Parish Clerk 1996-2017.
Welney Parish Council:
A Kings Lynn & West Norfolk
Borough Councillor representing Upwell & Delph ward, and 6 parishes incl Upwell and Welney. Elected May 2019 & 2023. Was a member of UKIP, has been an independant,
stood as Conservative in 2023,
and now in the Progressive Group. Member of 5 Borough committees, and appointed to 4 Inland Drainage Boards. Lives in Upwell. Registered for VAT as as a farmer.
Primary task: provide theft evidence to Norfolk CID
"CFIG"
Council Finance and/or Copeman's Fraud Investigation Group
Peter Cox 4th Sep 2019
in email to Cllr Goodger
Re documents at Pates Farm
"suggest we three meet at the farm, list all documents then we take away to examine".
Re documents at Pates Farm
"suggest we three meet at the farm, list all documents then we take away to examine".
Cllr Goodger, 4th Sept 2019
Phoned me in response to my email. He said we could look through the documents but not take them away.
Cllr Goodger, 4th Sept 2019
Also said:
"my defence of Mrs Copeman over 12 years might not look good to some."
The full report of that call was immediately emailed to the new Chair, Cllr Loveday, and new clerk, Mrs Austin.
It makes very very interesting reading and can be seen here
"my defence of Mrs Copeman over 12 years might not look good to some."
The full report of that call was immediately emailed to the new Chair, Cllr Loveday, and new clerk, Mrs Austin.
It makes very very interesting reading and can be seen here
DC Foreman 9th Sep 2019
in email to Peter Gardiner
said she plans to re-interview Mrs C 8th Oct 2019.
Would like some exact figures to put to her. To get a charging decision need evidence of exact loss
said she plans to re-interview Mrs C 8th Oct 2019.
Would like some exact figures to put to her. To get a charging decision need evidence of exact loss
DC Foreman 23rd Sep 2019
Told us that in April 2019 she received a large bag of papers and files from the PC who'd taken them from Pates Farm. "The biggest mess I've ever seen"
misc other bank books
Documentary evidence ("exhibits"in police lingo)
For that we needed to take possession and examine all available documents.The necessary paperwork had all been at Pates Farm in Sept 2018. That same month a uniformed branch PC collected paperwork from the farm. His receipt (see left) gave a general idea of the nature of the documents taken but was very short of details. He held them for six months before handing to a CID officer in April 2019. I have not found or been told of any proper (detailed) listing of the documents by the police, or record of their the movements (both of which are mandatory, see right) but it seems that at some stage they were back at Pates Farm.
We were keen to get to work and started the morning after appointment.
I was aware of the rules for handling records (exhibits) as I had been exhibits manager for 15 years for a large Cambridge company of forensic investigators who required me to work to police standards. I therefore emailed Cllr Goodger, cc'd to Peter Gardiner, suggesting we (Peter Gardiner and me) meet him at the farm, list every document in sufficient detail to distinguish from others - not simply "3 cheque books". List to be signed by all, and copy for each. I would supply boxes and remove them from the farm.
Cllr Goodger was uncooperative from the start. He responded by phone.
We could look through the documents, but not take them away.
But he had no rights to keep them - he had never been appointed to investigate and hadn't been Chairman since May 2017 yet still thought he could do as he liked, as noted by others throughout this webpage.
The following are from my notes of the call:
- He said he, Cllr Barker and Cllr Barker’s partner and others (?) had been going through the documents for months and had made “good progress”. I asked if their findings had been reported to the Council? No. To the Police? No (apart from his initial statement, but nothing since).
- He was unsure, evasive or contradictory about whether what he has at Pates Farm had been to the police (or not) and returned, and/or whether the police still have some. Police procedure to safeguard “continuity of evidence” requires signatures on every change of keeper or location. He couldn’t remember signing for anything.
- He didn’t mention my request to number each document nor whether already done. Strange. Continuity of evidence requires all evidence to be numbered, labelled, and recorded.
- He said what was needed were qualified people (a dig at me I think!) that’s why he got Cllr Barker's partner Sarah Gaylor involved as she was a DS with Cambs police.Surely if the stuff hadn’t already been numbered/labelled, she would have advised to do so, as per police training manual page above?
- I said I was surprised he had the documents. He said he wanted Mrs Copeman to be convicted so he’s keeping them because “he may have to stand up in court to give evidence, so needs to have it”.
- He did admit his defence of Mrs Copeman over 12 years might not look good to some.
- He said Pat got her own internal auditors. One apparently was a friend who worked for another council. I asked were the appointments minuted? “I can’t remember”; were letters of appointment issued? “I can’t remember”. (I’ve not found any references in minutes).
- He also admitted that Mrs C emptied the Hall slot meters and recorded an amount of money in the minutes but it was not witnessed nor readings recorded
9th Sept 2019. Peter Gardiner exchanged emails wth the case-officer, DC Larissa Foreman (cc'd to me) arranging for us to meet her at KL police stn to discuss the case. She said she had a box of papers and files we could take away.
12th Sept 2019. Cllr Goodger delivered a load of files and documents to the Littleport Parish Council office where our Clerk was based. This meant an 11 mile round trip for me instead of 1 mile had he allowed me collect from him at Pates Farm. What I got was a mess, no list of documemts, no update on work done by him since Sept 2018 (if any!)
23rd Sep 2019 We met DC Foreman at KL. She said that in April 2019 she received a large bag of papers and files from the PC who'd taken them from Pates Farm. "The biggest mess I've ever seen"
She gave us some bank statements but was unable to locate the box of other items. She thought it must be at Downham Market police station, would we mind going there? We agreed, and she said she'll meet us there. When we arrived, the front door was unlocked and the keys were hanging in the lock.
Inside, we found no one in reception, so phoned the DC. She was in the building, looking for the papers, and would bring them to us. At some stage a uniformed PC came to reception, and we told him about the keys, which he then retreived. After quite a while the DC appeared, empty handed. She said she couldn't find them, and there was no record of them being booked out.
However, later that afternoon, the DC emailed twice, apologised, and emailed some PDF's containing the paperwork that was missing.
Sorting, collating, marking and listing the huge amount of paperwork was made more difficult due to some of the most important items - several hundred pages of bank documents (mostly fiche statements) for six bank accounts being jumbled together. It took many hours spread over several meetings with Peter Gardiner. All financial transactions were then entered on a bespoke spreadsheet that was become to main tool in our investgations, and much later the means of presenting the amounts embezzled to CID, with links to the source documents evidencing the fraud/theft.
I noted that the Minute Books received from Pates Farm in Sept 2019 were missing for 27 out of 59 cheque payments shown a year earlier on the Maigret list. The first investigation apparently checked the payments for authorisation in the minutes. So what happened to the missing files?
There were also large chunks of fiche statements missing Show details, reported to DC Forman with request to obtain replacements.
28th Dec 2019 the DC personally delivered the replacement fiche statements to my home. Great service!
exhibit handling procedure on College of Policing website
Peter Cox 12th Sep 2019
in email to Peter Gardiner
Re documents from Pates Farm
Bank statements shuffled together like a pack of cards, ditto large bundle of loose papers
Disappointing to receive such a mixed bunch of stuff without any note of contents or indication of Ken’s work since you were involved last Autumn.
Re documents from Pates Farm
Bank statements shuffled together like a pack of cards, ditto large bundle of loose papers
Disappointing to receive such a mixed bunch of stuff without any note of contents or indication of Ken’s work since you were involved last Autumn.
the ten Council cheque books, face and top numbered
three Council paying-in books
Council definition of fraud
Any payment from Council or Parish Hall funds not put before Council or Committee for authorisation and subsequently recorded as approved in the
minutes and which cannot be proved to be for legitimate Council or Parish Hall business
Receipts & Payments book cover
R&P book 2005, £500 embezzled
R&P book monthly signatures
chq 101235 made payable for cash; Mrs Copemans signature on reverse showing cash received
Didn't meet Case-officers definition of theft, as not banked into Mrs C's account
forged signature on chq 101240
forged signature on chq 101216
forged signature on chq 101267
forged signature on chq 101280
forged signature on chq 101282. One of Mrs C's best
From minutes June 2013 - no mention of "in lieu of payrise"!Full minutes available here
Mrs Copeman's fraud/embezzlement/theft
We found indications that Mrs Copeman’s deceptions started from the time of her appointment in Dec 1995 judging by lack of any reference to that in the Minutes Book because several numbered pages were missing. And only Mrs Copeman had access to them because she kept them at home. CPS were apparently very concerned about this, not that Mrs C kept them at home or had removed them, but because the Council couldn't prove (to CPS) that she had or hadn't admitted a previous conviction for fraud. Peter Gardiner said that happened in Downham Market, forcing her to sell the family house to reimbuse the victim and move to Welney. (Other reports suggest it was land intended for a home, and Barry Hawkins business was the victim. The CID review of April 2021 referred to 1980 convictions in plural.Payments
All items requiring payment should be shown on the agenda circulated to Cllrs prior to a meeting, then discussed and voted on at the meeting. A vote "in favour" would deem the payment "authorised" and a cheque could then be signed by two
A minimum of two individuals but usually three or more, authorised by vote at a Council meeting and minuted, and advised to bank with personal details and specimen signature lodged in their records.
and minuted. The usual signatories throughout the fraud period were
the Clerk herself and the Chairman, Cllr Goodger, both of whom should also have intialled the cheque stub.I understand other Cllrs were not given an opportunity to inspect cheque books. Had they done so they would have wondered why so many stubs were blank, cancelled or altered (as shown further down.)
