‘This copper should go’
Thursday 11th September 2008, 2:30PM BST.
A GRANDMOTHER-of-eight has revealed the trauma she suffered following an incident with a police officer that left her shaken and with bleeding wrists.
Rosemarie Holt, 64, spoke about how she was handcuffed and ordered into a police van, with no reason being given. PC Stuart Allan was found guilty of assault in the Magistrate’s Court on Friday, fined £250 and now faces a chief officer’s disciplinary panel.
The mother-of-four and former Swissville nanny was shocked by her treatment when stopped in Fort Road at 7.25pm on 1 March. She was driving to her daughter’s house to babysit. She was first aware of blue flashing lights behind her at the bottom of Le Val des Terres and was pulled over, halfway along Fort Road.
‘[PC Allan] wrenched my car door open and shouted “get out, get out”. The way he looked at me was terrifying,’ she said. She repeatedly asked what she had done. ‘He eventually said I had gone over a white line on North Esplanade.’
Feeling faint, she leant against her car. PC Allan twisted her arms behind her back and handcuffed them, without arresting her or asking for a breath sample. ‘I said, “That’s really hurting me”. My right wrist was bleeding. I just thought: “This isn’t happening, this isn’t Guernsey”.’
Two further police officers arrived after PC Allan, understood to be ex-army and from the UK, called for backup. ‘I felt relieved, but PC Allan’s attitude changed. They asked if I was on any drugs and I said only for my blood pressure and cholesterol,’ she said.
‘He said: “Let’s just forget about all this”, and tried to help me out of the van.’ She was released without charge.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
so would of this story been different if an 17-25 had this done to them?
who would be blamed then? the copper or “youth”?
Report abuse
Cats being killed, people robbed, mindless vandalism, cars torched, people shot with BB guns & nothing happens… You accidently drive over a white line & a lady 1 year shord of drawing her pension gets manhandled by a police officer. This i’m afraid sums up Guernsey today. I hope this officer of our so called law feels like a real big man. Also – wasnt it strange that his collegues backed him up yet he was still found guilty…
Report abuse
Nice to see the press isn’t biased much. I think W H Bonney if you have that much of a problem with the Police then either shut up, go and join them to change things or phone and stick a complaint in.
Report abuse
If you have read the press on Monday there is no mention of being man handled, the judge said that it was an error of judgment by the office.
Now the lady is putting her side of the story and slatting the office, I’m sure he had his reason’s to do what he did.
As for crossing a white line in the instance it seems petty but what if she had been drinking and crashed causing injury or worse.
Report abuse
Congratulations to the press, you have now become a tabloid. You should change your name to Gutter Press. This story totally got out of hand and now he may lose his job. What if the police have to back off all criminals now because they may not do something quite by the book and everyone will take them to court….
Report abuse
In a response to Rachel – read again – I said this sums Guernsey up – not the island police force… The comments made regarding the police were based on fact read out in a court of law…
If you think I am the only one with a problem with the way things are at the moment then put it to a vote – I dare you… you really wouldnt like to read the results…
Report abuse
I will deal with your earlier comments in order:
Rachel; Firstly, i am sure that Mrs Holt will be putting a complaint in. As for your comment suggesting she ‘shut up (or) go and join them to change things’ i should like to point out that these are not the only other options. Why is going to the press not a valid option for you whereas joining the police is. Perhaps, next time i am not happy with the service i receive at a restaurant, i must become a waiter. The public has a right to know when our police force is behaving in a way that normal decent human beings should not. If i behaved in the same way, you can bet my name would be all over the press.
Tonkie; I was arrested last year for simply petting a sniffer dog in a pub. I nearly lost my job, all because of the petulance of one officer. In the end all was dropped by the police and i received £1,700 in compensation and a written apology. Sometimes police officers do not have good reasons for what they do, then. They are human beings who can make mistakes as we all do, but they are also not above the law, and should be held accountable when their actions are clearly in breach of it.
Val Bolan;
See above. I nearly lost my job as a result of the petty mindedness of one officer, when i had done nothin wrong (hence apology & compensation). I would, however, expect to actually lose my job if i had assualted a 61 year old lady in the manner of the officer involved. This is even more pertinent if the job i was doing was to protect the public. He should go. As to your last point, how far do you propose the doing of things ‘not by the book’ be accepted. This is a slippery slope, and once officers begin to see themselves as more important than ‘the book’ we are all sliding down it very fast.
