Latest ACIG News Bulletin

Bulletin of the Animal Cruelty Investigation Group January 2019

Leveret killed by the Easton Harriers, November 14th 2018


My photograph shows a leveret (young hare) killed by the Easton Harriers following their meet at Kersley Hall near Stradbroke on Wednesday November 14th. I was pleased to join local hunt saboteurs and monitors who had taken time off work to attend. It was a sunny, windy and mild day, sadly too windy to fly our newly purchased drone (more about this item later in this bulletin). There is a square box of roads around the meet and with the area criss-crossed with footpaths hunt saboteurs and monitors on foot had easy access. Hounds were soon seen to riot in every direction in hot pursuit of a variety of animals.

I was equipped with a hunting horn to try and protect our wildlife by stopping the hounds and still and video cameras to record any incident. At one point, some hounds were seen spattered with blood – a sure sign that despite our best efforts they had killed an unfortunate creature. Our local hunts always claim that such kills are ‘accidents’, that they have laid trails for their hounds to follow and they must have inadvertently set off after live quarry and killed before they could be stopped. Against that theory we see them putting their hounds into fields that are clearly holding hares and then hanging so far back that they cannot see what their hounds are pursuing. Usually after a kill they either pack up and go home or at the very least are very careful about where they put their hounds for the rest of the day.

Not so this time. Soon after this kill the hounds were cast again into a field of sugar beet – just the sort of field likely to hold hares. I was in a surveillance position nearby and could not actually see the consequences, but I heard the frantic shouts from my colleagues over the radio – firstly that hounds were hunting and then, very quickly, that they had killed, again. It was early afternoon. I drove round to the scene. One of the young hunt saboteurs had bravely rushed in amongst the hounds to pull the hare from their jaws. She might still have been alive but sadly had died. Hunters are often very aggressive at such times as they seek to retrieve their victims and hide them from public view. I took the picture above of the dead hare cradled like a baby in the arms of the young saboteur. She was soft and still warm, and her blood flecked her fur. Some hunters found it amusing that the saboteurs were so upset.

The whole incident highlighted the inadequacies of the Hunting Act. For hunting to be illegal we have to show that a person we could identify saw that his hounds were hunting live quarry and encouraged those hounds to hunt that live quarry. No kill was necessary for it to be illegal but there did have to be clear intent to hunt. This incident all happened so fast – the hounds were put into the field, the hare ran the wrong way and was killed. Old school hunters would have said she was ‘chopped’. There was no time for the hunt saboteurs to intervene to save the hare nor any time to prove that any hunter realising what was happening encouraged the hounds to hunt that hare.

The Hunting Act urgently needs to be both strengthened and enforced. The many loopholes that hunters have exploited need to be closed. This can only be done by a sympathetic Government. Our police need to be ordered quite simply to enforce the law. They do it regarding hare coursing and they need to be told to do it when it comes to hunting wildlife with packs of hounds. Whenever the next election we need to ensure that our voice for animals is both loud and clear.

I returned home depressed and frustrated and posted this status update on my Facebook page along with my photograph of the dead hare:

I am outraged and could cry with frustration and anger. I and my colleagues from local hunt saboteurs tried so hard. We saved some hares today but could not save them all. This young leveret was killed at around 1.30pm. My picture shows her in the arms of the young sab who tried to save her. It was so sad to see her warm soft fur stained with her own blood. This is the front line of animal protection in the UK. Please support your local sabs and buy my books so that I have the funding to help. Thank you.”

At the time of writing that post had received 2100 reactions and had been shared some 1800 times on Facebook. The combination of hunt saboteurs determined to retrieve the body and the wide reach of social media ensured that the killing of that young hare did not pass unnoticed.


During the current hunting season I have been hard at work with colleagues protecting our wildlife from illegal hunting. Local hunt saboteurs had been out much earlier than me but my season started at 6:20 am on Saturday September 15th when I left home to join colleagues at the meet of the Waveney Harriers at Thorington. We walked the footpaths and drove about checking everywhere but could find no sign of any hunt. It later transpired that they met at 4:30pm that day for some late afternoon cubhunting (or Autumn trailhunting as they now term it).

