Arrested, now on bail... guilty until I prove I'm innocent

Monday 27th July @ 9:05am

Police raid on my home, Warrant to enter and search premises issued on 16/7/09 @12:25

For issue of warrant under:
Section 109 Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988

Identify, so far as possible, the articles or persons to be sought and search for:
Evidence in relation to the illegal distribution or illegal filesharing of copyrighted films however held, whether electronically or otherwise. Also any evidence in relation to payments received relating to the illegal distribution or illegal filesharing of copyrighted films held whether electronically or otherwise.

Specify person or persons: AUTHORITY is hereby given for any constable (accompanied by):
Neil Gardner, an officer of the Federation Against Copyright Theft (F.A.C.T.)

I was arrested, and taken to the local police station, on the way I asked and was told that it would take about a couple of hours, when I arrived, the booking-in charge was entered as:
Suspicion of downloading copyrighted movies

I asked them while still at home if I could contact a member of my family so that someone could come and make sure my dog was catered for, they said that I couldn't. On the way to the police station I asked if they could contact someone to take care of the dog or if I could make a phone call, they again said I could not.

Before being put in a cell, I was given a Notice Of Entitlements sheet. On this sheet it clearly stated under HOW YOU SHOULD BE CARED FOR. Keeping in touch:
As well as talking to a solicitor and having a person told about your arrest you will usually be allowed to make one phone call. Ask the police if you would like to make a phone call. You can also ask for a pen and paper. You may be able to have visitors but the custody officer can refuse to allow that.

I asked again as I was put in the cell, if I could contact someone or make a phone call, I was told no I couldn't do that, I asked why and was told that the Inspector had put a block on any and all communication from me to anyone.

I was checked on approximately every 30 minutes, each time I asked if they could please contact someone to inform them that I had been arrested and that I wanted to make a telephone call to arrange for a solicitor, every time I was told that they would check into it, see what they could do, ask a superior etc etc, but I wasn't allowed to do either for the whole duration of me being in the cell, which was around 7.5 hours.

After a few hours, I was visited by two Independent Custody Visitors, who asked if I was being treated well and if there was anything I wanted or needed, I told them that I had asked several times already, that I wanted someone contacted to let them know that I'd been arrested and that I wanted to make a phone call, but both had been refused, they appeared surprised and said they would look into it for me, but that was obviously a worthless statement from them, because in the hours that follwed, I still wasn't allowed to do either.

I did get something which resembled an all day breakfast meal, but the taste was so awful, I only had a couple of spoons of it, I had several cups of water and a cup of coffee, I also asked for and got a blanket when I got a bit cold, police cells aren't the warmest of places I now know!

I'm guessing that around about 4:45pm a policeman who I'd not seen before, came into the cell with some paperwork, it was a 12 page list of items they had seized from my house, he asked me to sign a document to confirm that the items listed were mine, after looking at the first few pages, I told him that there were no specific identifiable details for any of the items they had seized and listed, no manufacturers, no model numbers, no serial numbers, for anything and that because this important information had not been detailed, I was not going to sign anything stating that I owned any of it, not without first visually confirming that all the listed items were actually my propety, here's the list of items they say they seized:

01. Nokia mobile phone
02. Large brown package containing several large padded envelopes
03. Western digital hard drive
03. Realistic telephone answering machine
04. 18 mini discs
05. Sharp video camera in grey carry case
06. 8 blank cd's
07. Tandy laptop & bag
08. Black media device
09. Grey mitac laptop computer
10. 10 mini discs
11. eMechanics computer hard drive
12. Box containing venus hard drives
13. 10 blank jvc cd's
14. Memory stick from rear of eMachines computer tower
15. Box containing 10 traxdata cd's
16. Box containing 10 samsung cd's
17. Large computer tower
18. 2 cd's 1 floppy disc and misc papers containing invoices
19. Advent computer tower and external drives
20. Wharfdale rewritable dvd player
21. 5 x hard drives
22. Grey phillips receiver
23. 3 x memory sticks
24. Misc cd's and mini discs
25. Hard drives
26. 1 x hard drive
27. Various cd's & dvd's
28. Computer base unit
29. Computer drive & lead
30. Asda bag containing computer drive & discs
31. Sat nav in black case
32. Paperwork containg details of addresses in Scotland
33. Documents seized from desk

What do they take me for, a complete idiot! ...no one in their right mind would have signed to say any of these items were their property, especially if they'd not been there when it was seized!
Anyway, he got extremely pissed off, insisted I signed it, I refused and he said something to the effect of "fine, then don't sign it" and stormed off out of the cell.

