The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann. Please note that your username should be different from your email address!

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

(Please note: if you register with the sole intention of disrupting or spamming, please don't expect to be a member for too long.)

Many thanks,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

IPSO complaint written by a CMOMM member

View previous topic View next topic Go down

IPSO complaint written by a CMOMM member

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 20.05.17 16:17

IPSO complaint written by a CMOMM member:

Personally speaking now the IPSO has had it's chance so I feel like it's time to go public with some of this and how corrupt they are in connection to this case.

Initial complaint raised on the 2nd April 2017.

To Sir/Madam,
I wish to raise an official complaint about a breach of your Code of Practice, clause 1 – Accuracy.  The offending article in question is this one [url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-relieved-portuguese-10141308 from April 1st 2017][/url]http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-relieved-portuguese-10141308 from April 1st 2017, 22:31pm by Patrick Hill.  This article breaches your Code of Practice because of the following quote which is stated as fact in the article “Amaral’s first book was published three days after Portuguese authorities closed the inquiry into Madeleine’s disappearance in 2008 and cleared Gerry and Kate of any wrong doing”.  This is a flat out lie based on several legal sources and documentation of the Portuguese Justice and Court system of which I’ll include links to at the end.  For now though let me bring this Daily Mirror article to your attention http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-slam-judges-9865132 which was published in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision and judgement in which it was stated as fact that the McCann’s were not proven innocent – not cleared.  The Daily Mirror’s own quote in this article states “Kate and Gerry McCann slammed judges who said the lifting of their arguidos status was not the same thing as ruling them innocent”.  It is crystal clear that even from these two articles that the latter and more recent one has breached your clause for Accuracy as they have printed an out and out lie in saying the McCann’s were “cleared of any wrong doing”.  The Portuguese Justice System has made it crystal clear that this is not the case, they have not been cleared, they have not been found innocent of any wrong doing.  Further articles go on to say that the McCann’s complained about this decision and judgement but this too was rejected pretty quickly as it had no foundation and yet again the courts in Portugal reaffirmed that the McCann’s have not and have never been cleared of any wrong doing and to quote the Supreme Court of Portugal “It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case”.  That quote can be found not only in the official court documents of the Supreme Court but also in the Daily Mirror’s own article, link here http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-gerry-mccann-not-totally-9782804.  The Daily Mirror themselves has proven the breach of your Code of Practice, clause 1 – Accuracy within their offending article by using proper legally backed documentation.
 
You may peruse the official court documents for yourself here http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/
 
It is crystal clear that ANY media outlet that prints that the McCann’s were cleared in 2008 upon archiving of the case, or any words that intimate the same outcome is wholly wrong to do so and therefore breaches your clause 1 – Accuracy as it is misleading, distorting, worse still it’s a bare faced lie which can be proven with legal documentation.
 
Yours faithfully,

---------------

A further complaint was submitted on the 3rd April 2017 about a reprint of the original offending article from a different rag:
To Sir/Madam,
I wish to raise another official complaint about a breach of your Code of Practice, clause 1 – Accuracy.  The offending article in question is this one https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3234402/relief-for-tormented-parents-of-madeleine-mccann-as-cop-ditches-plans-to-write-new-bombshell-book-on-missing-girls-case/?CMP=Spklr-_-Editorial-_-TheSun-_-News-_-FBLink-_-Reply-_-FBPAGE by Sara Koumani at 02:32am on 2nd April 2017.  This article breaches your Code of Practice because of the following quote which is stated as fact in the article “Amaral’s first book was published three days after Portuguese authorities closed the inquiry into Madeleine’s disappearance in 2008 and cleared Gerry and Kate of any wrong doing”.  This is a flat out lie based on several legal sources and documentation of the Portuguese Justice and Court system of which I’ll include links to at the end.  For now though let me bring this The Sun article to your attention https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2901386/mccanns-prepped-for-new-court-battle-against-detective-who-claimed-they-faked-maddies-kidnap/ which was published in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision and judgement in which it was stated as fact that the McCann’s were not proven innocent – not cleared.  The Sun’s own quote in this article states “Last month’s ruling bought more anguish for Kate and Gerry, both 48, after judges also said the removal of their arguidos status or ‘formal suspect’ should be equated to proof of innocence”.  It is crystal clear that even from these two articles that the latter and more recent one has breached your clause for Accuracy as they have printed an out and out lie in saying the McCann’s were “cleared of any wrong doing”.  The Portuguese Justice System has made it crystal clear that this is not the case, they have not been cleared, they have not been found innocent of any wrong doing.  Further articles go on to say that the McCann’s complained about this decision and judgement but this too was rejected pretty quickly as it had no foundation and yet again the courts in Portugal reaffirmed that the McCann’s have not and have never been cleared of any wrong doing and to quote the Supreme Court of Portugal “It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case”.  That quote can be found not only in the official court documents of the Supreme Court but also in the Daily Mail’s  article, link herehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4206214/Court-says-Madeleine-McCann-s-parents-HAVEN-T-cleared.html. 
You may peruse the official court documents for yourself here http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/
 