The earliest suspicious financial transactions were found in the Receipts and Payments (R&P) books (hand-written accounts analysis ledgers) from 2003 onwards. Payments for servicing a copier which look very inflated. Duplicate salary payments, some entered as "bonus" or "additional" for passing her
Certificate in Local Council Administration. An entry-level qualification for local council Clerks, supposedly indicating a broad
knowledge of all aspects of a clerk’s work including roles, responsibilities, law, procedures, finance planning and community involvement.
examination. One thing we noticed, as did the Cllrs in the first investgation in 2018, was that a number of unauthorised payments were for the same sum as her salary. The general feeling was that she probably thought anyone looking through payments documents would see regular payments as her standing order salary. None of us were fooled.
From 2005 many entries altered with Tip-ex. We were unable to establish whether alterations were before or after auditing.Back in 2006 when I and several other parishioners suspected Mrs Copeman of skulldugery, I asked, under
Freedom of Information Act, 2000, allowed access by the general public to data held by national and local public authorities - in response to increasing dissatisfaction with secrecy!
legislation, to see the auditors report. The Chair, Cllr Goodger refused. Under the law I had an absolute right to see, and the Council an absolute
duty to provide, with no discretion allowed. But Cllr Goodger didn't care about the law. I was not to see it, and thats that. It was rumoured that the auditor at the time had concerns about some matters, but never made those public. In 2020 he was interviewed by the case-officer. Obviously we were not advised of the outcome.So although Peter Gardiner and I never found out what the auditor may or may not have had concerns about, we found matters that worried us.
On the left, the photo of 5 pages, shows the top one has a genuine signature of the Chairman, the next three obvious forgeries by Mrs Copeman, and the last no signature at all.
Regulations required the Chairman to check and sign the book monthly.
JPEG copies were made of pages of the R&P Cash books which appeared to shown ficticious or dubious entries and alterations made with
a white 'correction-fluid' brushed onto a document to cover something, usually a typing error
I then ringed the suspicious entries in red (using Windows shapes), added our comments below, and total of possible embezzlement shown at the top (on this page £462.58). The pages were then passed to the
DC Larissa Foreman, based at CID Kings Lynn April 2019 to ??, later transferred to Child Protection Unit (CPU) at Swaffham, taking our case with her.
. Note two or three styles of ticks; one set may be by an auditor.The case-officer would not accept any of this because, as reported above, she claimed she had to see stolen money had been paid into Mrs Copeman's bank account to prove it was theft. And CID only had statements from 2010.
We were supplied with several hundred fiche copies of Council & Parish Hall bank statements. They are somewhat difficult to follow, but importantly they show more information than standard ones. For exampleeach credit banked (remittance) will show how much was cash and how much by cheques, and number of chqs paid-in. I listed every transaction on each of 6 accounts, from 2005 to 2018, onto my spreadsheet, then analysed and checked every entry for potential fraud.
Below an extract from one page. The first item ringed shows a 'TFT' credit of £750 (suffixed "c" meaning cleared) on 29th July2008. That was a telephone transfer made by Mrs Copeman from the Hall's non-cheque savings account to the Hall's current account from which cheque number 100396 was issued for £750 CASH, paid to Mrs C over the counter at Barclays Downham Market. A month later, £500 cash. DC Foreman said she couldn't prove that was theft because she drew it over the counter instead of banking it to her account.
That ridiculous requirement even applied when receipt of cash shown by signature on reverse, see left
Cheques with a forged signature
We have images of both sides of 18 fraudulent cheque payments which had Cllr Goodger's signature forged by Mrs Copeman.
There were a hundred other fraudulent cheque payments which we requested the case-officer to obtain images of, but she didn't despite the reverse of the cheque showing where the cheque was banked, something CID said they needed to prove theft!
In the rubbish bags examined in Sept 2018 were pages showing her practicing his signature.
We found very many cheque stubs were either blank, marked as "cancelled", had alterations, or false detals (as did the first investigation team).
We concluded that the cancelled ones were where she didn't think the forgery was good enough. On the right, six consecutive blank or cancelled stubs, 101277-101282.
I find it difficult to believe that month after month for many years, when the cheque books were presented to the Chair at Council meetings for signature, he didn't notice and ask about the blank and cancelled stubs, nor the stub for cheque 101240 which said "expenses in lieu of payrise". See forged cheque top left and stub top right.
If any one thinks maybe only the cheques were presented without the book, just remember that every stub should be initialled by the signatories.
Yet another anti- fraud precaution that was ignored.
140 "suspicious" cheque stubs were checked against minutes to see if authorised, again just as the first investigators did. See images from minutes of June 2013 on left below cheques. We also checked with the previous and subsequent minutes, and on agendas where available. Finally, we checked on bank fiche statements to see whether banked or not. On the spreadsheet, columns were marked to indicate all those checks. The is just a small section
This next extract shows blank cheque stubs where the cheques had not been banked, and payments that were either genuine or dubious but without sufficient documentation to prove either way. Also shows the total amount of fraudulent payments included in the total theft summary (below)
Those minutes also revealed a matter discussed in "cash income" in following section (and elsewhere).
Local contractors were sometimes shown as payee on the stub although the cheque made payable to Mrs C. The DC interviewed those contractors who confirmed they had not done the work nor invoiced the amount.
Norfolk CID fraud definition
my email to DC LF, 07/06/2021
you say "you can only prove theft if the money went into her bank account". That is certainly not the Council's view. Everyone I’ve spoken to laughs
at that. No one believes it. To allay Councillors and Parishioners doubts, please quote the law that says that."
NO RESPONSE !
NO RESPONSE !
Cllr Goodger, 15th Apr 2021
emailed DC Foreman claiming "Clerk received bank statements monthly and copied them to Cllrs"
THAT IS A LIE, SHE DIDN'T EVEN WHEN TOLD TO. see Concerns raised and ignored
THAT IS A LIE, SHE DIDN'T EVEN WHEN TOLD TO. see Concerns raised and ignored
cheque stub 101240
"expenses in lieu of payrise" !
cheque stub 101277 - blank
cheque stub 101278 - cancelled
cheque stub 101279 - cancelled
cheque stub 101280 - blank
cheque stub 101281 - cancelled
cheque stub 101282 - no payee
making fictitious invoice for £250 dated 21st June 2012.
Fictitious invoices paid by forged cheques
On left, Mrs C made a fictitious invoice for £250 dated 21st June 2012. Used a genuine KL&WN Borough Council invoice 9358 showing a payment due date of 19th May2010, stuck on 9 adhesive labels with fictitious details, text, dates, amounts, etc, some badly aligned or wrong type face (font). Then scanned and printed the altered document. Unfortunately, on this one, she didn't overlabel the net value. Cheque stub 101193 appears to be payment for this.On right, the full story: fictitious inv, forged signature and "dodgy" cheque stub
The same genuine inv used again as above, changed date of issue to 30Oct12 but made date 1July12, Another £250 amount, but with an added "admin charge" of £5.68 to bring the total to her her monthly salary of £255.68.
This was paid to herself by a forged cheque 101216. See copy plus reverse with bank codes showing where the payment was banked, and cheque stub with alterations
Despite many similar items of evidence provided to Norfolk CID, in April/June 2021 they said couldn't prove Mrs Copeman had been deceitful!
Just to be absolutely clear, this payment was based on a faked invoice, was not authorised, not minuted, the money wasn't used for any aspect of Council goods, services or donations, the Chair's signature was forged, and it was paid into Mrs Copeman's Santander Bank a/c code 09-01-26, a/c number 29338219 on 15/12/2012
That's not deceitful? This is one of dozens of examples of crass stupidity by Norfolk CID which has cost the people of Welney nearly £22,000.
Just like their contention that she was just a poor lady who got confused (words to that effect)
fictitious invoice for £255.68 dated 30th Oct 2012 paid by chq 101216
forged signature and bank codes on reverse on chq 101216
cheque stub 101216, several alterations, but eventually clamed payable to Borough Council for "allotment rental, plus admin!"
Cash income
The initial Council investigation did not report any cash fraud. I find that surprising and wonder if it was an oversight - or deliberate. The huge amount of cash apparently held "in-hand" shown on accounts year after year (below) had aroused suspicion of several Cllrs. (for more details, choose 'concerns raised' on Nav menu top of page).
CASH balance at end of year 2013, £3,289.64 ! How could that be overlooked, at the time and during the Council's first investigation?
According to the Clerk's minutes for June 2013, regarding the annual accounts, "all present confirmed everything in order". Really, ?
The Clerk also said the Internal Audit had been carried out and everything was correct. She didn't say who the auditor was, or show the auditor's report. We found the so-called auditor to be Shelia J Grimes.
I searched for her on-line without success. She had not been appointed by the council, another anti-fraud requirement ignored.We suggested to DC Foreman that she should trace and interview Grimes. To the DC's credit she did both, and reported that Grimes was a friend of Copeman and hadn't seen any bank statements, just ticked the boxes. (We later established that Shelia Grimes had signed the audit every year from 2009 to 2014, the Chair and Council blissfully unaware of, or willfully ignoring, their legal obligations - but worse was to be revealed!)
