Derek Hooper 2003 Jul 28 Court of Appeal

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.  National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups. Other useful sites are One in Four [C]  and Havoca [D]. Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog. Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.


Some reports have had victims names redacted and some assault details redacted.

This is a difficult balance-  normally I would think that  I should not “censor” details but on consultation with various people I have taken the decision to redact. This is mainly to protect victims, their friends and relatives from unnecessary detail and to stop the gratification of those who seek salacious details.

In addition to the obvious “victims redaction” I have thus “assault redacted” across most of the spectrum of abuse. This may obscure sometimes the legal reason for the appeal, but should make no large difference to the vital information for researchers that these documents contain. That information is mainly names of the perpetrators, past addresses, the actual charges the perpetrators faced – on which newspapers are pathetically inaccurate and this information enables the links between people and places and abuse at various times to be ascertained.

If you think that the balance is not correct or that a particular redaction needs reconsideration, please say.

[2003] EWCA Crim 2427

No: 200006110/Y1


Royal Courts of Justice


London, WC2

Monday, 28th July 2003

The Vice President

(Lord Justice Rose)

Mr Justice Mccombe

Mrs Justice Cox


Derek Hooper

Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of Smith Bernal Wordwave
Limited 190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020
7831 8838 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)

MR DUNKELS QC appeared on behalf of the APPELLANT

MR MOTT QC appeared on behalf of the CROWN


(As Approved by the Court)
1. THE VICE PRESIDENT : On 21st September 2000 at Exeter Crown Court,
following a trial before His Honour Judge Cottle, the appellant was
convicted on 40 counts on an amended 44 count indictment. He was convicted
on 28 counts of indecent assault on a male, that is counts 1 to 10, 16, 18
to 21, 24 to 27, 30 to 33, 35 to 37 and 40 and 41; on seven counts of
attempted buggery, in counts 11 to 13, and counts 28, 29, 34 and 42; on
three counts of buggery, counts 14, 15 and 44; and on two counts of
incitement to commit buggery, counts 22 and 23. He was sentenced to a total
of 18 years’ imprisonment.

2. He was acquitted by the jury on count 38, which alleged indecent
assault, and he was found not guilty on the judge’s direction on counts 17,
39 and 43. There were a further 34 counts in a second part of the
indictment, relating to 14 other complainants which were ordered to remain
on the file on the usual terms.

3. He appeals against conviction, at this stage, on two grounds, by leave
of the Full Court. The Single Judge granted leave to appeal against

4. There are other matters potentially giving grounds for appeal which are
currently the subject of investigation on behalf of the appellant but those
are not the subject of argument before this Court today.

5. The allegations, in summary, against the appellant involved a course of
serious sexual offending, during the 1960s and 1970s and between 1961 and
1976, against 15 male complainants, all but one of whom had been pupils at
Forde Park School, initially an approved school, but, subsequently, a local
authority community school in Newton Abbott.

6. Count x related to a pupil at another school, Stokelake, in Dudley. The
appellant was initially involved at Forde Park on a voluntary basis,
supervising boys outside school hours and on school trips. From 1971 to
1973 he was employed there as a gardener. Thereafter, he continued his
involvement on a voluntary basis. He also worked at Stokelake school during
the period when he was involved at Forde Park. The boys who made complaint
were aged between about 10 and 15 at the time when they said the offences
had been committed against them. In 1977, after all of these complainants
were no longer at the school, the DPP ordered an investigation into alleged
abuse by another member of the staff at Forde Park. But that investigation
having been carried out, a decision was made not to prosecute. No record of
that enquiry survived to the time of the appellant’s trial because all the
files had been either lost or destroyed.

7. The complainants involved with the appellant all said that they had not
been interviewed by the police in connection with that enquiry.
Confirmation of that, to the satisfaction of the defence at the time of
trial, was obtained from a retired police officer who had taken part in the
1977 investigation and who described seeing about 10 of the former boys,
not including any of these complainants.