It is crystal clear that ANY media outlet that prints that the McCann’s were cleared in 2008 upon archiving of the case, or any words that intimate the same outcome is wholly wrong to do so and therefore breaches your clause 1 – Accuracy as it is misleading, distorting, worse still it’s a bare faced lie which can be proven with legal documentation.  To date that now makes 2 newspaper outlets that have breached your Code of Practice for the same issue.
 
Yours faithfully,

--------------

Response received for the 2nd April 2017 complaint:

Dear Mr H,
Thank you for contacting the Independent Press Standards Organisation. 
Your complaint is currently being assessed by IPSO’s staff, and we will be in touch with you again shortly. In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. 
Should we decide that your complaint does not raise a possible breach of the Code, we will write to you to explain why and send a copy of your complaint, including your name and any contact details you have provided, and our letter to the publication. 
Alternatively, if we decide that the concerns you have raised fall within our remit and raise a possible breach of the Code, and you have not previously exhausted the publication’s internal complaints procedures, a copy of your complaint and any other correspondence you have sent to us, including contact information, will be sent to the publication to provide it with the opportunity to resolve the matter directly with you. 
A copy of the Editors’ Code of Practice, which is administered by IPSO, can be found at: https://www.ipso.co.uk/editors-code-of-practice/
Please note, in addition, the following information about our confidentiality and data protection procedures: 
Confidentiality: The system of self-regulation requires good faith on both sides.  In order for us to be able to investigate complaints effectively, it is essential that neither party to a complaint, complainant or newspaper/magazine, publishes information which has been provided as part of the investigation - most notably correspondence - without the consent of the other party. Should either party publish or disclose such information without consent, we may decline to consider the complaint further. Material provided by both complainants and publications during an investigation must only be used for the purpose of the complaint to us. This policy does not prevent IPSO from publishing details of correspondence exchanged during the complaint as part of a ruling on the complaint. 
Data protection: By pursuing the complaint, you consent to the processing of any personal data which may be provided for the purposes of dealing with your complaint.  
Publication of decisions: Should IPSO’s Complaints Committee be asked, after an investigation of your concerns by IPSO, to decide whether your complaint raises a breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice, its conclusions will be published. You will be identified as the complainant, unless you have requested to be anonymous, and the Committee has granted the request. 
Further information about complaining to IPSO, including a summary of the complaints procedure, can be found at: https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/makeacomplaint.html
With best wishes,
 

Todd Stammers
Systems Handler
IPSO
Gate House
1 Farringdon Street
London
EC4M 7LG
Tel: 0300 123 2220
Website: www.ipso.co.uk
----------------

21st April 2017 sees the rejection of my complaint:
I write further to our earlier email regarding your complaint about an article headlined “Madeleine McCann’s parents relieved as Portuguese cop axes controversial new book on case”, published by Mirror.co.uk on 8th February 2017.
 
On receipt of a complaint, IPSO’s Executive reviews it to ensure that it falls within our remit, and discloses a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice. The Executive has now completed an assessment of your complaint under the terms of the Code. Having considered the points you have raised in full, we have concluded that your complaint does not raise a possible breach of the Code.
 
Your complaint was made under Clause 1 (Accuracy). You said that it was inaccurate to state that the Inquiry into Madeleine’s disappearance “cleared Kate and Gerry of any wrongdoing”. You provided news articles in support of your complaint which reported that the Portuguese civil court has said the removal of their status as persons of interest did not amount to being cleared of any wrongdoing.
 
The status of the McCanns as persons of interest was lifted in 2008. The newspaper was entitled to characterise the removal of this status as being cleared of any wrongdoing in the absence of any official determination on the issue of their guilt or innocence. We did not therefore consider that the article was significantly inaccurate, and did not consider that your complaint raised a possible breach of Clause 1.
 
You are entitled to request that the Executive’s decision to reject your complaint be reviewed by IPSO’s Complaints Committee. To do so you will need to write to us in the next seven days, setting out the reasons why you believe the decision should be reviewed. Please note that we are unable to accept requests for review made seven days after the date of this email.
 
We would like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to consider the points you have raised, and have shared this correspondence with the newspaper to make it aware of your concerns.
 