My first encounter with a hunt this season was on the early morning of Tuesday October 2nd when, after a tip-off, I found the Suffolk Foxhounds and Waveney Harriers in a joint meet at Chediston near Halesworth. I parked in a layby and was filming and photographing the hunt from distance as they drew through crops and along hedge lines. The adjacent B-road was busy with traffic heading for work and taking kids to school.

I then saw a creature run at speed away from the hedge line towards and over the road. I initially thought it was a hound setting off after a fleeing hare. I heard a bang as the creature was struck by a car on the road. I then observed a red-coated rider, probably the whipper in, ride up, dismount and drag the stricken animal from the road. I saw it to be a Muntjac deer. The whipper-in lay the deer on his side by the field edge, out of sight from the road, drew his knife out and slashed at the throat of the deer – effectively finishing him off. It was soon after 9am.

The hunters moved on and when they were out of the way I walked forward to find the body of the deer. His throat had been more than merely cut, his head was almost severed from his body.

That evening I posted a picture of the dead deer on my Facebook page (with the shocking extent of the injuries concealed so as not to disturb people) along with the following report:

Collateral damage at a hunt. I was tipped off about a hunt, believed to be the Suffolk Foxhounds, meeting at Chediston this morning. I drove out and soon observed them drawing crops and hedgerows, a field from a busy road. It was no surprise when a Muntjac deer, disturbed by the hounds, fled across the road. From a few hundred yards away I heard the bang of the impact as it was struck by a car. The whipper-in then dispatched the deer by cutting his throat and dumped the body. The deer was still warm when I found him and took this picture. What of the damage to the car? What of the dangers to the occupants if they had swerved to avoid the deer and hit oncoming traffic? This all happened far too quickly for me to intervene but we need to be aware that the threats from hunts take many forms.”


In response to widespread media outrage last Autumn over the trophy killing of goats and sheep on the Isle of Islay in Scotland by US hunter, and TV presenter, Larysa Switlyk, I posted the following comment on Facebook on October 26th:

Some thoughts on the Trophy hunting debate. The pastime is defended with the claim that with natural predators gone the population needs to be culled. Who killed the natural predators and why? Does the population need to be limited by killing (culled)? There are humane alternatives. Deer populations can and have been humanely controlled by the use of contraceptive baits but for so long as people are prepared to pay big bucks to kill - that will continue. Let's consider the actual killing. When someone is paying to kill there will be great pressure on the accompanying guide to allow them to take a shot at extreme range, or in poor light, because they paid so much for that day. That risks wounding. The professional stalker would simply go home if conditions were bad and try another day. Finally, think of the term. It is Trophy hunting - the killing of the biggest and the best - the exact opposite of what is required once you choose the killing option to manage a population


In the Autumn we started seeing reports of sick hares being sighted in our part of East Anglia. Some were photographed with lesions around their eyes and ears similar to those seen in rabbits affected by myxomatosis. Conservationists feared that a highly infectious disease such as Rabbit Haemorrhagic Disease-2 or Myxomatosis might have ‘jumped’ from rabbits to hares, or the hares could be suffering from European Brown Hare Syndrome. The Hare Preservation Trust appealed for help to monitor the situation.

In the circumstances it would seem eminently sensible and humane for the local hunts to stop putting their hounds into fields that are on occasion well stocked with hares. Whatever the hunters intended the almost certain consequence would be that hares would be moved around and those that might be hunted could, if not killed, end up far from their starting point. What better way to spread a highly infectious disease amongst the hare population?


I have for some time told colleagues, and explained at my talks, just how useful a drone would be for our surveillance work. The ability to see, film and photograph an installation or event on the ground without having to be there in person and instead being almost unnoticed at height is priceless.

Well, a few months back I was contacted by a supporter with the marvellous news that an anonymous benefactor had offered to pay the full cost of any drone that I had in mind. I immediately sought the advice of hunt saboteur colleagues with experience at using drones and bought the model that they recommended.

I then found that to make the best use of the drone I would have to significantly upgrade my mobile phone – that links to the drone and gives me a camera-eye view of what the drone sees. That necessitated more detailed research to purchase the right model phone. I am now learning to fly our drone.

Before purchase I was not aware that you cannot fly a drone in either rain or high winds. Given that we live on one of the highest parts of the flat lands of East Anglia I have become used to my drone reporting the wind strength as too high and asking to be returned to base. I have taken it with me to several hunts, but it has to be flown for a specific purpose and in the right conditions, so it has yet to be used at a hunt, but I have used it for local hare coursing surveillance. You can see a lot of our countryside from 100m up!

