We use cookies on this site, but we don't capture any personal information. View cookie options.

What happens if you decline cookies?

Like most people, I use Google Analytics to see how my web site is used, but this doesn't capture any personal information about you, and I certainly don't gather data about you in any other way without telling you. There's no hidden market intelligence stuff on the site. But you can decline cookies if you really want to, and I'll suppress Google Analytics.

Please state your preference below.
(Clicking 'Accept cookies' gets rid of that annoying top bar.)

My site also uses essential cookies, which are permitted under UK law. You can override them in your browser settings, but the site probably won't work properly if you do.
For more information, see my Privacy policy page.

Current status:

Accept cookies     Decline cookies      Reset     Close




 

“If Brexit goes ahead” – the referendum’s most insidious taboo

Has someone invented an infallible crystal ball? Reading a lot of Brexit reporting in the press and hearing it in the broadcast media, you would certainly think so.

Here's a book title that could turn out to have some prescience!

Here’s a book title that could turn out to have some prescience!

As far as I know, sitting here in September 2018, the United Kingdom has not yet left the European Union. That development is not scheduled to happen for nearly six months. Therefore no one in the known universe can predict at this stage how Brexit will eventually play out – or crucially, whether it will play out at all.

Yet every report I hear on the BBC, along with many that I read in newspapers, treats Brexit as an absolute, unstoppable, cast-iron certainty. Four little words are missing from all these reports: “if Brexit goes ahead”.

This reveals a terrifying flight of reason in the face of Political Correctness (yes, with a capital P and a capital C). The reporters writing these stories would never dare to suggest that any other future world event is bound to happen by immutable law. Yet somehow, rules of logic have been thrown away in the reporting of Brexit. Merely because there was a referendum on the subject more than two years ago, reporters and editors have apparently decided they are to duty-bound treat the implications of the vote with absolute, unshakeable certainty.

You only have to make a small leap in imagination to see the utter folly of this reasoning. Just suppose for a tiny moment that Brexit does not go ahead. It is possible, after all. The earth might be struck by a meteorite, for instance. Britain might have a general election. There might be a “no” vote in a second referendum. All these scenarios, whether likely or not, are possible.

If that does happen, then all the certainty about Brexit exhibited by the BBC (and of course by all the pro-Brexit politicians) will be exposed as having been based on a false assumption, not on any practical reality. All those confident pronouncements about “when Britain leaves the EU” will be seen for what they were – hot air. It will become clear that all along, the word “when” should have been replaced by “if”.

I am a lifelong supporter of the BBC, so it saddens me to single it out for criticism in this way, but on the subject of Brexit it has turned itself into a stubbornly insistent, if perhaps unwitting, apologist for the pro-Brexit camp. And all because of its pursuit of so-called “objectivity”.

I understand why this has happened; the BBC is terrified of being accused of breaking the impartiality obligation written into its charter. But I would argue that its dogged assumption that Brexit will go ahead it not in fact impartial or objective; it is based on a false premise.

The trouble is that the two pieces of wording have not been recognised as opposites. If used to qualify the content of news reports, the phrase “if Brexit goes ahead” would be seen as revolutionary and subversive, whereas “when Brexit goes ahead” is accepted as merely expressing the mythical “will of the people” (as determined by a close-run and deeply flawed referendum process). It is assumed to reflect a universally accepted reality.

It does not. “When Brexit goes ahead” is insidiously manipulative, and just as pointed in its implications as the “if” phrase would be. It treats as a certainty something which, however likely or unlikely, is at best a possibility. In fact in some ways it’s worse than “if”, since it postulates the outcome as inevitable, when at least the “if” phrase leaves room for doubt. “When Brexit goes ahead” is a silent killer – for the most part accepted and tolerated, rather than being seen for the hidden political statement that it is.

Unfortunately, the BBC can look for support to numerous politicians on both sides of the  divide – and that includes people who, even though originally Remainers, now claim to view Brexit as unavoidable, and obstinately parrot arguments about “the democratic decision of the people” in defence of their stance, as if a one-off vote two years ago had to stand for all time. It’s difficult to understand what fears or foibles might have prompted such people to become clairvoyants.

“When Brexit goes ahead” has now become so ingrained in the BBC’s thinking that it infuses its every utterance on this subject. Even when the organisation gives airtime to Brexit opponents, which in fairness it does on a frequent basis, there’s always an implication that these people are operating on the fringes of societal norms, and have little if any chance of getting their way … because “Brexit will happen,” come what may.

