ADMISSION 8]

9. ‘Lacked independence’   [ADMISSION 9]

10.  Chief Superintendent Graeme Bull failed to re-interview Simon Bromley once it became clear he was a suspect  in Operation Guthrie [ADMISSION 10]

11. Chief Superintendent Simon Coxall, failed to re-interview Simon Bromley once it became clear he was a suspect  in Operation Guthrie  [ADMISSION 11]

12. Chief Superintendent Graeme Bull, failed to  either seize the trainers, still less examine them forensically [ADMISSION 12]

13. Chief Superintend Graeme Bull, failed to examine forensically the trainers and grey top of the Claimant’s son, a knife, and other items at the scene and which the Claimant’s son was wearing and  which may have yielded evidential value  [ADMISSION 13]

14 & 15. Neither the Defendant’s Officer, Chief Superintendent Graeme Bull, nor anyone else, can provide evidence that the all-important tachograph evidence was considered in the initial or subsequent phases of the investigation  [ADMISSIONS 14 AND 15]

16. Chief Superintendent Graeme Bull failed to follow lines of enquiry into the position of the drills [ADMISSION 16]

17. Chief Superintendent Graeme Bull failed  to obtain communications data in relation to Simon Bromley’s telephones  [ADMISSION 17]

18. Chief Superintendent Simon Coxall, failed to follow lines of enquiry into the position of the drills [ADMISSION 18]

19. Chief Superintendent Simon Coxall failed to obtain communications data in relation to Simon Bromley’s telephones [ADMISSION 19]

20. Chief Superintendent Graeme Bull failed to ascertain possible witnesses, such as ambulance staff.[ADMISSION 20]

21. Officers did not properly record the movements of the CCTV [ADMISSION 21]

22. Officers did not properly record the whereabouts of the CCTV [ADMISSION 22]

23. The IPCC could not establish the continuity of the CCTV evidence [ADMISSION 23]

24. The IPCC could not establish the integrity f the CCTV evidence  [ADMISSION 24]

25. The Claimant points out that when a copy of the CCTV tape was eventually supplied to 25. Failed to sufficiently involve the Claimant in the investigation [ADMISSION 25]

26. Misinformed the Claimant that a forensic examination of trainers found in the cement mixer cab, which may well have belonged to the Claimant’s son,  had taken place when this was not the case [ADMISSION 26]

27. Provided the Claimant with an incomplete copy of the CCTV footage [ADMISSION 27]

28. Failed to invite him to a reconstruction involving the cement mixer on 24 October 2003, despite the Claimant having over 35 years’ experience in the operation of various types of lorry, including concrete mixers [ADMISSION 28]   

Last edited by Tony Bennett on Mon 29 Jun - 11:33; edited 1 time in total


                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"

Tony Bennett

Posts : 13834
Reputation : 2035
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

Back to top Go down

Re: LES BALKWELL UPDATE: High Court hearing 2 July (was: Media release 12noon, Thursday 19 March 2015 - HIGH COURT HEARING – ROOM E111, QUEENS BENCH DIVISION, MONDAY 23 MARCH, 11.30AM)

Post by Doug D on Thu 19 Mar - 14:46

Frankly their defence, not even apparently responding to the 26 (28?) misconduct offences beggars belief, but I suppose they are on such dodgy ground that to try and get it acknowledged as incompetence rather than blatant corruption/collusion is their easy way out.
Maybe the protracted delays and the timing of this hearing, bearing in mind what has come out over the last week or so in other cases, will actually work in your favour.
If judgement is given in LB’s favour, where can the case go from here or have the IPCC done their bit and that’s the end of it?
Good luck on Monday.

Doug D

Posts : 2100
Reputation : 612
Join date : 2013-12-03

Back to top Go down

Re: LES BALKWELL UPDATE: High Court hearing 2 July (was: Media release 12noon, Thursday 19 March 2015 - HIGH COURT HEARING – ROOM E111, QUEENS BENCH DIVISION, MONDAY 23 MARCH, 11.30AM)

Post by plebgate on Thu 19 Mar - 16:20

Snipped from OP:

Les Balkwell said: “I am completely baffled. On the one hand, they admit to 28 serious failings, then on the other, they say they carried out an effective investigation. How long can they go on doing this to me and my family?”  "

The 28 admissions made by Essex Police in the High Court case of Les Balkwell v The Chief Constable of Essex Police

1. Failed to carry out an effective investigation [ADMISSION 1] "

Mr. Balkwell aint the only one baffled I certainly am.

