photo GUARD_zps0fea3210.jpg

We know a lot more about judicial complaints than we used to but it remains the case that judges themselves judge judges  

In 2009, the lord chancellor and the lord chief justice agreed to name judges who were disciplined for misconduct, adding brief details of the offence and sanction. Photograph: Sang Tan/AP

Two senior judges who specialise in criminal law have agreed not to hear any criminal cases for the time being. Another judge, of some seniority, has resigned after a finding of serious misconduct. Who, then, is judging the judges?

The answer is, ultimately, the judges themselves – though the lord chancellor still has a formal role. Chris Grayling and the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, are supported by a group of officials known as the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO). Like the Office for Judicial Complaints, which it replaced last October, the JCIO was created under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Before that, complaints about judges were a matter for the lord chancellor alone.

We know a lot more about judicial complaints than we used to. In 2009, the lord chancellor and the lord chief justice agreed to name judges who were disciplined for misconduct, adding brief details of the offence and sanction. This roll of dishonour is freely available online. Among those reprimanded (and, where appropriate, sacked) have been high court judges, coroners, part-time judges, tribunal members and magistrates. There was even an appeal judge reprimanded over a driving ban but his name seems to have slipped off the bottom of the 2012 list.
As Shetreet and Turenne note in the long-awaited second edition of Judges on Trial, “details of the allegations [against judges] are often rather elliptic”. That was certainly true of the announcement on 14 March about Steven Whitaker, who was senior master of the high court (pdf), a type of junior judge. He also held the post of Queen’s remembrancer, created 860 years ago and the oldest judicial position continuously held by a judge. A judicial investigation found that Whitaker “made misleading entries in his Outlook diary with the intent to mislead anyone who might scrutinise the record”. The lord chancellor and a senior judge “had concluded that this behaviour amounted to serious misconduct and would have removed the senior master from office had he not voluntarily resigned”.
Despite announcements that sometimes conceal more than they reveal, the JCIO’s website tells us most of the things we might want to know about the office – except the names of the officials who run it. A particularly useful innovation is the “news” section, from which we learn that the JCIO has recently started an investigation into complaints about Lord Justice Fulford. These presumably relate to the allegations in the Mail on Sunday two weeks ago and reported here; my own analysis is at the foot of that page.
In response to the allegations, the appeal judge said he was sorry that a gay rights committee, which he had supported as a barrister, allowed members of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) to attend the committee’s meetings.
Fulford had also been concerned at the use by prosecutors of the judge-made, catch-all offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals. The director of public prosecutions had brought that charge against Tom O’Carroll and two other PIE members in 1981 after they sent a booklet to MPs advocating acceptance of adult love for children. O’Carroll was jailed for two years.
The Mail on Sunday returned to the story a week ago, pointing out that critics of the catch-all offence at the time also included Peter Thornton – as Wikipedia had previously noted.
Thornton, then a barrister, now a circuit judge and chief coroner of England and Wales, was also criticised for having represented a PIE member in court.
So it should have come as no surprise to read on the JCIO website that Thornton, like Fulford, is the subject of an investigation. In his case, though, it opened before any complaints were received. Regulations made under the Constitutional Reform Act (pdf) and rules made under those regulations (pdf) explain how this could happen.

All complaints received by the JCIO are sifted by caseworkers. In clear-cut cases of misconduct, the JCIO may advise the lord chancellor and the lord chief justice to sack the judge concerned.

Alternatively, the JCIO may refer the complaint to a nominated judge of at least the same rank as the judge under investigation. The nominated judge will advise the lord chancellor and lord chief justice whether there has been misconduct and, if so, what sanction is appropriate. Under rule 97, the nominated judge may refer a case without a complaint. This is what happened in Thornton’s case. It was an attempt to speed up the proceedings.

If the nominated judge thinks a complaint is sufficiently serious or complicated, he or she may refer the case to an investigating judge, who must be senior in rank to the judge being investigated.

Needless to say, the judge under investigation must be given a chance to respond. If that judge is at risk of removal or suspension, he or she can demand to appear before a disciplinary panel. So all this can take a very long time.

From what I have read about the allegations against Fulford and Thornton, I would expect the nominated judge to decide reasonably swiftly that no misconduct has taken place. The allegations against them relate to their time as barristers, not judges. It is not misconduct for a barrister to support law reform. It is not misconduct for a barrister to represent unpopular offenders. Barristers do not necessarily share the views of their clients.