I’m a realist. I know the BBC couldn’t suddenly start inserting “if Brexit goes ahead” into its reporting. Such a move would instantly undermine the pro-Brexit cause in such a blatant fashion that the director general would presumably be fired within minutes.

Yet as momentum builds behind the drive to revisit Brexit, and even to hold a second referendum, I can’t help feeling disappointed that the BBC seems to be lagging so far behind popular opinion favouring a rethink on the subject. If the organisation could somehow weave a more genuinely impartial tone into its Brexit reporting, that would actually reflect the impartiality it is supposed to uphold.

Claiming that “when Brexit goes ahead” reflects objective reality is about as plausible as arguing that it is possible to predict who will win the next World Cup … or who will win Britain’s next general election.

Any takers?


My novel Never Going to Happen, written under the pen-name Anders Teller, explores the two sides of the Brexit debate in the context of a fast-action thriller that is also a mystery and a romance. More details here.

  
Posted in World affairs | Tagged | 1 Comment

Fixed in time?

Can a novel work if it’s set against unresolved real-world events?

What if, for instance, someone had written a thriller whose backdrop was the election battle between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton – and the book had come out before the election result was known? Could that have worked?

I’m hoping the answer is yes, because that’s the approach I’ve taken with a new mystery drama, Never Going to Happen, which I launched under the pen-name Anders Teller in March 2018*. One of its underlying themes is Britain’s tortured progress towards leaving the European Union, and the book was released more than a year before that process sees any kind of resolution.

Does it matter? I don’t think so. First and foremost, this is a personal drama, a mystery thriller and a romance, and it includes themes entirely unrelated to the dreaded word “Brexit”. The twists at the end (and there are several crackers, if I might be so bold as to say so) don’t depend on how our real-life politicians conclude the Brexit process. Whether you read the book now, while the clamour is still going on, or five years hence, when we know how it all turned out, I believe you will experience the same satisfying and rounded story.

In that case, why have I featured Brexit at all? It’s because the subject has thrown up so many challenging issues – fake news, the rise of populism, the power of the internet to manipulate opinion, and above all, the belief that the referendum vote somehow legitimised the expression of extremist views and the entitlement to shout down dissenting opinion.

I thought these issues might make a compelling quasi-real backdrop to a fictional story – one about shadowy people who are trying to reshape the way world events will turn out.

Some readers might still argue that they want a “story arc” that is set within a known and settled contextual framework. They might rebel at the idea that the real-world events raised within the book should continue after the story has ended, and may not turn out as the people in the book would like.

As far as my book is concerned, my answer is that it sets its own bounds, and simply doesn’t rely on real-world outcomes. It isn’t really very different from other such books – it just has a slightly more contemporary feel.

Obviously it won’t be contemporary in ten years’ time! But I don’t think that matters. By way of analogy, dozens of films were made during the second world war: not just propaganda films, but also human dramas that used the war simply as illustrative context. Most were released long before the outcome of the war was known. The ones that over-played the sentimentalist, rabble-rousing themes probably sank without trace, but those that homed in on universal issues and enduring values had a much longer shelf life.

I won’t be so bold as to make such claims for Never Going to Happen, but I do think it deals with timeless themes that are not tied to Brexit or to any other specific world event.


*Never Going to Happen is now available worldwide in Kindle e-reader format from Amazon, and is also available from Amazon in paperback.

Read more at my publishing arm: www.tophampublishing.com
Link to Amazon book page: click here

 

  
Posted in Discussion | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

The heroism of the average man

Should we approve of everything done by the leading character in a novel? Should he or she be a “hero” in the traditional sense, or should such characters exhibit normal human flaws such as occasional bad judgement and indecision?

You might respond that it depends what kind of book we’re talking about. Perhaps heroic adventures do demand appropriate heroism, you might say. By contrast, arguably a book about “your average man” (whoever that might be) should portray average strengths and weaknesses.

But even pure adventures need conflict and crisis; and this, surely, means that heroes can’t always be invincible. If they were, there wouldn’t be any drama. So perhaps the only difference between “levels of perfection” in different types of book lies in the detail.

The reason I raise this is that one or two otherwise positive reviewers of my stories have complained that Mike, my leading character, can sometimes be weak and indecisive. They say that this has stopped them giving the books the highest rating.

Now it’s not up to me to tell reviewers what they should think of my books. I feel enormously indebted to every single one of them for taking the time to write about the books at all. I try to learn from any adverse criticism.