Doesn't that go against his and his family's human rights somehow?


Posts : 5416
Reputation : 1140
Join date : 2013-02-01

Back to top Go down

Re: LES BALKWELL UPDATE: High Court hearing 2 July (was: Media release 12noon, Thursday 19 March 2015 - HIGH COURT HEARING – ROOM E111, QUEENS BENCH DIVISION, MONDAY 23 MARCH, 11.30AM)

Post by Tony Bennett on Mon 29 Jun - 11:29

Since my earlier reports, the case has moved on.

The next hearing in this long-running saga will be a half-day hearing before Master Eastman in the High Court of Justice this Thursday 2 July, at 10.30am, probable venue Room E111.  

The main point at issue will be whether Les Balkwell can amend the pleadings as set down by his former Solicitor, Simon McKay of McKay Law, back on 28 January 2013, so as to include complaints about Essex Police's conduct that were not originally pleaded.

Throughout these proceedings, Mr Balkwell has had to represent himself. I am not allowed to represent him as I am not a solicitor currently practicing, but cann attend couirt as a 'McKenzie Friend'. Essex Police has throughout been represented by a top barrister.  
Les Balkwell did not succeed in his application for summary judgment as the judge said his application was premature. He was told he could renew his application at a later date once certain other steps in these proceedings had been taken.

Les Balkwell's witness statement setting out the history of the matter is below:


IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE                                CLAIM NO.   HQ  13  X  03738









I, Leslie William Balkwell of 88 Abbs Cross Lane, HORNCHURCH, Essex, RM12  4XW make the following statement in support of my attached Application for leave to amend the Particulars of Claim..

1. As the Court is aware, on 30 January 2012 the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) issued a 147-page report describing the Essex Police investigation into my son’s death as ‘seriously flawed’. They found 26 separate instances of misconduct proved against Essex Police Officers, most of them of senior rank, including 13 separate misconduct findings against the Senior Investigating Officer in the initial investigation into my son’s death, Detective Chief Superintendent Graeme Bull.

2. As the Court is aware, I made the current civil claim against the Chief Constable of Essex Police on 28 January 2013. The Court has graciously agreed that there were good and valid reasons why that claim was delayed until long after the acts or omissions complained of, and the reasons for that delay were sent out in the statement of Anthony Bennett, a retired Solicitor, who has been helping me on matters relating to my son’s death. I adopt that statement as explaining various circumstances that (a) led to the delay in submitting my original claim and (b) have contributed to my delay in making an application to amend my Particulars of Claim.

3. These reasons include my financial situation. I have spent tens of thousands of pounds hiring Solicitors, including
(a) Christian Khan
(b) Linn and Associates of Harwich and
(c) Christopher Bowen.

4. I also hired a barrister, Mr Tony Ventham, and had to instruct him for three Inquest hearings, the first two Inquest hearing dates being cancelled very late. The first was cancelled because the Coroner and Essex Police had appointed a Coroner’s Officer, Mr Derrick Bines, who was overheard (by me) to tell a Police Officer, on the ’phone,  that he had been going to ‘run the Inquest as an accidental death’. The Coroner was left with no alternative but to dismiss him. The second time the Inquest was cancelled was because, less than 72 hours before the second date for the Inquest, Essex Police informed the Coroner that a key witness, David Bromley, the person who first called the Ambulance Service after my son’s death, had been extradited to Saarbruecken, Germany,  weeks earlier on a robbery charge. His call was made at 1.03am on 18 July 2002, the very moment that the tachograph showed that the concrete mixer in which my son was found dead had been switched on for the second time in four minutes. His evidence was therefore pivotal to the whole Inquest and the Inquest adjourned a second time.

5. I have incurred other huge expenses on pursuing the truth about my son’s death, including for example obtaining a number of specialist engineers’ reports, medical reports, other expert reports, various kinds of professional and administrative help, travelling to hundreds of meetings over the years and so on.    

6. I have therefore had to rely on Anthony Bennett, a retired Solicitor, for advice, apart from the help I received from McKay Law in connection with the civil claim currently before the Court which was on a ‘no win, no fee’ basis.