What I cannot understand, though, is why Fulford and Thornton have been asked not to hear any new criminal cases pending the outcome of the JCIO’s investigation. Judges do not sit while they themselves are facing criminal charges, as we have seen. But a complaint of misconduct, especially one related to a period before the judge was appointed, should not be sufficient to trigger even an informal or partial suspension.

If it is, then why allow Fulford to continue hearing civil appeals and Thornton to continue conducting inquests? Do those matters not demand as much judicial integrity as criminal appeals and trials?

Voluntary semi-suspension is illogical as well as unnecessary. Unless the nominated judge can resolve these matters without delay, the lord chief justice should let Fulford and Thornton resume their full duties while investigations continue.


Gordon Bell commented on Who is judging the judges?
25 Mar 2014 4:21pm

The corrupt protecting the corrupt!

I refer to the Porton Down cover-up that involved the killing of 39 Porton Down veterans who died as a result of being injected with a bacteria derived from salmonella – abortus equi – in an altered state. (source FOI) Upper Tribunal Judge Edward Jacobs (unlike Judge Brian Kennedy QC) who ordered details of the deaths to be made public) did purposely support the MoD by allowing them to keep secret ALL facts related to the killings. Judge Edward Jacobs also ignored a 3.72 million pounds fraudulent payment (stolen from public funds) awarded to Martyn Day Senior Partner with the London law firm Leigh Day & Co. It was Martyn Day who supposedly represented 39 family members of deceased veterans. In effect Jacobs by his very silence and by allowing crimes of this nature to be kept under wraps did himself become party to the crime. Full details on the comment can be had from <gordon_bell9@hotmail.com>


25 March 2014 11:30am
What the UK judiciary gets away with is utterly horrifying. That they palm it off as ‘isolated cases’ is bad enough, but hiding behind the pretence that people ‘don’t know the facts’ is even worse.
The move to a system of locally elected (ie, accountable) judges is long overdue.
DieHerzogin HybridMoments
25 March 2014 6:50pm
Elected? Do you really want Judge Morphonius on the bench?
Violator HybridMoments
25 March 2014 9:21pm
The move to a system of locally elected (ie, accountable) judges is long overdue.
Good grief!
What an appalling idea.
Ministryoftruth HybridMoments
25 March 2014 11:51pm
Americans have elected judges.
This has not stopped Judicial malfeasance there, it can actually create new forms of it.
newthought HybridMoments
25 March 2014 11:56pm
The judiciary regularly get away with complete and utter cheap lies in their judgments. They are unaccountable as it only takes two more judges to refuse permission to challenge the lies and that’s the end of the matter. In one of my cases I asked to audio-record (my own case). Both the judge and government barrister insisted I would not be alllowed to record. The reason for this refusal of recording is so that there is no record of the filthy lies judges deploy in the smaller civil court rooms where there are no reporters. One important subset of lies is about the limitation act. Supposedly fact means possibility, knowledge means suspicion, and was means might be – well that’s what high court judges say these words mean, and the fact that loads of dictionaries say otherwise is of no power against them.
We need every litigant to have the right to record their own cases.
Cynical007 HybridMoments
26 March 2014 8:31pm

The move to a system of locally elected (ie, accountable) judges is long overdue.
A tribunal consisting of elected politicians is not a real court
26 March 2014 8:31pm
25 March 2014 11:57am
One of the key elements of the English judiciary is that it is NOT elected. The executive and legislature are the elected bits and thus the judiciary must defer to them in terms of law-making and keep to their own province of interpreting the law – true it can be a fuzzy line at times but it is a hugely important part of the functioning of the rule of law. Elected judges would be a disaster for many reasons.
25 March 2014 12:01pm
Who is judging the judges?
We know a lot more about judicial complaints than we used to but it remains the case that judges themselves judge judges
I find it amusing that a journalist in a National Newspaper is writing an article about a group of self interested people being able to judge themselves.
Who handles complaints about newspapers? I’ll give you a clue with a quote fro the Press Complaints Commission’s website:

The Press Complaints Commission is currently in a phase of transition; and it will soon be replaced by a new structure of independent self-regulation for the newspaper and magazine industries.
Self-regulation. Sounds a bit like what the judges do.
I smell hypocrisy.