All the same, their point about Mike’s alleged failings has me slightly puzzled. It’s not as if he’s constantly bowing to pressure from others, or conceding in arguments and avoiding conflict. In many ways he’s quite tough-minded.

But I’ve deliberately given him a few flaws. He’s sometimes self-doubting, sometimes evasive, even a little naive when it comes to relationships. Basically he’s human, and that means imperfection. He wants to do the right thing, but can’t always decide what that is.

I would have thought that this sums up what most of us are like; and that’s precisely the point of my books. I’ve tried to create a character readers can identify with, and then I’ve aimed to get those readers wondering how they would deal with the challenges I pose for him.

Usually, by a combination of luck and perseverance, Mike ends up in the position where we want him to be. What’s more, he often notches up incidental successes along the way – saving a business in Alternative Outcome, for instance, or finding a buyer for publishing company in Denial of Credit. But he doesn’t pull these things off through conventional heroism; he does it by his forthright manner – his impetuousness even – and by reasoning his way through each crisis as it comes along. If anything, what redeems him is the heroism of the average man.

To me, each book is a twin story; it’s about my leading character’s battle against some kind of external adversity, and it’s also about his struggle to summon up the best in himself.

Some reviewers have kindly said they find Mike a very strong character – a surprising contrast to the views of those who are unhappy with him. This is very gratifying, even if (as I suspect) these more positive reviewers actually mean he is “a strongly-written flawed character”. That’s exactly what I intended. But as I said, I do listen to criticism, so perhaps my challenge is to ensure that Mike’s strengths and weaknesses continue to balance out to a character readers like and care about – someone whose story they want to follow.

I’m keeping that constantly in mind.

  
Posted in Discussion | Leave a comment

Self-publishing, and making the right moves: what am I missing?

Self-publishing? Three or four years ago I knew nothing. My biggest challenge was formatting my first book so that it would look plausible on a Kindle. Actually selling it once it was online was a challenge for later.

Now, with a couple of years’ experience under my belt, I could take the view that I’ve moved forward. I’ve gradually notched up a few dozen really positive Amazon reader reviews, and people are actually buying my books. Not a lot, but hundreds, anyway. (If you’re one of them, thanks!) Being a half-full kind of person rather than the half-empty kind, I know I should feel pleased.

Yet I’m strongly aware that I’m still very much a novice. If I’d progressed further, I would be selling loads of books, not just the modest numbers that people are buying at the moment. I still seem to be a thousand miles from joining the league of seasoned Kindle authors – people who apparently sell thousands of copies of every book they publish. Why?

Well, not for lack of making the right moves. I’ve notified the top readers’ websites each time I’ve published a new book (Goodreads and so on). I’ve circulated press releases about each new book to the printed and online press. I’ve uploaded author profiles to readers’ websites and responded to author interview requests. I’ve set up Facebook pages, a Twitter account and a website, and tried to keep them up to date. I’ve contributed to writers’ online forums, Facebook groups and book blogs. I’ve put my books into Amazon’s Select scheme and run periods of free days – supporting these with paid promotion, of course. I’ve run paid advertising on Facebook and Amazon.

Some of this has created short-lived blips in sales (mostly run-ons following the free Amazon days, I have to say). But some spending has yielded zero extra sales. Write it off to experience, I’ve told myself philosophically.

I’ve also set up paperback versions of all my Kindle books, complete with my own ISBN codes (yet another investment). So no one can pass on a purchase merely because of technophobia.

With all this under my belt, in a way I’ve matured from a tyro into a fairly seasoned campaigner. I now know which book promotion web sites seem to work for me – and which of them will never accept my books, however good they are. I know how to contribute to writers’ forums without being dismissed as an idiot or getting too many rebukes for inadvertently offending someone. I know roughly how to distinguish between snake-oil merchants and people who can provide genuine help with selling e-books. In short, I’ve graduated from my basic training.

But where has all this got me? Not terribly far! I know that people like my books, and I know the books stand up well in comparison with many on the internet. But that tipping point into steady, substantial sales remains as elusive as ever.

Friends sometimes smile encouragingly. “At least you’re a published author now, and you’re doing what you always wanted. You’re writing your own books, which gives you pleasure in itself, and you know that if people want to read them, they can. Surely that’s enough?”

Well … no it isn’t!

(a) I’m not “published” in the way they mean. I did it myself. When thousands of people start flocking to buy the books, perhaps I’ll accept that notion. Not until.