Of course, with the reports of drones being used near airport the merest use of a drone attracts suspicion – so I take great care to only use it lawfully, sensibly and in accordance with all guidelines.

When I think of the cameras that I had to use for my animal welfare work when I first started some 5 decades ago the progress has been truly astonishing. We now have concealed body cameras that are all but invisible; cameras that can be buried in the ground and hidden in woods; cameras that can film in darkness; cameras with powerful telephoto lenses and now cameras that can film from the skies above – up to the legal limit of 400 feet. Where next with all this technology?


There has been a spate of strange emails that appear to come from me but do not. If you receive a weird email purporting to come from me, please do not open any link in it. My genuine emails are obvious.


I studied Ecology at University College London from 1972-75, years before the subject became fashionable. The lessons then were that all in our natural world is connected, that there is cause and effect within and between species of plants and animals and their environment. The concept of a 'tipping point' was around, the point beyond which change is irreversible. An analogy would be that once the Titanic had hit the iceberg and sustained the damage she did, she was going to sink. Everyone on board could have rushed about baling water out but it would have been to no avail, she would sink. We saw the tipping point ahead, the iceberg if you like for our good ship Earth, we could have done something but chose to do nothing, or very little. What makes me cry with sadness is that what will come is no fault of the animals and no fault of the infants around today - but they will suffer the consequences. For our todays we have stolen their tomorrows.

As climate change fears appear frequently in the media, I posted this on Facebook on January 9th 2019:

When it comes to Climate change I always say that we have known of the threat for decades - but done little to nothing. Here is a song from 1970. The lyrics are haunting but 1970 was the height of the Vietnam war and the Cold war, we were too busy killing each other and squabbling over politics to fret too much over the destruction of our planet.

No blade of grass grows and birds sing no more

No joy or laughter where waves wash the shore

Gone all the answers, lost all we have won

Gone is the hope that life will go on

No fragrant springtime and no autumn gold

Summer and winter, the heart now grows cold.

Dreams that we lived for all have to go

Gone with the dawn that we’ll never know

When we were younger the earth was green

When we were children the ocean was clean

Flowers were blooming, trees straight and tall

The sky was blue when we were small

We circled Mars and we walked on the moon

We reached the stars or one day very soon

But no blade of grass here and no blue above

No you and me, it’s the end of life

Roger Whittaker 1970


This hunting season has been notable both for incidents of outrageous cruelty to wildlife by hunters caught on film and by increasing aggression and violence shown by hunters towards those who strive to protect our wildlife. Sadly, such incidents are by no means new – they have happened for decades – and as a result the hunters have perfected the variety of excuses they offer whenever they are caught in a media storm. As a guide to prepare our side for the range of excuses offered by hunters, I posted this on my Facebook page on January 7th 2019:

As hunters come under increasing pressure for their outrageous behaviour here is a guide to their usual responses over the years.

The alleged incident never happened.

If the incident was filmed then the film was faked.

If the film was not faked then the people in the film are unknown to the hunt, complete strangers who have never been seen before.

If people in the film can be recognised as known hunt supporters, then they did it without the Huntsman, or Masters, knowing anything about it.

If it was a Huntsman or Master in the film then he did it entirely on his own account without anyone else in the hunt knowing and it was an isolated occurrence that has never happened before and the person responsible had a breakdown.

If there was a fox in an artificial earth an anti put him there.

If there was a fox in a shed at the hunt kennels an anti put him there.

If hounds hunt a fox or hare antis made them do it.

If hounds cross a road after a fox or hare antis made them do it.

If hounds trespass over private land it is only because antis made them do it.

Whenever a hunt supporter punches an anti it is only because the hunt supporter was defending himself/children/hounds/horses (choose as appropriate).

Finally, when bad behaviour cannot be denied then any hunter willing to take sole responsibility will be publicly punished by the hunt authorities – but suitably rewarded in due course.

This is why it is easier to nail a (vegan) jelly to a ceiling than get a hunter convicted either in legal court or media court.

As for the police, Countryside Law is simple: the hunt can do no wrong and the anti-hunt can do no right.

No-one ever claimed that protecting our wildlife would be easy.