Hywelliau JohntheLith
25 March 2014 3:30pm
Yes but in the midst of the usual press anarchy, a few wise words from Joshua are surely not out of order?
The predilection of cheap jack town magistrates describing themselves as Judges, takes some beating. The powers of local authorities to press
their own non-criminal “charges” can be rather unpleasant, and quite happy to present fictitious evidence in abundance, backed up by such “judges”.
JohntheLith Hywelliau
25 March 2014 9:20pm
ok, but… The Press “often” have more influence on Society than the Judiciary. Ergo, who needs to watched more?
Cynical007 JohntheLith
26 March 2014 8:32pm
Journalists are not state officials, and do not have the power to imprison citizens. There is no right to be a judge (so state regulation of judges is legitimate) whereas there is a right to freedom of speech (so state regulation of journalism is not legitimate).
25 March 2014 12:11pm
Given the complexities of UK common law, regardless of the rights and wrongs, I cannot foresee anyone else being able to scrutinise them properly.
25 March 2014 12:41pm
This age old practice of letting “professionals” regulate themselves is thankfully in decline but not quickly enough. They didn’t regulate themselves, they protected each other like brothers in crime. Lawyers, police, bankers, religious institutions, doctors banded together to give themselves maximum benefit. And the pompous indignation when Joe Public dared to question them. I have always felt that these groups pulled the wool over our eyes. I laugh at the term “professional” often they are far from it.
25 March 2014 1:11pm
The whole judicial system needs an overall.
Justice and access to it should be a cornerstone of our society – except that in its current form, it is reduced to a cleverly disguised commodity – whereby the ‘truth’ / ‘justice’ can be purchased by paying for expensive lawyers.
PatrickLogicman photonal
25 March 2014 1:42pm
“The whole judicial system needs an overall.”
Each? But then you couldn’t tell a judge from a janitor. They tried that in China. It didn’t work. Call me old-fashioned, but I rather like the wigs and gowns.
Photonal PatrickLogicman
26 March 2014 7:16am
Bugger! lol
I did mean of course i meant Overhaul!!! 🙂
* I wish there was an edit button *
25 March 2014 1:23pm
I have for many decades thought that most judges are daft old fools, out of touch with reality. My opinion has been confirmed by many examples.
I’m not up enough with the law to be able to suggest a better alternative, those who know what they are talking about should do that. However, I was pleased to see the web site linked to in the article, which seems to be a small step in the right direction.
25 March 2014 1:38pm
The comments in this section so far could hardly be more wrong. Perhaps self-regulation does not work for most professions, but in the case of judges it seems to “over-work” and the desire to ensure that judges are seen as people of integrity seems to take over at times. On the basis of JR’s article, there seems very clearly to be no substance in the allegations against either Fulford or Thornton. When normal people face such baseless allegations, the case is struck out, or a responsible prosecutor stops it. So the impression here is that the regulator is afraid to be thought to sweeping things under the carpet and so the process continues – and absurdity is piled onto absurdity when the judges are even suspended from work in the meantime.
Turenne and Shetreet’s book, referred to in the text, notes instances when judges not only face complaints but actually receive criticism for doing things which others can do and might even be expected to do. For example, it seems that judges should plead guilty to minor traffic offences if they are guilty, and should not seek technical ways that might exist to defeat the charges (ie ways that are not based on the merits of the case). This may be a good idea, of course, but it further ridicules any notion that the regulator is soft.
Robthablob theacademic
25 March 2014 3:44pm
“The comments in this section so far could hardly be more wrong”
I don’t know, I though Patrick Logicman was spot on with his “But then you couldn’t tell them from janitors” remark above.
Theacademic Robthablob
25 March 2014 3:56pm
yes, though that was a later comment.
Vizier theacademic
25 March 2014 5:53pm
“When normal people face such baseless allegations, the case is struck out, or a responsible prosecutor stops it”
Or rather the ordinary person is found guilty and spends years in prison.
25 March 2014 2:21pm
