Category: MIL-OSI

Source: NZ Music Month takes to the streets

Chris Swasbrook has been appointed as Chair of the Te Papa Board says Chris Bishop, Acting Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage.

“Chris Swasbrook is a prominent New Zealand investor with more than 25 years’ experience working in finance. He has an extensive resume in executive and governance roles in many large-scale New Zealand businesses and organisations,” Mr Bishop says.

“Born in Auckland, he has been a long-time supporter of local business and arts communities. Chris is Chair of the Auckland Future Fund and an Inaugural Member and current Chair of the Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tamaki Advisory Committee – roles which have shown his commitment to thriving arts infrastructure in New Zealand.

“Chris will bring valuable commercial, financial and investment governance experience to Te Papa. His strategic insights and international perspective will undoubtedly prove valuable to our national museum.

“I would like to thank Jackie Lloyd who has stepped up as acting Chair following the departure of Hon Dame Fran Wilde. Both Jackie and Dame Fran have made immense contributions to the leadership of Te Papa which have enhanced the museum’s standing on the world stage.”

Media contact: Mikaela Bossley Clark: +64 21 275 0454

Biography:

Chris Swasbrook has more than 25 years’ experience in stockbroking and funds management. He is currently Managing Director of Elevation Capital and Co-Founder and Director of NZX-listed New Zealand Rural Land Company. He is also Chair of the Auckland Future Fund, Executive Chair of McCashin’s Brewery, a board member of the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) and member of the NZX Listing Sub-Committee.

Mr Swasbrook is also an Inaugural Member and current Chair of the Auckland Art Gallery Toi o Tamaki Advisory Committee.

He was previously a partner at Goldman Sachs, JBWere, and was Chair of Allied Farmers, Chair of Bethunes Investments, Director of NZX-listed Mowbray Collectables, Director of Ruapehu Alpine Lifts and Director of NZX-listed Satara Co-Operative Group.

Source: NZ Music Month takes to the streets

The Government is backing four new community-based Whānau Ora commissioning agencies to ensure whānau with significant needs continue to benefit from the best possible support services.
Whānau Ora Minister Tama Potaka today announced the following agencies will take-over the commissioning of services from July 2025:

National Hauora Coalition, Te Tiratū and Ngaa Pou Hauora o Taamaki Makaurau Consortium operating as Rangitāmiro, which will commission Whānau Ora services in the North Island, north of Taupō.
Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira, which will commission Whānau Ora services in the North Island, south of Taupō.
Te Tauraki Limited, a subsidiary of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, which will commission Whānau Ora services in the South Island.
The Cause Collective, operating as The Tātou Collective, which will commission Whānau Ora services for Pasifika families across Aotearoa. 

“These agencies will ensure Whānau Ora care and support continues for thousands of whānau across the country whether it’s help accessing better healthcare, improving home budgeting to help ease the cost of living, or getting on top of household maintenance.
“Since Whānau Ora was launched in 2010, the model has grown to provide a strong foundation to now further improve services. National backed the development of Whānau Ora in last year’s Budget with a $182 million investment.
“Te Puni Kōkiri has carefully selected these agencies to deliver on the Government’s focus on providing better public services. The agencies will:

Introduce greater participation from local communities in decision-making.
Expand the reach of Whānau Ora to engage with more whānau most in need across Aotearoa New Zealand.
Gather data to strengthen evidence of positive outcomes for whānau and targeted support for whānau in greatest need.
Invest in the workforce to develop the capability and retention of Navigator kaimahi working with whānau.

“I also welcome the recent Court of Appeal decision – Te Pou Matakana Limited v Secretary for Māori Development and others 2025 – which cleared the way for this progress,” Mr Potaka says.
“The case unsuccessfully challenged aspects of the procurement process – it wasted time and created uncertainty for whānau and service providers. The delay means that the move to new commissioning agencies will be more complex than necessary but, with the Court’s decision now made, we can move forward with certainty.
“I’d like to acknowledge and thank the outgoing commissioning agencies: Te Pou Matakana, Te Pūtahitanga o Te Waipounamu, and Pasifika Futures for their mahi over the past decade to implement the important kaupapa of Whānau Ora,” Mr Potaka says.