Report abuse
Actually Simon I wasn’t talking about her which you would have understood if you actually read my post properly. Also I think it would be rather naive of people to take one newspaper sensationalised article as gospel. Oh and also the lady was 64, although as that makes her older maybe that makes her even more of a victim. Ah and a final point, if she hadn’t driven so badly in the first place, stopped when there was a police car with blue lights behind her and been courteous to start (as I very much doubt he would have cuffed her just for the enjoyment of it) then the poor man would never have been put in court.
Report abuse
Simon
You have said “I would,however,expect to actually lose my job if I had assaulted a 61 year old lady in the manner of the officer involved”
I take it you are basing your view on the report in the story in the press on Thursday and not the court report on Monday, because they are totally different.
Report abuse
When i got wind of the story i thought that she had actually been assaulted not just cuffed. not sure what the dictionary actually deams assault but i always assumed it was physical like hitting or punching… therefore it is difficult to grasp that when someone cuffs you to save your life from wandering in the road that they have actually assaulted you!
Report abuse
Again, in order:
Rachel;
The point is as valid whether directed at WH Bonney or the woman involved. Is the best option to, effect change, to join the police force. Surely considered dabate is the best and most civilised way to effect change. 64 or 61, not particularly significant and rather pedantic point to make, probably because you have no real argument to offer. I believe that the lady involved didn’t even think the lights and siren could be signalling to her since she was merely going about her business. As i don’t know the nature of the actual traffic infringement i can’t comment on its legality or not. However, it is interesting that there was no further action taken on this point. As to being courteous, perhaps the officer might also have been so, rather than being immeditately aggresive and intimidating. ‘poor man’? Perhaps ‘aggresive bully’ might be a better phrase to use.
Tonkie;
It is irrelevant which report is the one that i am referring to. If i caused someone to have such bruising and also to have a wound that actually bled, i would assume this is serious enough for an assualt charge. Also, see below answer to Val Bolan.
Val Bolan;
Just look up the relevant law regarding assualt. You will find that in general even touching another person without their consent constitutes assualt. And i believe that it is often this definition that is used when persons are charged with assualt on a police officer. should the same laws not apply to them. Although, this is not significant in this case since the lady suffered not insignificant injuries.
In conclusion, i re-iterate my point that ‘the book’ is what is important and those who are charged with upholding the law must abide by its stipulations or suffer the consequences. Otherwise they are nothing more than vigilates.
Report abuse
Simon, I have to say I’m in full agreement with your attitude in this affair.
Policemen are sworn in as enforcers and upholders of the law. We are entitled to expect standards of conduct, especially in carrying out their duties, of the very highest order. I don’t believe in this case that the policeman was a wicked man. He is just not quite good enough to be entrusted with the special powers and duties of a policeman.
Report abuse
We will have to just agree to disagree on this one. each to their own opinion. Some of you think that he got what he deserved and some of us think it went wildy out of control especially where the media was concerned. A learning curve for all involved….
Report abuse
Val; I believe that the ‘agree to disagree’ tac is generally taken by those with inadequate arguments which have been shown to be so. I refuse to accept that the reporting of this incident constituted a ‘wildly out of control’ reaction. The public have a right to know if a person entrusted with a very high level of power has not acted in accord with the responsibilities that the position requires. I also believe that nothing in any of the three arguments i responded to has shown that my position is incorrect. Further, if you examine my own argument you will see that all i am stating is this:
1) The police force are entrusted with the public safety, and as such carry a great responsibility to exercise a care in all their dealings with the public.
2) In this case an officer, so entrusted whilst in the performance of his duties, failed in this duty of care. By definition of assualt, which the police force themselves are entitled to arrest and report persons for so doing, the officer assualted a member of the public.
3) The officer cannot be considered to be suitable to continue in his duties, as he has shown that he cannot be trusted not to break the rules which it is imperative that he maintain and conform to (if an accountant committed a single fraud he should not be considered suitable to continue in an accountancy role, and this is exactly analagous to the situation under discussion).
Ted, thank you for your intelligent and well presented comments.
Report abuse
Simon
I take it I am right in saying that you were not present at the incident. Therefore, how can you say your view is correct?