Best wishes,
 

Alistair Henwood
---------------

This prompted my appeal which was filed on the 27th April 2017:

Sir/Madam,
My original complaint comprised of two main points which are actually the same point, but from the IPSO response appear to have been misrepresented so for clarification I will now list the two points of complaint:
1)       I said that it was inaccurate to state that the Inquiry into Madeleine’s disappearance “cleared Kate and Gerry of any wrongdoing”.  This was stated in my original complaint and also the one point focused on by the IPSO given your response.
2)       I also stated and reiterated “any media outlet that prints that the McCann’s were cleared in 2008 upon archiving of the case” is wrong to do so.
 
To support this I included links to 3 Daily Mirror articles which are;
1)       [url=http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-relieved-portuguese-10141308 from April 1st 2017][/url]http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-relieved-portuguese-10141308 from April 1st 2017  In this link the offending quote is printed “Amaral’s first book was published three days after Portuguese authorities closed the inquiry into Madeleine’s disappearance in 2008 and cleared Gerry and Kate of any wrong doing”.  For the purposes of my complaint I think this quote can be reduced down to the following “Portuguese closed the inquiry in 2008 and cleared Kate and Gerry”.
2)       http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccanns-parents-slam-judges-9865132 In this link is the following quote “Kate and Gerry McCann slammed judges who said the lifting of their arguidos status was not the same thing as ruling them innocent”.
3)       http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-gerry-mccann-not-totally-9782804 In this link is this quote ““It should not be said that the appellants were cleared via the ruling announcing the archiving of the criminal case”.
 
For further corroborating evidence I submitted this link to you http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/ This link contains all of the official Portuguese court system documentation that the McCann’s V Mr Amaral case has been involved in, including the more recent Supreme Court ruling in its entirety for your information when assessing the validity of the Daily Mirror’s quotes from the same documents.  From your response it is plain to see that you accept these documents exist and that they are the ultimate guide for your information in deciding upon breaches of your Code of Practice.  For matters of convenience here is a link to the Supreme Court documents that have been translated into English http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm#70.  This link will take you directly to page 70 of the Portuguese Supreme Court ruling documents in which you will find the following quotes:
1)      “And let it not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings”.
2)      “Thus it does not appear acceptable to consider that the alluded dispatch, based on the insufficiency of evidence, should be treated as evidence of innocence”.
 
With this in mind I will now include a quote from your response to me which appears to be the deciding factor in rejecting my initial complaint; “The newspaper was entitled to characterise the removal of this status as being cleared of any wrongdoing in the absence of any official determination on the issue of their guilt or innocence”.  There are a few serious problems with your response here namely:
1)       In the absence of any official determination on the issue of guilt or innocence, no one can say for sure which one it is can they?  So how can you state implicitly that the Daily Mirror can state they were cleared?!  Surely in the interest of your Code of Practice and in fairness if you cannot state with fact and there’s no official determination either way then it would be better to not say anything at all, as the matter is so ambiguous?!
2)       Except there is some guidance and fact here in this instance, as per point 2 (above) made from page 70 of the Supreme Court documentation – It’s not acceptable to consider the archiving, based on insufficiency of evidence, as evidence of innocence.  Their current status as per the Portuguese Supreme Court documentation is not innocent.  True they are not classed as guilty either but either way for the IPSO to claim the press can print that the McCann’s have been cleared is factually, legally and morally wrong.
 
This brings me onto the main point of my original complaint namely that when press articles state that the McCann’s were cleared in 2008 when the Portuguese PJ case was archived, this is factually and legally incorrect and that it is wrong to state this.
I need only include the one quote from the Portuguese Supreme Court documents and it is this one:
1)       “And let it not be said, too, that the appellants were cleared by the order of filing the criminal proceedings”.  The McCann’s were not cleared when the case was archived in 2008!  For the record they were the only 2 formal suspects!
 
To summarize then, the McCann’s have not been cleared of any wrong doing and neither have they been cleared because of the archiving of the case in 2008 by the Portuguese authorities.  These two main issues are corroborated by documents from the highest court in Portugal to which the McCann’s took their legal battle, again the reference to these legal documents is here http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Supreme_Court_31_01_2017.htm#70.  To state that either or both of these points in the British media is factually, legally and morally incorrect and inaccurate to do so and is therefore a clear and obvious breach of the IPSO Code of Practice, clause 1 – accuracy.
 