At 5pm a solicitor arrived and I was put in an interview room to speak with him and his assistant, I said that with my limited knowledge, as far as I was aware, downloading of something which had copyright, was a civil offence and not a criminal one and I asked him why the police were involved in this case, he told me that under Section 109 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act of 1988, the downloading of any copyrighted item, without the owners consent, was a crimnal offence and not a civil one ...first I knew of it!

I was then interviewed by two police officers and it was recorded on tape, they asked loads of questions about all sorts of things to do with Filesoup, I had to correct and explain things to them several times, in very simple terms, a lot of the misconceptions or misunderstandings they had about the way BitTorrent works, how servers and hosts operate, how the internet works, what a domain name was, what a URL was, to name but a few things! The tape machine beeped and kept stopping part way through the interview, it appeared that they knew it was a "bit faulty" at times, but fiddled with it and carried on regardless, eventually, the interview was finished.

My solicitor and I asked them if they would very kindly drive me back home again, he did agree, but he first had to complete some paperwork, he said he'd be as quick as he could and put me back in the cell again to wait for him. Quite some time later, he returned and took me back to the booking desk.

I was given a multi-paged document entitled:
Notice of Excercise of Additional Powers of Seizure under Sections 50 or 51 of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, which listed the same items as above. It gave this information for anyone wishing to make an application for the return of seized property in this case or an application to attend examination of seized property, should apply to:
Neil Gardner
Senior Investigator
Federation Against Copyright Theft
Europa House
Church Street
Old Isleworth
Midlesex
TW7 6DA

On returning my personal effects, the officer noticed the Filesoup credit card which they had overlooked when I was being booked in, he confiscated the card and gave me a receipt for it.
I was released on police bail with the alleged offence(s) stated as being:
Distribute Article Infringing Copyright

I must surrender to the local police station on 02/10/2009 at 5:00 pm

I asked the officers why everyone had continually refused all day to contact someone to inform them of my arrest and why I'd been refused to make a phone call, they told me that the Inspector had lifted the "block" at around 2:30pm and that they didn't know why the officers on duty at the station hadn't been informed of this fact.

Time of release from police custody was 19:42

I got back home just before 8pm to find my belongings had been turned upside down, the dining room was a like a whirlwind had gone through, I'm not the tidiest of people as it is, but at least I knew where everything was, but after they had been there going through everything, they'd turfed out all the drawers of the desk, chucked back what was of no interest to them, left a pile of paperwork scattered across my desk and table with wires everywhere, talk about a nightmare!. My dog was extremely traumatised, he'd been barking almost non-stop all day long the neighbour told my Dad when he went over at about 6:30pm to feed the dog as I hadn't got back yet. My dog rarely barks at anything, now he barks at the least little thing, I am SO annoyed that they have done this to him!

Well that's it, lock, stock and barrel... how can anyone have any faith in our current justice system ...what the hell happened to the old belief "innocent until proven guilty"? Gits!

i think you should get in contact with the human rights office as yours were clearly violated you were treated like a terrorist.

as far as i am led to believe it is only an offence if you sell copied dvds. as i was burgled last year and the cid gave me all my copied dvds and cds back to me

Here y'a Geeker - some bedtime reading

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_4

Section 107 at the bottom of the page. Section 109 seems to relate to search warrants and not downloading. Get a new solicitor! Get YMG!

WTF!?!?

What a bunch of a-holes!

Skewer the bastards if you can m8!

OMFG.

As horrible as your situation is I can't help but feel relieved that it's not only our police force that consists of rank amateurs.

Did they instigate this themselves or has some **aa org or equivalent filed a complaint?

It all sounds so absurd.

After all the trouble you've been having keeping the site afloat they accuse you of making money from it...

Small is right... You need to get another solicitor, as the one you've got seems to have given you "off the cuff" advice rather than proper advice based on considered, informed knowledge. Copyright infringement IS a civil matter, except where it is carried out in the course of a business, or where it is carried out to an extent where (and I forget the exact wording) the infringement for non-business purposes is on such a scale as to have a noticeable effect on the copyright holder's rights.