8. The headmaster of Forde Park School, at the time of these alleged
events, was a Mr Murray, who had died in 1997 (before the appellant’s
trial) and there were other potential witnesses, to whom we shall return a
little later, who had either died or were unfit to give evidence at the
time of the appellant’s trial. It was also a feature of the background to
the appellant’s trial that a support group, (the Forde Park Survivors
Group) had been set up by one of the complainants against the appellant in
order to co-ordinate civil actions against several defendants arising from
alleged sexual abuse at the school. Many, although not all, of the
complainants against the appellant had been members of that group which had
subsequently been abandoned.

9. Complaints against the appellant to the police were first made in 1997.
The appellant was first seen in 1999. It is apparent from the dates which
we have already given that the appellant was being tried in relation to
matters which were said to have occurred, in relation to the most recent,
24 years previously and, in relation to the most distant, 39 years

10. The prosecution case was that the appellant had, in a variety of ways,
sexually assaulted the 15 complainants and had used his contact with the
two schools as a means of gaining access to boys whom he could abuse with
little chance of detection. The prosecution case was that the atmosphere at
Forde Park was such that few of the complainants felt that there was any
purpose in complaining to the school authorities at the time and that those
who did were not believed.

11. Some of the incidents in the indictment appeared as specific incidents,
others were specimen counts in relation to behaviour which was said to have
taken place on a number of occasions.

12. The defence was that the complainants were lying, indeed, had colluded
to fabricate allegations for the purpose of obtaining compensation. They
had had every opportunity to complain to the school authorities at the time.

13. It is necessary to refer, as briefly as may be, to the evidence which
was given. A man called Man 1, who was not a complainant, had had a
placement at Forde Park School in 1971, while studying at Plymouth
Polytechnic. The atmosphere at the school he described as unpleasant and
intimidating, and the headmaster as authoritarian and presiding over a
regime of bullying in which almost all members of staff carried out
corporal punishment. Bed wetters were treated unpleasantly. Homosexuality
among the boys was recognised and disapproved of by the headmaster. The
appellant, according to Witness 1 had behaved strangely towards him on one
occasion, when he had invited him to his home. Witness 1 did not make any
allegation of sexual abuse.

14. A Mr Michelmore, who had twice been chairman of the Board of Managers
at Forde Park, said that he was unaware of any problems with the running of
the school, which he believed to be a happy place, with a headmaster who
was strict but fair. Mr Michelmore was unaware of any homosexuality between
the boys, let alone between the boys and the staff.

15. There was also evidence from an employee of the Devon County Council’s
Social Services Department, identifying gaps in the documentary records
which they had. To that aspect we shall return later.

[16 – 53 redacted – name redacted, assault redacted, medical information redacted, personal details redacted, potentially divisive information redacted, specific count related to boys redacted and eventually decision taken to redact all information of boys to protect them. It should therefore be pointed out that without the boys evidence the appeal appears one sided which of course it was not]

54. A detective constable gave evidence of his awareness of the possibility
of collusion between the witnesses because of the Survivors Group. A man
called Man 1  had at one time been a complainant, but it was established
that he had never actually been to the school at all. He was, in consequence,
prosecuted in relation to that. The records did not show the appellant as
having any duties at Forde Park between 1965 and 1971, but, from 1973, he
was described as carrying out extraneous duties.

55. When the appellant was interviewed by the police, twice in March and
again in July 1999, he described starting at Forde Park on a voluntary
basis in 1960, and occasionally staying overnight. Between 1962 and 1971 he
visited the school only on a couple of occasions socially. He worked at
Stokelake, between 1968 and 1971, before returning to Forde Park as a
gardener in 1971. He confirmed that he did take groups of boys for walks on
Dartmoor, transporting them in his car, and that he had also slept at the
school as duty officer on a regular basis. After he had resigned as
gardener, in 1973, he had continued to carry out voluntary work at the
school until 1976. He also confirmed that in the early 1970s he had bought
a bungalow in Ashburton and that he had been a member of the special
constabulary from the 1960s until the 1970s. As to sexual abuse, however,
he denied that it had ever occurred. He could not remember some of the
complainants and believed they had invented the allegations to obtain

56. He gave evidence before the jury. His memory was, he said, spasmodic as
a result of a recent heart triple bypass operation. He gave evidence of his
working history, broadly in accordance with what he had said in the course
of his interviews. He described doing tractor work. He described the
headmaster at Forde Park as being extremely strict but fair. He said he had
been a special constable for 17 years. He was not homosexual. He had not
indecently assaulted any of the boys or given them any pornographic
magazines. He recalled no problems with any of the Survivors Group whilst
at the schools. He claimed that they had been conspiring with each other to
make up the allegations.