It should also be remembered that you have a personal grudge against the Guernsey Police.
What the rest of us can hope for is that the police inquiry makes the right decision on the officer. They at least will have the full facts to adjudicate upon.
Report abuse
the police can never get it right in the eyes of the public! people complain about them not doing enough and then now being too cautious. I think they do an extremley difficult job of trying to protect the public which constantly critcises them!!!
Report abuse
Stephen – Thank you for the common sense approach in relation to your comments. I have to agree that the police inquiry will have the full facts, unless of course as Simon seems to think that his are correct, he knows more than most – perhaps he ought to join the inquiry, but then again he seems to want to be the judge, jury and executioner all in one with ‘his thoughts’.
As a child growing up in the UK I was once assaulted by a POlice Officer who was looking for a missing child. The Police Officer grabbed me around the throat and left marks on my neck. They were photographed and I was interviewed by a Senior commander of the local force. I did not make a formal complaint but was given the opportunity to do so. My parents were there for support all the way through as was the senior Police Officer, instead, I allowed the police to discipline the officer concerned. It transpired that he had suffered a sort of breakdown due to the stress put upon him covering situations in London, not that I am saying that is what happened here.
Where am I going with this you may ask? Well I moved to Guernsey and became a Police Officer and served many years. I have served with this Police Officer and I can tell you he is a great Police Officer as are all the others who wear the uniform in Guernsey.
Guernsey may not be an inner city or have the problems that the mainland has, but please remember that they still have to deal with the same types of crime. It may not happen so often but it happens here in Guernsey.
What makes it more difficult for this officer I am sure (and I have not spoken to him or former colleagues about it) is that the mistake made without malice is under the glare of the media. Please remember that an officer does have a number of powers available to them and the decision they make in most cases is a split second decision, which later can be pulled in many ways and be spun out of all common sense. Also remember the officer has no right of reply to any of this mailstrom that is around him especially on this comment thread. Nobody writing on this thread will have all the facts.
In relation to an earlier comment from Simon “You will find that in general even touching another person without their consent constitutes assualt. And i believe that it is often this definition that is used when persons are charged with assualt on a police officer”. As an officer on the front line I have never had cause to charge a person who has merely touched me. I have however been punched kicked spat at and bitten all in the line of duty, and yes you are damn right they were charged with assault.
I have no doubt that this entry will cause some more to be written.
I am grateful for this Police Officer and all of his colleagues who keep this island safe, thank you.
Report abuse
Again, i will address your comments in order:
Stephen John;
My view is correct given the reported facts. If, as was reported, the officer demanded the lady exit the vehicle, cuffed her and ordered her into the back of a police van without explanation, for the heinous crime of crossing a white line, then he deserves to lose his job. This is all as was reported. He then, as he might, asked her to ‘forget all about it’, knowing he had gone beyond the rights allowed him by his powers as a police officer. Now, I was not there, but then I wasn’t there at the lunar landing but not many would disagree with my statement of the fact that Neil Armstrong was the first to step on the moon and utter those immortal words. All as reported. How can anyone be expected to debate on anything if a requirement is that we must be there at the occurrence of the event which we are to debate about. What a bizarre constraint to place on debate!
Grumpy Grizzle;
Far from being judge, jury and executioner, I am simply offering up my own arguments. If anyone had offered anything that shows that my argument was fallacious, or in some other way flawed, then I would bow to their own ‘thoughts’ and concede. This has not happened.
You claim that all officers who wear the Guernsey uniform are ‘great’. Now, whilst not wishing to demean your argument on the basis of this one comment, this seems to reveal a hidden bias in favour of any officer, no matter what they have done. You are not so much considering the facts as they stand to an objective observer, but as they appear to stand to someone who has already decided what the result is and then will bend the facts about this result accordingly. In short, you simply beg the question (in the technical sense, look it up if you are not aware what this means, Mr Grizzle).
Now, the main point I make is. If I had been taken to court for the act of petting a sniffer dog (see my piece above), I would have lost my job, my career and any hope of making a go of my life in finance in Guernsey. All because of the petulant actions of one officer. This is the way it works for the rest of us. Had I, in fact, acted in such a way as to deserve a court appearance, and thus lost my job, I can’t see anyone in the public domain arguing that I should hold onto my job as it was merely one mistake, made as a result of a split second decision. So why do different rules apply to this officer? He assaulted an old lady, without reason or justification.