Source: Police investigating after shots fired at Hastings house

Date:  30 April 2025

The concession gives WHL the ability to operate the ski field, as well as use six buildings in Whakapapa village for staff accommodation and a water pipeline easement. DOC will be closely monitoring the ski field activity to ensure everything is running smoothly.

“I know how important the area is for all New Zealanders, especially the iwi and hapū who whakapapa to the maunga,” says Penny.

“Giving the rights to use such valuable public conservation land is something I considered carefully, taking into account the feedback through the concession process, including from iwi engagement, public notification and hearings.

“We understand it’s been a long road to get here and want to thank everyone for their patience,” says Penny.

The previous ski field concession held by Ruapehu Alpine Lifts (RAL) will be surrendered to allow the new WHL concession to come into effect.

Background information

The decision letter and concession documents are now available: Application for a concession by Whakapapa Holdings 2024 Limited.

Contact

Source: Secondary teachers question rationale for changes to relationship education guidelines

Sometimes to uncover Auckland’s past, you need to dig deep. Just ask Chris Mallows, Team Leader Cultural Heritage Implementation in Auckland Council’s Heritage Unit. He’s part of a team of archaeologists unearthing the fascinating history of Tāmaki Makaurau.

Auckland’s rich and varied landscape – encompassing coastland, forest, wetlands, maunga and volcanic fields – mirrors the diverse heritage of the people who have settled here since around the 14th century. With Archaeology Week running from 3-11 May, it’s the perfect time to acknowledge the groundbreaking work of archaeologists who help further our knowledge of our region’s past.

Archaeology is the study of past human societies through the analysis of material culture, including artefacts or the remains of buildings.

“Archaeologists look at the physical evidence that’s left behind and interpret how people lived and worked in the past,” explains Chris.

In Tāmaki Makaurau, archaeological work could involve everything from protecting maunga and Māori pā settlement sites, preservation of the Wilson Cement Works in Warkworth or uncovering artefacts from the former Queen Street Gaol that was on the corner of Queen and Victoria Streets from 1841-1865.

“During an archaeological excavation, we’re always finding something new and expanding our understanding of how people lived in that specific area,” says Chris.

Auckland Council’s archaeologists work on a range of projects including preservation work, providing advice on heritage sites and as well as reviewing on resource consent applications around areas with scheduled heritage sites.

While fictional archaeologist Indiana Jones’ favourite tool was his whip, in reality archaeologists are more likely to be armed with a trowel. Excavating can be physically demanding and painstaking work, as archaeologists work carefully to uncover artefacts without damaging anything in the process. The sharp edge of the trowel is used to meticulously unearth fragile items, such as ceramics, from the earth.

“Buying your first trowel is a bit like a rite of passage”, says Chris, who still has his first William Hunt and Sons trowel he received as a fledgling archaeologist in the UK.

Archaeologists use trowels to carefully unearth artefacts without damaging any fragile parts. Chris Mallows still has his WHS trowel from his first excavation in the UK.

“When you’re a field archaeologist, a trowel is the first tool you’ll ever get. It helps you excavate the small features in a controlled manner. For example, if you’re on a European-era site in Auckland dating from the 1860s or 1870s, you may use a trowel to find glass, ceramics, animal bones or other remnants that people were eating.”

Other tools include sieves for sorting very small remnants, measurement tools for mapping out a site and a “good old fashioned spade and shovel”, Chris adds.

While traditional excavation tools are still part of the work of an archaeologist, there have been a number of digital advances that make this work a little easier. Auckland Council’s archaeologists have access to LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) data. This technology uses laser light pulses emitted from a drone or plane to create three-dimensional maps of the environment.

“LiDAR uncovers things that were previously hidden by the landscape. For example, on farmland, LiDAR has uncovered pits hidden by long grass which were later revealed to be kūmara pits (rua),” says Chris.

Another modern tool is photogrammetry, a process of creating a 3D model of an artefact or structure using a series of overlapping photographs.

Chris uses photographic scales to measure the site.

“Photogrammetry is a great tool and allows our communities to see artefacts and heritage sites really easily,” says Chris. “Even if you can’t physically gain access to the artefacts – they may be a museum, for example, or you may not be able to travel to these sites – having photogrammetry allows anyone to look at them. It’s a really good tool for the future.”

There have been a number of notable archaeological discoveries in Auckland, but one that sticks out to Chris is the Sunde Site on Motutapu Island. In 1958, archaeologist Rudy Sunde discovered what has since been spoken of as ‘New Zealand’s Pompeii’ when he found artefacts from a pre-European kainga (village).

Later, in 1981, University of Auckland archaeologist Reg Nicol uncovered footprints of eight people and one dog beneath a layer of ash from Rangitoto Island. This is evidence that mana whenua living on or near Motutapu witnessed the eruption of Rangitoto in around 1400 CE.

“What I find fascinating about this site is you have evidence of somebody going about everyday life and then you’ve got a volcanic eruption happening, and we can only wonder what that experience was like,” says Chris. “There’s a clear timeline of the eruption and you can see the people adapting to the changing climate because of the natural disaster.”

Through archaeology, we can learn from the past and see how people adapted to change and use this to understand how we adapt to change in the future.”

“Recent damage to an Auckland park by treasure hunters highlights why our heritage needs protecting”, says Chris.

Mary Barrett Glade near Ngataringa Park in Devonport is a scheduled heritage place on Department of Conservation (DOC) land, and was unfortunately recently targeted by vandals looking to dig up vintage bottles. Auckland Council archaeologists are supporting DOC in the protection and restoration of the area.

The site is the former location of Duder’s Brickworks, which operated between 1875 and 1942. The factory used clay from Ngataringa Bay to make ordinary and decorative bricks as well as sanitary pipes and chimney heads, and employed many Devonport locals up until the 1920s. The factory supplied clay bricks for many of the Edwardian buildings in Devonport including the pumphouse (now the PumpHouse Theatre).

The PumpHouse Theatre is built with bricks from Duder’s Brickworks.

Following a fire on Victoria Road in 1888, the Devonport Borough Council made a rule that buildings in the main shopping area were to be constructed from bricks only, and the bricks are part of the suburb’s its distinctive look.

“The brickworks are part of Devonport’s industrial heritage and character. You never know what’s around the corner, so we do need to be vigilant in protecting our history. As archaeologists, we are the kaitiaki (guardians) of our heritage sites, preserving them for our future generations.”

For more information about Archaeology Week and to see what events are on, head to the New Zealand Archaeological Association website.

Source:

We often get asked about how much a complaint is “worth” in settlement terms, by both complainants and respondents. Very few of our complaints settle for money. The resolution is usually non-financial, like the release of information or a sincere apology. Read about cases where apologies had an effect. 

However, we want to make sure our process is fair for both parties, and so we’ve put together some information on recent settlements under the Privacy Act.

Our process is focused on resolving complaints, but there is no easy formula for ‘valuing’ a complaint. In the past we’ve seen settlements including financial compensation, apologies, donations to social service agencies, arrangements for the installation of security systems, commitments to staff training, policy changes, and even a fruit basket or restaurant vouchers. What the parties settle on is entirely up to them and will depend on a number of factors including the harm experienced by the complainant, the nature of the breach, and the willingness to resolve the complaint.

Harm

There are three kinds of harm under section 66 of our Act which can be considered when deciding whether someone’s privacy has been interfered with:

1. Specific damage – this could be financial loss, but could also include other forms of damage, such as loss of employment or physical injury;  
2. Loss of benefits – this is where the agency’s actions have adversely affected, or may adversely affect, the rights, benefits, privileges, obligations or interests of the individual; and
3. Emotional harm – where the action has resulted in, or may result in, significant humiliation, significant loss of dignity or significant injury to the individual’s feelings. Mere embarrassment or annoyance is not enough – any emotional harm needs to be ‘significant’.

The Tribunal

If no reasonable settlement is reached through our process, the complainant will be entitled to take their complaint to the Human Rights Review Tribunal. The Tribunal has the same monetary jurisdiction as the District Court (up to $350,000) and is able to award damages and compel parties to take action. It’s worth noting, however:

• there may be a significant wait time to get a hearing,
• proceedings are generally public,
• there can be significant costs associated with the process, and
• you can have costs awarded against you if you are unsuccessful.

For these reasons, complaints generally settle for a ‘discount’ if settled before reaching the Tribunal.

Awards in the Tribunal vary substantially, and are fact-dependent. Again this makes it difficult to accurately assess what a complaint is ‘worth’ in money terms. In Hammond v Credit Union Baywide [2015] NZHRRT 6, the Tribunal reviewed recent awards and summarised:

[176] From this general overview it can be seen that awards for humiliation, loss of dignity and injury to feelings are fact-driven and vary widely. At the risk of over-simplification, however, it can be said there are presently three bands. At the less serious end of the scale awards have ranged upwards to $10,000. For more serious cases awards have ranged between $10,000 to about (say) $50,000. For the most serious category of cases, it is contemplated awards will be in excess of $50,000.

Most of the complaints we deal with are not factually similar to the case referenced above, but the comments are useful in setting out the current state of settlements in the Tribunal where there has been a serious interference with privacy. To reach the top band, there will usually have to be some very bad behaviour on the part of the respondent agency.

Other recent cases in the Tribunal that discuss harm include:

Recent OPC settlements

Below is a summary of some settlements our Office has facilitated. As mentioned above, complaints that settle without having to go to the Tribunal usually do so for a “discount”. This is not a complete or comprehensive scale, but may help you understand what some other complaints have settled for.

• $17,000 where a government department disclosed a man’s address to his brother, who was about to be released from prison and against whom he had a protection order;
• $15,000 when, on three separate occasions, an agency failed to check the complainant’s updated address details and posted personal information to an outdated address;
• $14,000 where a DHB sent a patient’s medical records (concerning a termination of pregnancy) to her parent’s address after she had twice requested they update their records;
• $10,000 where a staff member of the agency inappropriately accessed the complainant’s sensitive health information;
• $8,000 where the respondent disclosed the complainant’s health information and details of follow up support that needed to occur to a large group of people;
• $6,000 where the respondent sent the complainant’s information to another patient due to an incorrectly addressed envelope;
• $6,000 where an agency twice sent sensitive information to a woman’s work address in the knowledge that the workplace had a policy of opening all incoming mail;
• $5,750 where the contact details of the complainant were disclosed to a third party who used this information to harass the complainant;
• $3,678 where a debt collector used a man’s information for a purpose other than the one they had collected it for, using it to contact his family and friends (the amount was a write-off of the debt he owed);
• $3,275 where a government agency collected a lot more information from a man than they needed over a number of years, and refused to provide him with its services unless he kept giving them the information;
• $3,000 where the details of an employment investigation into the complainant’s conduct were accessible to all staff in the organisation; 
• $2,200 where an agency failed to respond to an access request from an ex-employee, and also disclosed information about the man to their clients;
• $2,000 when a medical centre dropped a patient’s mental health records off to his letterbox but when he went to get them they weren’t in his box;
• $2,000 where an agency failed to take steps to stop their employee from looking up a woman’s file in their database and disclosing the information to people she knew;
• $2,000 where the respondent inadvertently disclosed the complainant’s personal information by sending her a letter in a windowed envelope which was then viewed by another person;
• $2,000 where a retail store posted a picture of a young girl online, wrongly accusing her of theft;
• $900 where an employer posted information about one of her employees on a Facebook group page, complaining about her work ethic and performance.

As you can see, there is a range, even for similar factual circumstances. It is important to provide evidence of real costs – such as doctor’s visits and counselling sessions – as well as a described experience of significant emotional harm. The threshold is high, and requires more than a fleeting feeling of upset or distress. This is information the respondent agency will have to consider in determining what they are able to offer.

It is important to remember that when you complain to our Office, it is very unlikely the outcome will be cash in your pocket. We only facilitate financial settlements where there has been a clear breach of a privacy principle and serious harm that has followed. It’s also relevant to note that even where we have facilitated a settlement, we have no power to enforce it, if either party fails to uphold the agreement. In the unlikely event that happened, you’d need to seek independent advice.

complaints, Human Rights Review Tribunal

Back

Source:

Should a business use social media to shame scam artists, shoplifters or bad debtors? When someone feels ripped off, this appears a natural course of action but it can be risky. Is if you believe you have evidence that a crime has been committed, contact Police.

One business posted personal information on Facebook about someone whom it accused of trying to scam it out of several hundred dollars’ worth of products. The information published online included the man’s driver licence, a bounced cheque and a security camera photo. The business said its intention was to warn other businesses of what the man had done.