57. He remembered Witness 1, whom, it will be recalled, was the first
witness for the prosecution to whom we referred, but he disagreed with his
evidence about the regime at the school and had no recollection of inviting
him to his home. [Witness 1 memories of boys redacted]

58. Mrs Murray, the late headmaster’s wife, who had herself been a matron
at the school, gave evidence for the defence. She said her husband had died
in December 1997. She said that members of the staff and, in particular,
her husband and herself, were aware of homosexuality and her husband would
not have turned a blind eye to it. She knew of no rumours about the
appellant whom she did remember.

59. A retired social worker who had been a housemaster at Forde Park
between about 1967 and 1977 gave evidence for the defence. He described the
regime as firm but fair. He knew of no gossip about the appellant although
two boys had complained to him about sexual interference by another member
of the staff. It was because he, the retired social worker, took the view
that the headmaster was seeking to sweep the matter under the carpet that
he resigned from the school. He said boys had every opportunity to complain
to teachers and, as we have said, two had complained to him.

60. The appellant’s wife gave evidence of their sexual relationship and she
said the appellant detested pornography.

61. On behalf of the appellant Mr Paul Dunkels QC, who did not appear in
the court below, advances, at present, two grounds of appeal. The first
relates to the judge’s failure to accede to a defence submission at trial
that the proceedings against the appellant should be stayed as an abuse of
process by reason of delay. The second ground challenges the trial judge’s
refusal to sever counts in the indictment in order to render the trial
more manageable.

62. As to the first of those grounds, the matter proceeded before the
learned judge, so far as the submissions are concerned, on the basis, on
behalf of prosecution and defence, that none of the complainants against
the appellant had been interviewed in the course of the 1977 enquiry in
relation to the other member of staff. The judge’s ruling was extremely
succinct and was in these terms:

“I think, now that the question of the 1977 enquiry has been satisfactorily
resolved, there is only one way in which Mr Barton [we interpose, leading
counsel then appearing for the defence] is able to put the case for a stay,
and that is on the basis of delay. There are no other circumstances upon
which he can properly rely, or, for that matter, seeks to rely.

I am quite satisfied that this is a prosecution that should proceed.”

63. Mr Dunkels seeks to put the matter before this Court, which, there is
no doubt, has power to review the judge’s exercise of discretion, on a
somewhat wider basis. He submits that the proceedings should have been
stayed, either at the outset, when application to that effect was made, or,
at the end of the evidence, when no such application was made. He submits
that, having regard to the fact that hundreds of boys must have passed
through the school, between 1961 and 1976, it would be impossible for the
appellant to remember individual boys. The passage of time meant that while
cross-examination could explore general topics, including the possibility
of collusion and contamination and the desire for compensation and previous
convictions, it would be difficult effectively to cross-examine as to the
details of the allegations which were made. There was only limited
opportunity, because of the delay, for the appellant to obtain evidence of
an independent kind, which might cast doubt on what the complainants had

64. The appellant’s position was the worse because, there being so many
complainants against him, he was disadvantaged in having to deal with
allegations from so many different quarters. There was particular
prejudice, Mr Dunkels submitted because, as was made clear in the
admissions before the jury, 15 members of staff had died and a further
three had fallen seriously ill prior to the trial. Furthermore, the six
complainants who claimed that they had made contemporaneous complaints to
other members of staff about the appellant, could not be effectively
challenged because the complaints of two of them had been made to the
headmaster who was now dead. The complaint of [boy 1] had been made
to a man who was now dead. The complaint of a [boy 2] had been made to a man too
ill to give evidence.  [Boy 3] complaint was to a welfare lady who was no
longer identifiable and  [boy 4] complaint had been to a man too ill to give

65. It is to be noted, however, as Mr Mott QC, on behalf of the
prosecution, pointed out in his submissions, that those to whom [Boys] said they had complained were members of staff against whom complaints had been made, so it seems unlikely that they would have been called to give evidence even if able to do so.