Finally, I am also grateful to the police for keeping the island safe, but any officers who act as if the rules do not apply to them must be disciplined as would any member of society. They are not above the law, and not above the individuals they are charged with protecting.
Report abuse
Simon
You want to put your view forward in the form of argument. Perfectly sensible.
But then you claim the reported facts mean, to you, that the officer ought to be sacked.
That is your view and you are entitled to it. However, aren’t others who, like you, were not there, have their views and opinions published without you claiming you are right?
Problem is the only people who know what went on are the officer and the lady concerned. The rest of us just have an opinion, that might be right or wrong, despite your insistence that your interpretation is the only one that is correct.
Report abuse
Be encouraged good people of Guernsey. Not so long ago, when a policeman’s word was truth, it was nigh on impossible to get a police officer charged for any offence. The police were always right and courts and system agreed.
What is encouraging by this and previous recent cases, is our society is beginning to understand that no one is above the law – especially those paid to uphold it.
Report abuse
Stephen (I take it this is your first name?)
Whilst it is true that the only people to have a certain perspective (i.e. a first person perspective) on the facts, are the officer and the lady involved, this does not mean that no one else can know what went on. If it were the case that only persons involved in an incident could reach a logical and reasoned conclusion on the facts then the jury system would be a no go from the start. Since the jury system can be taken to operating successfully, I conclude that I am entitled to suppose that I have reached a conclusion based on reported facts and logical inference, that is correct. Now the facts were as reported and the logical inference was by analogy, as follows:
If I were to commit a crime and be found guilty in a court of law (whilst at work or otherwise) of that crime, then I would expect disciplinary action to be taken by my firm or by the body governing my profession. This would very likely include dismissal from my job and a bar from the body governing my profession. This consequence would be even more inevitable if, as a finance worker, the crime was of the form of a fraud or theft, since this type of crime is particularly pertinent to a job within finance.
The officer involved committed a crime, whilst undertaking his professional duties, and was convicted in a court of law. The crime was particularly relevant, as it was an act of aggression causing physical damage to another person, and police powers and responsibilities are largely (if not predominantly) defined in terms of the protection of persons that they may provide with those powers. This constituted an abuse of the powers granted him by his position. He has thereby forfeited his rights to use these powers and, accordingly, should be stripped of his position as an officer of the law.
If you can find fault with either the analogy itself or some other aspect of the reasoning process I have adopted, then please indicate the point. Otherwise, if you find that the logically argued point is legitimate, and based on facts as reported (as would be so to a jury or magistrate, and don’t forget, the ruling here is already in!), then feel free to abandon your dogmatic position and accept mine.
Best regards
Simon
Report abuse
The fundamenrtal flaw in your argument is that the employer can dismiss an employee for a criminal offence.
Any employer who seeks to dismiss must convince an employment tribunal that its punishment (which might or might not be dismissal) is reasonable in the circumstances.
The Police Authority, when it is in possession of the evidence has to make a decision. With the greatest respect I suggest the Police Authority is better placed to determine whether “The crime was particularly relevant” based on the evidence put before it, and the testing of that evidence.
What it is not doing is making a decsion on what is published in the Guernsey Press, nor for that matter these pages. Interestingly, you qualify your finance example with “if, as a finance worker, the crime was of the form of a fraud or theft, since this type of crime is particularly pertinent to a job within finance”.
Simon, you clearly have an agenda against the police. Others try to see the wider picture and whlst having a general view, are prepared to leave the ultimate decsion on the officier to those who are in possession of all the evidence, and not rely on the the content of the local newspaper report.
Report abuse
Stephen
No. Wrong. I do not have an agenda against the police. I have an issue with those individuals within the force who abuse the power granted them by the position. This is quite different to an agenda against the police force as a whole. I just happen to think that police officers should be subject to, and not consider themselves above, the laws that apply to everyone else.
How is it interesting that I qualify my example with a crime particularly relevant to a finance worker, such as myself? The point is, exactly, that an assault charge is particularly relevant to an officer who is supposed to protect the public; not assault them!