Some thoughts about fake photographic images. With digital photographs it is possible with editing software to add or remove objects or people from an image. It is easy to change perspectives, colours and every part of an image. Back in the old days when photographers used 35mm film the prints could be retouched or camera tricks could be performed such as double exposures or the use of filters on the camera lens such as soft focus or starburst but the negative itself was inviolate and there for examination. This is important when it comes to proving that images of cruelty are not faked. The film I usually used was 35mm, either negatives or slides. The film was a strip of (usually 36) images. It was loaded into the camera, exposed in the camera and then processed. I still have all the original films that I used for my undercover work from 1981-1983 and 1989-1993 and they can be checked if the authenticity of the images that I took then is ever challenged. Black and white negatives were usually kept in strips of 6 images. The numbered sequence of each negative is clear. The negative strips can be recombined to prove they are a genuine sequence. Whilst the slides were usually returned by the processor in individual mounts they can be broken out of those mounts and recombined to prove the sequence – and again each image was numbered. The actual original film could not be tampered with without changes being obvious. I have always said that if anyone challenged the authenticity of my undercover images, I would happily submit my films for independent forensic examination – with the costs to be paid by the challengers. That offer remains on the table.


Back in April 1981 I started working for the LACS as Press Officer. That was a good time for the LACS with great work colleagues, a great Executive Committee and great teams of volunteers helping. I recall many of the big media stories from the time and the utterings of a certain Baroness Trumpington stuck in my mind – not least because we had lived near the village of Trumpington. After her death last November, I researched back issues of Cruel Sports and posted this observation on Facebook on November 28th 2018:

The passing of Baroness Trumpington reminds me of a comment piece in the LACS magazine Cruel Sports Number 8 October 1982. The Baroness had suggested our military clear the many mines left on the Falkland Islands following the war with Argentina by driving sheep over the area to detonate the mines. The sheep would be killed outright or maimed then killed but it would be quicker than having mine clearance soldiers do the job. The proposal caused outrage. She later explained: "My point was that sheep could be put out of their misery and eaten, whereas men could not." A Daily Mirror reader pointed out “It won’t work because the animals are too light. I suggest she goes herself. She looks heavy enough for the job.”


Since our last News Bulletin I am pleased to have spoken at the following events. On Friday August 24th I gave an illustrated talk at a fundraising event in Sheffield for Sheffield Hunt Saboteurs Association (HSA). I then stayed overnight in Sheffield and spoke the following evening at a meeting of the East Yorkshire Coast HSA in Scarborough. Finally, on Friday September 28th I spoke at an Animal Rights evening held at the Animals in Need sanctuary near Wellingborough. All my talks were well received by enthusiastic audiences and I sold many copies of both Outfoxed Take Two and Outfoxed Again.

As a new technique I have recently filmed a talk at home to my video camera and have posted the resulting file on a flash drive to a colleague. If that works well it will open new opportunities for me to give talks in distant parts, even abroad, without my having to attend in person.

On Sunday December 9th I was pleased to run a stand for the ACIG and the AWIS at the Animal Aid Christmas Fayre at Kensington Town Hall. I was given the stand by a supporter who had hired it for her own group but then found herself unable to attend the event so very generously gave it to me. It was, as always, a marvellous event packed with enthusiastic compassionate people and I had great fun explaining our work today to friends old and new.


A major project that I have undertaken has been to copy the original tapes from our investigation into vivisection at the National Institute for Medical Research in London from 1989 to 1990. You may recall that our work then ended the burning of cats and rabbits by Professor Feldberg and his colleague John Stean. The original tapes amounted to some 40 hours shot on either VHS or SVHS tapes. Well, such tapes inevitably become brittle with age. If they break, they can be repaired but it is expensive and when a tape has broken once it can easily break again. The body of the tape can also break down with age – and we are talking about tapes that are now 29 years old!

I have slowly and methodically converted these tapes first to DVD (for additional security) and then to computer files. All are now safely stored. It was painstaking work as it had to be done in real time and monitored to ensure that all was well, and no tapes were sticking. The whole archive can now be stored on a single flash drive.

This is important work as it not only preserves this valuable investigation but also makes this work easily accessible- it is no problem to post flash drives around this country and indeed around the world.


As you will see from the many references in this bulletin, I do a lot of campaigning work on Facebook. As well as pushing forwards my own ideas I also support and advise others on Facebook. Every Saturday evening or Sunday morning I look for the reports of the efforts by hunt saboteurs across the country and abroad to protect wildlife. I remain in awe of their determination and courage. On October 7th I posted the following message on my Facebook page:

A shout out for our hunt saboteurs. Week in and week out, at all hours of day and night, they put themselves in harm’s way to protect our wildlife. They all do so as volunteers. They work hard at usual jobs and give freely of their money and their spare time to oppose animal abusers. They face down aggression, threats and violence. They have been severely injured and even killed. Saboteurs face all this with good humour, tolerance and benevolence. It is saboteurs, not hunters, who block busy roads to shield horses and hounds. Whereas hunters have ignored pleas to get help for a dying saboteur, whenever a hunter is injured or needs help the sabs are often the first to step forward. Saboteurs are loathed by legal authorities and mocked in the media but we know compassion when we see it. Sabs save lives and deserve our support.”

On another topic I saw this report in a recent issue of our local Community News.

It is with sadness I report the passing of Marge Chapman on 16th September 2018 aged 94. Before moving to Bungay in later years she previously lived at The Mink Farm, Abbey Road, Flixton. She was born in London and during the war was a firefighter. She met Harry after the war when he was working in Dagenham. They got married and took over Harry’s fathers farm. Later they had a mink farm near Bolton. Marge fell ill with asthma and was advised to move from the moors. So they moved to Flixton and ran first a Mink Farm here and then changed to a Pig farm when fur became unfashionable. Harry died tragically in 2002. I remember Marge as a lover of animals with cats and dogs.”

It prompted me to write the following post on Facebook on December 12th:

This cutting from our local Community News shows that it is not simply a matter of compassion v cruelty. There are a multitude who like some animals but will gleefully profit from the abuse of others. Here we have a former mink and pig farmer who was "a lover of animals with cats and dogs". Plenty of hunters and shooters take the same view. Compassion needs to be all embracing - all species and all of our species.”

When I am not working out in the fields much of my time at home is spent scanning old negatives and slides to computer and then posting them on Facebook and Twitter with an accompanying report to explain the image.


Whilst my Facebook page remains my prime outlet for campaigning work, I do still post material on Twitter and am gradually building up a following there. If you are also on Twitter, please look out for my tweets! Thank you.


You are welcome to quote anything in our literature or on our web site.


We cannot afford to pay to advertise our work so instead rely on the personal recommendation of supporters. Do please tell your friends and colleagues about the work that we currently do to investigate, inform and educate; tell them about our many successes in the past and encourage them to support us. We particularly seek regular support that can now be given by bank standing order or via the likes of PayPal (using the ‘donate’ button on our web site). Please note that it is only when paying through a bank that what you pay matches what we receive. Agencies such as PayPal that take payments through a credit card obviously charge a fee.

If you receive a paper news bulletin do please pass it on when you have read it. If you receive an email version of our bulletin please feel free to forward it to friends or colleagues who you think might support our work.


We currently hold some of the most extensive resources of animal rights information in existence. We have two books – Outfoxed Take Two and Outfoxed Again – in stock and available for sale. We also hold a large library of books in the AWIS archive that are available to source material from or to borrow. These books are written by both our side and by our opponents. The AWIS archive also holds an extensive collection of animal rights magazines including a complete set of HOWL magazines (the magazine of the Hunt Saboteurs Association). If you seek information from any particular magazine, I would be happy to scan it and send it to you. Our visual archive includes thousands of negatives and slides and many hours of video tapes. Do please make use of these resources – and tell others, particularly students and the media, of their availability.


For reasons outlined on page 8 we are not a charity. We receive no financial aid or grant support from Government or from any funding trust. We are entirely dependent on the financial support we receive from our supporters and literally every penny counts. Thank you. We particularly appreciate regular monthly support as it allows us to plan our expenditure. You will note that we never bombard supporters with pleas for donations – some groups spend all the money you give them sending you begging letters asking for even more money. That is not how we work. We use donations where you want to see them used – working for animals.


When it comes to your final gift your family obviously comes first but beyond that if you are considering giving to the causes that you support I hope that you will remember our work. We have a proven track record of success that extends back many years. It is legacy income that allows us to purchase major items such as vehicles for our work or maybe even rent or purchase an information centre. I would be delighted to identify any major purchase as acquired through a legacy gift from any named person.