66. So far as the complaints to the headmaster are concerned, there was the
evidence to which we have already referred from the retired social services
worker as to the attitude of the headmaster to complaints.

67. Mr Dunkels also draws attention to the absence of records in the form
of punishment book, visitors book, log book of significant events and the
surgery book, detailing medical treatment. With characteristic realism, Mr
Dunkels does not suggest those records would have included any record of
complaints. But, he submits, they might have done. As it seems to us, that
submission cuts both ways because, of course, had those records existed,
they might have contained records capable of confirming the complainants’

68. Mr Dunkels points out that the school buildings had been destroyed by
the time of trial. As against that, there were plans and photographs of the
buildings before the jury. Mr Dunkels points out that there are only
partial records of the meetings of the board of managers, limited entries
in the headmaster’s diary and care files in relation to three of the
complainants are no longer available. Mr Dunkels also stressed that the
records in relation to the 1977 investigation have been destroyed. In
consequence, it would be impossible to check the reliability of the retired
police officer’s recollection as to not having interviewed any of the
complainants at the time when he carried out the 1977 investigation.

69. As to that, as we have already observed, matters proceeded before the
learned judge on the basis, having regard to what the witnesses themselves
said, as well as having regard to what the police officer said, that they
had not been interviewed at the time of the 1977 investigation. It does not
seem to us that there is any substance in that point as of itself
supporting a review by this Court of the judge’s exercise of discretion.

70. Mr Dunkels drew detailed attention to a judgment of a differently
constituted division of this Court, presided over by Lord Woolf CJ, in * B *
[2003] EWCA Crim 319 , a decision of the Court of Appeal (Criminal
Division) on 11th February 2003. Mr Dunkels took us to a number of passages
in the judgment in that case. It is to be noted that, in quashing the
conviction of that appellant the court reached the conclusion, on the facts
and circumstances of that case, that the interests of justice required that
the conviction be set aside, having regard to the lapse of time and the
very limited evidence that was available.”

71. It is to be noted that the delay in that case was of the order of 30
years. We find no statement of principle in the judgment given by that
court that that period, or any other period, should be regarded as being
determinative of a decision in relation to a stay on the grounds of abuse
of process by reason of delay.

72. Indeed, it is apparent, from the many authorities in this area, that
the length of delay is but one of the factors to be considered in the
exercise of the trial judge’s discretion as to whether or not to grant a

73. It is also to be noted that, in B , there was but a single complainant.
It is also to be noted that the defence in that case was that she was
confused and may therefore have been mistaken in her recollection. As is
apparent from what we have already said, there are 15 complainants in the
present case, and the defence is not confusion but lies.

74. Furthermore the Lord Chief Justice, in paragraph 26 of the judgment

“One thing is clear: the jury saw the witnesses and we have not. Therefore
they were in a better position to judge where the truth lay than this
court. Furthermore, the trial process depends upon our confidence in the
jury system. We have to have confidence that they made the appropriate
allowance here for delay.”

There is, in our judgment, nothing in B to sustain this appellant’s appeal.

75. Mr Dunkels does not pursue a claim that the judge’s summing-up was
defective in relation to the warning which he gave to the jury about delay.
As it seems to us, the learned judge’s direction in that, as in every other
aspect of his summing-up, was correct. Indeed, having regard to the
complaint which is made as to the manageability of this trial, it is to be
noted that, although there were, exceptionally, 44 counts in the indictment
and although there were, exceptionally, 15 complainants, the evidence was
completed within 11 days and the learned judge managed to sum the matter up
briefly and with the utmost clarity as well as with correct directions of
law. That, with the benefit of hindsight, casts some light on the
manageability or otherwise of this case.

76. The test in relation to delay, as Mr Dunkels rightly points out, is
that enunciated by Lord Lane CJ in * Attorney-General’s Reference No 1 of
1990 * 95 Cr App R 296 at 303 Lord Lane said:

“In principle, therefore, even where the delay can be said to be
unjustifiable, the imposition of a permanent stay should be the exception
rather than the rule. Still more rare should be cases where a stay can
properly be imposed in the absence of any fault on the part of the
complainant or prosecution. Delay due merely to the complexity of the case
or contributed to by the actions of the defendant himself should never be
the foundation for a stay.