7. When I discussed my possible civil claim against Essex Police with Simon McKay, he advised me as follows:
a) The claim against Essex Police was worth a great deal more than £50,000. He said that the ‘absolute trauma’ that me and my family had suffered would be ‘worth many thousands more than that’ 
b) However, he would initially limit the claim to £50,000 so that it could proceed in the County Court  
c) He said that to claim only £50,000 was ‘the way things are done in the Courts these days’, I cannot recall his exact words but he was quite clear that the claim had to be in the County Court and must be no more than £50,000..

8. Before he submitted the Particulars of Claim to the Court, Simon McKay showed me a copy of his draft. I recall objecting in the strongest possible terms to these Particulars of Claim. I pointed out to him that he had left out dozens of police actions or omissions about which I had complained to him and which were revealed in various documents which I and Mr Bennett had supplied him with. The burning of my son’s clothes and the deliberate lies by the police about other forensic issues like the non-testing of the trainers found in the cab of the concrete mixer were amongst issues I wanted included in the Pleadings. 

9. I told him that it looked like he had just repeated the summary findings of the IPCC, and nothing else.  I even went up to his offices just outside Harrogate, Yorkshire, twice, to visit him to discuss these matters. I do not have a note of the exact dates.

10. I refer to the original Particulars of Claim. Basically Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the Particulars of Claim merely recite the main events from the death of my son up to the arrests of five members of the Bromley family on suspicion of corporate manslaughter. 

11. Paragraphs 16.1 through 16.18.3 merely recite the list of the 26 instances of misconduct recorded by the IPCC in their final report of 30 January 2012. Simon McKay has not included anything else.        

12. Mr McKay’s response to me was very clear. He said he was not going to change anything. He kept on saying: ‘Look, this is only a first step. We don’t know what’s going to come out yet at the trial, all sorts of things might come out and then we will have every opportunity to highlight other issues  Once we get the £50,000, we can then use those funds to make further claims and then perhaps bring a private prosecution against Essex Police for perverting the course of justice. Despite my strong objection that his Pleading of the Particulars of Claim left out many other important matters, I had no alternative but to accept his advice as my Solicitor. I had to place my trust in him.   

13. After Simon McKay had submitted my claim to the County Court in Leeds, he became concerned that there were two people involved in representing me. He told me in no uncertain terms that I was never to call Mr Bennett  my ‘representative’ in future as he was now my representative. I spoke with Mr Bennett and told him he must now describe himself only as my ‘adviser’.

14. Mr Bennett did however, at my request, supply him with potentially relevant information. For example, I and Mr Bennett asked Kent Police for a copy of the second post-mortem report by Dr Benjamin Swift, which he produced after the exhumation of my son’s body on 25/26 March 2013. They refused to supply it to me and told me that the Coroner was not prepared to disclose it. Eventually Mr Bennett was able to obtain a copy from the Coroner’s Office, please see attached Document No. 1. He duly sent it to Mr McKay.

15. Following receipt of my claim, the Defendant applied to strike out my claim, as they said itwas ‘out of time’. As a result, the County Court in Leeds determined that the matter should be contested in the High Court and accordingly the proceedings were transferred to this Court   

16. From time to time, I telephoned Simon McKay to find out what was happening with my claim.

17. On 24 December 2013, not having heard from Simon McKay for some time, I telephoned him. He told me that he had heard from Essex Police. I later found out that Essex Police had written to him about 2 to 3 weeks earlier, but he had made no attempt to contact me about the contents of this letter. I recall saying to him: “Oh, you’ve decided to tell me about this letter from Essex now that I’ve ‘phoned you. When would you have told me about the letter, after the Christmas holidays I suppose?”.

18. Mr Bennett thinks that it is against Court rules for me to say what the contents of this letter from Essex Police were.

19. I had a number of conversations with McKay Law during January 2014.

20. At the same time, I asked Mr Bennett to find out from the Law Society if there was any previous history regarding Simon McKay or McKay Law.

21. Mr Bennett researched him on the internet and found the attached open letter to Simon McKay on the ‘UK Justice’ Forum (Document No. 2).

22. This concerned me, not only because of the tactics Simon McKay had used in the Jeremy Bamber case, but also because there was reference made to two IVAs (Individual Voluntary Arrangements) which I took to mean that he had twice got into significant debt.

