Gunnar Pettersson on "McKennitt v. Ash"
2006 postings (in reverse order)
Söndag 24 december 2006 - : - Merry Winterval to you too
McKennitt v Ash I: One of the fruits of thousands of years of human progress and
civilisation is the saying 'It ain't over till it's over'. As some of us half-predicted,
Niema's representative David Price has decided to proceed with an application
for the case to be heard by the House of Lords. As I understand it, there will first
be a written submission, followed by an oral one, and the whole process looks
likely to take at least a year. I will report back when I know more detail.
McKennitt v Ash II: Meanwhile, an interesting little brouha erupted in the Toronto
Globe & Mail last week. First of all, Michael Posner wrote a straight report on the
outcome of the appeal court hearing, in which he said (among other things) that
Loreena did not question the veracity of the various injuncted sections of Niema's
book, but objected only to the breaches of her privacy that they represented. Not
so, said Loreena in a response. On the contrary, for Loreena the book read more
or less like a work of fiction. (Incidentally, I'm paraphrasing here because the
articles are all pay-per-read and I felt very mean all week... However, you can
access them all by typing "mckennitt" into the Globe & Mail's search box). Niema
then came back with the (as yet unpublished, as far as I can see) not unreasonable
response "Why then did you not sue for libel, instead of breach of privacy?" This
is Niema's letter in full:
The trial Loreena McKennitt refers to (in answer to Michael Posner's article on
December 15) was conducted on a breach of privacy basis, not on a libel one.
Had I been accused of libel I would have had access to crucial documents which,
I believe, would have changed the outcome of the trial. I did not have access
to them, however, because they were "private". Also, Ms. McKennitt was able
to afford a top team of barristers and solicitors, whereas I ran out of money
several days before the trial and had to defend myself without time for preparation
or legal knowledge. Talk about a David and Goliath event. Ironically, some of the
private matters McKennitt objected to were already in the public domain, put there
by herself, others were as inconsequential as saying someone had taken an aspirin
for a headache or vitamin C for a cold. Initially Ms. McKennitt wanted the entire
book banned, however, freedom of expression has not been entirely eroded.
Also, should you feel like spending more on pay-per-read in the Globe & Mail, do
spend it on a right-on piece by Doug Saunders headlined "Privacy isn't a 'right'. It's
Måndag 18 december 2006 - : - McK v. A - some final thoughts, for now
Lawyer Dan Tench has a rather useful summary of the judgement in today's Media
Guardian. Also, it's quite intriguing to read the judgement (accessible via Loreena's
Current Updates page, linked in the Friday 15 posting) and find that, according to
the Lords Justices, Niema's book is not about Niema's experiences "at all" but is solely
about Loreena, so much so that they call the story Loreena's "property". You may
reasonably think that Loreena, by virtue of that ownership, has invaded her own
privacy, but then you would be very silly. No, what's intriguing about it is that it
opens up a rather surreal vista, where the subject of a written account becomes
the legal owner of the narrative in which they apppear, in a pretty ghost-like - and,
it has to be said, a thoroughly post-modern - fashion. It sounds very much like a
novel the great Flann O'Brien never got around to writing. More specifically, it is
a first step towards a complete redefinition of the memoir. You may think you are
writing about your experiences in the company of Mr X or Mrs Y, and how you were
able to trace over a number of years the changes in their personalities after they'd
won the lottery, or been awarded the Nobel Prize, or become million-selling folk
singers, and that you then described these changes in a kind of prose which only
you were able to produce, and from a perspective which was yours and yours alone
- so much so that if you hadn't been there, there wouldn't have been a book at all!
But no. You are mistaken. Your name on the cover? It means nothing. The title is all.
Söndag 17 december 2006 - : - McKennitt v. Ash, part 439.
With all the brouha following Thursday's judgement in the Court of Appeal, it's worth
bearing in mind that this is in all probability not the last word. Peter Preston in today's
Observer points out that the lower courts have a habit of coming down on the side of
privacy, whereas the House of Lords - the "supreme court" for England and Wales -
tends to redress the balance towards freedom of speech. And with less important cases
going to the Lords in the past, it seems most unlikely that McKennitt v. Ash won't end
up there too. That's not to say that a House of Lords judgement is foregone conclusion,
only that the questions at the heart of the case will almost certainly be subject to legal
scrutiny again. (Also, today's Sunday Times has a piece on the case, with quotes from
both Niema and Loreena).