In answer to the second question posed by the Attorney-General, no stay
should be imposed unless the defendant shows on the balance of
probabilities that owing to the delay he will suffer serious prejudice to
the extent that no fair trial can be held: in other words, that the
continuance of the prosecution amounts to a misuse of the process of the
court. In assessing whether there is likely to be prejudice and if borne in
mind: first, the power of the judge at common law and under the Police and
Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to regulate the admissibility of evidence;
secondly, the trial process itself, which should ensure that all relevant
factual issues arising from delay will be placed before the jury as part of
the evidence for their consideration, together with the powers of the judge
to give appropriate directions to the jury before they consider their

That approach is still the law, as was made plain by Lord Woolf CJ in the
judgment which he gave in * Attorney-General’s Reference No 2 of 2001 * [2001]
EWCA Crim 1568 , at paragraphs 16 and following.

77. The submission which is made by Mr Mott QC, on behalf of the Crown, in
relation to the question of delay, is that the learned judge was entirely
right in exercising his discretion in the way he did and there is no basis
for this Court to interfere. The spread of complainants was important to
the prosecution, because of the possibility of collusion among some but not
others arising, in particular, from the Survivors Group, to which, as we
have said, a number of the complainants did not belong. Count 10, as we
have said, also involved a different school.

78. There were a variety of pieces of evidence, in particular, in relation
to the use of a vehicle, (whether it was car, Land Rover, mini bus or
tractor), in the appellant’s use of the words “special boys”, and in the
games of hide and seek, which tended to support, in the account of one
witness, the account of another. It is also pertinent, particularly in
relation to Mr Dunkels’ submission that the matter should have been
reviewed by the judge at the conclusion of the evidence, that the judge
himself, as is apparent by his sentencing remarks, was greatly impressed by
the evidence which the prosecution witnesses gave. This was a case, Mr Mott
points out, in which everything which had resulted from the examination of
some 300 pupils in the course of this investigation was disclosed to the

79. Mr Dunkels submitted, so far as the second ground of complaint in
relation to severance is concerned, that, although, as he accepted, all 44
counts were properly joined pursuant to rule 9 of the Indictment Rules
1971, there ought to have been severance, in particular, by severing counts
1 to 10 and 38 to 44, so there would be 17 counts
based on the evidence of six complaints and the remaining counts, 11 to 37,
giving rise to 27 counts based on nine complainants.

80. The judge, submitted Mr Dunkels, was wrong in rejecting the submission
that otherwise the trial would be unmanageable. He conceded, as we have
said, that the evidence in fact only occupied 11 days, and the jury were
provided with a schedule by way of aid memoir, to identify the particular
counts. But, he submits, the danger was that the jury would approach the
case in a broad brush way, because of the multiplicity of complainants and
counts, and thereby convict the defendant on counts which they ought not to
have so convicted.

81. As it seems to us, the difficulty with that submission is, first, that
the jury did not convict across the board. They acquitted on one count.
They convicted on a lesser count of attempted buggery, where buggery had
been charged. Furthermore, as is apparent from the transcript of the
proceedings, after they had retired, the jury asked questions which
displayed a keen interest in the detail of the evidence which had been

82. Taking all these matter into account, the ground which makes complaint
of the judge’s refusal to order a stay on the ground of delay fails. There
is no reason to believe that he did not take into account the matters which
he should have done, or that he took into account matters which he should
not have done. Having reviewed his exercise of discretion, as invited by Mr
Dunkels, we find it impossible to say that there ought to have been a stay
in all the circumstances of this case.

83. As to severance, as we have already suggested, this turned out to be,
as the judge had anticipated, a manageable trial. Not only were there no
compelling reasons for further severance, (it being remembered that there
was a separate part of the indictment which was severed and which related
to 14 further complainants), there is no ground for concluding that the
learned judge was wrong in the decision which he reached.
84. Accordingly, for those reasons, the two presented grounds of appeal
against conviction fail

Please note that victims of abuse may be triggered by reading this information. The Sanctuary for the Abused [A] has advice on how to prevent triggers.  National Association for People Abused in Childhood [B] has a freephone helpline and has links to local support groups. Other useful sites are One in Four [C]  and Havoca [D]. Useful post on Triggers [E]  from SurvivorsJustice [F] blog. Jim Hoppers pages on Mindfulness [G]  and Meditation [H] may be useful.


[A] Sanctuary for the Abused


[C] One in Four

[D] Havoca

[E] SurvivorsJustice Triggers post

[F] SurvivorsJustice Blog

[G] Jim Hopper Mindfulness

[H] Jim Hopper Meditation

This is all written in good faith but if there is anything that needs to be corrected please email

cathyfox the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free

About cathy fox blog on Child Abuse

the truth will out, the truth will shout, the truth will set us free...
This entry was posted in Child sexual abuse and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Derek Hooper 2003 Jul 28 Court of Appeal

  1. Pingback: Timeline of Court and Court of Appeal Documentation on Cathy Fox blog | cathyfox blog

  2. Pingback: Survivors from Forde Park School Devon speak out | cathyfox blog

  3. Michael Dunne says:

    As a former pupil of pitt house school, 1963/ 1967 I got to know Derek Hooper very well, I was a very intelligent individual, I was house captain of Alexander house, my memory is sound, I always found DH, to have been a gentleman, there was many a time I had been in his private accommodation, to watch tv etc. and at no time did he act in an inappropriate way. I wish I had been in court to add my views, was justice done? who knows.

  4. Paul Heatherton-geairns says:

    45 years later and only now can I look on the net and attempt to find out what happened to my abusers, one of which is. Or was Derrick hooper died in prison I’ve just read. The comment I have just read from a former pupil tells of a gentleman . Let me tell you sir that hooper was a child sexual abuser. I suffered his violence on nights when he was on duty looking after us, caring for us, someone who a lost young boy could turn to for comfort, for reassurance that I’m in safe and supportive hands…. Not one bit of it once complaining to the headmaster of hooper rubbing himself against my gloried backside(I had just turned 10) on hoppers next duty sleep in following my complaint I was awoke by a hand over my mouth and powerful arm around my midriff yanking me very violently out of my bed and unable to screen for help…what help, it was only him… Out through the dorm door into the night toilet where he proceeded to whisper into my ear( I still to this day recall the worts on his fingers/hand ) what a silly boy to go telling tales to the headmaster of all people!!!” Watch out he muttered his breath hot on my right earlobe “you have made a enemy old son” nobody believes you you stupid young fool. I can do whatever I want and your not going to tell a sole. I then suffered a few slaps and for gd measure he rubbed himself against me, just as he had in the greenhouse shed which I had told the headmaster of.. He didn’t bugger me … Not that night … I didn’t claim compensation couldn’t even remember ever being abused I recalled to the policemen back in 98/99 but then the locked away memories of Forde park school began to seep out of the secure part of my head marked “NEVER TO BE OPENED””. Let me assure you mr house captain hooper was a malicious, vicious Child abuser. Oh yes I remember “BUMMER HOOPER””. Thank fuck he’s dead… If only I was a few year older and stronger that night he yanked me from bed 75 but then he wasent the only pervert at Forde park school.

  5. Paul Heatherton-geairns says:

    Just a final few words.. Justice was not served in the case of dh. Justice would have been to have prevented anyone from being left to suffer at his hands of dh justice would have been served if he was forced to live his life with a tattoo on his forehead large capitols PAEDO … Both hands removed and his sexual organs removed preventing and such contact with any child. I have no further desire to contact. Reply. Or anything else to do with any and all matters concerning dh forde park or organisations regaling anything to do with the perverts. Gd luck to any fella that has had similar .

  6. Thank you Paul for your bravery and a part of your story. There are others who went through what you did. If you wish to contact them, the email can be found on this page .

  7. Leslie johnson says:

    I was there I was 42 yellow ,mr buttery was my house master , I told him what d/h did to me ,I was picked up off the floor by my hair with a gear stick motion ,don’t be funny sunny ,was his words and a smack in the mouth for good measure. D/h carried on doing what he wanted in the staff bedroom ,at his house up against the sink I which he was still alive so I could of faced him in court , I still live this every day ,and night he got away by dieing….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.