DC Foreman interviewed Mrs C 8th Oct 2019:
"I have just interviewed Mrs Copeman she still doesn’t know how much she has taken but believes it is no more than 10000.00 . In relation to the internal auditors , they were friends and they did it voluntarily. Margaret Johnson is a fictious name she made up for the purpose of internal audit. She agreed to creating all the fictious invoices and paying the cheques into her account. In relation to the cash , she is claiming there never really was any, as she paid the caretaker in cash. She admitted she had the odd pound out of the electricity meter. However she again claimed there was never a lot in the meter. In relation to the hire of the hall she stated most people paid by cheque."
None of those present were shown the Annual Return, commonly called "AGAR", before the Chairman signed confirming that he considered everything was fine and correct. Over £3k cash-in-hand, and an unappointed Auditor unknown to the Council, fine and correct!. See financial mis-management much further down.
Back in 2019, I suggested to co-investigator Peter Gardiner that we split the work, I to deal with cheques and banking, he to look at the cash side. He had the seven cash books at home for several
months but didn't come up with anything. When DC Foreman said she wanted me to simplify the case, I looked through those books and found a wealth of detailed information which I wasn't aware of, much
hand-written and meticulously recorded (apart from a number of Tip-exed alterations!)We had many documents evidencing cash income, in Mrs Copemans own hand writing, in small petty-cash style receipts books and A4 exercise books, and 2 large cash book ledgers. Also in typed lists of income and end of year accounts documents. The case-officer will have seen all of those before she handed them to us.
I entered every single item onto my spreadsheet, and made PDF copies of the cash books which were sent to DC Foreman. We knew from the fiche bank statements how little cash had been banked in the 12 years of fraud, now we had evidence of all the rental income in her own hand. That all formed a large part of my evidence.
But DC Foreman wanted me to "simplify" the evidence. (How about: Net Cash (income less expenses) minus cash banked = amount stolen.)
Cllr Gilbert's concerns 2016
"bank statements will show no cash paid into bank from hire of pavillion or village hall except one for £300"
Hall bookings totals, 2005-6
cheque and cash totals checked
Hall cash income & expenses, 2007
example evidence of cash income
field & pavillion,2012-13
example evidence of cash income
hall 2012-13
DC Foreman, 4th Dec 2020
"Hi Peter, I am sure you’ll agree with me in thinking this is getting more and more confusing. We really do need to keep it simple." .
un-named reviewing DI, April 2021
"we cannot evidence [cash] to the required standard
I cannot see a paper trail showing where this missing money has gone
it maybe prudent for one further interview to cover each and every cash transaction and if admitted by the suspect in an unambiguous and clear admission, then this cash amount can be factored in also.".
I cannot see a paper trail showing where this missing money has gone
it maybe prudent for one further interview to cover each and every cash transaction and if admitted by the suspect in an unambiguous and clear admission, then this cash amount can be factored in also.".
Well, DI Whoever, it may not satisfy Norfolk CID requirements along with your DC's rejection of forged cheques and all the other thefts because Mrs C didn't pop the stolen money into her personal bank account - but I'm sure all those who gave cash to the Clerk to rent the hall or pavilion for parties, for club meetings, for carpet bowls, yoga, bingo, table-tennis, guitar practice, mums & childrens events, the Environment Agency PR lady for drop-in events explaining the bank works, and those who fed coins in the meters to heat the buildings, etc, and now learning she used most of their money for her own or family purposes, won't agree with you and will consider it was theft/fraud, just as we have working to the financial regulations laid down in local authority law used by every public authority in England. We explaned that many times.
And, DI Whoever, what law were you and your DC working to? We asked many times, including by email, but the law or act was never revealed. In effect, Norfolk CID concealed information from the victim, Welney Parish Council, and its investigators. To make it more difficult for us is that your version of the un-named law differs from the DC's idea of it.
But at least the DI has now accepted that the money was missing. "It may be prudent" puzzles me. Was the DI leaving the decision to his junior DC? Surely a review should state what should be done, not leaving to the discretion of an inexperienced officer with a large case-load of other work.
And did the DI not see the documentary proof of cash received (just a very few of which are shown on this page) and the bank account fiche statements showing how little of the income was banked into council-controlled accounts?
What more can be provided?
We even offered to give contact details of people who had rented the buildings so she could interview them for confirmation that money was given to Mrs Copeman. She didn't take up the offer.
rental of Parish Hall and Playing Field
cash in hand, Mar 2010, £1,147.89
cash in hand, Mar 2011, £2,153.64
Cllr Gilbert's concerns 2016
"all electric money in [clerk's] pocket, expect even hire money"
Playing Field cash, 2011-12
ficticious £1,000 transfer to bank
Hall users rental, Apr 2015
showing names of users
/brown-book-1-cover.jpg) receipt book 1
|
/blue-book-2-cover.jpg) receipt book 2
|
More example photos of sources of evidence of cash income
/1-19.jpg) receipt 1-19 hall Dogs £48
|
/1-20(pav).jpg) receipt 1-20 pav t-t £7.50
|
/1-93.jpg) receipt 1-93 hall Yoga £5
|
/2-4(pav).jpg) receipt 2-4 pav t-t £7.50
|
/2-81.jpg) receipt 2-81 hall RUG £8.00
|
/2-95.jpg) receipt 2-95 hall WI £32.00
|
TITLE
TEXT
Slot meters, Hall and Pavilion
The buildings electric heaters were controlled by the slot meters. Users of the buildings had to feed them with one-pound coins; several needed for a few hours warmth on winter evenings.A theft at the Parish Hall occured 1996-2002, when the Hall was run by a committee, not the Council. It was investigated by a parishioner who was not (then) a committee member, without Police involvement and all cash returned within 10 days. The investigator's recomendations to the committee were to ensure cash income was witnessed and recorded.
For the Hall's slotmeters, a form was designed by the new Treasuer, and a procedure adopted which was known by the Council Chair, Cllr Goodger, as recorded in the Halls minutes in Oct 2003.
From minutes of Welney Parish Hall Management Committee (a Council committee) Tuesday 14th Oct 2003
Present: Mark Farrow (Chair), Cllr S.Kerr, Peter Cox (Treasurer), Roger Giles, Cllr Ken Goodger. Plus 2 x MOPs incl Pat Rix taking minutes
Item 3.5. Electricity Slotmeters
These were read and emptied before the meeting by Mark Farrow in the presence of Ken Goodger, Peter Cox and Pat Rix. Readings were confirmed as 165 and 923 compared with 159 and 915 at the previous meeting so the income of £14 handed to Peter Cox was therefore correct.
Council meter cash handling
Procedure adopted 2005:
Hall slot-meter emptying to be witnessed; readings compared with previous; cash removed checked equal to difference; details noted in minutes.
Hall slot-meter emptying to be witnessed; readings compared with previous; cash removed checked equal to difference; details noted in minutes.
Cllr/Vice Chair Tim Bennet
"several Cllrs checking meters and cash before meetings years ago, but the practice was dropped and Mrs Copeman did it on her own."
Se image below, the readings from Oct 2010 to March 2011 were recorded on a sheet of ruled paper, not a form. And no witnesses.
Cllr Goodger, 4th Sept 2019
"Mrs C emptied the Hall slot meters and recorded an amount of money in the minutes but it was not witnessed nor readings recorded."
Hall slot meter readings form, May-Aug 2010
Slot meter readings list (not form), Oct 2010 to Mar 2011
We had a number of forms and lists but not a complete set. We knew the readings recorded in Mrs C.s own handwriting at various times, but no one had read the meters (to our knowledge) when the building was vacated by the Council and handed over to the Environment Agency (EA) who we know immediately condemmed the building as unsafe and disconnected services. We needed to read the meters, so Peter Gardiner contacted the EA in his usual courteous way, explaining the problem. They refused to allow access, and PG had to ask DC Foreman to intervene. We were able to compare the figures with much earlier ones to establish the total cash taken out by Mrs C.
Hall left slot meter reading as seen in 2016
Hall right slot meter reading as seen in 2016
Spreadsheet detail supplied to CID. Note there were many entries above, this was just a summary. DC Foreman had asked for simplified data. Photo readings taken on 12th Dec 2019 less Mrs Copeman's recorded readings in 2011 gave amount of cash removed 2011-2016. Add to that amounts of cash removed recorded by Mrs C in her End-of-Year (EOY) accounts. That total added to other cash income less amount of cash banked shown on the Bank's fiche statements gave a total of unbanked cash £7,400.70 - just for the Hall.
Cllr Gilbert's concerns 2016
"all electric money in [clerk's] pocket, expect even hire money"
CFIG investigations completed
Towards the end of 2020, the investigation part of our job was completed. This list shows much of what happened thereafter.- 19th Nov 2020 Clerk Cowell resigned.
- 27th Nov 2020 Peter Gardiner and me visited WMC to view documents in office requested by CPS.
- 17th Dec 2020, DC Foreman met Peter Gardiner and me at William Marshall Centre. The office I built and equipped (with Peter Gardiner's assistance to clear the room) was a complete shambles, piles of files everywhere, burying printer/scanner we wanted to use. DC Foreman received a land line call to the office but unable to reach the phone.
- 12th Jan 2021. New Parish Clerk appointed,
Jennifer ("Jen") Millard appointed 12th Jan 2021, resigned giving one months notice just 4 months later on 18th May 2021 (last working day 17th Jun) claiming harrassment from 2 members of the public, and leaving the Council without a Clerk at this crucial time in the fraud case.<.br />
- 16th Jan 2021, DC Foreman said she had contacted Ian Shirley, asked him to ring her
Evidence requested on USB
- 17th Dec 2020, DC Foreman asked me to put all my documentary evidence on a usb stick that she would supply. The email below advised "she's off for a while".