Some other interesting additional information to consider:
1)       The IPSO stated in their response “You provided news articles in support of your complaint”.  As previously mentioned I also provided links to the official Portuguese Supreme Court documents on which the Daily Mirror’s articles are loosely based.  The IPSO refused to acknowledge these documents as supporting evidence in their response.
2)       This original complaint was submitted late on the 2nd April 2017, confirmation received on the morning of 3rd April 2017.  Considering the main point of my complaint which was “any media outlet that prints that the McCann’s were cleared in 2008 upon archiving of the case” is wrong to do so, and that on the evening of the 3rd April 2017 The Sun also repeated the exact same claim from the first Daily Mirror link I provided.  I have evidence that the IPSO temporarily blocked the email address that I used to submit this complaint from, to prevent me from submitting further complaints.  I also have further evidence to support this accusation as per complaint IPSO: #05801-17# which was submitted about The Suns article but sent from an alternative email address in between times that I attempted to submit from my usual email address, all attempts of which came back as rejected/blocked by the IPSO server and client host.
 
Moving on to complaint #05801-17# of which you have just responded to.  My response to this complaint is mostly the same as above with the exception of the following errors on the IPSO’s part.
1)       Alistair Henwood claims that my complaint was about an article from The Sun on the 19th February 2017 entitled “Cover Up Challenge”.  This is wholly wrong as my complaint was actually about this article of which you have provided proof I submitted to you, via several means https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3234402/relief-for-tormented-parents-of-madeleine-mccann-as-cop-ditches-plans-to-write-new-bombshell-book-on-missing-girls-case/?CMP=Spklr-_-Editorial-_-TheSun-_-News-_-FBLink-_-Reply-_-FBPAGE dated 3rd April 2017.  So immediately your decision in this particular complaint is invalidated because you haven’t assessed the correct article.
2)       In conjunction with this complaint and all of the above I will state once more that it is legally, factually and morally wrong for newspapers or indeed yourselves to print, state or reinforce the notion that the McCann’s have been cleared of a) any wrong doing or b) upon case archival in 2008.  This is simply not true and supported by legal court documents from the highest court in Portugal.  Therefore newspapers are not entitled to characterise this is any other way, shape or form just to be able to print clear propaganda that has been so evident over the last decade.  Furthermore your Code of Practice dictates that you must not support this characterisation or (un)intentional misleading of the facts.
3)       The Metropolitan Police have stated several things over the years via press releases.  Some of the more important ones are: 1) It’s a Portuguese Police investigation, they have supremacy. 2) The original Portuguese Police original investigation concluded that the McCann’s are involved with Madeleine’s disappearance, death, disposal and subsequent cover up of this. 3) Scotland Yard’s Operation Grange has very recently admitted that they’ve reviewed these files and as far as parental involvement goes, they are happy with these files – What does that tell you?! 4) Ultimately as the original incident occurred in Portugal, the lead police force was the Portuguese PJ, the legal trials that the McCann’s instigated and subsequently lost against Mr Amaral in were all Portuguese, the final verdicts in that dispute all came from the highest court in Portugal – The Supreme Court.  Therefore considering all of this neither you or the newspapers have any grounds whatsoever to ignore, contradict or misinterpret the a) verdict or b) the legal ramifications of those Supreme Court documents or the Portuguese PJ case files.
 

Yours faithfully,

--------------

Received the rejection last night based upon what I perceive to be an absolute joke given it appears to be a flat out lie:

Dear Mr H,
 
The Complaints Committee has considered your complaints, the emails of 21 and 26 April 2017 from IPSO’s Executive notifying you of its view that your complaints did not raise a possible breach of the Editors’ Code of Practice, and your email of 27 April 2017 requesting a review of the Executive’s decision, and has agreed the following decision:
 
The Committee would like to apologise, on behalf of the Executive, for the incorrect reference to the headline, in their initial response to you in regards to your complaint against thesun.co.uk. It would like to assure you that this was an administrative error, and that your complaint has been carefully considered under the correct article.
 
The Committee noted your broader concerns regarding the reporting of the Portuguese police investigation into Madeleine McCann’s disappearance. You expressed concern that it was inaccurate to report that Mr and Mrs McCann were “cleared of any wrongdoing”. In circumstances where Mr and Mrs McCann are no longer being investigated as formal suspects, in light of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, the Committee did not consider that it was significantly misleading to report that Mr and Mrs McCann were “cleared of any wrongdoing”. As the articles do not refer to the case being archived, the Committee declined to reopen your complaint on this point. 
 
For these reasons, and the reasons already provided by IPSO’s Executive, your complaint did not raise a possible breach of the Code.
 
The Committee would like to thank you for giving it the opportunity to consider your concerns. 
 