When the man discovered what the business had done, he complained to our office. He described his devastation at being publicly shamed on the business’ Facebook page. He lived in a small community and word quickly spread as the post received more than 17,000 likes and attracted dozens of comments about his colourful past. As a result, he and his family had to endure abuse from others in the community. He said his anxiety and depression were triggered because of the Facebook post and online comments and he wanted more than $50,000 in compensation.

Our investigation

We contacted the business to get its response. The business owner explained the events that motivated the Facebook post. The man had arrived and purchased several hundred dollars’ worth of goods but did not have the cash to pay for them. He offered to pay by cheque and refused to leave without the products because he had driven four hours from his home to obtain them. The business owner said the man told him to make a copy of his driver licence and gave his permission to report him to Police if his cheque was dishonoured. They came to an agreement that the man could take half the goods with him. The business would send him the remaining goods after the cheque cleared.

The cheque bounced. The business owner tried calling the man but his phone was switched off. He left several messages but the man never returned his calls. The owner googled the man’s name and discovered he was well known in his area for his scams. The owner wanted other retailers to be aware of the man’s actions and he posted the man’s personal details on the Facebook page. The owner said within an hour, his business was receiving messages and phone calls sharing similar stories about the man’s past behaviour.

Later that day, the business received Facebook messages from the man’s son asking it to remove the post. The owner said he would delete the post and withdraw his Police report if the outstanding sum was paid. After about four hours, even though no payment was received, the owner took down the post. He received a phone call from the man saying he would make an online payment if the business posted an apology. The business owner complied with the apology but no payment arrived.

Principle 11

The owner explained he had relied on principle 11(e)(i) of the Privacy Act to disclose the man’s information on the business’ Facebook page. Principle 11(e)(i) says an agency may disclose personal information to avoid prejudice to the maintenance of the law by a public sector agency including the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution and punishment of offences.

We acknowledged the man’s actions affected the business financially but principle 11(e)(i) is more usually applied to allow disclosures from businesses to public sector law enforcement agencies, to allow them to do something about the alleged offending. In this case the business had no role in the “maintenance of the law”, and was communicating to the whole world, not just a public sector agency with law enforcement responsibilities. 

The owner said he also relied on principle 11(f)(i) to disclose the man’s information. Principle 11(f)(i) says an agency may disclose personal information if it is necessary to lessen a serious threat to public health or safety. We were not satisfied the man’s actions met the definition of a serious threat.

Acting in good faith

However, while we were not satisfied the business could disclose the man’s personal information on these two grounds, we decided the man had not acted in good faith during the investigation process. He did not pay for the goods he had taken, nor did he return the goods he took. He also failed to provide us with sufficient evidence for us to be able to assess whether or not he had experienced harm as a result of the Facebook post, despite wanting over $50,000 compensation.

We decided it was not appropriate for us to take any further action. Acting in good faith is an important part of participating in our complaints process. It was our view the man fell short of engaging with our office in an open, honest and transparent way and we concluded the complaint by closing the file.

complaints, IPP11 – disclosure, Facebook

Back

Source:

Updated by our Guidance team in March 2025.

The Privacy Act gives people the right to access their information. When a person requests their information, the organisation or business must respond to the request within 20 working days. However, sometimes an organisation wants proof that a person is who they say they are, before they action the request. These cases come to us from time to time, so we thought it would be helpful to explain why an organisation needs to be able to verify a person’s identity.

Under Section 45 of the Privacy Act, when an agency receives an access request for personal information, it must take steps to verify the identity of the requestor, or the person who is acting for the requestor.

Police case

A person complained to us that it was unreasonable that Police ask for photo ID in order to comply with an access request. We said we considered Police’s policy of requiring photo ID an acceptable way of meeting its obligations under section 45 of the Act. We agreed with Police that the purpose of photo ID was to satisfy the officer receiving the access request that the requester was who they claimed to be. Photo ID was the quickest and most accurate way to confirm the identity of a person.

Hospital case

A woman requested a copy of her file from a hospital. The hospital told her they had the file ready, but they would not send it until she completed a form, even though she had already sent her details, a copy of her driver’s licence, and a copy of her name change certificate. She was also told that her signature would be required.

The woman believed the hospital’s refusal to send her information until it had received a completed form was an unnecessary step causing undue delay. We contacted the hospital who said they had told the woman they needed the completed form to make sure there was a record of her request.

Our view was that an agency is entitled to set its own administrative process to make sure it has records of information requests. An agency is also required under the Privacy Act to take appropriate steps to ensure that information intended for a certain person is only received by that person.

Government case

A New Zealander living in another country emailed a request to a New Zealand government agency asking for all the information it held about her. She received a reply that her information was ready to be sent to her, but it could only be delivered by registered mail and only after the woman confirmed in an email that she would not hold the government agency liable or responsible if the information was signed for and opened by another person at her address.

The agency explained to us that it just wanted to ensure the information was sent to the right person because the nature of the information was very sensitive. The agency checked a requestor’s ID carefully before any information was handed over and was cautious in mailing the information out, so we thought that was fair enough.

Risk averse

It is understandable many organisations are risk averse when responding to requests for personal information. Responding to access requests is an obligation that every organisation has to meet, but we’ve seen many examples where organisations haven’t made the necessary checks. The Privacy Act also says organisations have to keep personal information safe, and that has to be balanced with making it accessible to the right person.

You can find more information in our guidance on responding to requests and complaints well.

complaints, IPP6 – access

Back

Source:

When we use the metaphor ‘to come with clean hands’, it means to have done nothing underhand or illegal. It’s a term that applies in the context of resolving privacy disputes. There’s a general expectation that if you make a complaint to our office, you did not bring the breach of privacy upon yourself through your actions.

In a recent case, our complainant was a man who had ripped off a business. He had scammed the business out of several hundred dollars worth of goods but became upset when the business named and shamed him on its Facebook page.

Facebook post

The man claimed he had been left devastated after the business published information about him including photos of his driver’s licence, a bounced cheque, and one taken by a security camera of him at the business. The Facebook post attracted thousands of views and the majority of comments posted by readers were uncharitable to the man – to put it mildly – with many people referring to his colourful past and previous encounters with the law.

In his complaint to our office, the man said he lived in a small community and word quickly spread of the Facebook post. As a result, he and his family had to endure abuse from others in his community. He said his anxiety and depression hit a new low because of the Facebook post and online comments. The man said he wanted more than $50,000 in compensation from the business.

No cash or credit

When we contacted the business, the business owner explained the events that prompted the Facebook post. The man had arrived and wanted to purchase the goods but did not have the cash or credit to pay for them. He offered instead to pay by cheque and refused to leave without the products because he had driven four hours from where he lived. The man gave his permission for the business to keep a copy of his driver’s licence and to report him to Police if his cheque was dishonoured. The two parties came to an agreement that the man could take half the goods he wanted to buy and the rest would be sent to him after the cheque cleared.

The cheque bounced. The business tried many times to call the man’s mobile but the calls were not answered or messages responded to. When the business owner googled the man’s name, he discovered he was well known in his area for his scams. Within an hour of posting the man’s information on Facebook page, the business was receiving messages and phone calls from people wanting to share similar stories about the man’s past behaviour.

Apology

Later that day, the business received Facebook messages from the man’s son asking it to remove the post. The business owner said he would delete the post and withdraw his Police report, if the debt was paid. But hours later, even though no payment was received, the business owner took down the post. He then received a phone call from the man saying he would make an online payment if the business posted an apology. The business owner complied with an apology but still no payment arrived.

We asked the business owner what the grounds he relied on were for disclosing the man’s information on Facebook. Principle 11 of the Privacy Act says an agency that holds personal information should not disclose the information unless one of the exceptions to the principle applied. The business owner said the main exception he relied on was disclosure was necessary to lessen or prevent a serious threat.

Good faith

We didn’t agree. We were not satisfied the man’s actions met the definition of serious threat. However, while we were not satisfied the business could disclose the man’s information, we decided the man had not acted in good faith in dealing with us. He had not paid for the goods he had taken, nor did he return the goods. He also failed to provide us with evidence to assess whether or not he had experienced harm as a result of the Facebook post, despite wanting over $50,000 in compensation from the business.

We decided to close the file. Acting in good faith is an important part of participating in our complaints process. In our view, the man had fallen well short of engaging with us in an open, honest and transparent way. The Privacy Act is not a law that a person can game if you don’t come with clean hands and honest intentions.

Image credit: Clasped hands via Public Domain Pictures

complaints, Facebook, IPP11 – disclosure

Back