- 26th Jan 2021, Stick returned to CID by RM 1st Class. Contained 20 Excel worksheets linked to a summary sheet. The stick was protected with a password and the content encrypted. A note included in the package asked the DC to phone me for passwords.
- 27th Jan 2021. Package delivered to Swafham PS 11:35 on Wednesday 27th & signed for by 'DC Foreman' but the 'signature' was not hers.
- 3rd Feb 2021, USB stick eventually received by DC Foreman.
- 6th Feb 2021, DC Foreman phoned me, she had unlocked the USB stick. I talked her through the summary sheet and a number of linked tabs, explaining that all sources of the figures are included. She said "the way I had presented everything was just what she wanted".
DC Foreman, 6th Feb 2021Phoned me and said "the way you presented everything [on the USB stick] was just what I wanted"
- 6th Feb 2021, I emailed some items we discussed on phone. She replied
"Brilliant, thanks, Email's working today"
Theft Totals
Images below from the spreadsheet on the USB stick sent to Norfolk CID late Jan 2021.Note: on spreadsheet images, row 1: "all amounts paste-linked [from other sheets]" (named in col B)
Parish Hall cash missing, i.e received less banked :
WMC cash missing: bal b/fwd less cash received:
Unauthorised Cheque payments:
Theft totals shown on summary sheet:
See also forged cheque payments (above)
Below, Mrs Copeman's EOY 2017 "cash a/cs" for William Marshall Centre and Parish Hall
Full repayment requested - and agreed by all !
- 22nd Feb DC Foreman asked me to phone her and we discussed a range of items for her to include in her interview with Mrs Copeman next day. That included our wish to have the money repaid rather than the case going to court. DC Foreman said it was a pity I couldn't join her at the interview. I said "you mean, like good cop, bad cop?".
The conversation indicated our close working relationship, then. It had been difficult at times in 2020 due to her insistence that theft/fraud could only be proved if Mrs Copeman paid the money into her bank account but couldn't quote the law which said that.
And unfortunately, a few months later it soured when she appeared to me to be having a breakdown, seemingly unable to take the case forward, mislaying documents and lying about it to cover-up her problems. Her training was poor, and her work-load heavy. - 3rd Mar 2021 DC Foreman told us that Mrs Copeman admitted all bar a few hundred pounds and that her superiors were still keen to send it to court, but would discuss our views with the CPS lawyer.
- 9th Mar 08:37. DC emailed me, cc'd to Peter Gardiner and Cllr Roger Giles, to canvas our thoughts
Mar 2021 DC ForemanPersuaded her superiors and CPS not to send Mrs Copeman to court, but allow a conditional caution so WPC could get their money back
"Mrs Copeman had offered to repay the outstanding money, she is keen to keep this out of court. We could do a conditional caution and make sure she actually has the funds to repay"
- 9th Mar 11:09. Cllr Roger Giles accepted offer & asked could he pass to Cllrs
- 9th Mar 11:28. I replied: Peter Gardiner and I discussed and agreed, adding
"Formal notice to progress this will need to come from the Parish Clerk." -
Availability of funds was later confirmed also amount of repayment aimed for was total on my summary on USB stick, £21,866.639th Mar 2021 to DC ForemanI asked: "is the the proposed repayment as per the balance on my theft summary i.e £21,866.63?"
She replied next day: "That’s what we are aiming for" - 9th Mar 12:32. DC emailed Parish Clerk (Mrs Millard)
"I understand that the [WPC] are keen to recover the outstanding money ASAP. I have spoken to the lawyer who first reviewed the case, he has said that it would be exceptional for Mrs Copeman to receive a caution in these circumstances. However if the [WPC] are in agreement and the money is repaid it would be in the interests of justice. This would save huge expense to the public purse and a great deal of time."
I was surprised and delighted that after almost 2 years the DC had seemingly dropped her insistance that she could only prove theft if Mrs C had deposited the money she embezzled into her bank account and instead accepted the Govt's rules for local authority finances; and persuaded the CPS lawyer to ignore convention - that a convicted criminal (i.e Mrs Copeman in 1980) should go to court for a subsequent offence and not receive a caution - in order that Welney PC and its parishioners should benefit from getting their money back - and CPS and public saved cost of a court case.
Council now "in charge" of case
On receipt of the DC's email of 9th March, 12:32, the Parish Clerk arranged an extra-ordinary Council meeting
WPC meeting 15th Mar 2021
from P/Clerk Millard's mins
Item 4.21
"Norfolk Constabulary seeking confirmation that Council would accept former Clerk being cautioned subject to all monies returned in one lump sum at earliest opportunity.
This action proposed and seconded with all in favour"
Full minutes available here
Item 4.21
"Norfolk Constabulary seeking confirmation that Council would accept former Clerk being cautioned subject to all monies returned in one lump sum at earliest opportunity.
This action proposed and seconded with all in favour"
Full minutes available here
- 15th March 2021, at an extra-ordinary zoom meeting, Council unanimously agreed to accept a conditional caution with full repayment, as minuted (left).
Mrs Millard's Minutes show in attendance: Cllrs Harvey, Barker, Loveday, Wardle, Lowry and Pratley. Also B/Cllrs Spikings & Rose.
The minutes also show "Not in attendance, Cllr Wardle" (contradicting above.) and appolgies from Cllr Giles (who was hospitalised)
As it was a closed meeting, no members of public present. - 29th Mar 2021. Mrs Millard phoned me, wanting my help. She wanted details of how the anticipated £22k should be split between Council and Hall accounts. I supplied the details, and she put them into a poorly formatted Word doc, and sent it to me for review.
- 31st March 2021. I emailed Mrs Millard, cc'd to co-investigator Peter Gardiner and our overseer, Cllr Roger Giles, confiming her figures. I advised her how it should be shown in accounts,"return of embezzled funds" in line with good commercial practice, and requested the figures be kept confidential until payment received, then Peter Gardiner and I would issue a joint report with findings and recomendations.
- 1st April 2021. Mrs Millard replied. Has noted the contents of my email and my views. Also thanked me for my assistance and my work and dedication. But she ignored the rest of my requests and sent the details to a wide range of people.
- 6th Apri 2021. Mrs Millard again emailed DC Foreman for an update as there was a council meeting due that evening. The DC replied saying the case being reviewed over the weekend. "They" are happy for her to be cautioned, but need to be sure amounts correct. Did Mrs Millard ask who "they" were?
DI's review - more work to authorise repayment
- 10th April 2021. DC Foreman emailed the Clerk "we are not in a position at this time to give a
conditional caution" and attached a
review of the case by a DI. I've highlighted some major points, but in
essence it confirmed that most of the elements needed had been met but some further work was
necessary. Some financial (by whom?), some by the Council (the Clerk), some by the
case officer including another interview with Mrs Copeman (regarding cash) and also reviews with former-clerks that
she should done as requested 8 months earlier by CPS in Aug 2020.
A most important comment was: "I cannot see a paper trail showing where this missing money has gone"
That requirement was something we had queried many times, without a response. It is not a requirement of a public authority to prove where stolen money goes and we did not have the ability or authority to do that. That's police work. We trawled the internet, Govt and CPS pages, covering Theft and Fraud acts, never found any reference.Do police need to prove where stolen money goes?Not necessarily, according to an AI response, see here
Note, the review was an internal CID document from DI to DC. It contains abbreviations that lay-people would not understand, and the DC should have explained. If she didn't, did the Clerk ask the DC? Although the review showed a need for clarification or further info on financial evidence I'd provided, I was not included in the circulation. Had I been, I would have queried the abbreviations, without which some parts of the review are impossible to follow. Was that DC Foreman complying with Mrs Millard's request, or her decision? (I received a copy of the review a long tme later, from another source.) - 4th May 2021. Minutes show: 19/21 Resolve to exclude public and press in accordance with Section 1(2) of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, by reason of the confidential nature of the business to be transacted concerning staffing .
- 18th(?) May 2021. Mrs Millard resigned, giving a months notice, claiming harrassment from Peter Gardiner and Lanre Bombata.
- 18th May 2021. DC Foreman sent me a very long email with a barmy questionnaire based on the DI review she advised Council of five weeks before. The wording and content of the
questionairre suggests, to me, that the DC had changed and was no longer able to manage our case effectively. Perhaps the long delay yet another
indication of not being able to keep up with the work-load of our case, with all her other cases to deal with.
DC Foreman, 18th May 2021"during her first interview she stated she had got in a muddle and was trying to make the figures add up.
There is no offence of being ineffective and poor accounting."
- The DC said that in the first interview Mrs C said she got all muddled up, and the DC and DI said that wasn't an offence.
Did they not recall that in two subsequent interviews she admitted 95%? And 4 years earlier Mrs C "repaid" two very precise sums, £4,849.19 and £3,852.77, the amounts stolen from 2 accounts, knowing what to repay to the penny.
Hardly the work of a muddled old lady.
The DC now sounds like a clever-dick defence lawyer rather than a detective trying to get a convictionDC Foreman, 18th May 2021"we need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mrs Copeman deceived the council"
- "and we needed to establish deceipt" - what about the 18 (at least) forged cheques; creating a a ficticious auditor; two sets of accounts (one for auditors, another for Cllrs); and forging bank statement and invoices, all of which were in their possession?
- "and also where did she put the stolen money" - we pointed out that for cheque payments the details were on the reverse of the fiche copies of cheques we provided, and the bank could provide more if she asked (we were not able to) but the DC didn't use that information or ask for more. And we disagreed with their version of theft and they wouldn't - or couldn't- say which law required that.