It is a tradition in this country that, freedom of speech notwithstanding, judges do not respond to attacks on them in the media. This means that we often hear the attack, but not the defence. Let me illustrate this with an example from history which shows that judges can be right, even when non-lawyers think they are obviously wrong.
If the media and some members of Parliament had got their own way, Mr. Justice Grantham would have been sacked after instructing a jury in strong terms that a prison warder charged with manslaughter, against whom the evidence of guilt was overwhelming, was nevertheless not guilty. It transpired about two years later that the single prosecution witness had lied: the “victim” was dead before the warder entered the room. I understand that the warder was named Mitchell and, despite being acquitted, did not get his job back.
Had Mr. Justice Grantham been sacked he could not have investigated the Adolph Beck case, the true facts might never have come out and we might still not have a criminal appeals process.
“The credit for resolving this miscarriage of justice lay firstly with the 1904 trial judge, Mr Justice Grantham, who had lingering doubts about Beck’s guilt and had delayed concluding the case despite apparently strong prosecution evidence and procedures. It was in this period of delay, before being sentenced, that the crucial arrest of the real offender took place.”
Source – historybytheyard.co.uk
25 March 2014 2:45pm
My experience of the judiciary convinces me that it functions principally to protect the establishment. This is perhaps seen most blatantly in the employment tribunal, where judges make virtually unchallengeable findings of “fact” that contradict incontrovertible evidence that they simply ignore in order to exculpate defendants in race and religous discrimination cases. Sometimes they collude with defendants to pervert the course of justice by accepting fabricated documents as genuine, despite the existence of the genuine documents showing their inauthenticity (which they do not mention as they are irreconcilable with the documents that they wish to represent as genuine). Sometimes, they make important findings based on key documents that they have never seen, which the claimant dispute ever existed and the defendants claim they have lost. At other times, the judges just simply lie about the evidence if that is required to discredit the complainant. Such phenomena are well-documented (e.g., http://www.irr.org.uk/news/culture-of-disbelief-why-race-discrimination-claims-fail-in-the-employment-tribunal/). However, maybe because sex, drugs and death are not involved – and it only affects Blacks, after all – no-one seems at all interested, no programmes get made about this or articles get written in the mainstream media even when prominent journalists have the evidence of its occurrence.
ID7776906 profester
25 March 2014 3:28pm
If you review most Laws in Britain,USA Canada,etc they were enacted worded and favored the very rich and property owners when passed.
Judge`s hands are really tied to the laws of the land and it is the rich bias
and regulations that keep the poor in their place that Judges are restricted by when looking to dispense justice [as far as the law allows].
Same applies to the Police they didn`t make the laws.The Justice system and the Police have been deliberately kept apart from society so they identify more with conservatism and the status quo and even identify with it as elitists.
newthought profester
26 March 2014 12:03am
Judicial lies are far from confined to racism-motivated instances. The whole systsm of “justice” is the biggest scam on the planet. That’s why they don’t allow recording of your own hearing.
25 March 2014 2:56pm
Suspending a judge from duty pending investigation is rather like a judge confining a separated father to a supervised contact centre while his ex’s phony allegations are looked into. All rather unnecessary but what do you do?
theacademic Ozymandius
25 March 2014 3:27pm
The difference is that the father needs to be suspended in case the allegations prove to be true, because something important is alleged. Here the allegations against the judges seem to be about nothing – nothing obviously wrong has happened even if the facts are true.
Ozymandius theacademic
26 March 2014 1:08pm
I wouldn’t say that. Inference could be drawn that their past interventions were derived from sinister, personal interest. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility, particularly when you consider the likes of what Harriet Harman and other were up to at the time in supporting the campaign to lower the age of consent. There could have been quite a lot of people involved all round including these individuals. There must be some pervert judges around.
25 March 2014 3:19pm