23. Mr Bennett also telephoned the Solicitors Regulation Authority and discovered that he had been reprimanded by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal in 2009. Their findings are at Document No. 3. The main findings were:
a) Failing to keep clients’ money  separate from practice money or his own money
b) Failing to apply clients’ monies to those clients’ matters
c) Failing to have proper accounting records
d) There were several other serious complaints about McKay Law
e) They even added a ‘mark-up’ to bank charges, and then described these as ‘disbursements’, a practice the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal said was ’obnoxious’ 

24. Without me being able to tell the Court exactly what the dispute between me and McKay Law was about, I decided that McKay Law were no longer properly representing my interests and I therefore terminated my instructions to them. I asked Mr Bennett to help me draft a reply to McKay Law.

25. On my behalf Mr Bennett then sought to obtain copies of the various Pleadings from the parties. Within a reasonable space of time, the Defendant’s representative Mr Adrian Williams sent him the Defendant’s Pleadings. Simon McKay however refused to send me a copy of the Pleadings that he had made. As a result, with Mr Bennett’s help, I made an application to the High Court and received copies of the missing Pleadings on 21 February 2014. I passed these to Mr Bennett as soon as practicable.

26. It was immediately clear to Mr Bennett that if my claim was struck out by the High Court, that would be the end of the matter. He therefore focussed his attention and energies exclusively on compiling a statement to the Court which would explain as clearly as possible why I had delayed making this civil claim. He noted that the Particulars of Claim were inaccurate in some respects and left much out, but he did not take this up with Essex Police or the Court since he was occupied in helping me to defend the ‘Strike-Out’ application. Moreover, for the same reason - the ‘Strike-Out’ claim – the Defendant refused to reply to my claim. 

27. Following the decision of Master Eastman at the Hearing on 15 January 2015, on 27 January 2015 I wrote to the Court (Document No. 4), with Mr Bennett’s help, enclosing a document headed ‘Amended Particulars of Claim’. On the same date, this was sent to the Defendant. This document was headed: ‘Amended Particulars of Claim by way of Supplementary Particulars’ (Document No. 5), making it plain therefore that I was not seeking to withdraw any of the previous Pleadings, which I continue to adopt, save for one or two minor factual inaccuracies in them. 

28. I am very sorry that my letter of application dated 27 January 2015 was not in accordance with the Court’s rules. Mr Bennett has explained to me that he was and is not familiar with all the Court’s rules of procedure and had believed that a letter of application would be sufficient. He has apologised to me for this.     

29. My ‘Amended Particulars of Claim’ document seeks to place before the Court other very important issues concerning the acts and omissions of the Defendant that Mckay Law had failed, for whatever reason, to include in the Original Pleadings.

30. It would prejudice my claim if I were not allowed to present these additional issues to the Court.

31. I do not see that the Defendant would be prejudiced in any significant way if the Court agreed to consider these additional issues.

32. The Defendant did not file a Defence until 12 February 2015.

33. The issues I raise in my Amended Particulars of Claim could not in any way surprise the Defendant, even though the Defendant may consider he has a good answer to what is pleaded by way of amendment.

34. The Defendant has had notice of the Claimant’s ‘Amended Particulars’ document since 27 January as I sent it to them.  

35. I asked Mr Bennett to find out from the Law Society if there were any other findings  against McKay Law. The Law Society told Mr Bennett that McKay Law had closed on 12 October 2014 and the Law Society was not aware of any practice that had taken over from it.

I believe the contents of this my Statement to be true to the best of my knowledge.

List of documents attached:

LWB1 Correspondence between McKay Law and Mr Bennett about the Second Post-Mortem

LWB2 Open Letter to McKay Law, 2012, found on the UK Justice Forum

LWB3 Findings of Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal 8 January 2009 against Simon McKay 

LWB4 Letter Claimant to the Court and to the Defendant 27 January 2015 enclosing Amedned Particulars of Claim

LWB5 Document: ‘Amended Particular of Claim by way of Supplementary Particulars’ 

Signed  ____________________________________

            Leslie William Balkwell.