You suggest that the ‘police authority’ will make a decision based upon evidence. Well, we already have evidence. It is TRUE that the officer was convicted of an assault on a member of the public. This is, in fact, all I need for my argument to succeed, regardless of any views or opinions that the Guernsey Press may or may not have expressed. It seems to me, in fact, that they simply reported the case and various statements given by the lady herself (hence the quotation marks). This is exactly the sort of evidence that is required to make a decision on such a case.
I find it interesting that it is you who suggests that, since I hold an opposing view to yours, that it must be mine that is the narrow view. The reality, I suggest, is quite in contrast with this. You are obviously quite contentedly bobbing about within the bovine majority who will under no circumstances question any authority figure, no matter what they do or say. It is the uncritical acceptance of bullying and oppressive behaviour by authority figures abusing their positions which leads to (in extreme circumstances) totalitarian regimes such as those of china to flourish.
It is our right and our obligation to stand against such behaviour when it comes to light and not merely accept that an authority figure must have acted correctly simply because of their position. All persons have a responsibility to act with respect and consideration to others, and police officers are no exception to this.
Report abuse
Simon
You clearly think you know all the circumstances despite not being at the scene of the incident, nor in court.
I’m glad the officer will face, at any police inquiry, people who will make their judgement on his future based on the evidence before them and not media tittle tattle.
Report abuse
Whilst a disappointing turn of events, this is hardly Rodney King now is it? In any event I am also not sure whether someone who when taken from the car is “feeling faint” should be driving.
Perhaps if one is faint whilst in control of a vehicle may end up committing a traffic offence and being pulled over by the police…
Report abuse
The discussion here is becoming repetitive.
A police officer has been convicted of an offence connected directly with his duties and the judgement of the court has been accepted. I don’t know what more conclusive evidence would be acceptable to Mr Johns.
As I’ve said before, I do not accuse this officer of being an evil person but he has fallen short of the high standards we are entitled to expect from someone in his position. It’ sad but he must pay the price if trust in the police service is to be maintained.
Report abuse
Thank you Ted. Stephen clearly cannot recognise what my argument is expressing. The ‘evidence’ is the courts judgement, full stop. As i have repeated to Stephen again and again, this is all that is required and this is a FACT.
Max, i don’t think your comments deserve a considered response, but i will give one anyway. She most likely felt faint, after being pulled over, because she was terrified, having never experienced the situation she was faced with. Unable to comprehend what was going on she went into a shock response. Due to the consequent drop in blood pressure, blood supply to her brain was reduced, and she felt faint. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Report abuse
Simon
I do understand where you are coming from.
Unlike you I would be prepared for the Police Officer’s future to be judged on all the evidence, including that presented to the court, but also any further evidence that might be appropriate in determining his future.
If this big picture were not considered then the Police Authority could find themselves facing a costly employment tribunal case.
Report abuse
Stephen
The point of this discussion board is to debate current issues in the news. Now, if you believe that, in order to have a meaningful discussion of these issues you have to be part of some authority or committee, or must have been there at the instance or situation under discussion, then perhaps you had better not participate any more.
Apart from that issue, however, you make another point which I will address. I am not sure what ‘other evidence’ you might be referring to. If I were found guilty of a criminal offence such as I have discussed above, there may be some mitigating circumstances that would result in a lesser sentence, perhaps.
But I am not suggesting that the officer lose his job as a punishment for anything. I am suggesting he lose his job because he has shown that, whatever the circumstances may be, he cannot be relied upon to operate in a professional manner.
This is a statement of fact, since assaulting members of the public when they have (or may have) committed minor traffic rule infringements cannot be, under any circumstances, considered professional.
Report abuse
Grumpy Grizzle
So all of our Police Officers are “great” are they? Just how is this “greatness” attained? Assaulting old ladies? Accessing confidential files to check out boyfriends? Or girlfriends?
These are simply examples of recent criminal cases, it’s anybody’s guess as to some of the things that the Police do that don’t end up in court. I am aware (through both personal experience and the experiences of friends) that some officers have no problem whatsoever in lying, disclosing confidential information to family members etc, and then denying all knowledge when a complaint is lodged.
Those employed to enforce the law ought to act within the law, full stop. If they can’t do that then they should not be in the job, it’s as simple as that.
Report abuse
Simon
When did I or anyone else say “…in order to have a meaningful discussion of these issues you have to be part of some authority or committee, or must have been there at the instance or situation under discussion”
I’ll ignore the gratuitously insulting comment of yours “then perhaps you had better not participate any more”.
My point is that before a decision is made by the Police Authority on the future of the Police Officer then I hope they will consider all information before taking that decision.
You and others don’t seem to agree, and seem to believe that this one technical failure should end his career. That is your prerogative, but others are entitled to a different viewpoint.
Personally. I hope that any investiagtive body comporises of persons willing to look further than the court conviction. That in no way can be construed as “…in order to have a meaningful discussion of these issues you have to be part of some authority or committee, or must have been there at the instance or situation under discussion”.
Report abuse
Stephen
The point of these discussions is to reach some sort of conclusion. Unfortunately, to do this, both sides must appreciate the others argument. Whilst you seem to believe that the assault on an old lady represents a ‘technical failure’, I and many others on this site do not. A ‘technical failure’ would be merely to have breath tested her without prior arrest, without any suggestion of unwarranted physical force being made. However, this is clearly not what occurred.
Until you recognise that the failure was not, in any sense, merely some sort of technicality, and that the completely unwarranted handcuffing of an old lady was well beyond what was physically required, then you can not be taken to be comprehending the argument. Incidentally, if you are in any doubt as to the severity of such an assault, I would ask you if you have ever been cuffed? It is a harrowing and painful experience, and should, I suggest, only be used in extreme circumstances. This was no such set of circumstances. The officer clearly failed in his duty of care to a member of the public, and worse, caused physical and psychological damage to her, and should lose his job as a consequence.
I fail to see how the career of a police officer is deemed more valuable than the career of anyone else. If it was I who had assaulted this lady, even under the mistaken belief that I was doing a good and justifiable thing, I would undoubtedly lose my job and my career. Why should his circumstances be any different?
Report abuse
Simon
You say “Whilst you seem to believe that the assault on an old lady represents a ‘technical failure’, I and many others on this site do not”
Yes, the man has been convicted but still has the right to put his case to an Police Authority. He has that right and it is for the Authority to determine his future. You seem to have prejudged the decision. I haven’t.
That is the essence of open discusion – the right to put owns view forward, even if the don’t coincide with the views of Simon.
At least the Police Officer has a better chance of natural law applying in his case at the inquiry than on this forum. Then he will have the right to put his case forward.
Surely, even those who claim horror at what happened to the lady will permit him that right?
No Simon,I have never been cuffed, but surely it is for the police procedures to determine when to cuff rather than rely on your “I suggest, only be used in extreme circumstances” whatever that might mean in practice.
Report abuse
Simon
you are very bitter may I suggest chill out a bit.
Report abuse
Tonkie. I’m not bitter mate. I just like a good argument (not a row, but a rational discussion).
Report abuse
Stephen
First point; what do you mean by ‘natural law’? Please define.
Secondly, yes, the police do have rules that stipulate when a person can be cuffed. This situation was certainly not one of the stipulated situations. The cuffing represented an assault. It certainly would have been harrowing and painful, and the officer had no right to do it. Point closed.
Third point. You clearly are taking a stance on this matter, in favour of the officer, so please do not pretend that you are neutral.
Fourth point. Your stance is the wrong one.
Report abuse
I left the Island some time ago, I don’t agree with man handling 60 year olds but I do think that the guernsey police do a good job, they really have very little to do serious crime wise, which is a testomony to their own success, prevention rather than cure. I am sure the Hackney Police who pretty much ingnored the violent mugging of a close friend, could learn from them, then there is the mugging I didnt even bother reporting as I was not hurt.
I always like to check in here ever now and again to see if the place is still as crazy as it ever was.
Report abuse
i think a good percent of the police do a good job.but however there are certain ones which abuse this trusted position.(just cas they put on a uniform dont make them any less human than me and u)as phil said with some of the latest events that have been bought 2public attention,but wat else goes on that we dont here about i wonder,bloody all sorts.it was uncalled 4wat he did 2that poor lady and he should go.ow and simon sorry 2here about your incedent with the dog.was it a customs dog?if so none of them have any right searching people or watever,wat happend 2that £15,000 that went missing from customs no word on that is there?
Report abuse
Albi
?
Report abuse