- The DC said that in the first interview Mrs C said she got all muddled up, and the DC and DI said that wasn't an offence.
- 20th May 2021. Mrs Millard advised DC Foreman of her resignation, last working day 17th Jun.
- 7th June 2021 I emailed DC Foreman, attaching my replies to the questionaire. I'm making the email and attachment available because I want people to see the efforts made to provide evidence,
and other lines of enqury, and how much was dismissed, ignored or forgotten.
5-page questionairre and responses
I urge everyone reading this page to read the DI's review, and my email and attached response to the DC's extraordinary questionairre which included many items already supplied or were not part of the case. My response was nevertheless polite and couteous, and worded so people with little knowledge of the case would understand it. I think the DC's 5-week delay sending it to me, and her queries, indicate she was no longer able to manage the case.
I said I couldn't prove one or two smaller items because they needed further investigation by police not me, but if necessary just delete them and reduce the amount accordingly. DC Foreman said the case would be reviewed again following my response. I'm not aware of any further action by her or her DI.
DC Foreman crumbles, case ends without payment
- 10th June 2021. I posted a letter to DC
"Hello Larissa
Mrs Copeman – your email and questions 18th May 2021
I sent you an email on Monday with an attached response to your questions but haven’t received an acknowledgement.
Maybe you are on leave or tied up with other cases, but just in case my mail has gone astray or lost in the system as several others I’ve sent you have, I’m posting the enclosed copies of my email and attachment so that [you] can progress the case.
I'm sending this recorded delivery so I can show Councillors that I have dealt with your questions.
Regards Peter Cox" - Originally it was claimed nothing had been received. Subsequently she admitted the letter had been received at the Station but her colleagues hadn't advised her nor given it to her. This was the second time she claimed that, and another indication that she was not working efficiently and covering up mistakes and ommisions
- 17th June 2021, Clerk Millard's last day.
- 29th July 2021, Chair Harvey phoned me, to let me know the DC was claiming she was still waiting answers from me. I replied by email (with cc to Cllr Roger Giles), forwardeding my email to the DC on 7th June [see above]. While typing that, the DC phoned me claiming she hadn't received my email or letter. She said she'd phone a colleague to ask if he had it. I then remembered that Roger told me he had phoned the DC mid-June (?) and she confirmed she had received it and was passng it up the line
- 16th August 2021, having not received replies to my emails and the letter posted to her, I texted DC Foreman:
DC Foreman clearly wasn't dealing with our case very well. She said, 16th Aug 2021, that she would "try to review and seek advice" on the documents I sent her on 11th June sometime after 28th August
I emailed those messages to the Council Chair (then Cllr Dot Harvey) saying:Hello Dot, Today [16th Aug 2021] I followed up Larissa Foreman's promise on 2nd Aug to let me know when she had read the documents delivered to her office in Swaffham on 11th June.
Cllr Harvey did not respond or acknowledge my email.
It has become increasingly difficult to believe that the case officer &/or Norfolk Constabulary is trying to bring this to fruition and I am therefore handing this case to the Council. I can do no more.
The fact she asks "what questions" is clear evidence she hasn't read my email of early Jun and my response to the questions raised by the DI. - 16th Aug 2021, 16:39. I emailed the DC.
Peter Cox to DC Foreman, 16th Aug 2021Cllr Harvey unable to deal with the case, Cllr Giles back in charge
FYI, I copied our earlier texts to Cllr Dorothy Harvey with cc to Cllr Roger Giles. Roger has replied to say that Cllr Harvey cannot currently deal with and does not wish to receive any Council related messages due to a recent bereavement and he is now acting Chair to whom any reports you may wish to make should be addressed. As so many of my emails to you seem to go astray, will you pls acknowledge receipt, otherwise I will have to text you as well.
- 16th Aug 2021. 16:39, an automatic reply from the DC
DC Foreman, 16th Aug 2021"I'm on annual leave anything urgent please contact Ds Simon Cooper CAIU Swaffham"
I am currently on annual leave anything urgent please contact Ds Simon Cooper CAIU Swaffham
- 2nd Sept 2021, DC Foreman emailed Cllr Harvey and someone else
I have now had sight of the letter which peter Cox sent in response to some questions I had asked, in order to prove the amount the council believe that Pat Copeman stole. I would have had sight of it soon if Peter had emailed me it, as I have been working from home with a broken ankle for months and then had some annual leave. In my absence the letter had been placed in my locked pigeon hole/ locker which nobody else was able to access. I wasn’t even aware of the letters existence for several weeks after he’d sent it .
Back In Feb 2021 she emailed me saying "the way I had presented everything was just what she wanted". In March she said it was a pity I couldn't be with her at the imminent interview with Mrs Copeman.
Yet only a few months later the DC seems to have resorted to lies to cover her apparent inability to cope any longer, possibly after the April review by the DI said she (and I) needed to do more work on the case. My letter clearly said it was posted because she wasn't responding to my emails but complained to Chair Harvey that she would have seen it sooner If I'd emailed!
As for not seeing it or aware of it because her colleagues put it into her locker, why did she not instruct/ask other officers to forward mail to her home while she was incapacitated? Very strange. She continued:I will be requesting a meeting with my supervisor regarding this case when he returns from leave. At this time I don’t know when that will take place as I don’t know what his commitments will be upon his return. However what I’ve seen in Peters letter I don’t feel we are any further forward. However I will discuss with a Detective Sgt assigned to looking into all fraud cases for the constabulary. He is already aware of this case. I will not be communicating with Peter Cox directly and will email any decisions to yourselves.
She infers that the very detailed 5 pages of answers I sent, covering all the points she and the DI raised, didn't help. So why didn't she let me know? I believe direct contact - a meeting - with the DC, the DS or DI and me would have been benificial, but she didn't even acknowledgement receipt of it, and behind my back she denigrated me to the Council's Chair whoever that was then and whoever the other recipient was.
And when and to whom was the decision sent?
The situation in Council and CID gets worse
- Oct 2021. Minutes show "Fraud case: a meeting has been asked for with Police to discuss
- Nov 2021. Mr Goodger magically became Cllr Goodger again without any apparent co-option procedure. Minutes again show "Fraud case: a meeting has been asked for with Police to discuss
- 7th Dec 2021 the Council reversed the decision of 15th March 2021 and accepted a caution without payment, minuting the change by an extremely brief and what appears to be a deliberately misleading and incorrect account about repayments.
The sucessor Clerk to Mrs Millard was Mrs Hilton, and she listed those present: Cllrs Harvey (Chair), Lowry, Spears, Gardiner, Barker and Goodger.
B/Cllr Rose and C/Cllr. Dawson attended. - 19th Dec 2021. A neighbour of Mrs Copeman allegedly reported that Mrs C had just received a police Caution.
- 21st Dec 2021. Clerk Hilton emailed me asking if I had any Parish Council Documents. She meant, but didn't say, fraud case files. I listed all the stuff I held and delivered the files to WMC mid-Jan where Cllr Spears checked everything against my list, which he then signed and dated. I asked if they would be stored in the WMC, and not taken elsewhere. He assured me they would remain in the store at WMC.
Mystery deepens
There is a good deal of mystery about the circumstances and reason for dropping the cash repayment. Details have either been withheld, covered up or reported incorrectly by intent or mistake.
Later, one of those P/Cllrs said "some Cllrs wanted the condition dropped.
At the March meeting Harvey, Lowry and Barker voted for Conditional Caution and repayment. Spears, Gardiner and Goodger were newly co-opted since the March meeting. Gardiner, having spent more time investigating the case than anyone else, in Welney or Norfolk Constabulary, knew full well Copeman was guilty of the vast majority (95%+) of the thefts. Goodger was effectvely Mrs Copeman's boss for the whole period of the fraud and as reported on this page had allowed the fraud to happen. Several fellow Cllrs criticised him for ignoring clear indications of theft. Spears' knowledge would have been limited to versions given by others.
I don't wish to be unkind to Cllrs Harvey and Lowry, but having tried to teach them about End of Year accounts and their responsibilities to ensure accuracy, my view is that their understanding of accountancy and their legal duties as Cllrs are not among their strengths.
Is it just co-incidence that Mr Goodger magically became Cllr Goodger again at the November 2021 meeting without any mention of co-option and at the very next meeting the police case against Mrs Copeman was dropped?
TITLE
TEXT
Roger Giles, Mar 2022
"At WPC mtg 1st March 2022, I asked which bank account the £22+k that [Mrs Copeman] agreed to pay back, had gone into.
The Chair, Cllr Dot Harvey said the Council decided to drop case."
Witnessed by Mr Rainer also Francis Woods (ex editor WN, now on Church PCC)
Confirmed by John Loveday.
The Chair, Cllr Dot Harvey said the Council decided to drop case."
Witnessed by Mr Rainer also Francis Woods (ex editor WN, now on Church PCC)
Confirmed by John Loveday.
TITLE
TEXT
Roger Giles, May 2022
"At WPC mtg on 5th Apr 2022, I asked why fraud case dropped.
Cllr Goodger said case dropped on police advice". [contradicting Chair's statement prev. mtg, above]
"his words to me were:
it was because of you and your lot voting to use Cox re police investigation when we wanted to use a Forensic accountant".
KG's comment not recorded in the minutes, see item 7 in
full minutes available here
"his words to me were:
it was because of you and your lot voting to use Cox re police investigation when we wanted to use a Forensic accountant".