One of the most disturbing things (other than the bully-boy tactics) is the fact that the police seemed to have handed your hardware over to what amounts to a trade body that acts on behalf of the complainant. You should immediately seek proper advice as to the legality and/or propriety of this. Particular attention should be given to the fact that this hardware contains personal data that may very well be covered by the data protection act. Seek advice regarding this as a matter of some urgency and have the situation clarified... I know little about F.A.C.T. and their powers and/or statutory rights, so bear that in mind when considering the advice in this paragraph.

And lastly... Immediately make a formal complaint to the PCA through a solicitor, regarding the police holding you incommunicado and denying your requests to exercise your rights to have someone contacted or to have legal representation sought. The police can temporarily deny you the right to make a phone call whilst they make enquiries (under certain circumstances) but they absolutely cannot deny you the right to have legal representation whilst asking you to sign official documents, and they cannot stop you contacting someone after the time when the "block" was lifted. A formal complaint goes a long way in many cases, and if nothing else, the best form of defence, is often to go on the offencive.

Check out the Southampton law firm Lawdit who specialise in this sort of thing... these are the guys that went after the legal company Davenport Lyons (the ones who tried to do what the RIAA/MPAA legal team did to US filesharers - reference link and another one)

police are a load of ass holes at times as if there is nothing better to do than that
no wonder crime is up shootings up stabbings up ect ect there more than happy going after
people sitting in there house's doing nothing but trying to have a good time on the Internet

well i hope your ok geeker thinkin of you at this time m8

WOW! All I can say is fight it! Get a new lawyer and make sure you bring up EVERYTHING they did wrong. The police have no idea what they are doing. They are just acting on what this FACT guy is saying.

Good luck. If you need character witnesses I'm sure you can find plenty on here!

Best of luck with it all


And the only thing that I could add to YMG’s excellent post, is the possible missing part or wording that he mentioned

Spot on; that's the wording I was looking for... Thanks enigma

Thank you everyone for your kind words of support, the offers of help and of course the links you have been posting, I really do appreciate it greatly

That's exactly what I was thinking, reading this whole thing. Here in the US, you'd have a dozen ambulance chasers lined up at the jail house to counter sue for some astronomical figure that would make national news or at least local press. You need media to spread this and a counter suit for millions would get their attention. Here the negative publicity would probably call a screeching halt to the charges and you'd be in negotiations for compensation of your illegally seized possessions. In the end you'd get a few thousand, the attorney would get more, you'd get your stuff back and the press would only report that you privately negotiated an undisclosed settlement out of court.

This whole thing sucks Geeks. If I can help in any way, be sure and let me know.

Woh! Never thought I'd be reading about something like with FileSoup.

I hope all goes well. I Have no additional advice, but I think a proper solicitor is in order as has been suggested.

Take care!

Can I suggest that someone makes the text on this thread a bit bigger? Might get the point across to these numpties!

http://filesoup.co.uk/faq/index.php?sid=21...&artlang=en

Murders, knife crime, robberies, granny bashing, pedophiles etc etc and the police CLAIM they are too undermanned to cope... What we need is for the police to stop chasing motorists for baldy insurance, and harassing innocent citizens and go out and investigate some real crime...I bet there were at least 5 cuntstables ransacking your house Geeks...

You may find this interesting, it is taken from a members only site that monitors this organization (FACT) and similar bodies:

-------------


Federation Against Copyright Theft Limited

Directors: British Sky Broadcasting Limited, British Video Association Limited, Film Distributors Association Limited, Motion Pictures Association Incorporated, Sony Pictures Home Entertainment Limited, The Walt Disney Company Limited, Twentieth Century Fox Film Company Limited, Universal Pictures Limited, Video Standards Council Limited

Registered Office: Europa House, Church Street, Old Isleworth, Middlesex, TW7 6DA. [Google Map]

Purpose: To protect and advance the interests of its Members (the movie industry) in any and every possible way. This includes (but is not limited to) taking legal action, conducting surveillance, intelligence gathering and keeping records of anything that may affect those interests.

We say: Ex-Police officers acting like they always wanted to in the force but couldn't because of the rules. Now there are no rules this private company openly brags of conducting RIPA type surveillance on UK citizens, keeping databases and other activities that by rights should be illegal unless you are a public body. Many believe this sort of behaviour by them is just the tip of the iceberg and FACT have been branded as acting unlawfully and illegally in a recent court case.

Known Employees
The list below is what has been gleaned using open source intelligence however we have been promised a full staff list from our source inside FACT.

Brian Robertson - Chairman
Kieron Sharp - Director General
Jim Angell - Director of Operations
Colin Tansley - Director of Intelligence and Internet
Eddie Leviten - Head of Communications
Howard Lamb - Internet Industry Liaison Officer
Mark Kempster - Internet Investigator
Neil Gardiner - Senior Investigator
Alan Haskell - Investigator
Justine Crawford - Intelligence Analyst
Paul Archer - Consultant

Structure and Ownership
The Federation Against Copyright Theft Limited (FACT) was created in 1982 with the intention of fighting "video tape piracy". Up until 16 April 2008 FACT had the registered address of 7 Victory Business Centre, Worton Road, Isleworth, Middlesex, TW7 6DB. FACT have changed their registered office but still use “Victory”, as the staff call it, for office space. This is the identical address that Motion Picture Association Incorporated used as its office until 31 December 2008.

FACT is a normal private company, it is not a law enforcement agency or a prosecuting authority (despite its claims that it is). It was set up and is funded by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). The company’s stated objective is to protect and advance the interests of its Members (the movie industry) in any and every possible way. This includes (but is not limited to) taking legal action, conducting surveillance, intelligence gathering and keeping records (databases) of anything that may affect those interests.

The board of directors for FACT are all corporate entities involved in film production and distribution with the majority of the board containing the US movie studios (Sony, Universal, Walt Disney, and Twentieth Century Fox) and the MPA. In addition to the MPA controlling the majority of the board at FACT, the members of the MPA also have substantial control over the other directors of FACT, this is quite obvious to see as follows:

British Video Association Limited – BVA is one of FACT’s directors however Sony, Universal, Walt Disney, and Twentieth Century Fox and Warner Brothers all sit on the BVA board of directors. The MPA's über lobbyer and government ear bender Lavinia Carey also chairs the BVA.

Film Distributors Association Limited – FDA is one of FACT’s directors however Sony, Twentieth Century Fox, Walt Disney, Warner Brothers all sit on the FDA board of directors. The FDA is also seen by many as a company setup to simply parrot the MPA messages of the day (eg. we need 3 strikes, we need camcording made illegal in cinemas etc).

In a presentation on 29 October 2008 the Head of Communication for FACT, Eddie Leviten, stated that the MPAA were the parent body of FACT. It is undeniable, given the evidence above, that the FACT operation in the United Kingdom is owned and controlled by the MPAA in the United States.

Background
Originally, when FACT was first setup it was because the issue of copyright infringement was seen as a civil problem that the copyright owners, rather than the state, should combat themselves using the civil courts. This was costly for the copyright owners and therefore the decision was made to lobby government through various special interest companies to gradually tighten up the laws in this area with the ultimate objective of criminalising copyright infringement so that the burden of cost and investigation shifted to the state.

Traditionally and while this process was ongoing the objectives of FACT were focused on relatively straightforward exercise of investigating individuals and companies who were producing and selling counterfeit videotapes and DVDs. There is no doubt that it has had success in tackling physical piracy such as this. It is, after all, a relatively open and shut case if an individual’s home is full of DVD duplication equipment and fake DVD’s. However the role of FACT was purely one centred on intelligence gathering which it would then use for civil proceedings brought on behalf of the MPA and/or its members.

This bullish attitude is reflected in the words of FACT Ltd’s Head of Communication when he was speaking at a seminar recently, he said ”We’ve taken out a couple of these sites already in the UK and we have a few more targets that we aim to look at over the coming year.”. This is a private company openly admitting to “taking out” websites that it does not approve of and is indicative of the unchecked way in which FACT feel they can operate.

Employment Strategy
FACT has become very adept at convincing people that it is some sort of official law enforcement agency or prosecuting authority for copyright related offences. Don't be fooled, it is not. FACT is a normal private company with no special powers or rights. It is because of this lack of statutory power that it has bought its way into the Trading Standards and Police authorities so that it has the next best thing to the actual power - control over those who do have it.

In a tried and tested strategy used by the MPA the world over, FACT's employment policy is very simple. They hire former police and trading standards officers, frequently from the areas of the UK where the closeness between the former officer and his/her colleagues that are still in the job can be exploited.

This policy shows through with virtually all of the company’s staff made up of former police and trading standards officers. Even the solicitors, Mike Northern Legal, that FACT uses for its private prosecutions are owned by the former Principal Trading Standards officer for Kent, Mike Northern.

FACT’s appointment policy is crucial to making sure that influence and control is retained when dealing with police forces, trading standards or other public bodies who have real authority to exercise power over citizens. Through their employment policy FACT is able to insinuate itself even further into the enforcement and legal process by employing former employees of the main public authorities that they liaise with.

Sponsorship Strategy
Not content with the close access it is afforded already by the police and trading standards FACT have developed further strategies that enable them to insinuate themselves even further into the statutory process. These strategies usually center around FACT providing funding and resources to set up a statutory body that they virtually control.

This method can be seen in the creation of the Bedfordshire Trading Standards Financial Intelligence Unit and the Metropolitan Police Film Piracy Crime Unit. These two units are public bodies with full access to the normal statutory powers, databases and resources yet they are paid for by FACT, a private company controlled by US interests and with the objective of furthering those commercial interests.

When the relationship is effectively employer and employee, how often will the employees say no to their employer?

It is no wonder that long time observers of the copyright industry have termed the steady creeping of a FACT into the UK public authorities as "cancerous".

FACT Investigations
The official position of FACT is that they simply "assist" the Police or Trading Standards. In reality FACT run entire investigations from start to finish. The usual way an operation will run is that FACT will focus on an individual who has come to their attention either via a "tip off" or via their own investigation. They then identify a potential offence using their own surveillance and investigatory techniques, take the evidence they have gathered to a statutory body such as the Police or Trading Standards and ask the public body to start an investigation.

The Police (quite rightly) do not view copyright offences as a priority and as a result, due to the unimportance of the offence or due to budgetary restrictions, are unable to devote the manpower or time to an investigation that FACT would like them to. This response is usually expected by FACT and they readily offer to conduct the investigation using their own staff, pay for third parties to be contracted in and investigate computers forensically themselves. This totally relieves the Police of any burden (plus any reason for declining to investigate) and they usually agree to designate a token officer to the investigation.

Once this understanding is in place FACT are effectively in control of the Police investigation and can use their powers accordingly. FACT investigators give the Police the grounds for the warrant, accompany the police on the execution of the search and identify what property is to be seized. Once the property is seized it is usually all handed over to FACT within a few days if not immediately. Once in possession of the property FACT have no need for the Police and usually the designated Officer in Charge is not bothered unless some form of statutory power needs exercising.

The police are rarely kept informed of the day to day running of the investigation by FACT and treat passing of information to the police as a "need to know basis". This control by FACT allows them to present only information to the Police that supports FACT's preconception that a suspect is guilty (until proved innocent). Evidence that a suspect is innocent is unlikely to be given the same amount of attention as evidence to the contrary.

Even though FACT are doing the work, officially, the investigation is a police one and that means that the criteria are in place to allow for the application of a financial restraint order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Bedfordshire Trading Standards unit, that FACT funds, has usually been involved with investigation from the start and readily applies for a restraint order on FACT’s request. BTSFIU staff sometime even personally serve the order on the individual. Within a short time a UK citizen can have his home searched, be arrested, interviewed and financially restrained all at the behest of FACT, a private company controlled by US interests.

It is worth noting that FACT often gives unlimited indemnities to those statutory bodies it controls or works closely with so there is no incentive on the public body to be careful or dissent to FACT’s requests.

Summary
To form a view of the activities and motives of FACT it must at all times be remembered who ultimately controls the company. The company is owned and run by the MPAA and its member companies to protect and advance the interests of its Members in any and every possible way. This is not limited to combating so called film piracy although FACT’s involvement in the investigation and prosecution of physical DVD piracy is quite clearly in its interests and a reasonable avenue to pursue.

However, FACT’s directors commercial interests are also at risk from new and competing business models from the internet. For example NBC Universal, News Corporation and Walt Disney are all leading members of the MPA, all (through subsidiaries) directors of FACT and all involved in a joint venture website called Hulu. Not only is Hulu a huge success in the US but it is also poised to enter the UK market. Is it fair and proper that the giant corporations that run FACT are allowed to close websites such as TV Links that compete with their own commercial offerings?

Considering the analysis of current UK law that shows the TV Links website was not breaking the law, yet was still closed down by FACT's actions it seems extraordinary that there has not been calls for investigations by the Office of Fair Trading for anti-competitive actions by FACT's directors.

Would the power and influence of FACT be used to stop a competing website that has surpassed the popularity of FACT's directors websites? It would be simple enough to label it as a copyright infringing website and then crush it with the tried and tested strategy it has developed. The answer to that question has already been clearly answered.

FACT frequently refers to themselves as a “trade body representing the interests of the movie industry”. If this is true then they represent the injured party in any copyright infringement case relating to the movie industry and therefore should play no role whatsoever in an investigation if that investigation is to be accepted as independent fair and balanced. Not only is it inappropriate for the “victim” to be funding the investigation but it is absurd that the victim should be given custody and control of the suspect’s property to investigate.

The following questions are appropriate to consider:

Would it be acceptable for Rape Crisis, an organisation that represents victims of rape, to fund and control an investigation into a man suspected of raping two of their members? Should they be allowed the suspects clothing and property to forensically investigate?

Would it be acceptable for a shareholder who had lost their life savings due to the Northern Rock collapse to be allowed custody of the Northern Rock's computers and files so they could investigate who was to blame for the downfall of the bank?

Would it be acceptable for the parents of Jean Charles de Menezes to be allowed custody of the clothing, guns and statements of the police officers that shot him so they could forensically investigate themselves?

The answer is the same for whichever type of victim there may be. It is simply not possible for a fair and independent investigation to be carried out by the representative of the injured party never mind an injured party that will commercially benefit from that investigation.

Most importantly, however, is that FACT, private limited company, has access to untold amounts of private and confidential data on United Kingdom citizens. It has no oversight, no regulation and no accountability except to its own commercial directors.

This lack of transparency or oversight raises very important questions regarding data protection and privacy. FACT is frequently given access to private and confidential information about UK citizens by the public bodies that it works with. Public bodies such as Trading Standards and Police often hand over in depth details without any guarantee as to how the information will be used by FACT.

In accordance with its Memorandum of Association FACT maintains a database containing all information it has acquired from public bodies and that the contents of this database are shared with the MPAA and its commercial directors inside and outside of United Kingdom jurisdiction.

The outsourcing of the investigative role to FACT (and then further out-sourcing of work by FACT to other third parties) means that checks and balances that are in place to oversee fair and proportionate use of power by public bodies are no longer possible because a private body has effectively taken their place. The result is that FACT, a private limited company controlled by an overseas company, is able to use the power of the public authorities to further the aims of its commercial directors and the organisations they represent without any regulation, oversight or accountability.

This report is continuously updated as fresh information on the activities of this company become available.

--------------

If I were you I would use a lawyer who has fought and won against these scumbags. Email me for further details.

I forgot to also contradict earlier advice given to you by someone. Section 107 does indeed specify that to commit an offence it must be in the course of a business or to prejudice the copyright holder. FACT view filesoup as a business because it receives donations, its as simple as that. You receive monetary gain from your users therefore you profit from whatever the site does. Yes of course it is donations for the servers etc but that will not cut any ice with FACT.

FACT used a bullshit charge to get what they really wanted from you - your computer. Now their work will begin by taking your hard drive apart sector by sector to come up with new charges and things they can stick on you. This is what they do. It is what happened with TVLinks (who is now in crown court facing conspiracy charges and section 1072A) and it is what happened to AradiTracker.

You can expect any associates to be raided or at the very least named as co-conspirators. Undoubtedly any charges they bring (if they do bring them) will include conspiracy to defraud as its such an easy offense to prove. If anyone is arrested or you are interviewed again my advice would be to "no comment" the whole interview. Don't worry about any crap they give you about that hurting your defense, its bullshit.

Sorry if this freaks you out but you need to be aware of what may happen. These people do not play by the rules. Again my offer of further details is open.

Best of luck.

Bless you Mr. Mole.

Hmmm Mr Mole, now who are you? let me guess

/D