Loreena says in the conclusion to her statement (there's a link in yesterday's posting):
"This is a victory as well for writers who view their work with integrity, and for those
who understand that that the duty of the press to question government and corporations
should not be interfered with nor taken lightly. We also realize that the essence of a free
society is the personal autonomy of the individual to think, feel and interact socially
without unwarranted intrusion."
If you ever wanted to know what the word "disingenuous" means, read no further.
Whatever it is writers do when they "view their work with integrity" - and I cannot
imagine what that would be - this presents the hair-raising prospect of a new freedom
to "interfere with" or "take lightly" the work of any writer who job is not specifically to
"question governments and corporations" - and that's most of them, of course. It is
as though it's perfectly OK for journalists to go after organisations of whatever kind,
especially large ones, but that individuals are somehow off-limits. Not only that. The
last sentence encapsulates for me the having-your-cake-and-eating-it nature of the
judgement, because it has now become largely the right of the subject individual - be
they Robert Maxwell as portrayed by Tom Bower, or Loreena McKennitt as portrayed
by Niema Ash - to decide what is and what is not "unwarranted" as far as intrusion is
concerned. As the Sunday Times piece indicates, this calls forth the image of Robert
Maxwell being able to object in court to Bower's biography on the grounds that he is
not "comfortable" with it. If that is "the essence of a free society", things have come,
as they say, to a pretty pass.
Fredag 15 december 2006 - : - McKennitt v. Ash, cont'd
Press reports are beginning to come in about the judgement, but I'm damned if I'm
going to try and link them all. I'm just going to highlight the ones that have something
more substantial to say (IMHO), and today's choice is Clare Dyer in the Guardian.
There will be plenty more at the weekend, and Monday's media sections in the Guardian
and Independent are sure to comment on it as well. Also, of course, Loreena has put
out a statement on her Current Updates page, where you can also access the judgement
itself in pdf format. Make sure you do. I will return to Loreena's statement in the near
future, particularly the last bit.
Torsdag 14 december 2006 - : - McKennitt v. Ash
(12:20 GMT) BREAKING NEWS: The judgement was handed down a couple of hours
ago - and Niema lost the appeal on all seven counts! That is, none of the seven
passages from the book injuncted by Mr Justice Eady last year were deemed by the
Court of Appeal to fall within Niema's right to freedom of speech. So they remain
injuncted, protected by Loreena's right to privacy under Article 8 of the ECHR.
I have yet to get hold of a copy of the 40+ page judgement, but even so: this is truly
awful news. We had hoped that the injunction would be lifted on at least one of the
counts, but no, not even that. It bears repeating that if this judgement stands it will
profoundly change English law relating to writing and publishing, ceding much more -
some would say excessive - legal weight to a person's (celebrity or not) right to
privacy, at the direct expense of the right to free expression. It will effectively mean,
if not the end, then radically curtailed forms of kiss-and-tell stories and unauthorised
biographies, as well as related genres.
The judgement is extraordinary in many ways. The appeal court upholds Eady's view
that Niema's book is not about her own experiences, but simply about Loreena, implying
a sort of parasitic relationship on Niema's part. Anyone who has read the book, with
at least one eye open, knows that this is emphatically not so. They also upheld Eady's
pretty radical re-interpretation of the concept of the "public domain", saying in effect
that simply because something is in the public domain already does not mean it can
be publicly repeated with impunity! Apparently, it now depends on the reason why it
was placed in the public domain in the first place. Go figure.
What happens now is as yet unclear. There is a theoretical possibility that Niema could
take the case to the House of Lords, but I have no idea what, if anything, will be decided
on that score. As well as Niema and Loreena, there was a sizeable contingent of Her
Majesty's Press present in court this morning, and there is bound to be plenty of comment
in the media over the next few days. I'll try and keep up with it as best I can. But, for now,
let's pour ourselves a stiff drink. Oi vey.
Måndag 11 december 2006 - : - Eller "bebopvänster" kanske?
McKennitt v Ash: There's been plenty more comment on Eady's "adultery judgement"
in the press over the weekend and today. One of the more lucid contributions is by
lawyer Sarah Webb in today's MediaGuardian. I still don't know when a judgement
in McKennitt v Ash itself can be expected, but I will of course post something as soon
as I know.