KG's comment not recorded in the minutes, see item 7 in
full minutes available here
TITLE
TEXT
Roger Giles, ??? 2023
Having received conflicting responses from the Council, phoned DC Foreman, asked why condition dropped. She replied “the case doesn’t stack up”.
My responses to that claim can be seen here.
TITLE
TEXT
Roger Giles, 12th July 2023
emailed Cllr Dot Harvey (Chair)
requested under FOI Act to see police/CPS paperwork re dropping case as "no case to answer" as claimed by Cllr Goodger at mtg on 7th Jun 2022 see minutes of mtg.
requested under FOI Act to see police/CPS paperwork re dropping case as "no case to answer" as claimed by Cllr Goodger at mtg on 7th Jun 2022 see minutes of mtg.
TITLE
TEXT
16th Aug 2021
Cllr Giles now acting Chair as Cllr Harvey has bereavement.
DS Cooper acting case-officer while DC on leave
DS Cooper acting case-officer while DC on leave
WPC meeting 7th Dec 2021
from P/Clerk Hilton's mins
Item 7
"The fraud case: this was discussed at the end of the meeting, with no members of the public present. Old files are thoughts to be with the Police"
Item 12
"Police investigation discussed; agreed the person involved would receive a Police caution.
A sum of money has been returned to the Council bank account"
Full minutes available here
Item 7
"The fraud case: this was discussed at the end of the meeting, with no members of the public present. Old files are thoughts to be with the Police"
Item 12
"Police investigation discussed; agreed the person involved would receive a Police caution.
A sum of money has been returned to the Council bank account"
Full minutes available here
Roger Giles, May 2022
"At WPC mtg on 5th Apr 2022, Sally Warden asked for clarification about fraud item.
Cllr Mat Barker said something like
it was like a trough of water that several drank out of how could you be sure it was former clerk had the monies".
Cllr Mat Barker said something like
it was like a trough of water that several drank out of how could you be sure it was former clerk had the monies".
John Loveday May 2022
at one Council meeting Cllr Spears read out a document allegedly from police saying condition dropped as not enough evidence.
That conflicts with the pre-requisite of issuing a caution (as Mrs Copeman received) is
"there must be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction if the offender [was] prosecuted."
That conflicts with the pre-requisite of issuing a caution (as Mrs Copeman received) is
"there must be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction if the offender [was] prosecuted."
Dec 2021 Mrs Copeman given a Caution
circa 18th Dec 2021, I understand that a neighbour of Mrs Copeman confirmed she was given an unconditional caution.It should be noted that a caution is not a "telling off" - cautions form part of the offender’s criminal record. They may be referred to in future legal proceedings and may be revealed as part of a criminal record check.
The CPS webpage https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/cautioning-and-diversion states:
"The following are pre-requisites:
- The offender has admitted the offence
- The offender is willing to accept the caution
- There must be sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction if the offender were to be prosecuted
- The offence is not one where a prosecution is required in the public interest"
Many requests have been made in the years since then for a full explanation of the change. Neither the Council or Police have provided any written statement.
There appears to be some kind of cover up. Due to police negligence, not dealing with the case reviewers instructions for further work? Interference by B/Cllr Rose?; or perhaps to avoid embarrassment to the person that allowed it all to happen?
Requests made to Council during public forums at meetings have received a variety of somewhat contradictory reasons
- 5th Apr 2022, ex-Cllr Giles reported that Cllr Goodger said case dropped on police advice also Cllr Goodger lied about use of a forensic accountant. See 'Insurance' above.
- 7th June 2022
- ex-Cllr John Loveday reported that at one Council meeting Cllr Spears read out a document allegedly from police saying condition dropped as not enough evidence.
- 13th July 2023, ex-Cllr Giles emailed WPC asking under FOI act, for sight of paper work dropping condition of repayment
Clerk replied next day stating she had no emails or paper copies of anything to do with the decisions made (casting doubt about Cllr Spears claim) and suggested RG contact Police. - Roger Giles took that advice, and emailed and phoned the case officer, but no reply
Feb2020 Cllr Goodger resigns
Having tried very hard but unsucessfully in Sept and Oct 2019 and early 2020 to stop my part in the investigation, and that of Cllr Adam Giles as overseer,
and disagrement with matters relating to the William Marshall Centre.
Problems encountered by the investigators
- On Sept 10th we received a good deal of original Council financial documentation going back to 2005 that had been held at Pates Farm. Much was jumbled-up loose papers and by no means a complete set of anything.
- We also received some Bank fiche statements obtained by CID but unfortunately large sections were missing from two accounts and it wasn’t until very late Dec 2019 that new complete sets were made available.
- We were hampered by the missing material and also by reluctance of some (Cllr Goodger, Mrs Austin) to supply information. We were also unable to meet to view and discuss evidence since March 2020 by Covid restrictions and closure due to unrelated problems of WMC and the Council office where some of the material was stored.
- Finally, we feel that the CID case officer was unable to devote as much time to our case as we would have liked (expected?) and too much has been left to us. There were long periods when she didn't deal with our case at all, and when she re-started she had forgotten or couldn't find what we had told her. Many of my emails seemed to go astray.
Cllr Goodger, Sept 2019
During phone call to me, Peter Cox, the day after my appointment as one of the working party:
"my defence of Mrs Copeman over 12 years might not look good to some."
The full report of that call was immediately emailed to the new Chair, Cllr Loveday, and new clerk, Mrs Austin.
It makes very very interesting reading and can be seen here
"my defence of Mrs Copeman over 12 years might not look good to some."
The full report of that call was immediately emailed to the new Chair, Cllr Loveday, and new clerk, Mrs Austin.
It makes very very interesting reading and can be seen here
Secondary task: establish how she was able to do for so long
A secondary, but important, matter was to report to the Council on how the Clerk managed to get away with it for so long.In short, she was allowed to by the Chair, Cllr Goodger, who ignored standing orders, financial regulations for public bodies and recomendations about handling and verifying cash transactions given in writing in 2005 and concerns raised about the accounts over many years (detailed below).
The Chair acknowledged that in Sept 2019, see left.
Cllr Goodger, 7th Jun 2022
At WPC mtg, Item 7
Cllr Goodger said:
"I found the fraud"
"case dropped no case to answer"
TWO LIES in one sentence!
See minutes: here
Cllr Goodger said:
"I found the fraud"
"case dropped no case to answer"
TWO LIES in one sentence!
See minutes: here
Cllr. Goodger's misconduct and arrogance
disregard of other Cllrs and Rules, Regulations and Laws
During his reign as Council Chairman, numerous concerns were raised by other Cllrs and some parishioners about Mrs Copeman's accounting which Cllr Goodger ignored.Complaints about Mrs Copeman included:
- lack of bank statements despite repeated requests
- large amout of unbanked cash apparently held
Complaints about Cllr Goodger covered his disregard of:
- the complaints above about Mrs Copeman
- UK law
- council rules, regulations and standing orders especially re accounting
- his obligations as a Cllr
- his duties as Chairman
- requests of Cllrs to see bank statement
- views of fellow Cllrs and parishioners.
- Council decisions and resolutions
The word I've most often heard about his attitude is 'arrogance'.
Another example. At the WPC meeting on 7th June, a member of the public, Roger Giles, asked when was the money from the fraud case [agreed March 2021] banked? The minutes record:
Councillor Goodger told the member of the public that it was him that found the fraud had taken place. The member of the public was told yet again that the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service could find no case to answer, therefore the Police case is closed. This matter will not be discussed again.Arrogance: Here was an ordinary Cllr making a statement that only the full council could make.
He used the occasion to boast that he had found the fraud which had nothing to do with the question, and was untrue. The As for his comments both were lies. There WAS a case to answer, and Mrs Copeman was given a Caution, which needed the same level of evidence as a prosecution and court trial.
Despite Cllr Goodger continually claming he found the Fraud, the Police records show Clerk Lawson did. And the papers Cllr Goodger saw in September 2018, which must have given him a big shock, were apparently found by his wife.
Cllr Goodger didn't find the fraud, he allowed it to happen.
Here and below are some of the comments made.
There is more to come.
Cllr Gilbert's concerns 2016
"all electric money in [clerk's] pocket, expect even hire money"
Cllr Gilbert's concerns 2016
"bank statements will show no cash paid into bank from hire of pavillion or village hall except one for £300"
Both of Cllr Gilbert's "concerns" proved warranted by investigators.
Cllr Rainbird, Nov 2015
"Council resolutions not implemented if Chair [Cllr Goodger] doesn't want them to be."
Page 5 of 2014 AGAR showing Internal Auditor as Shelia Grimes
Page 5 of 2015 AGAR showing Int auditor 'Margaret Johnstone'
Note: handwriting and ticks on both are Mrs Copeman's and Margaret Johnstone was ficitious
Financial Management
Responsibilities
- Council finances are managed by the 'Responsible Financial Officer' (RFO).
- In small parishes that position is generally held by the Clerk.
- Council must take precautions to prevent fraud by the RFO/Clerk
Financial Mismanagement
During the 12 years 2005-2017- Mrs Copeman, the Parish Clerk and RFO, broke every financial rule, regulation and standing order that it is the duty of a Clerk to work by, enabling her to embezzle £30k of Council money
- Cllr Goodger, the Council Chair, ignored every financial regulation and standing order that it is the Council's duty to comply with, enabling Mrs Copeman to embezzle £30k of Council money
disregard of obligatory procedures to prevent fraud
- RFO should provide quarterly accounts with bank reconciliations.