These remain a constant source of funds and are greatly appreciated. We seek small easy to post items that can be sold either on stalls or through the likes of Ebay to raise funds for our work. Such items include coins and currency notes, old and new, foreign and UK and items of unwanted and broken jewellery.


Donating books or strips of mint postage stamps is a very effective way of supporting our work. The more we are given the fewer that we have to buy and at 58p for each standard letter second class stamp they are expensive.


Do please pass on any tip-offs that you may hear about cruelty taking place near you. If we cannot react to it ourselves, we will pass it on to colleagues near you who may be able to help. You are welcome to contact us by phone (please leave a message if you get our answerphone), or by email or Facebook message.


For emphasis I have centred the text above. Two of the most common questions from supporters that I receive are: “Is the ACIG a charity?”, and “Can you claim Gift Aid?” Neither the ACIG nor the AWIS is a charity so we cannot claim Gift Aid.

We have given a lot of thought to and taken legal advice on making one or other, or perhaps both, of these groups a charity but as yet we have not done so. Whilst many animal rescue centres are charities most of the large campaigning animal welfare groups are not. Like them we are at present unwilling to restrict our campaigning activities which would be the inevitable result of taking on charitable status. Please do not allow your solicitor to discourage you from leaving your money to whomsoever you wish, whether they are a charity or not.


You have seen after many years of ACIG successes that we have a proven ability to win for animals. For anyone considering remembering the vital investigation work of the ACIG in their will, to enable us to continue to achieve, I respectfully suggest using the following form of bequest:

“I bequeath unto the Animal Cruelty Investigation Group of P.O. Box 8, Halesworth, Suffolk,

IP19 0JL, the sum of ............................. free of tax and I direct that the receipt of an authorised officer of the group shall be a good and sufficient discharge of such legacy.”

I really hope we can secure the future funding to keep our books in print. For anyone considering remembering the vital educational and publishing work of the Animal Welfare Information Service in their will I respectfully suggest using the following form of bequest:

I bequeath unto the Animal Welfare Information Service of P.O. Box 8, Halesworth, Suffolk, IP19 0JL, the sum of .............................. free of tax and I direct that the receipt of an authorised officer of the group shall be a good and sufficient discharge of such legacy.”


Tragically, far too many working for animals have suffered appallingly at the hands of abusers. Several have paid the ultimate price. They will never be forgotten. The memory of their sacrifice should inspire us all to do much more for the causes that we know to be just. ALL who give their lives for animals are remembered but we do particularly recall the following whose lives were taken by our opponents:-

James Piper, RSPCA Inspector: Died in 1838 after sustaining severe injuries tackling cockfighters at Hanworth, Middlesex.

William Sweet, LACS member: Murdered 6/1/1976 after altercation with man shooting birds. Assailant was jailed for life but has long been released.

Fernando Pereira, Greenpeace photographer: Murdered 10/7/1985 by the French Secret Service when the vessel “Rainbow Warrior” was sunk by two explosions, Auckland Harbour, New Zealand.

Michael Hill, Hunt Saboteur: Killed 9/2/1991 protesting against hare hunting at the Cheshire Beagles.

Thomas Worby, Hunt Saboteur: Killed 3/4/1993 protesting against fox hunting at the Cambridgeshire Foxhounds.

Jill Phipps, Animal Rights Activist: Killed 1/2/1995 protesting against live exports of farm animals, Coventry Airport.

Paola Quartini, animal activist for LIPU (Italian League for Bird Protection - UK) from Genoa, Italy and Elvio Fichera, a volunteer for the Association of Abandoned Animals: Both were murdered 12/5/2010 whilst trying, with police, to serve a warrant on Renzo Castagnola for cruelty to animals. Renzo Castagnola shot them dead, then injured his wife, then killed himself.

That is it for another bulletin. In June it will be 30 years since I set up the ACIG. That is 30 years of progress for animals. Many of you have supported our work all that time. Thank you so very much and thank you also to all our new supporters. We operate in a rapidly changing world, but we have adapted and, as our recent drone purchase proves, we use all the latest technology. Our next bulletin will be written in July. Enjoy the Spring! Editor, January 2019.

Animal Cruelty Investigation Group, PO Box 8, HALESWORTH, Suffolk. IP19 0JL

E-mail: Web site: