Jacob Williams
Saturday 30th June, 2018

The Dai is cast

The Dai is cast

With the multiple convictions earlier this month of serious historic child sex offences, town councillor, county councillor and Pembroke mayor David ‘Dai’ Boswell’s fall from grace has been quite the story.

Where better to begin than the count declaration on the morning of Friday 5th May, 2017.

Dai Boswell remained Pembroke’s 638th town mayor when charged with historic child sex offences last year, but ‘stood aside’ from any duties

Boswell – standing as a Conservative candidate – won Pembroke St. Mary North in his first bid for a seat on Pembrokeshire County Council.

By six-votes he topped a three-way race to succeed ‘independent’ party councillor Arwyn Williams, who chose not to seek re-election.

It was a good set of results for the Tories in Pembroke – winning all three of the town’s four seats they’d contested – and across the county too.

They had only three councillors before the election but came out with twelve, including Amroth by two votes, the slimmest margin of all sixty wards.

But as the dust settled following the 2017 campaign, it soon became a talking point that only fifty-nine councillors had assumed their seats.

Boswell, for some reason, hadn’t formalised his victory by taking the oath of office and signing the necessary paperwork.

Rumours were flying and, even when I wrote the blogpost highlighting that he was coming close to losing out on the seat altogether (see: Why so shy, Dai?) I had a good idea what was behind the delay.

Eventually, not long before the deadline which would have forced a new election, Boswell signed on the dotted line.

Now a councillor, he sat among his Tory colleagues – but only ever attended two meetings before, on 23rd August 2017, he was charged with the string of child sex crimes.

This development saw him booted from the Conservative group and his retreat into almost total obscurity.

In February this year many thought he should have lost his seat by his failure to attend a council meeting for six months – a rule designed to ensure constituents are properly represented by their councillors.

Some cite this as a ‘missed opportunity to get rid of him’ but I don’t and never have looked at it that way – I only believe it was a failure to follow the clear intent and letter of the law.

The council came under much pressure to apply the law and hold a by-election, including from the seat’s two unsuccessful candidates.

Responses to questions were slow to come from the council’s monitoring officer, Claire Jones, who dealt with this topic on behalf of the council’s chief executive and returning officer, Ian Westley.

And when the Labour party started firing across stiff letters from London lawyers the council did its usual. Dug its heels in, to hell with the cost and implications.

The ‘council’ at this early stage deemed that, whilst Boswell hadn’t attended ‘meetings,’ his attendance at informal presentations over tea and coffee – despite complying with no local government meeting rules – technically qualified for attendance purposes.

PCC’s in-house legal brains can’t have felt up to the task of making the argument alone – so commissioned top London barrister, James Goudie QC.

Goudie’s first advice offered so little support of the council’s position (that Boswell had complied with the six-month attendance requirement) that it surely churned many stomachs.

It caused a holy panic in County Hall, especially as I had also revealed on my website that it was in fact the monitoring officer who had advised Boswell that he didn’t actually have to attend council meetings – and that he could avoid falling foul of the six-month rule by showing his face at council seminars and workshops instead.

The panic when it dawned on them that the monitoring officer’s dubious advice to Boswell was wide open to challenge sparked a mass hunt of the County Hall filing cabinets.

They were desperately trying to establish exactly which seminars and workshops Boswell had attended in the preceding six month period, and what went on at them.

These, for those who don’t know, are non-decision-making forums, un-constituted, un-minuted gatherings which, unlike council meetings, councillors are not formally summoned to attend.

They are also not webcasted and the public and press has no right to attend them.

In fact the public and press has no way of knowing these events exist, in stark contrast to council meetings which attract a host of transparency and access rights, for good reason.

The frantic hunt turned up evidence of two previously unknown ‘events’ Boswell had gone along to during the crucial six-month period, which the monitoring officer couldn’t possibly have relied upon when a) she advised Boswell or b) justified her previous advice – because a) they hadn’t yet taken place, and b) she didn’t know of them then.

PCC’s lawyers scraped enough together to make a case that Boswell’s attendances at these two events complied with the attendance requirements, and put them to James Goudie QC.

One of the events that led Mr. Goudie to arrive at a different view on his second attempt, was a seminar whose invitation was based on a photograph of Brummy comedian Lenny Henry!

Goudie went for gold – he didn’t only say these events were qualifying council ‘meetings’ but that they constituted full council meetings!

The change of tune

Judicious Jim sat on the fence in his first set of advice, but his second advice claimed there could be no doubts at all that Boswell should remain a councillor because he’d done enough to comply with the attendance requirements.

The upshot of his second interpretation of the law seems to be that pretty much any gathering of councillors could constitute a ‘meeting’ for attendance purposes, chiefly with no requirement for the councillor to be acting as an appointed representative of the council.

Mr. Westley, who has been delegated the legal duty to declare vacant seats on the council’s behalf, used this second opinion to justify keeping Boswell in place.

All the while, until the present day and possibly much more time to come, it must be remembered that there are residents of the town which lends the county its name who have been left without representation at County Hall since August 2017.

The paedophile councillor

The jury heard the evidence and reached its conclusions during the Swansea Crown Court trial, and Boswell will be sentenced next month.

All I can say on the topic is that I was tipped-off – from what I consider to be non-insider sources – that very serious charges were in the pipeline for Boswell possibly more than a year before his May 2017 election to PCC.

Whilst I wasn’t given any specific detail of the allegations, I was left in no doubt that there was a black cloud hanging over Boswell in the form of child sex crime accusations, and that it was soon to burst.

I may have far wider tentacles and better countywide sources for gossip than the average Joe, but nonetheless, if I had been alerted to this black cloud then serious questions are due to be answered by the county’s Conservative party who recruited Boswell.

What did any of them know, when and how?

Newly-elected Conservative councillors pose with the party’s two county MPs at the Haverfordwest count centre on May 5th, 2017 [CLICK TO ENLARGE]

There’s more than a strong suggestion that quite a few of us knew before the charges were brought.

PCC’s chief executive, Ian Westley, certainly knew at the very least there was trouble ahead for Boswell at the time of his victory in May 2017 – a full three months before the criminal charges were brought, and possibly sooner than that.

Readers may recall the peculiar delay I mentioned earlier in Boswell’s formal acceptance of office.

Well-placed sources told JW at the time – not that it took an expert to piece things together – that Boswell was eager to sign himself up to the council but that Mr. Westley was blocking his path.

Of course, no council officer even of Mr. Westley’s seniority has such powers to obstruct the will of the people – in the eyes of the law Boswell was a validly-elected office-holder, paedophile or not.

Multiple sources say it took the threat of legal action from the Tories – who were still supporting Boswell at this point – in order for Westley to cave in.

I’m told the chief exec’s motivation in refusing to accept Boswell related to issues of child safeguarding – good intentions maybe, but, overstepping his bounds nonetheless.

Following the pressure, Mr. Westley accepted Boswell’s paperwork in late June and he went on to attend the 20th July and 14th August 2017 council meetings.

Making a bad situation worse

This whole saga involves a catalogue of dubious actions and poor public relations at PCC.

One doesn’t have to venture far on social media to find suggestions that the council protected a paedophile.

This is an accusation that the authority has previously been very guilty of – in the Mik Smith saga, which saw paedophile youth worker Smith protected and his brave whistleblower sacked.

It’s of course an emotive topic but the idea that James Goudie was brought on the scene at great taxpayer expense to protect a paedophile from losing his council seat is neither accurate or fair.

Indeed Mr. Westley’s attempt to stop him becoming a councillor suggests a directly opposing motivation.

Yes, County Hall lawyers went to great effort and expense in commissioning external legal advice, and yes, it allowed Boswell to avoid losing his seat in February this year – but it wasn’t to defend his sizeable backside, it was to defend their own.

PCC’s monitoring officer Claire Jones had advised Boswell in Autumn 2017, months before the six months were up that, as long as he turned up to seminars, he would avoid falling foul of the attendance requirements.

This, alone, is motive enough for the council’s bigwigs to commission Britain’s best legal brains to dig them out of the smelly stuff.

But no further proof that Goudie’s costly engagement involved backside-protecting motives has been needed since the answer emerged to a timely question posed by Tenby councillor Michael Williams.

By luck or judgement, the elder (and he says wiser) Cllr. Williams has an enviable record of asking cutting questions at opportune moments.

He managed to establish from PCC’s monitoring officer that Boswell had failed to attend council meetings, not just because he had been advised he wasn’t required to, but because he’d been asked to stay away from them altogether.

This revelation that some sort of deal of compromise had been reached on questionable grounds, and had been secretly underpinning the whole episode all along, was game-changing.

Unless other invoices come out of the woodwork, I can reveal exactly how much this backside-protecting external legal help cost you, the taxpayer.

I reproduce below the invoice from James Goudie QC’s London chambers – the eponymous 11 KBW, based at number eleven in Temple’s King’s Bench Walk – of over SEVEN THOUSAND POUNDS.

You’ll note Boswell is referred to as ‘Mr X’ on the invoice, and that the QC’s first advice was in fact dated June 2017.

This is the first time this has ever been revealed – the date suggesting that Goudie was on retainer for months before either Boswell was charged or the six-month rule controversy.

The timing raises the interesting possibility that this had something to do with the dispute between the Tories and Mr. Westley over his refusal to allow Boswell to accept his seat.

The 14th February 2018 invoice item shows the set of advice which caused mass bowel evacuations in County Hall, followed up by the second, less expensive advice on 28th February which did the trick!

At the March council meeting the monitoring officer read out the written instructions she sent to Goudie to procure his advice on the six-month rule matter.

Readers may recall I commented on this blog afterwards that what Ms. Jones had read out “…may have been supplemented with telephone calls or other forms of unrecorded supporting information.”

I might have been on to something because the invoice also includes: “Advising by telephone” on 28th February.

Goudie must be a good sort, though – he didn’t charge you a penny for it!

Nobody has ever been made aware that Mr. Goudie was engaged in June 2017 in relation to ‘Mr. X’ – and it could be worthy of further investigation.

What next?

Dai Boswell is still a councillor and has been asked by the council if he will voluntarily resign.

Knowing he faces many years behind bars, he has nothing to gain by doing so and quite a lot to lose. One is the implication that he now admits guilt, and, perhaps more pertinently, he’d lose out on his £1k+ monthly councillor allowance. The odds on this happening are thought to be slim to none…

Boswell could appeal – if this happens the Local Government Act 1985 says his appeal has to be dealt with before the seat can be declared vacant.

However PCC’s MO tells me the six-month rule would also still apply. He’s last believed to have attended a PCC function on 23rd April, meaning he would be unseated by the six-month attendance rule on October 23rd regardless of the status of his appeal. This scenario would see a December by-election…

Boswell fails to appeal and fails to resign voluntarily – this one’s simple: 28 days after sentencing, which is due to take place on 13th July, the seat can be declared vacant and by-election arrangements can be made right away. Late September/early October by-election…

There is also another possibility – Boswell could apply from his jail cell for dispensation to extend the six-month minimum attendance requirement.

This would have to be submitted pretty sharpish if it was to come before councillors at our July meeting, where we would have to vote on whether to grant Boswell an additional six months of no-consequence non-attendance.

The outcome for the ward’s voters would then depend on if Boswell appealed. If he is granted dispensation and he appeals, he could remain a councillor until well into 2019, pending appeal.

Runners and riders

In the event of a by-election, it’s looking like voters could be faced with a lengthy ballot paper.

Last year’s close runner-up, town councillor Jon Harvey is surely in pole position but Labour and the Conservatives are all expected to field candidates – even the Lib Dems are said to be looking for a contender.

Among the names touted as possible entrants at this early stage are Daphne Bush and Jonathan Nutting, who both lost their neighbouring Pembroke seats in last year’s election.

Although publicly Nutting is uncharacteristically evasive on the suggestion he intends to stand, he’s already approached the local Labour party to become their candidate – and has said he will stand as an independent if they don’t want him.

Meanwhile, the seat’s former holder, Arwyn Williams is also said to be plotting his return!

It could be a real corker.

Share this...
Share on FacebookTweet about this on Twitter


  • Quill

    The most unsettling aspect has to be the prospect of Arwyn Williams returning to the council chamber.

  • Flashbang

    Can you please put up a running tally of:

    A. The amount of money thrown away by the Legal Dept getting someone else to do their job for them.

    B. The number of times wrong advice/information has been given by PCC officers to all and sundry.

    C. All incidences of the ruling party’s underhand dealing trying to keep their shady practices out of the public eye.

    Basically more of what you and Grumpy do but in an easy to read drop down box for instant referral.

  • John Hudson

    Member’s attendance records for “formal “council meetings and their expense claim forms were available at the council’s public inspection of accounts.

    If one was inclined, it was possible, to check if a member had claimed expenses for attending “a meeting” he/she had actually attended.

    Not all members claim travel expenses, but looking through claims at random, some members did claim for attending seminars.

    Despite such seminars, ranked as “approved duties”, there were no registers of attendance at seminars or a convenient table of meetings and attendance as produced for the formal meetings.

    Odd, you might think, for a council that has ruled that seminars are official meetings for which travel expenses can be claimed.

    The council claims to have run a number of official non-compulsory budget seminars for members to explain the budget.

    It is not possible to see how many members attended these secret meetings, for which there are no minutes. It is therefore not possible to gauge their worth even in terms of attendance figures.

    The Council places emphasis on these budget seminars as support for its budget as voted for by all members at council.

  • Dan

    I’ve heard a few other names being mooted in the town as interested in standing for Dai Boswell’s town council seat and county council seat.

    Like you say, voters could be faced with a long ballot paper!

  • Malcolm Calver

    Quill, how can you find it unsettling that Arwyn Williams is making a possible comeback?

    Did he not serve our rulers, otherwise known as council employees well when he was chairman of PCC?

  • Keanjo

    It seems to me that the Chief Executive very wisely armed himself with a legal opinion in anticipation of the furore which he realised this case would generate.

    I understand that if, in a few weeks’ time, a sentence of more than three months is given to Mr Boswell, he will automatically cease to become a member of the Council.

    Before then he could take the less painful course of resigning voluntarily.

    Matters should now be allowed to take their course.

  • Keanjo, with your interesting history of wacky comments on aspects of the Boswell saga it’s becoming increasingly difficult to tell if you really believe what you say or if you’re trolling.

    There really has been no excuse for believing the sort of nonsense suggestion you’ve just made since at least as soon as the two later sets of Mr. Goudie’s advice became publicly available.

    Your obvious desire to give the benefit of the doubt is admirable, but you only need to read the advice to be disabused of the notion that any part of this episode can be described as a well-prepared response to something they all saw coming.

    If you’re not inclined to read the advice then you might instead have grasped the idea from a cursory examination of the dates on the invoice I’ve reproduced in this article.

    If you’re claiming that the first legal advice (June 2017) demonstrates well-preparedness, Boswell was neither a councillor at that stage and was months from being charged with his crimes, so it would be somewhat surprising if it related to the six-month rule.

    Knowledge of this first advice only emerged yesterday – I haven’t seen it but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this was where Mr. Westley learned that he was acting outside of his legal powers in trying to prevent Boswell becoming a councillor.

    Even if we assume a crystal ball was involved, and the six-month saga was envisaged as far back as June 2017, if Mr. Goudie in that first advice had suggested that the monitoring officer should come to a deal with Boswell to stay away from meetings, why, then, would he be asked to provide two further sets of legal advice in February 2018 to back up the council’s position when the issue blew up?

    If you’re saying that it was the second advice which shows good preparation by Mr. Westley, then, again, that was sourced after the council was alerted to the six-month rule issue and before I had published anything on my blog.

    This advice, remember, was the one which was weak in support of the council’s position and caused much concern.

    It was sought in response to representations made to the chief executive by one of the candidates beaten by Mr. Boswell, David Edwards, who had asked when the seat would be declared vacant.

    If you’re suggesting that it was the procurement of Mr. Goudie’s third legal advice which demonstrates good foresight and preparation on Mr. Westley’s part, I’m afraid your standards are low – in any case the Labour party’s London lawyers had been hammering away for ages by that point!

    Indeed, you would surely have thought to ask yourself before posting such a ridiculous comment, if the first £2,640 advice was so prescient, why were two further sets costing many more thousands felt necessary?

    Furthermore you might also have considered – as you fail to account in any way – how the ever-so-wisely-prepared Mr. Westley came to block Boswell from assuming his seat with no legal powers or basis to do so whatsoever.

    If you’re not trolling, then you must be joking!

  • John Hudson

    Do returning officers, who are also chief executives of councils, wear two hats?

    They get election expenses outside of council money for running elections for which they are accountable separately to the Home Office, (I think).

    The Council (we) pay for the cost of running our local “election office” i.e. the voting registers.

    What role has the council got in advising the chief executive about his duties as returning officer? Why do we have to pay for it?