Dated  _____________________________________

MEDIA RELEASE 11.30pm, 1 July

Media release 11.30pm, 1 July


Hearing in High Court – Thursday 2 July

Tomorrow in the High Court Les Balkwell will again be representing himself in his civil action for damages against Essex Police. His claim is for compensation because he says Essex Police conducted an ineffective investigation. The Court will hear his application to amend the original pleadings filed by his former solicitor. Essex Police consent to sixteen amendments but oppose the other eight. Full details about the hearing are at:



Les Balkwell was informed last month that he had succeeded in a complaint of misconduct against former Chief Constable of Kent, Ian Learmonth.

In his complaint, Les Balkwell alleged that Mr Learmonth “did not declare his previous connection to the case, whilst working for Essex in 2002-3, to either Kent Police or to the Independent Police Complaint Commission”. Les said he should have done so, given his complaint in 2010 that it was wrong of Kent to re-investigate his son’s death, as the Kent force was ‘joined at the hip’ to Essex Police and was therefore not independent.

Les Balkwell’s complaint was investigated by the Chief Constable for Cambridgeshire, Mr Simon Parr. The publication of his report (attached) was held back for over a year for reasons which have yet to be explained to Les.

In his report, Mr Parr agreed that “The Chief Constable [Ian Learmonth] should have considered fully disclosing his previous involvement with the Force for the initial investigation of the death of Lee Balkwell. This would have allowed any challenge to be made by Mr Balkwell at the earliest  opportunity and would have provided transparency in the initial review. He added: “By failing to highlight his previous involve, the perception of collusion was achieved and the following process was therefore undermined”.  

Les Balkwell submitted a four-page written objection to Kent Police investigating his son’s death but Essex Police and the IPCC overruled his objections at the time.


A number of complaints by Les Balkwell against the Chief Constable of Kent, Stephen Kavanagh, were not upheld, after a year-long investigation by the Deputy Chief Constable of Norfolk Police. In a 71-page report written by Temporary Detective Superintendent Kathryn Thacker, Les Balkwell’s complaint that Mr Kavanagh and his senior officers had ultimate control over the Kent investigation were not upheld.

However, in a significant submission by Essex Force Solicitor, Mr Adam Hunt, he conceded that a whistleblowing Essex Police intelligence officer, who had leaked confidential information about the police’s handling of the case to Les Balkwell, had been ‘dealt with as appropriate’ by Essex Police (page 33 of the report). Les Balkwell understands from the officer, now retired, that he was threatened with prosecution under the Official Secrets Act and wanted not to disclose any further information of Essex Police’s handling of the case with anyone. The report is available in hard copy and can be faxed if required.

The report also contained the surprising written admission that the Kent investigation was not a full re-investigation but merely a review of recommendations made by Operation Abante in 2009-2010. It was thus the fifth review to be carried out, and Les Balkwell has never had the full investigation which the IPCC recommended in an interim report dated 29 June 2009.


“I read the Norfolk Report with utter disbelief. I have not had the independent re-investigation that I was promised by the IPCC six years ago. What is the point of them? Moreover the whistleblower who told me how Essex Police covered up what really happened to Lee has now been gagged by the threat of prosecution.

“Unless Essex immediately hands over the investigation of my son’s death to an independent police force, I shall be left with little alternative but to bring a private prosecution against the following officials for either misfeasnace in public office, perverting the course of justice, or perjury:

Essex or former Essex Police Officers: Steve Reynolds, Graeme Bull, Gareth Wilson, Jason Weald, Ian Stevenson

Kent or former Kent Police Officers: Lee Catling, Janine Farrell

Crown Prosecution Service staff: Grace Oniniwu O.B.E., Frank Ferguson and Nick Staite.

“The allegations include the deliberate burning of my son’s clothes the day after he was killed, which I say was done to remove potentially damaging forensic evidence against those while my son, the fabrication of a Scenes of Crime Report and minutes of meetings, withholding my son’s ‘phone records from me for 11 years, interference with witnesses, and a number of false statements made by police officers.     

“I have also complained to the Bar Standards Board about my claim that Karim Kahlil Q.C. perverted the course of justice by prosecuting Simon Bromley for causing an accident when there is no credible evidence that Lee died in an accident”.  


Les Balkwell: 07925 999607 or 01708 446850

Tony Bennett (Adviser): 01279 635789 or 07835 716537


                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"

Tony Bennett

Posts : 13834
Reputation : 2035
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum