WAPI - World Association of Professional Investigators

08/07/2026

U.K. Judge dismisses lawsuit against publisher of Daily Mail

NEWS - “without comment”

Judge dismisses Prince Harry's privacy invasion lawsuit against publisher of Daily Mail
July 7, 2026

Prince Harry 's final lawsuit aimed at taming the British tabloids ended in defeat Tuesday as a judge said he failed to prove his privacy invasion claims against the publisher of the Daily Mail.

Justice Matthew Nicklin rejected the broad inferences the Duke of Sussex relied on to try to show that Associated Newspapers Ltd. engaged in unlawful activities.

The judge said there was a realistic possibility the news came from legitimate sources.

The ruling scuttles lawsuits filed by Harry and six others, including singer Elton John and actor-model Elizabeth Hurley, that sought substantial damages. The legal costs alone - which the claimants could end up having to pay - for years of preparation and an 11-week trial were estimated at about 40 million pounds ($53.5 million).

The publisher called it an "overwhelming victory" and a "magnificent vindication" of the Mail's journalism.

The newspapers had denied the allegations as "preposterous," insisting the roughly 50 articles at issue were based on lawful sources including friends, royal aides and publicists who offered information to reporters.

The decision leaves a mixed legacy for Harry's trio of lawsuits accusing tabloid publishers of using unlawful tactics, such as phone hacking, or hiring private detectives to dig up dirt to snoop on his life.

Harry won a judgment in 2023 that condemned the publishers of the Daily Mirror for "widespread and habitual" phone hacking.

Last year, Rupert Murdoch's flagship U.K. tabloid, The Sun, made an unprecedented apology for intruding on his life for years, and agreed to pay substantial damages to settle his privacy invasion lawsuit.

The verdict, released remotely with no court hearing, coincided with Harry's visit home to the U.K., which has been dominated by headlines over his latest efforts to repair a rift with his father, King Charles III.

Harry has said his litigation - in which he broke with royal family tradition to seek relief in the courts - was a primary source of his falling out with his father and brother, Prince William.

His grudge with the press runs deep. He blames it for the death of his mother, Princess Diana, who was killed in a car crash in 1997 while being pursued by paparazzi in Paris, and for attacks on his wife, Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, that led the couple to abandon royal life and move to the United States in 2020.

"They continue to come after me, they have made my wife's life an absolute misery," he testified as he choked back tears in the witness box during the trial in January.

Attorney David Sherborne said the Daily Mail and its sister publication, Mail on Sunday, used its journalists, freelance reporters and private eyes for "clear, systematic and sustained use of unlawful information gathering" to snoop on his clients.

Defence lawyer Antony White said the case relied on conjecture and inferences when the more likely source of information was "ordinary, legitimate journalism." He said Harry was "inclined to see unlawful evidence gathering, in particular voicemail interception, everywhere."

Other claimants in the case were actor Sadie Frost, antiracism activist Doreen Lawrence, former politician Simon Hughes and John's husband, David Furnish.

The Mail trial played out differently than the Mirror case, with more journalists defending their work in court.

Some Mail reporters pointed to official mouthpieces, such as a palace spokesperson, and others named their sources to dispute Harry's assertion that his "social circles were not leaky."

"They were not all tight-lipped," Katie Nicholl, a former Mail on Sunday editor, said about Harry's associates. "I had very good sources in the inner circle.”

Full story: https://abc7news.com/post/ruling-expected-prince-harry-elton-johns-case-uk-tabloid-publisher/19462989/

Posted by: Ian (D. Withers)


Disclaimer: News items in W.A.P.I.’s “News Without Comment” section are republished articles from external sources. W.A.P.I. is not the originator of this content and does not endorse or verify the accuracy of the material. Complaints or requests for correction should be directed to the original publisher. W.A.P.I. will review any substantiated notice of defamation and, if appropriate, remove or update the content.

Prince Harry's final lawsuit aimed at taming the British tabloids ended in defeat as a judge found he failed to prove his privacy invasion claims against the publisher of the Daily Mail.

08/07/2026

BELGIUM" P*s can now be hired to combat welfare Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
NEWS - “without comment”

Private investigators can now be hired to combat welfare fraud
Sunday, 5 July 2026 - The Brussels Times with Belga

Local welfare centres in Belgium will soon be allowed to hire investigators if they suspect recipients of social integration income are concealing property or associated earnings.

Currently, existing databases make it relatively straightforward to verify whether a claimant owns housing or receives rental income in Belgium. However, detecting properties abroad is far more challenging, according to Belgium’s migration minister, Anneleen Van Bossuyt.

Under her proposal, welfare centres would gain an additional means to uncover fraud when strong indications are present. While social investigations would remain the centres’ responsibility, private investigators could collect targeted information such as local registry data, land records, or official attestations.

Social workers would assess the findings, and final decisions would remain within the welfare centres’ authority. “These are targeted checks in cases of concrete evidence, conflicting statements, or unreliable documents,” said Van Bossuyt. “If there are signs that someone is hiding property or income from it, a welfare centre should be able to verify.”

Antwerp’s welfare centre collaborated in developing the measure and will be the first to implement it. The city, which has experience locating foreign properties in social housing cases, sees this as crucial for ensuring fairness in welfare assistance. “In a multicultural city like ours, where many residents have ties abroad, monitoring foreign properties is essential for equitable social policy,” said Nathalie van Baren, Antwerp’s councillor for social affairs.

Van Bossuyt emphasised that the plan includes safeguards for privacy, professional secrecy, and data protection.
Additionally, individuals retain the right to be heard and to appeal decisions.

Source: https://www.brusselstimes.com/2215281/private-investigators-can-now-be-hired-to-combat-welfare-fraud

Posted by: Ian (D. Withers)


Disclaimer: News items in W.A.P.I.’s “News Without Comment” section are republished articles from external sources. W.A.P.I. is not the originator of this content and does not endorse or verify the accuracy of the material. Complaints or requests for correction should be directed to the original publisher. W.A.P.I. will review any substantiated notice of defamation and, if appropriate, remove or update the content.

Detecting properties abroad has become a challenging task in recent years, opening the doors to potential welfare fraud cases. Private investigators can now help streamline examinations.

02/07/2026

Private Intelligence vs. Private Detective ?

NEWS - “without comment"

Private Intelligence vs. Private Detective | Part 1
Two Worlds with the Same Objective – Yet Fundamentally Different
________________________________________

When people hear the term “private detective,” they usually form a clear mental picture. An investigator sitting in an unmarked vehicle, observing a subject through a camera, researching addresses, verifying suspicions, or documenting movements. This image has been shaped over decades by books, television, and film—and in many respects, it still reflects reality.

The traditional private detective continues to play an important role today. They investigate local matters, support businesses, and private individuals with specific issues, and produce evidence that can be used in court for individual cases.

While the image of the private detective has remained largely unchanged over time, a new discipline has emerged on the international stage: Private Intelligence.

At first glance, both fields may appear similar. Both work with information. Both conduct research. Both collect insights. Both support clients in solving complex problems. However, a closer look quickly reveals that these are two fundamentally different worlds. The difference does not begin with tools or organizational size—it begins with mindset.

A private detective is typically assigned a clearly defined investigative objective: to prove or disprove a specific claim. They conduct surveillance, verify suspicions, document behaviour, or retrieve information. Their work often ends once the original question has been answered.

Private Intelligence follows a different approach.
Its focus is not merely on collecting information, but on producing decision-grade intelligence. Information is not treated in isolation. It is analysed, correlated, validated, and placed into a broader strategic context. The goal is not to deliver isolated facts, but to build a comprehensive intelligence picture.

This is the fundamental distinction. Information on its own has limited value. Only when it is verified, contextualized, connected, and interpreted does it become actionable intelligence. This process fundamentally separates Private Intelligence from traditional investigative work.

A useful comparison can be drawn from sport. The private detective plays an important role and often brings years of experience. They understand their environment, work efficiently, and successfully resolve many local cases. However, compared to Private Intelligence, they operate on a much smaller playing field—similar to the difference between a regional league and the UEFA Champions League. Not because private detectives are less capable, but because the requirements have fundamentally changed.

Today’s world is globally interconnected. Companies operate subsidiaries across multiple jurisdictions. Assets move through complex international holding structures. Cryptocurrencies enable near-instant cross-border transfers. Threat actors communicate via encrypted messaging platforms and rely on offshore structures, shell companies, synthetic identities, and distributed digital infrastructures spanning multiple jurisdictions.

A fraud case today rarely ends at a national border—it often begins there. For example, analysing the ownership and background of a company requires far more than reviewing a commercial register. It involves understanding beneficial ownership structures, corporate linkages, sanctions exposure, litigation history, identifiable assets, and digital footprints that may indicate broader networks.
These questions cannot be addressed through traditional investigative methods alone. They require analysts, data infrastructure, global networks, technological tools, and structured intelligence methodologies.

Private Intelligence should therefore not be viewed as an extension of detective work, but as a fusion of operational expertise, data analytics, technology, and strategic advisory. Where private detectives typically focus on individual incidents, Private Intelligence addresses complex systems.

This distinction is also reflected in the client base.
Private detectives often work for individuals, insurance companies, or small and mid-sized businesses. Their cases typically involve employee misconduct, competition issues, family matters, surveillance, or evidence collection.

Private Intelligence, by contrast, supports multinational corporations, law firms, family offices, financial institutions, investors, and government-related entities. The focus includes economic crime, international fraud networks, asset tracing, litigation support, geopolitical risk, compliance, sanctions, cryptocurrency investigations, insider threats, digital influence operations, and strategic decision-making. These domains clearly illustrate that the two disciplines serve fundamentally different purposes.

The difference becomes even more evident in modern financial crime. Take, for example, an international investment fraud scheme. A private detective may attempt to identify individuals locally, verify addresses, or conduct surveillance.

A Private Intelligence team, however, would take a fundamentally different approach. Before any operational steps are taken, specialists analyse corporate registries across multiple jurisdictions, identify beneficial ownership structures, map international corporate networks, examine blockchain transactions, review media coverage, analyse social media activity, compare historical data, identify assets, assess sanctions exposure, and build a comprehensive intelligence picture.

Only then are operational actions considered. Operational activity is not the starting point—it is the outcome of structured intelligence analysis. This mindset fundamentally distinguishes Private Intelligence from traditional investigative approaches.
Another critical aspect is often overlooked. Private Intelligence is not simply an information-gathering service. It is a decision-support capability.

A CEO needs to assess whether a potential business partner is trustworthy. An investor needs to understand the risks behind an acquisition. A lawyer requires reliable intelligence for cross-border litigation. A family office needs to identify assets before legal proceedings. A company needs to determine whether sensitive information is leaking internally.

These challenges go far beyond traditional investigative work. They require a comprehensive intelligence picture that enables executives, legal teams, and investors to make informed strategic decisions.

For this reason, Private Intelligence is increasingly recognized as a core component of strategic risk management. Its purpose is not only to solve problems, but to identify risks early, anticipate developments, and uncover complex relationships before they result in financial damage.

This is why many global organizations now maintain in-house intelligence functions or work with specialized Private Intelligence firms. They understand that modern threats are no longer purely physical. They emerge in digital ecosystems, international corporate structures, social networks, blockchain environments, geopolitical developments, and in seemingly insignificant data points that only reveal meaning when combined.

This is where Private Intelligence begins. Not with surveillance. Not with simple research. But with the ability to transform fragmented information into reliable, actionable intelligence. A private detective answers questions. Private Intelligence explains relationships. A private detective documents events.

Private Intelligence analyses systems. A private detective solves individual cases. Private Intelligence supports strategic decision-making.

Both fields are legitimate and valuable. However, they serve different purposes, different clients, and fundamentally different methodologies. Equating the two overlooks the profound evolution of a discipline that has transformed significantly over the past decade.

Private Intelligence is therefore not a modern label for traditional detective work.

It is an independent discipline—born from the convergence of technology, intelligence analysis, operational expertise, and international collaboration—built for a world where information is no longer local, but globally interconnected.

Source: https://foreusgroup.com/private-intelligence-private-detective-part-1/
Reposted by kind consent of: Stefan Embacher - Co-Founder & CEO
Foreus Group Europe GmbH
Schönbrunnerstraße 59-61
1050 Wien, Austria
T:+43 664 4474291 / +4312385973
[email protected]
www.foreusgroup.com

Posted by: Ian (D. Withers)


Disclaimer: News items in W.A.P.I.’s “News Without Comment” section are republished articles from external sources. W.A.P.I. is not the originator of this content and does not endorse or verify the accuracy of the material. Complaints or requests for correction should be directed to the original publisher. W.A.P.I. will review any substantiated notice of defamation and, if appropriate, remove or update the content.

02/07/2026

ICO ISSUES GUIDANCE ON RECOGNIZED LEGITIMATE INTEREST

NEWS - “without comment”

ICO ISSUES GUIDANCE ON RECOGNIZED LEGITIMATE INTEREST
29 JUNE 2026

AUTHORS:
OLIVER YAROS, ELLEN HEPWORTH, REBECCA KEAY, ALASDAIR MAHER,
ANA HADNES BRUDER, KATIE STEVAL, CYRIL LEKGETHO

On 23 March 2026, the UK Information Commissioner's Office (the "ICO") published its final guidance on the new "recognised legitimate interest" lawful basis for processing personal data under the UK General Data Protection Regulation (the "UK GDPR"). This new lawful basis was introduced by the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 (the "DUA Act"), which received Royal Assent on 19 June 2025, with the relevant provisions coming into force on 5 February 2026.

Background and Scope of the Guidance

The DUA Act introduces a seventh lawful basis for processing personal data: "recognised legitimate interest" under Article 6(1)(ea) of the UK GDPR. This is distinct from the existing "legitimate interests" basis under Article 6(1)(f), which remains available and is broader in scope, permitting organisations to define their own processing purposes subject to a three-part test incorporating a balancing exercise.

The recognised legitimate interest basis provides a set of pre-approved processing purposes deemed to be in the public interest.

The Five Recognised Legitimate Interest Conditions

The recognised purposes are set out in five conditions contained in Annex 1 of the UK GDPR. Organisations may rely on the recognised legitimate interest basis where their processing is necessary for one of the following purposes:

Public task disclosure response: This condition applies where an organisation voluntarily shares personal data in response to a request from another organisation that needs the data for its public tasks or official functions. The requesting organisation must state in its request that it needs the data for these purposes. For example, this may arise where a business receives a request from a regulatory authority (such as the Competition and Markets Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority, or HMRC) seeking customer or transaction data to support an ongoing investigation or enforcement action.
The ICO recommends that requests be made in writing and that the disclosing organisation maintain an effective audit trail. Importantly, if an organisation is legally required to share data, the appropriate lawful basis is legal obligation, not recognised legitimate interest.

National security, public security, and defence: This condition covers the processing of personal data where necessary for safeguarding national security, protecting public security, or for defence purposes. Many organisations processing data for these purposes may already rely on a different lawful basis (such as legal obligation or public task) or be subject to different parts of data protection law.
A common instance of this is when a telecommunications provider shares network infrastructure data with GCHQ to support cybersecurity threat detection and national security monitoring.

Emergencies: This condition permits the processing of personal data where necessary to respond to emergency events or situations as defined by Part 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, including events threatening serious damage to people's welfare or the environment, or war and acts of terrorism threatening serious damage to UK security. In instances of a gas pipeline rupture or water contamination incident, for example, such events would constitute an emergency that threatens serious damage to individuals welfare, falling within the scope of Part 2 of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. The sharing of customer data is necessary in such cases to respond to the emergency.
The ICO encourages organisations to include data protection considerations in their contingency planning.

Crime: This condition applies where an organisation needs to process personal data to prevent, detect or investigate crimes, including the apprehension and prosecution of offenders. If the data constitutes criminal offence data, the organisation must also identify a specific condition for processing under the Data Protection Act 2018 (the "DPA"), unless it has official authority to use such data. This condition is particularly relevant in fraud prevention contexts—for instance, an insurance company processing policyholder and claimant data to detect and investigate suspected insurance fraud, or a bank analysing transaction histories, IP addresses, device identifiers, and account holder details to identify foul play or cyber-attacks.
The ICO notes that where a purpose satisfies the crime condition, it is likely also to satisfy an appropriate condition under the DPA for processing criminal offence data.

Safeguarding: This condition enables the processing of personal data to protect the physical, mental or emotional well-being of "vulnerable individuals" or to protect them from harm or neglect. A "vulnerable individual" is defined as a child (anyone under 18) or an "at risk" adult—being an adult whom the organisation has reasonable cause to suspect needs care or support and is experiencing, or is at risk of, harm and is unable to protect themselves. For example, an HR team may process personal data—including employment records, attendance patterns, occupational health notes, and internal incident reports—to assess whether an employee may be an "at risk" adult, if the employee has displayed behaviour warranting such suspicions.
This assessment must be kept under review, as an individual's circumstances may change such that the definition is no longer met.

Practical Implications and Next Steps

Organisations should review existing processing activities to identify those for which the new recognised legitimate interest basis may be appropriate. Where organisations choose to rely on a new basis, they should update their records of processing activities and privacy notices to reflect this, including specifying the relevant condition.

Organisations should keep their assessments under regular review, recognising that circumstances can change in ways that affect the continued applicability of the basis—for example, in the context of the safeguarding condition, where an individual may no longer meet the definition of a "vulnerable individual.”

Organisations with cross-border operations should take particular care to maintain distinct compliance frameworks for their UK and EU processing activities, given that the recognised legitimate interest basis is not available under the EU GDPR.

Full Article: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/ico-issues-guidance-on-recognized-5763153/

Posted by: Ian (D. Withers)


Disclaimer: News items in W.A.P.I.’s “News Without Comment” section are republished articles from external sources. W.A.P.I. is not the originator of this content and does not endorse or verify the accuracy of the material. Complaints or requests for correction should be directed to the original publisher. W.A.P.I. will review any substantiated notice of defamation and, if appropriate, remove or update the content.

On 23 March 2026, the UK Information Commissioner's Office (the "ICO") published its final guidance on the new "recognised legitimate interest" lawful...

29/06/2026

ICO: Chief Quits The UK Watchdog Over Conduct

NEWS - “without comment”

Ex-NZ Privacy Chief Quits UK Watchdog Over Conduct
Thursday, June 25, 2026:

John Edwards, the New Zealand-born former privacy regulator, has resigned as UK Information Commissioner after a workplace investigation into his conduct toward staff.

Edwards stepped down on 19 June with immediate effect. He also vacated the chair-designate role at the new Information Commission, the body set to replace the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO).

He is the first person to resign the role in the office's 42-year history. The post has existed since 1984.

Edwards announced the decision on LinkedIn. He cited “poor judgement” and attempts at humour that he said were inappropriate and caused offence. He said his position had become “untenable” and that he did not wish to distract from the ICO's work.

The next day, Science Secretary Liz Kendall disclosed far more serious detail. She said she had seen evidence of the “vulgar and highly sexualised language” used in his interactions with staff.

Kendall said multiple women gave testimony of feeling offended, shocked and uncomfortable after dealings with Edwards. She criticised his continued framing of the incidents as misplaced humour.

The ICO confirmed the resignation and said his actions were “completely at odds with our values”. It said it does not accept sexual harassment, bullying or discrimination in any form. The official ICO statement is at ico.org.uk.

Edwards voluntarily stepped back from his duties on 26 February, pending an independent investigation into HR matters. On 10 June the ICO said the probe had found a case to answer, though it reported no formal finding of wrongdoing at that point.

Deputy Commissioner and Chief Executive Paul Arnold have carried out the commissioner's statutory responsibilities throughout. The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) named him temporary acting accounting officer for the office.

Arnold is already confirmed as the first chief executive of the new Information Commission. That is an interim appointment of up to two years, pending permanent recruitment.

Edwards served as New Zealand Privacy Commissioner from February 2014 to December 2021. He is a solicitor and barrister and a former policy adviser to New Zealand's prime minister and cabinet.

He began a five-year term as UK Information Commissioner in January 2022, succeeding Elizabeth Denham. His tenure focused on data protection, online safety, and the regulatory response to artificial intelligence.

Politico, which first reported the investigation in April, said Edwards had returned to New Zealand while continuing to draw his £200,000 annual salary. That figure exceeds the salary of the UK prime minister.

The exit lands during a major overhaul of the regulator. Under the Data (Use and Access) Act, the ICO is moving from its corporation sole model to a board-governed Information Commission, in line with other UK regulators.

Campaigners have separately criticised the ICO as slow to act. Regulatory investigations fell from more than 2,000 in 2019 to just over 200 in 2025, with thousands of cases still unassigned.

Source: https://idm.net.au/article/0015662-ex-nz-privacy-chief-quits-uk-watchdog-over-conduct

Previous NEWS – “without comment”
APRIL 28, 2026 - ICO Chief “Missing in Action”
ICO chief John Edwards steps back as workplace probe quietly unfolds UK’s data watchdog confirms ………..

Posted by: Ian (D. Withers)


Disclaimer: News items in W.A.P.I.’s “News Without Comment” section are republished articles from external sources. W.A.P.I. is not the originator of this content and does not endorse or verify the accuracy of the material. Complaints or requests for correction should be directed to the original publisher. W.A.P.I. will review any substantiated notice of defamation and, if appropriate, remove or update the content.

John Edwards, the New Zealand-born former privacy regulator, has resigned as UK Information Commissioner after a workplace investigation into his conduct toward staff.Edwards stepped down on 19 June with immediate effect. He also vacated the chair-designate role at the new Information Commission, th...

15/06/2026

RIP - ROGER COOK - INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST

NEWS - “without comment"

Roger Cook, who has died aged 83, made a reputation as Britain’s toughest investigative reporter
Initially on BBC Radio 4’s Checkpoint and subsequently The Cook Report on TV.

The ‘master door-stepper’ TV journalist who tackled crooks head-on in The Cook Report
Burly and fearless, the anorak-clad Cook was thrown downstairs, coshed, hurled headfirst into a rockery, attacked by dogs, and beaten up

Cook: thanks to his exposés, people went to prison, others were freed, laws were changed and countless con tricks exposed

Telegraph Obituaries
15 June 2026

Note: The Cook Report often engaged PI Agencies to assist in some of their episodes.

Posted by: Ian (D. Withers)


Disclaimer: News items in W.A.P.I.’s “News Without Comment” section are republished articles from external sources. W.A.P.I. is not the originator of this content and does not endorse or verify the accuracy of the material. Complaints or requests for correction should be directed to the original publisher. W.A.P.I. will review any substantiated notice of defamation and, if appropriate, remove or update the content.

08/06/2026

CAN SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS HAVE AUDIO?

NEWS - "without comment”

Can Surveillance Cameras Have Audio?
Ron Harrison | 7 Jun 2026

Many modern cameras do feature built-in audio capabilities, such as microphones for "listen-in" and this is perfectly legal in the UK, but their use is strictly regulated. Specific covert cameras for surveillance come in all sorts of shapes and sizes and can be used to record both visual and audio at close range. This footage will need to be carefully edited when presenting to the client to ensure no other parties feature, but an unedited copy is always kept for any legal proceedings.
Is Surveillance Legal

The first thing we should ask “is surveillance legal” Yes surveillance in UK is legal, it is particularly important that surveillance is conducted in a public place, to be in accordance with RIPA - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulation-of-investigatory-powers-act-2000-ripa/regulation-of-investigatory-powers-act-2000-ripa - although as a private company this is not actually necessary, it is best practice. It may be necessary to follow the subject for a long period of time, whilst in a public place, on foot, in a vehicle, on public transport, entering shopping malls, pubs and restaurants. It is very important to identify people they meet and if possible, record the conversations, but sometimes they meet with people who have nothing to do with the assignment, care must be taken not to identify them, the same with children. The camera never lies!
What Is Surveillance

The covert observation or monitoring of a person by whatever means; for the purpose of a specific investigation or specific operation to lawfully gather intelligence / evidence, for crime, adultery, information or intelligence. Basically, following someone around to see what they get up to, without being identified.

Surveillance is literally following the subject wherever they go, recording movements and who they meet, carried out by an experienced team to gather specific evidence or intelligence in order to prove or disprove the specific request from the client, we do not believe in one-man surveillance, it is unprofessional, we would recommend deploying a minimum of a three-man team, but with protracted surveillance we often have to use a larger team so as not to be compromised. The purpose of surveillance is to gather intelligence and monitor movements. It spans multiple sectors, adapting its goals to fit specific operational needs.

To read the full article: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/can-surveillance-cameras-have-audio-ron-harrison-fgboe/

Reposted by kind consent of,
Ron Harrison - MD at Surelock
Past President of The Association of British Investigators, Consultant for the BBC.
Security Consultant to businesses and personnel with a team of private investigators.
https://www.surelock.org/

Posted by: Ian (D. Withers)


Disclaimer: News items in W.A.P.I.’s “News Without Comment” section are republished articles from external sources. W.A.P.I. is not the originator of this content and does not endorse or verify the accuracy of the material. Complaints or requests for correction should be directed to the original publisher. W.A.P.I. will review any substantiated notice of defamation and, if appropriate, remove or update the content.

Surelock Private Investigators offers professional investigation services in the UK, specialising in surveillance, background checks and more. Contact us today.