Söndag 10 december 2006 - : - Es un escándalo! (+)
But first McKennitt v. Ash: Peter Preston, ex-editor of The Guardian, is a bit sarky
about Mr Justice Eady in today's Observer Media. This relates to the "adultery
judgement" I mentioned last Thursday.
Torsdag 7 december 2006 - : - McKennitt v Ash
Another judgement by Mr Justice Eady in a privacy case has caused a bit of a stir
in the last few days, not least of course because it relates to McKennitt v Ash.
And Melanie 'Mad Mel' Phillips in the Mail has her own take on it all... The Sun's
headline on the story (not online) ran "Love Rat Star Gags a Hubby". Unbeatable,
Måndag 4 december 2006 - : - To be added to as we go along
McKennitt v. Ash: Media lawyer Catrin Evans writes in today's Guardian about the
appeal (the decision is yet to come, date unknown).
Måndag 27 november 2006 - : - Skål!
McKennitt v Ash: One of the first proper reviews I've seen of Loreena's new album
'An Ancient Muse' is by Jon Pareles in the New York Times yesterday (scroll down).
The album, he says, "is still New Age music: slow, pretty and raptly self-satisfied
as it tries to bridge cultures in well-meaning consonance".
Söndag 26 november 2006 - : - Jätteofta på en söndag (+)
McKennitt v Ash: Washington Post had a piece on both the Douglas/Hello case and
McKennitt v Ash, this is from Thursday last week.
Torsdag 23 november 2006 - : - McKennitt v Ash, cont'd
This morning's one hour session in court gave Niema's barrister David Price a chance
to counter the Respondent's arguments from yesterday. As I've just learned, David
Price devoted a good part of the session to an argument that has been crucial during
these two days, and that concerns the so-called "A v. B" case from a few years ago.
This involved a Blackburn Rovers footballer, Gary Flitcroft, who had canoodled with
a couple of lapdancers, who subsequently sold the story to the press. In that case,
the court decided that a "celebrity" (and it was rather stretching it to include Flitcroft
in that category...) has to accept that his/her right to privacy is to some degree diminished
by their celebrity status. Desmond Browne QC argued yesterday that times have
changed, and that other, subsequent rulings - particularly the Caroline one - serve to
give the right to privacy much more legal weight. For all sorts of technical and semantic
reasons - to do with the terms "celebrity", "role model" etc - David Price, on his part,
argued that times have not yet changed sufficiently for that, and that "A v. B" must, for
the time being, remain binding on English courts.
All very complicado, you'll agree. And I know how pompous this can sound, but it is
very striking how this appeal hearing appears almost as a microcosm of the much
larger conflict playing out between efforts to close down the world, and efforts to keep
it at least as open as it has been, if not more. God knows there are more important
freedom of speech issues at stake right now than a book about being (and not being)
friends with Loreena McKennitt. And as for the final outcome of the hearing, it's of
course impossible to predict. But, either way, it will have enormous impact on the
media and publishing industry, far beyond the wistful - nay, haunting! - sonorities
emanating from ancient muses.
Onsdag 22 november 2006 - : - McKennitt v Ash: the appeal
After some toing and froing, the main part of the appeal hearing took place yesterday
Tuesday and today Wednesday; there will be a further hour tomorrow morning
(Thursday), but your correspondent won't be able to attend. The social scene? Well,
the protagonists were of course present: Loreena McKennitt, accompanied by a small
entourage, and Niema Ash, accompanied by small friends (apart from John, who's quite
tall). Plus, of course, various hacks, law reporters, and Benji the Binman.
The first day was devoted to the claimant's case. Very briefly, Niema's representative
David Price put the detailed legal case to the three Lord Justices presiding, i.e. why
in their view Mr Justice Eady got it wrong in his judgement from last year. Price said
that Eady had delivered a "triple whammy" to freedom of speech. The first was in
lowering the bar for breaches of Article 8 privacy issues, so that only the most anodyne
information about someone's private life could be published. The second, related whammy
was in upping the bar for Article 10 freedom of speech issues, so that it would only be
in the public interest to publish if the individual in question had been guilty of a "very
high degree of misbehaviour". This creates a Catch 22 situation where an article, or a
book, could only get over the Article 8 hurdle if, by definition, the information was unlikely
to show a very high degree of misbehaviour. The third whammy, according to David Price,
was that Eady's judgement blurred the distinction between defamation and privacy, which
is particularly serious for the book publishing industry, as it "circumvents the rule against
prior restraint in defamation claims", i.e. not having to pulp books before the defamation
claim has been tried in court.
Loreena's representative, Desmond Browne QC, laid out the case for the Respondent
on the second day, Wednesday. His main point seemed, in my layman's ears, to be that
whereas in the past more weight has been placed on the right to freedom of speech in
cases like this, the balance has begun to shift towards more emphasis on the right to
privacy, and that this is something reflected in recent European jurisprudence, most
emblematically in the Caroline of Monaco ruling (a.k.a. "Von Hannover"). In other words,
Mr Justice Eady was right in placing such emphasis on Loreena's Article 8 rights, as
opposed to Niema's Article 10 rights. Among other things, Browne argued that a celebrity
is as entitled to privacy (however you define "privacy") as anyone else, and that you can
no longer argue that celebs are in a way "asking for it" when they actively crave the publicity
most of them so patently crave.
It's a depressing prospect. IMHO, if Browne is right, a ruling along those lines would be the
recipe for the cake that celebrities and politicians and the "high muckety-mucks" (in Milton
Acorn's phrase) can have and eat at the same time. Lucky them. The cult of secrecy, the
curse of English polity, and society as a whole, will be even further entrenched in law. It
would be a black day for books and newspapers, and for those who produce them.
I've been told the judgement can be expected in three to four weeks. As soon as I know
what it is, you will know too.
Tisdag 21 november 2006 - : - Out of office
The next couple of days will find me in the Court of Appeal, following the McKennitt
v. Ash hearing. I will report back on proceedings as soon as I can. Please water the
plants while I'm away. Thanks.
Söndag 19 november 2006 - : - Curiouser and curiouser...
McKennit v. Ash: Do you remember my posting on 9 november about Morley Walker's
piece in the Winnipeg Free Press and how a rather irate letter in response from a Colonel
Rankin found its way onto Loreena's website's News & Views section, in a posting dated
19 October? Well, the whole posting's now gone. Putz weg. Vamoosed. No longer present
and correct. N'existe pas. Adios, amigo. Odd, eh? [PS: On a more technical note. If you
google "colonel william j rankin" you get two results: one is my own posting from the 9th,
the other the pdf file as posted on Loreena's site, but the link of course no longer works.
However, if you click on the same file but "View as HTML" you can still read the letter.
Should you wish to do so.]
Lördag 18 november 2006 - : - As I was saying...
McKennitt v. Ash: Clare Dyer, the Guardian's legal correspondent, has a piece in
today's paper on the upcoming appeal, and she connects it with two other privacy-
related cases to be heard in the next couple of weeks. Incidentally, the hearing will
now start on Tuesday, not Monday as previously announced (probably due to a traffic
jam in that particular court). Anyway, the tension mounts...
Torsdag 9 november 2006 - : - McKennitt v. Ash, again
I also noticed something rather strange on Loreena's website yesterday. On 14
September, the journalist Morley Walker of the Winnipeg Free Press published a
piece on the case which was mildly sympathetic to Niema. However, a week or
so later, a certain Colonel William J Rankin wrote a letter to the editor protesting
against Walker's piece and strongly taking Loreena's side in the matter. For
whatever reason, WFP chose not to publish it. However, the Colonel's letter
found its way to the News & Views section on Loreena's website, where it was
published as a pdf file on 19 October (scroll down to 'UK Privacy Case' posting of
19/10/06, where Walker's original piece can also be accessed, although it requires
subscription). The letter is worth having a look at, particularly the second paragraph,
which seems - in my layman's eyes - to contain some statements about Niema that
are bordering on defamatory: "...falsely constructing a case...", "...causing witnesses
to perjure themselves...", "...tantamount to extortion...". I say, steady on, Colonel...!
I may be wrong, but I don't recall any of that contained in Eady's judgement. And
this is posted on a website where Loreena has frequently said that she cannot
comment on the case because of her respect for the legal process...! Very curious.