    I assume that the council (that’s us) is responsible for running elected councillors’ under local Government rules.

    Why would we need to pay for independent legal advice for this? Unless it got in “a mess”?

  • Keanjo

    Oh dear, we are upset aren’t we?

    Even if it was coincidental, I still think Mr Westley has kept calm and acted wisely.

    I note, Joseph, your somewhat impolite outburst is directed against the first paragraph of my post without referring to the remainder so I’ll repeat – matters should be allowed to take their course.

  • No upset here, Keanjo, but perhaps a little surprise that anybody could honestly come to the opinions you claim.

    My ‘impolite outburst’ as you call it was, you must surely admit, an elementary deconstruction of your view based upon the content of the advice and the timing, and I note you still have nothing to say on that awkward little matter of Mr. Westley trying to prevent the democratic will of the people, as expressed by the election, from being implemented. Awkward!

    As to the bit in your first comment about ‘matters should be allowed to take their course,’ that’s just a truism – and I had never said anything in the post to suggest that matters would not or should not now ‘take their course,’ so it’s not obvious why you said it or what you expected me to say about it.

    If I was being ultra-critical (what, moi?) your claim that Mr. Boswell automatically ceases to be a councillor is not necessarily the case – it depends if he appeals.

    Before you had made that comment you had surely already read where I outlined those possible scenarios that might shape the way things ‘take their course,’ near the end of the post.

    By the way, I’m Jacob, not Joseph!

  • Keanjo

    Hi, Jacob not Joseph, on the question of the timing of the Chief Executive’s consultation with Goudie – June 2017 – Dai Boswell resigned as Mayor in August the same year because of the accusations and you can be sure that police investigations had been ongoing for some time before then.

    You can also be certain that Ian Westley would have known of these investigations well before and in my view he sensibly sought legal advice beforehand. Incidentally ridicule is no substitute for reasoned debate.

  • I’m all for reasoned debate, Keanjo, that’s why I’ve referred you to the content of the two sets of legal advice that are in the public domain and also the timeline on the invoice.

    You don’t have to take my word for it on either count, you can see it in black and white.

    Your response has been to double down and get the hump!

    As I say, the suggestion Mr. Westley had envisaged the six-month rule issue in procuring the June 2017 advice – when Mr. Boswell was neither a county councillor nor charged – is crystal ball territory.

    And if that first advice was sought to advise on whether council officers have the power to prevent the will of the people being implemented then your claim: “in my view he sensibly sought legal advice beforehand” couldn’t possibly be true.

    Boswell had already been elected over a month before that advice was provided, and blocked from assuming the seat.

    Another element in all this which should go without saying is that Dai Boswell was in the eyes of the law presumed innocent until proven guilty at trial last month.

    Earlier on you were quite keen on ensuring due process took its course, yet you have little to say on Mr. Westley blocking a councillor without grounds or powers.

    You may in your own mind be “certain that Ian Westley would have known of these investigations” but you don’t suggest why this justifies procurement of advice nor do you know (or suggest) exactly what it sought – but whatever it was about, there’s little to suggest that a presumption of innocence ruled the day.

    Might I suggest that if due process had played its part, Mr. Westley would have looked at Mr. Boswell as a validly-elected councillor, a man innocent of any crime for which he hadn’t yet even been charged, and someone who deserved justice like everybody else.

    To date I’ve paid Mr. Westley the compliment of assuming that he did eventually ‘allow’ Boswell to sign on the dotted line when he realised, after all those weeks, that he was powerless to stop an elected member taking his seat – but this wasn’t necessarily the case.

    If the Tories had done their homework early on (Local Government Act 1972, Section 83) they would have known that there is no part for a proper officer (like Mr. Westley) to play in ‘allowing’ a councillor to take his seat.

    A councillor can make his declaration of acceptance of office in the presence of a whole host of persons, which, as well as the council’s proper officer includes a magistrate, a commissioner for oaths, and perhaps what should have been most obvious to the Tory group: any two councillors of the authority.

    With eleven colleagues to choose from in his Conservative group, Dai Boswell could have signed his legal undertaking before any two of them and then merely delivered it to Mr. Westley, as required.

    And it’s possible that’s exactly what happened!

  • Mark

    Without wishing to sound like I’m piling on Keanjo (all this hot weather must be getting to him/her!) but I think although he took a back seat after the charges, Dai Boswell was Pembroke Mayor up to a few weeks ago when Linda Brown his Deputy took over when his year term ended in May.

  • Keanjo

    Since you are so certain of your facts, I look forward to your questioning the Chief Executive on this issue at next Council and I look forward to hearing his explanation.

  • In the absence of a provision allowing councillors to table questions to council officers, that might be difficult, Keanjo!

    John, as you probably know the returning officer is appointed by full council.

    When Bryn Parry-Jones left for good in 2014, Ian Westley assumed the top role in an acting capacity in most unconventional circumstances – ‘appointed’ by the then leader, Jamie Adams.

    The authority on which Cllr. Adams was acting was never explained, only some nonsense that it was all justified by the circumstances!

    At the December 2014 council meeting, Mr. Westley (as ‘acting head of paid service’) was appointed to become returning officer in a permanent capacity.

    There were a few at the time wondering why the (then) deputy returning officer (Ben Pykett) had been overlooked in monitoring officer Laurence Harding’s recommendation during what was an ‘interim’ period with Mr. Westley in the top job.

    It seemed somewhat strange to appoint a permanent returning officer when the most senior council post hadn’t yet been filled permanently, because usually this is one and the same person, but doesn’t necessarily have to be.

    I asked a question about it, and the minutes record: “In response to a question, Council was advised that the appointment could be changed by Council, if necessary, in the future.”

    (The minutes don’t really reflect the exchange between me and the evasive Mr. Harding, which can be seen on the webcast, item 20.)

    As things turned out, no change was necessary as Mr. Westley went on to bag the CEO role on a permanent basis the following summer!

    Once appointed, I don’t know what, if any, accountability a RO has to councillors – but the answer given to my question presumably still applies.

    On another point you raised (the lack of any register showing councillors’ attendance at ‘seminars’) these are published on the council’s website here, however you are right that, as I type, the ‘meetings’ attendance record for 2017-18 is available but not the ‘seminars’ attendance record.

    It’s surely only a coincidence that this has happened after Goudie redefined ‘seminars’ as ‘meetings!’

  • Keanjo

    Jacob, I’m sure a person of your political ingenuity would be able to phrase the question in a manner which complied with the regulations. In the meantime enjoy Wimbledon!

    Mark, I’m sure you are correct but Dai Boswell stood aside as Mayor following a meeting of his Council in August 2017.

  • I hope I will – I have tickets to the ladies’ final day!

  • John Hudson

    Members’ attendance records should have been available at the public inspection of accounts, especially as some members claim travel expenses for attending seminars.

    It was therefore not possible to inspect all books, vouchers etc supporting claims which were made.

    Presumably officers do vet or check attendance at meetings and seminars for which claims are made, before authorising payment? On that basis, there must be a record.

  • Pembs. Exile

    When public bodies make mistakes it is usual for a representative to stand up and admit that mistakes have been made and that they have learned from them.

    Not so with Pembrokeshire County Council, they seem to lurch from expensive mistake to expensive mistake.

    To the outside observer the recent exchange of views between your good self and Keanjo, in relation to the Boswell affair, are totally irrelevant, what has happened has happened – it is yet another unnecessary expense to be paid for by the Pembrokeshire electorate.

    The issue does however raise some questions about statements which appear in your blog and the action to be taken by the county council if those statements can be proved to be correct.

    It is very easy to offer criticism of the actions of officers of the County Council BUT officers are employees of the County Council. What action are the so called responsible Pembrokeshire County Councillors taking to hold those who made the, alleged, dubious decisions accountable?

    Deeds are going to speak louder than any words either:

    a) hold the officers accountable and subject to disciplinary procedures.

    b) review, as a matter of urgency, the powers delegated to officers.

    c) accept that any decision made by the council is a collective decision (it’s called democracy).

    To do nothing is not an option – it would just confirm that the current elected Pembrokeshire County Council is no better than the previous administration and would I believe demand a public apology being made to the officers of the council.

  • Timetraveller

    Is James Goudie not a pardoner?

    I thought they had died out in the Middle Ages, perhaps not.

    I know they (pardoners) were expensive, but being able to absolve previous failings was a wonderful way to rehabilitate offenders etc.

    Perhaps Bryn can make a comeback?

  • Have your say...