- This was never done during the whole 12 years
- Councils should appoint a Cllr or Committee to check RFO's work
- Welney Parish Council had neither during the whole 12 yrs
- Council must appoint an 'Internal Auditor' (IA) to check annual accounts
- No appointments for last 9 of the 12 years; left to Clerk to choose!
- full details of Internal Auditor below
- The IA must be independent of RFO/Council. No relatives or friends
- 2009-2014 AGAR audit pages were signed by a friend of the Clerk who didn't conduct an audit and wasn't supplied with bank statements (source: DC Foreman, Norfolk CID).
- 2015-2017 audit pages were signed by the Clerk using a ficticious name. (source: Peter Cox, confirmed by DC Foreman in interview)
- The IA must report to council in writing, or in person, at least once a year
- No reports received for last 9 of the 12 years
Annual Governance and Accountability Return ("AGAR")
A 5 or 6 page form every public body must complete within 3 months of end of financial year. There have been different versions over the years, but the basic requirement is that Council consider, approve and sign it- 'Consider' should include comparison with EOY accounts, bank reconcilliations and statements.
- 'Approve' will be the Council's decision at a full meeting, having considered and voted
- Chair and RFO (Clerk) then sign confirming the following statements:
- "We have put in place arrangements for effective financial management during the year, and for the preparation of the accounting statements."
- "We maintained an adequate system of internal control including measures designed to prevent and detect fraud and corruption and reviewed its effectiveness."
- "We maintained throughout the year an adequate and effective system of internal audit of the accounting records and control systems"
For the last 9 of the 12 years, none of the above AGAR requirements were actioned; both Clerk and Chair fraudulenly signed that procedures were complied with when clearly they were not.
This comparison of figures on EOY accounts and AGAR shows a fraudulent return, the balances are some £10k or so different:
yet the Chair, Cllr Goodger signed to say all the statements described above were correct.
Internal Auditor
The choice of auditor should be discussed and voted on by full Council annually and minuted. A letter of engagement (appointment) should be sent detailing what checks are required and the fee for the year.As per standing orders, the internal auditor shall:
- be competent and independent of the financial operations of the council
- report to council in writing, or in person, on a regular basis with a minimum of one annual written report during each financial year
- the RFO must publish (including on their website) name and address of local auditor. [local auditor another name for the internal auditor]
| years | name | appointed | comments |
| ??-2005 | Mrs Wendy Redman (TBC) | by WPC | a local resident and sub-postmistress |
| 2005-2008 | Ian Shirley | by WPC | a local accountant, rumoured that he resigned due to disregard of his suggestions |
| 2009-2014 | Shelia J Grimes | chosen by Mrs C | a friend of Mrs C |
| 2015-2017 | Margaret Johnstone | invented by Mrs C | ficticious name |
Page 2 of AGAR 2016
Annual Governance Statement
'measures to detect fraud in place'
Page 5 2016 AGAR IA report
by a ficticious person!
Financial concerns ignored by Council Chair, Ken Goodger
2005: Council witheld information about Mrs Copeman's accounts
In Nov 2005 Peter Cox twice asked the Clerk for a copy of the auditors report. Its a document that the Freedom of Information act (FOI) gives the public a right to see, and Councils a duty to provide. He did not even get the courtesy of a reply. A month or so later the Vice-chair was asked to intervene and he reported that the Chair, Cllr Goodger, had decided not to provide a copy and wouldn't budge.There are no discretional powers in the act to withhold it, so one wonders what he was so desperate to keep hidden he was willing to break the law.
Others have said it was his arrogance, letting everyone know that he considered that in Welney he was the law. I leave it to readers to judge.
Aug 2015: concerns of Cllr Bombata
Cllr Bombata produced a financial spreadsheet at the meeting on 14th Aug 2015 which he requested the Clerk to complete each month. B/Cllrs Pope and Spikings attended also 13 MOPs some of whom have reported that The Clerk refused, saying she hadn't got time, and the Chair said it wasn’t necessary as The Clerk’s work was fine. The Chair would not put the request to vote, and further requests from Cllrs Bombata, Rainbird and Gilbert is said to have resulted in the Cllrs being reported to the Borough Council Monitoring Office (MO) by the Chair for harassing her.T he subsequent meting wth the MO lasted 2-3hours (source: John Loveday).The minutes do not of course record much of that. From mins of WPC meeting on 4th Aug 2015, extract from item 7 finance:
The Clerk had also supplied information regarding the Parish Council accounts which had been circulated to all councillors.At that next meeting, the minutes only recorded:
Cllr.Bombata provided draft finance forms for consideration at the next meeting
The Clerk also supplied details of the Cash Accounts for the Hall and Playing Field which had been circulated to all Councillors.See Cllr Rainbird's comments below about the referral to the Monitoring officer
Cllr Rainbird, 10th Dec 2014
Wrote about 'Transparency'. [lack of] One item was bank statements he requested several meeting earlier. At Dec Mtg statement for one a/c only supplied. Wants them for all
see full minues here
see full minues here
Dec 2014-Nov 2015: Concerns of Graham Rainbird (Cllr: 2011-2018)
Graham Rainbird, owner/manager of the local care-home (Marifa/Delph), was co-opted a Cllr in Jun 2011, elected in 2015 (92 votes) and resigned in May 2018.He was Chair from May 2017 until his resignation as Cllr.
I understand his resignation was by e-mail. The contents and reasons have never been disclosed.
He wrote two well-crafted letters about his concerns, one to the Council in 2014, the other to the Monitoring Office in 2015.
Unhappy at the attitude of Chair Goodger, disregarding accounting problems and over-riding resolutions he didn't like.
Cllr Rainbird, Nov 2015
Info for Monitoring Officer included:
2. Council resolutions not implemented if Chair [KG] doesn't want them to be.
3. Statements still not provided as agreed 1yr+ ago.
5. False info to BC and Marshalls Charity
2. Council resolutions not implemented if Chair [KG] doesn't want them to be.
3. Statements still not provided as agreed 1yr+ ago.
5. False info to BC and Marshalls Charity
Cllr Gilbert, 22nd Oct 2015
email to Peter Cox
"cannot work out the accounts. When I ask [clerk] for bank statements, never get them. Even Ken [chair] does not help, Its the cash account [& clerk] being paid etc"
"cannot work out the accounts. When I ask [clerk] for bank statements, never get them. Even Ken [chair] does not help, Its the cash account [& clerk] being paid etc"
Cllr Gilbert's concerns
"I tried hard to expose Clerk but was blocked by Ken"
Cllr Gilbert's concerns
"asked [KG] about money from hire [of Pavilion]; told Pat had that for work around cricket club, leave it alone"
Cllr Gilbert's concerns
"anything I tried to prove stopped by Ken and his followers, he is as much to blame as she, he knew all about it"
Mar 2015: Suspicions of Ray Gilbert (Cllr May 2014-July 2016)
Ray Gilbert was co-opted as Cllr in May 2014, elected in 2015 (104 votes) and resigned in the midddle of a meeting in July 2016.During that time he emailed and phoned me a few times and we visited each other, discussing his concern about the accounts and problems with the Chair, Cllr Goodger. In Oct 2015 he gave me copies of the End of Year (EOY) accounts showing huge ammounts of unbanked cash. Some years after his resignation he moved to Ireland but kept in touch with others in Welney. I was given his email addr in Nov 2020 and wrote asking him to sumarise his concerns which he did on 29th Nov 2020, as below.
He writes like he talks so I put his comments into bullet points for ease of reading, but the text is verbatim:
- HI PETEER WILL HEELP YOU AS MUCH AS I CAN
- WHILE I WAS ON THE COUNCIL I TRIED HARD TO EXPOSE THE CLERK BUT WAS BLOCKED BY KEN ON EVERY TURN I MADE .
- WENT TO HIM ABOUT THE RETURNS TO THE CHARITY COMMISION SHOW HIM ABOUT 5 YRS RETURNS THAT PAT HAD SENT THEM ONLY TO BE TOLD DONT WORRY AABOUT THEM AS THEY WERE FALSE JUST TO COMPLY WITH THE
- WHEN I ARSKED HIM ABOUT THE MONEY THAT WAS RECIVED FROM HIRE ETC HE TOLD ME THAT PAT HAD THAT TO PAY FOR THE WORK SHE DOES AROUND THE CRICKET CLUB
- HE THEN SAID JUST LEAVE IT ALONE I REPLY THAT I NEVER SEE ANY MONEY GOING INTO OUR BANK ACCOUNT FROM THE FIELD
- IF YOU LOOK AT THCHARITY COMMISION WEB YOU CAN GET ALL THESE FIDDLE RETURNS AND SEE THE THINGS THAT SHE DONE WITH KENS APPROVAL
- IF THE COUNCIL GOES TO THE BANK AND PAYS THEY CAN GET ALL THE BANK STATEMENTS THEN YOU WILL SEE THAT IN ALL THE YEARS NO MONEY WAS EVER PAID IN FRO THEIR OR THE VILLAGE HALL
- ALL ELECTRIC MONEY FROM THE METER IN HER POCKET I EXPECT EVEN HIRE MONEY NEVER SHOWED SO CALLEDD CASH ACCOUNT MONEY HEVER PAID INTO THE BANK EXCAPT ONE PAYMENT OF £300
- WHEN ASKED ABOUT IT WAS TOLD IT WAS THE CASH ACOUNT THAT WAS THE ONLY TIME I NEW OF ANY MONEY PAID IN
- AS YOU HAVE SEEN ANY THINK I TRIED TO PROVE WAS STOPPED BY KEN AND HIS FOLLOWERS HE IS AS MUCH TO BLAME AS SHE IS HE NEW ALL ABOUT IT
- EACH MONTH PAT CLAIMED MONEY FOR EXPENCCE SHE GOT A CHECK SIGN BY KEN TO COVER THEM WHEN I ASKED WHY SHE HAD NOT USED THE CASH ACOUNT IT WAS PASSED OVER
- I CAN GO AND ON AND ON BUT COULD NOT GET PAST KEN AND HIS MOB
- YOU CAN PASS THIS ON TO THE POLICE IF YOU NEED TO
I have until now, but the terms of reference for our investigation was to find out how it happened. This mail shows how.
Cllr Gilbert's concerns
"went to [KG] about returns to Charity Commission, told dont worry, they were false just to comply"
Cllr Gilbert's concerns
"bank statements will show no cash paid into bank from hire of pavillion or village hall except one for £300"
Cllr Gilbert's concerns
"all electric money in [clerk's] pocket, expect even hire money"
ex-Cllr Gilbert's concerns
"can go on and on, could not get past Ken and his mob, you can pass this to police ff you need to"
ex-Cllr Denyer, Dec 2020
In an interview with DC Foreman, Donna said she reported a shortfall of £800 in Mrs Copeman's WMC figures to Cllr Goodger who told her
"not to worry about it"
"not to worry about it"
Aug 2017: suspicions of Donna Denyer (Cllr: Oct 2017- July 2018)
Donna was co-opted as Cllr in Oct 2017 and resigned circa July 2018.She was a prolific fund-raiser, holding monthly Bingo sessions with profits for the benefit of the William Marshall Centre (WMC). She also took-over as WMC treasurer in Sept ? 2017 when Mrs Copeman gave that up three months after retiring as Clerk.
From documents I've examined, it seemed that Donna found a shortfall of £800. I passed full details of Mrs Copeman's figures for WMC cash transactions and balances plus images of Mrs Copeman's "cash hand-over note" to DC Foreman. She subsequently interviewed Donna who told the DC she never received any cash from Mrs Copeman and had refered the shortfall to Cllrs Gardiner, Bombata and Goodger; the latter apparently told her "not to worry about it".
Doug Lawson, Aug 2018
John Loveday told me in July 2019, that Lawson waved Mrs Copeman's accounts in the air and said "unable to finish accounts "because these may be ficticious"
Cllr Goodger said "they were NOT ficticious"
PG's account Jan 2021 similar, DL said "these accounts are works of fiction."
PG's account Jan 2021 similar, DL said "these accounts are works of fiction."
Doug Lawson, Aug 2018
Lawson's minutes recorded
"there is a basic technical problem [with the AGAR] and advice is awaited from auditors as to the way forward."
Full minutes available here
"there is a basic technical problem [with the AGAR] and advice is awaited from auditors as to the way forward."
Full minutes available here
Aug 2018: suspicions of Clerk Doug Lawson, May-Nov 2018
Appointed May 2018 by Cllrs Gardiner & Barker without consulting Council. Resigned wef 22nd Nov 2018.While preparing EOY accounts and AGAR for Mar 2018 (a period in which three had been 3 clerks), he found 2 large undocumented credits on the bank statements for late April 2017 (part of the 2018 year).He had also examined Mrs Copeman's accounts for the previous year, ending 31st March 2017 and suspected some serious misconduct had occured of which he advised Council in Aug 2018. Cllr Goodger denied the allegation.
A Police statement by a DI sent to the Council in Aug 2021 attributes fraud discovery to Lawson, yet Cllr Goodger consistently claimed he found it, even after that seeing the DI's statement.
Doug Lawson, 14/3/2020
one can download bank statements to facilitate [accounts] reconciliation (how I detected the former clerk's fraudulent activity) [in Aug 2019]
Doug Lawson, 14/3/2020
"My tenure as clerk came to an abrupt end [in Nov 2018] when councillors could not agree to support me when trying to fix problems with the accounts after the frauds were discovered."
Cllr Tim Bennett, July 2019
in reply to my question, was the 2016 AGAR passed around for scrutiny before Chair Goodger signed it?
"No, although I did see draft EOY accounts"
"No, although I did see draft EOY accounts"
July 2019: Suspicions of Peter Cox, and concerns of Cllr Tim Bennet
I obtained a copy of the AGAR for 2016 (from the Council website updated by Mrs Austin) which showed the b/f figures from previous year, 2015, which of course should have agreed with the documents Cllr. Gilbert gave me in 2016. They didn't. I put them into Word side by side, and marked how the EOY accounts compared with the AGAR.Clearly, a difference - a discrepency - of £8½k in the EOY balances, which the chair, Cllr Goodger in March 2015 either hadn't noticed, or ignored when he signed both documents.
Click image for larger version, note the heading comment
I contacted Cllr Tim Bennet (Cllr Sept 1997-Apr 1999, May 2003-mid 2014, May 2019-Nov 2019). He stood down on move to DM) asking whether differences were ever discussed. His email reply included:
Cash was always a concern of mine. Whenever a figure came up, I would question the ridiculously large amount, but always got a feeble excuse + KG's defence of "she knows what she's doing and don't question her judgement/honesty". This would have happened several times with the response sometimes being stronger than one might expect from an innocent and legitimate query.
On 20th June 2019 DC Foreman, the Norfolk CID case-officer, emailed me at Cllr Bennet's suggestion. We subsequently met at KL police station on 11th July 2019 and I expressed my concerns about why such low interest received (on ring-fenced accounts) and gave her a copy of my document.
Cllr Tim Bennett, July 2019
in reply to my comment about large amount of cash:
always a concern .. when I asked about the ridiculously large amount ... given feeble excuses ... and [Cllr Goodger] defended her saying "she knows what shes doing, don't question her judgement/honesty".
always a concern .. when I asked about the ridiculously large amount ... given feeble excuses ... and [Cllr Goodger] defended her saying "she knows what shes doing, don't question her judgement/honesty".
Conclusions
Attempts by several MOPs to determine why the case ended without repayment, has resulted in the questioners being branded troublemakers.The task of the 2nd investigation team (officially a working group) was to provide evidence of Mrs Copeman's fraudulent actions (based on the standard financial rules and regulations for public authorities) for Norfolk CID to use in conjuction with their own investigations
Ultimately, we wanted to achieve the return of the money stolen. The reasons the team was not sucessful include, but not limited to:
- The Parish Council of Dec 2021 apparently decided not to pusue Norfolk CID to determine the reasons for CID seemingly ignoring an investigator's response to the case-officer's questions in June 2021, nor whether the officer had held interviews as instructed by CPS in Aug 2020 which the review DI reminded her about in Apr 2021, nor another whether Mrs Copeman had been interviewed again
- Norfolk CID insisted on more than we were able to provide.
- Iin addition to us proving money had been stolen/embezzled from the Council by Mrs Copeman, they wanted us, the investgators, to show where the money went to.
- The Case officer, DC Foreman, took an even more hard-line view, insisting she would only accept as theft if the money had gone into Mrs Copeman's bank account
- The DC put a further limitation on that because she had only been able to obtain Mrs Copeman's bank statements back to 2010. All thefts prior to that she would disregard.
- The case-officer at one stage asked me to simplfy the data and put it on a spreadsheet and send to her on a USB stick, all of which I did.
- On the phone, I talked her through the sheets in the workbook, explaining the links. She later emailed "it was just what she wanted"
- But, later, a reviewing CID Detective Inspector later said he could only see a summary, he wanted to see more, and the sources. In fact, the summary was only one of 15 worksheets on the spreadsheet workbook and was clearly linked to the other 14 worksheets (tabs) which listed the source documents (eg, ref number of cheque book, forged cheque, forged invoices, bank statement/fiche, cash book, receipt, accounts documents, all of which the DC had possession of or access to.
- Neither the DC, nor her DS supervisor or the DI reviewer would say what law they were working to which required to show where money had gone
- My layman's understanding of the two Theft and Fraud laws, is that the destination of stolen money is only needed to establish intent to permanently deprive the victim when that may be doubted. In 2021 when the case ended it was 8 to 10 years since she embezzled the missing £22k. Surely, that proves her intent. The CID's insistance on WHERE MONEY WENT was (IMO) unnecessary, and has cost the Council and its parishioners a loss of £22k.
Links to other pages about Welney Parish Council
Use links on right for information about:- the way they have been managed, or mismanaged, over a couple of decades
- Councillors and Clerks, past and present (needs a good deal of updating)
- Council minutes from 2004. Draft, unsigned, from Council's official site
- Official Council website, minutes for only last 3 years
- Independent site showing precepts, planning, properties, businesses, farms
COMMENT TITLE
COMMENT TEXT
Acknowledgements
This page has been written in co-operation with
ex-WPC Chairs & ex-investigation overseers :
John Loveday, Roger Giles and the late Tim Bennet
ex-WPC Councillors :
the late Ray Gilbert and Vija Pratley
Text, design and layout: Peter Cox
© 2014-25 Welney Website
If you wish to comment
please e-mail
ex-WPC Chairs & ex-investigation overseers :
John Loveday, Roger Giles and the late Tim Bennet
ex-WPC Councillors :
the late Ray Gilbert and Vija Pratley
Text, design and layout: Peter Cox
© 2014-25 Welney Website
If you wish to comment
please e-mail
The Welney Website