Onsdag 8 november 2006 - : - Tapas variadas
McKennitt v. Ash: How time flies. The appeal hearing is due to take place quite
soon now, over a period of three days starting Monday 20 November and, as I
understand it, the sessions will be open to the public. Your correspondent will of
course be there, and I will report back as and when possible, hopefully at the
end of each day. Meanwhile, Loreena's new album, 'An Ancient Muse', is due to
be released any time now: some sample tracks can be downloaded on her website
Tisdag 5 september 2006 - : - A site for sore eyes
McKennitt v. Ash: Still no news on the outcome, if any, of yesterday's deliberations
in court. However, as part of Pressylta's legendary service ethos, I have now provided
a complete McKennitt v. Ash archive, i.e. all my postings on the subject to date. The
link is in the left column.
Måndag 4 september 2006 - : - McKennitt v. Ash, etc
In MediaGuardian today, lawyer Caroline Kean writes (you have to subscribe,
but it's free) about the media industry's application to intervene in the case
("probably one of the most significant court of appeal cases for the British press
ever," according to the standfirst). The application is supposed to be heard today,
but I'm unsure whether there will simply be a written submission for the judges
to consider, or an oral submission. As I understand it, and this probably won't
come as a surprise to you, Loreena's lawyers oppose the application. And it's
by no means certain that it will be granted, because it would be a unique and
precedent-setting decision. Previously, only non-profit organisations such as
racial equality bodies have been allowed to intervene in cases whose outcome
would affect the law in their respective areas, but commercial organisations,
never. Whatever the outcome, I'll post it here as soon as I know.
Söndag 27 augusti 2006-09-04
The Sunday Times runs a piece (the print version is longer) by Maurice
Chittenden today, on the case in general and the media industry's
"application to intervene" in particular. Which of course you could read
here first, bloody weeks ago... Typical.
Torsdag 10 augusti 2006 - : - Knark på tapeten
But first, a postscript to yesterday's McKennitt v. Ash posting: as I'm
sure most of you are aware, in the middle of all this, Loreena is putting out
a new album in the autumn, called 'An Ancient Muse'. Among other things,
it brings Scandinavian influences (our old friend nyckelharpan) into that
heady Celtic brew. Much to look forward to there, I think.
Onsdag 9 augusti 2006 - : - McKennitt v. Ash - new developments
In a highly unusual - if not unique - development, the Premier League of
the British media industry have come together to seek permission from the
Court of Appeal to "intervene" in the McKennitt v. Ash appeal hearing, due
to take place later this year. If given leave by the court, the group, comprising
Times Newspapers Ltd, Telegraph Group Ltd, Associated Newspapers Ltd, The
Press Association, British Sky Broadcasting Ltd, and the BBC, will be represented
by Anthony White QC of Matrix Chambers. Their intention is to try to ensure
that the court is fully aware of the hugely important legal issues at stake, as
far as both privacy and freedom of expression are concerned. Obviously,
they would not get involved in the particular facts of the case, only the points
of law raised by those facts.
This "application to intervene", by such major players, is as good an indication
as any that the law in this area is seen to be in too much flux, with no one
knowing exactly where they stand, since the European Convention on Human
Rights became part of English law. The media organsiations are in a way
saying that the time has come for the courts to establish, in as definitive a
way as possible, what goes and what does not, as far as invasion of privacy
is concerned, and where the balance is to be struck between the right to
privacy (ECHR Article 8) and freedom of expression (ECHR Article 10). I
think their intervention can also be interpreted as saying that Mr Justice Eady's
judgement from December 2005 leaned far too heavily towards the former.
However, it will certainly be an interesting - and important - couple of days
Fredag 2 juni 2006 - : - TFI Friday, eh...
McKennitt v. Ash: Due to perennial technical probs I haven't been able to log
Onsdag 31 maj 2006 - : - Bye-bye maj
McKennitt v. Ash: The Toronto Globe & Mail has noted the
Torsdag 25 maj 2006 - : - Privacy v. Freedom of
Speech: Seconds Out, Round 2!
this afternoon the Appeal Court in London granted Niema Ash permission
two Lord Justices gave permission to appeal on a total of five out of seven
most is of course the issue of whether Eady struck a fair balance between Loreena
McKennitt's Article 8 rights to privacy and Niema's Article 10 rights to freedom of
speech. It's also worth noting that one of the judges at today's hearing, Lord Justice
Richards, went out of his way to say that he had approached this case with a mind
to refuse permission to appeal, but that David Price's skilful advocacy on Niema's
behalf had persuaded him that there are substantive issues at stake in an area of
the law that is very new and still evolving. More on this will probably follow in the
next few days.
PRESS RELEASE FROM DAVID PRICE SOLICITORS & ADVOCATES - Niema Ash
McKennitt privacy decision to go to appeal
author Niema Ash has obtained permission to appeal a recent ruling of the
today's hearing for permission to appeal Lord Justices Ward and Richards
Court of Appeal has granted permission for Ms Ash to appeal against the High
Ash is an award-winning travel writer and W.B. Yeats scholar. Ms Ash's book
For Further Details Please Contact
Onsdag 24 maj 2006 - : - McKennitt v. Ash - update
the off-chance that anyone had actually planned to attend the hearing at
Måndag 22 maj 2006 - : - McKennitt v. Ash (now with added correction...)
on press regulation in the magazine he used to edit, New
(Please note that the NS only allows one free article per day)
Onsdag 10 maj 2006 - : - McKennitt v. Ash
official: Niema's appeal against the verdict will now be heard on Thursday
later: the hearing is actually to decide whether Niema will be given
[Complicated business, the law. A lot of hard work involved. I do hope our
learned friends are being remunerated accordingly...]
[This is probably the most fucked-up posting of mine so far. Never mind, it's
gonna get a lot worse.]
Måndag 3 april 2006 - : - Yes, it's the McKennitt v. Ash show again... (+)
Stoffman of the Toronto Star has written a piece about the case, and it's
Måndag 27 mars 2006 - : - McKennitt v. Ash
Duodu, the lawyer who is handling Niema's appeal against the verdict,
Lördag 4 March 2006 - : - Truth and consequences
McKennitt v. Ash verdict is beginning to have some serious consequences in
We certainly do, bubba... It isn't Cole who's represented by David Price,
Fredag 17 februari 2006 - : - Loreena + Borgnäs = inte det minsta sant
more pieces on the Loreena business. I couldn't for the life of me find a
My private life is mine: Singer praises 'brave' British judge who
there definitely is a link to the Daily Telegraph legal editor Joshua
Tisdag 14 februari 2006 - : - More on McKennitt v. Ash (+)
I'm sort of one day behind with everything at the moment... Yesterday's
Update Wednesday 15: An email exchange with The
Guardian today shows that
Fredag 10 februari 2006 - : - Blimey...
a press release from David Price solicitors is certainly one way of becoming
Torsdag 9 feb 2006-09-04
PRESS RELEASE FROM DAVID PRICE SOLICITORS & ADVOCATES
For immediate release
9 February, 2006
Niema Ash to appeal against High Court privacy decision
The award winning author Niema Ash has today announced that she intends to
appeal against a recent ruling that she breached the privacy of Canadian singer
Loreena McKennitt by publishing her most recent book, Travels with Loreena
McKennitt. The decision will be appealed on the grounds (amongst others) that in
ruling that sections of the book were in breach of privacy the court did not strike
a proper balance between Miss McKennitt's right to privacy and the author's own
rights to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
The court is currently considering Ms Ash's appeal application.
· Niema Ash is an award-winning travel writer and W.B. Yeats scholar.
The book entitled Travels with Loreena McKennitt: My Life as a Friendwas
For Further Details Please Contact
Tim Senior (email@example.com)
Torsdag 19 januari 2006 - : - The saga
Onsdag 11 januari 2006 - : - Anatomy of a
the sensitivity of the ongoing period of time during which
this matter is being dealt
with before the courts;...
refrain from openly
conversing with the media on this subject.
to light, but the issues of human rights and freedoms and the
nature of the principles involved in this case are so important
that those who pre-empt or selectively opine without full
information are distorting
to "pre-empt". Again, "selectively opining" is perhaps not an advisable thing to do, but there
is no reason why a commentator should be "without full information" - again, the judgement
is a public document, and has been so since it was
handed down on 21 December.
up with an acceptable take on this judgement, in order to explain, in Kate Taylor's apt phrase,
why flies are best killed with sledgehammers. In some limited and technical sense Loreena
may have "won" the case, but in the longer and wider term? I'm not so sure, and I'm not sure
Quinlan Road is either.
Tisdag 10 januari 2006 - : - A chance to see for
yourself what it was that
Söndag 8 jan 2006-09-04
The mainstream press now seems to be beginning to catch
up with the outcome of the