In my experience of the judiciary in criminal trials is that they do have a tendency to protect the Police and even on the odd occasion pervert the course of justice to protect them. You cannot assume that any judge will be impartial in any case or inquiry especially if police corruption is being investigated or has been alleged. In my view you trust a judge to be independent and impartial at your own risk.
25 March 2014 4:16pm
Was the judge who handed down six months to a student for stealing a water bottle ever investigated for serious misconduct?


25 March 2014 4:20pm
The grand lodge?
Gordon Bell
25 March 2014 4:21pm
The corrupt protecting the corrupt!
I refer to the Porton Down cover-up that involved the killing of 39 Porton Down veterans who died as a result of being injected with a bacteria derived from salmonella – abortus equi – in an altered state. (source FOI) Upper Tribunal Judge Edward Jacobs (unlike Judge Brian Kennedy QC) who ordered details of the deaths to be made public) did purposely support the MoD by allowing them to keep secret ALL facts related to the killings. Judge Edward Jacobs also ignored a 3.72 million pounds fraudulent payment (stolen from public funds) awarded to Martyn Day Senior Partner with the London law firm Leigh Day & Co. It was Martyn Day who supposedly represented 39 family members of deceased veterans. In effect Jacobs by his very silence and by allowing crimes of this nature to be kept under wraps did himself become party to the crime.

Gordon Bell
25 March 2014 4:26pm
Full details on the above comment can be had from
25 March 2014 4:54pm
It is reassuring to learn that judges get fair hearing.
At least somebody does!
25 March 2014 5:15pm
The internet is awash with people who have been unfairly treated by the Justice system. Court observers have commented on the familiarity between Judges and business men in employment tribunal cases, and the employee losing, and also losing an appeal. Has anybody ever tried to get an employment judge’s notes from the case? Impossible. Ultimately when the judge says the notes are not to be released under any circumstances (why not if they have nothing to hide) and the Trbunal President when asked under a data protection request, tells you that the data controller, is, yes the original judge who won’t release them under any circumstances, is it any wonder that people have no faith in the British Justice system, or should we rename it Old Boys Network system?

25 March 2014 5:56pm
I have to say I think that most magistrates are firmly in the pockets of the police. So really most of them are corrupt.
Whitecross Vizier
25 March 2014 6:51pm
I just knew the coppers had those big pockets for some thing!
25 March 2014 6:44pm
Corruption is the word and has been for some time.
25 March 2014 8:45pm
My recent experience of JCIO is not entirely sanguine. I represented myself in a child custody case in Birmingham. The Cafcass favoured my child to stay with me. The Circuit Judge presiding over the case, lied in his judgement three times in order to favour my ex. When I took the matter to the appeal in High Court, the Law Lord presiding practically said that because the Circuit Judge is experienced, he is entitled to lie. I was quite gobsmacked. JCIO were completely unmoved by my protestations. It is apparent that truth is diminished if you are a layman fighting the excesses of establishment.
25 March 2014 10:34pm
And perhaps that needs review.After all, they are all members of same brotherhood or society, and all operate from under Londons Bar .So is no independence at all.
26 March 2014 1:59am
You also need to remember that judges work within a system which is controlled by politics, press start complaining about high number of car thefts, car thieves suddenly start getting jailed while house breakers do not.
There are also other parts of the system for instance social work reports, often made about people who know the systems inside out, know exactly what to say and when to say it. Lawyers who are simply there to lie, on both sides of the case with full knowledge they are doing it. Police who are more concerned about getting results than actually justice. And finally the judges themselves who all appear to have totally different interpretations of the law, I have seen grown men break down when they find out they are getting 1 judge over another and that was just the lawyers.

26 March 2014 10:29am

Judges are lawyers: a rapacious breed drawn predominantly from and representing the “highest” stratum of society. They are expert at presenting one-sided arguments, whatever the facts and evidence. They provide “blue chip justice” favouring that social segment that can afford to hire lawyers and so keep the legal sector in work. They know how to wear down complainants (often of limited means) with unjustified decisions that have to be appealed at every stage of proceedings. They are assisted by absurb laws which deem them virtually infallible in jurisdictions such as the Employment Tribunal, where it is, in practice, not an “error of law” to find something impossible to be true or to make a finding contrary to the weight of evidence, or without evidential basis (and invariably favouring the employer). Even when an indefatigable complainant succeeds in an appeal against a rotten judgement, they often find their case “remitted” for a rehearing before the same biased tribunal or another made up of the friends and colleagues of the first, and likewise of the employer. Many contributors here, and all employment lawyers, know this to be true, yet this unjust system persists. What criticisms of it there are focus on ultimately minor issues such as whether one should have to pay fees to lodge complaints, rather than the more important issue of its institutional racialism and the virtual impossibility of Black people being successful in complaints against members of the establishment within it.