Best wishes,
 
Abigail Tuitt
-------------

The IPSO's deciding factor in rejecting this appeal was because "the articles do not refer to the case being archived".  Yet one of the very first points I raised in my complaints was about this line "Amaral’s first book was published three days after Portuguese authorities closed the inquiry into Madeleine’s disappearance in 2008 and cleared Gerry and Kate of any wrong doing".  I also stated this in my complaint as it's quite relevant: It is crystal clear that ANY media outlet that prints that the McCann’s were cleared in 2008 upon archiving of the case, or any words that intimate the same outcome is wholly wrong to do so.  Might just be me, but now the IPSO are denying the very thing the press have printed, the press apparently didn't refer to the case being archived - just closed!
avatar
Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 9283
Reputation : 4665
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

a load of old IPSOS

Post by worriedmum on 20.05.17 18:20

GEG,I applaud your endeavour and tenacity. Personally I think the fact that the articles that IPSO say 'do not refer to the case being archived' being an excuse not to re-open the original complaint is a total red herring.

And what, pray, does 'not significantly misleading ' mean? A little bit misleading? Fairly misleading? Misleading but hey, who cares? Isn't it either 'misleading'(weasel word) or TRUE? angrypcuser
avatar
worriedmum

Posts : 1788
Reputation : 388
Join date : 2012-01-17

Back to top Go down

Re: IPSO complaint written by a CMOMM member

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 20.05.17 18:43

Hi worriedmum, I can't take the credit for the excellent letters I've posted on the forum this afternoon, it was another CMOMM member who wants to remain anonymous.
avatar
Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 9283
Reputation : 4665
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: IPSO complaint written by a CMOMM member

Post by Verdi on 20.05.17 21:03

glee Someone is not procrastinating!

Another humdinger clapping1 .

Time-wasters take note - CMoMM means business whether you like it or not!

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 5380
Reputation : 3190
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Re: IPSO complaint written by a CMOMM member

Post by Get'emGonçalo on 20.05.17 21:12

@Verdi wrote:glee Someone is not procrastinating!

Another humdinger clapping1 .

Time-wasters take note - CMoMM means business whether you like it or not!
Yes, indeed.

Now that the 10th Anniversary shitefest tsunami is over we can get back to business.
avatar
Get'emGonçalo


Posts : 9283
Reputation : 4665
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : parallel universe

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: IPSO complaint written by a CMOMM member

Post by Verdi on 20.05.17 21:19

@Get'emGonçalo wrote:
@Verdi wrote:glee Someone is not procrastinating!

Another humdinger clapping1 .

Time-wasters take note - CMoMM means business whether you like it or not!
Yes, indeed.

Now that the 10th Anniversary shitefest tsunami is over we can get back to business.
Amen!

I don't envisage another 'special occasion' in the foreseeable future - at least not until the latest Operation Grange stay of execution has ended and/or next Yule Tide. 

They've played their finale they've had their encore and now the curtain is down.

End of show!

____________________
The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
avatar
Verdi
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 5380
Reputation : 3190
Join date : 2015-02-02

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
McCanns apt & hire car


Blood and cadaver alerts
dismissed by UK Government


Retired DCI Gonçalo Amaral: "The English can always present the conclusions to which they themselves arrived in 2007. Because they know, they have the evidence of what happened - they don't need to investigate anything. All this is now a mere 'show off'."

Retired murder DCI Colin Sutton: "I would also like to make the point that Operation Grange was so restricted from the start as to be destined to fail."

Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley made public on national TV that Operation Grange is a complete fraud.

Ex-DCI Andy Redwood had a "revelation moment" on BBC's Crimewatch on 14th October 2013 when he announced that Operation Grange had eliminated the Tanner sighting - which opened up the 'window of opportunity', in accordance with their remit, to allow the fake abduction to happen.

Despite "irrelevant behaviour" from blood and cadaver dogs in the McCann's apartment, on Kate McCann's clothes, and in the car they hired three weeks after Maddie disappeared, Ex-Chief Inspector, Ian Horrocks, said: "The thought that Kate and Gerry McCann had anything to do with the death of their daughter is frankly preposterous."

Gerry McCann called for example to be made of 'trolls'. SKY News reporter Martin Brunt doorstepped Brenda Leyland on 2 October 2014. She was then found dead in a Leicester hotel room. Brenda paid the price. She paid with her life.

Ex-Deputy Chief Constable, Jim Gamble QPM, congratulated SKY reporter, Martin Brunt, on twitter for doorstepping Brenda Leyland on behalf of Gerry McCann.

Prime Minister Theresa May introduces Prime Suspect Kate McCann to Royalty: The Duchess of Gloucester.

Good Cop Down: The reality of being a police whistleblower
https://goodcopdown.wordpress.com/