26 March 2014 2:04pm
I had a judge in Ipswich County court asked me degrading questions, when i complained to the JCIO they get the tape to listen to it and the case worker wrote to me, stating she “did not hear” those remarks from the tape recording. She did not state “the Judge did not remarks”. This is another trick for the JCIO fobbing off the complainants, they know very well that if you want to prove it, you need to obtain a copy transcript by an approved official firms, it could easily cost you hundred of pounds. Well, before you decide if you want to spend hundreds of pounds to obtain a copy, you think to yourself if the staff in JCIO has probably deleted those remarks or even the transcript proved the judge made those remarks, giving JCIO’s initial response, namely, “i did not hear those remarks”, you realise that JCIO is here to serve as the first barrier for you to jump.e

PatrickLogicman meewaan
26 March 2014 5:58pm

“i did not hear those remarks”
And in like circumstances the corrupt police officer, says:
“He was shouting your Honour, but it was all incoherent.”
This excuses the officer for not taking the notes required by PACE codes of practice at the same as it makes the defendant appear to have been in some way out of control, thus prejudicing the jury against him or her.•Report
26 March 2014 3:29pm
Hi profester, well said, however take it from me you don’t have to be Black to be unsuccessful in complaining against the “establishment”. I have heard of people being told how dare they bring an employment complaint against this “reputable company” so we all know where that one was going! The Judge ultimately has the upper hand and like you correctly point out all the errors are impossible to refute. My husband has just had an employers costs awarded against him for £5000, for daring to bring a claim against a massive company in Cambridge, with a £billion turnover (where he worked very successfully for over 10 years until a new regime decided to Fire Fast and Hire Slow), and more money than the family owned business could ever spend in their lifetime. Costs awards are supposed to be the exception rather than the rule, only affecting 1% of truly hopeless cases and the average award is £1300. It has gone on for 4 years.We have spent our life savings, borrowed money, my husband is in a lesser paid job now, with fewer benefits, we help care for my mother in a wheelchair aged 85 after a massive stroke, have a severely autistic son requiring 24/7 care and I am recovering from breast cancer-who said there is no compassion in the world? One of the company witnesses lied and was proven to be lying under oath, and yet the panel deemed him to be “an honest historian and reliable witness” knowing full well this type of comment cannot be challenged at an appeal, but the effect was the “Breach” was able to be downgraded from Bad Faith, meaning we would have won, to just Bad Practice and a slap on the wrist for the employer plus costs! Do we think there are enough of us, that is 100,000 for a campaign on Change.org? Have these people no shame? I don’t know how they sleep at night!

30 March 2014 9:27am

t present there is no way of disciplining a retired judge who trades on his former title of “Judge” and his rank of QC to give advice to lay people (without any up-to-date knowledge of law or professional indemnity insurance) and then speak on their behalf as a McKenzie Friend in Court.
I know of a case where this actually happened – a retired Chancery Circuit Judge intervened in a case involving a religious charity when he has no known connection to the faith in question. His intervention was distinctly unhelpful for the parties and impeded the proper administration of justice. But nothing could be done about his unprofessional and meddling behaviour.
• Share this comment on Twitter
• Share this comment on Facebook


31 March 2014 5:47pm
Maybe we could take a leaf out of the Metroplitan Police new initiative announced today:
Next month the Met will be piloting 500 body-worn cameras with police officers on the beat in nine London boroughs.
If successful, it will be rolled out across Britain’s biggest police force .
In Rialto, Southern California where they have carried out a pioneering experiment with officers wearing the body cameras for over a year, the use of force there fell 60% and complaints against officers dropped by more than 80%.
Wearing body cameras and recording during Employment Law tribunals would most certainly cut the disgusting bias currently shown by Judges in favour of Employers, and the deliberate lying and covering up/changing of evidence so that the employers are able to inexplicably win the case.
Call me cynical but it is about time something was done!
Democracy? Discuss!

source: http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/mar/25/who-judges-the-judges

About butlincat

my butlincats blog: http://www.butlincat.blogspot.com http://www.youtube.com/butlincat http://www.twitter.com/butlincat https://www.facebook.com/butlin.cat.9 [2 a/cs : pink cat logo is main a/c, winking cat logo is secondary] linkedin - https://www.linkedin.com/in/johnbutlincat-graham-5a35b440/detail/recent-activity/
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.