(b) I’m not writing to please myself, I’m writing to please other people. So unless people do read the books in reasonable numbers, I can’t with hand on heart feel that the primary objective has been achieved.

I hasten to add that I’m not blaming anyone else for not having progressed further or faster in this market. I was the one who chose the self-publishing route, and it’s down to me to make it work.

I’m just saying it’s no easy ride. Clearly I haven’t made all the right moves, even though I keep trying to persuade myself that I have. So if anyone can see what I’m missing, please let me know!

  
Posted in Discussion | Leave a comment

Boss from hell? Denial of Credit is out now!

We’ve all met him – the boss from hell. You admire him, you almost love him, yet you also despise him. You hate what he asks of you, but you’re proud when you achieve it.

Alan Treadwell, entrepreneur and one-time logistics leader, is one of that breed … and journalist Mike Stanhope has to get into Alan’s head. He’s asked to ghost-write Alan’s autobiography, but he’s soon wondering if he’s bitten off more than he can chew. Alan expects so much, and so quickly. The original writer dropped out (not surprisingly, perhaps), and Mike has to pick up the pieces. It’s no easy task.

And what about the parts of Alan’s life that he isn’t revealing? Mike can’t resist probing, and it quickly gets him into deep water. Meanwhile, what really happened to Joe, the original writer? Where is he now, and why is he keeping his head down? The farther Mike looks, the more urgently someone seems to be trying to stop him.

Denial-of-Credit

Denial of Credit by Peter Rowlands

It doesn’t take Mike long to realise that high achievement like Alan’s tends to come at high personal cost. What he doesn’t reckon on is the potential cost of his curiosity to himself and those around him.

Denial of Credit, the third novel in my series of Mike Stanhope Mysteries, is an even more relentless ride than the first two – and it takes Mike into murkier waters as he juggles his faltering relationship with the attraction of a new romantic involvement. The plot gradually builds to a dramatic confrontation that makes it as much a thriller as a mystery drama.

As you can see, the logistics world once again provides a compelling backdrop. It’s so pervasive, and is packed with so much dramatic potential. In a way, my series is turning into an ongoing campaign to make logistics seem exciting. (Not that I’m saying it isn’t exciting anyway!)

As with its predecessors, this novel is packed with vibrant, convincing dialogue and three-dimensional characters, and has a multi-threaded plot in which all the elements gradually converge. I think it’s my strongest yet.

But are my characters based on real people? Of course not! Elements of them might be, but not their totality. I met only nice people in my many years as a logistics journalist and editor. Or course I did. They taught me that it’s better to lead by example than by intimidation. At any rate, those are the bosses I remember most fondly.

You can download Denial of Credit from Amazon UK here, or Amazon US here. It will be available as a paperback by the end of April.

  
Posted in Discussion | Leave a comment

Numero uno? If only!

The picture with this blog shows me pointing out my novel Alternative Outcome in a number one slot in a listing of other books on Amazon US website. Impressed? I was! Or was it all just wishful thinking?

Well, the screenshot is perfectly genuine, so I’m not going to knock it. However, I have to be honest. The listing shows books in a very specific category – “International Mystery & Crime”. Moreover, it singles out books that were free on the day in question. It was the final day of a week’s free listing promotion that I was running on the Amazon site.

I also need to tell you that International Mystery & Crime is not a very populous category. There were just under a hundred free books listed on that day.

So I was really and truly number one for a few hours – but only in a very specific category of free books. But I reckon that’s a lot better than never being number one in anything.

Peter Rowlands with Amazon sales ranking screen

Number one – in free international mystery and crime!

If you wanted to be seriously literal, you might question whether Alternative Outcome is strictly an international mystery and crime book in the first place. My argument is that there’s crime in it, and the action ranges over more than one continent, so it definitely meets some of the more obvious criteria. Beyond that, the categorisation is really a matter of judgement. My primary category is just plain “Mystery”, and I have to say that sums it up better.

The free promotion resulted in more than six thousand downloads of the book, which was pretty exciting. A whole lot of new readers now had my book in their possession … and hopefully some were actually intending to read it!

The broader objective was simply to get the word out to more people, and hopefully to pick up some run-on sales for this book and the sequel, Deficit of Diligence. Did it work? Watch this space.

  
Posted in Discussion | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

‘Alternative Outcome’ – FREE for five days!

Alternative Outcome, my first mystery drama, was free on Amazon (all markets) in Kindle format from 9 to 13 January 2017 (inclusive).  But if you missed it, please take a look anyway. It’s very inexpensive, and a lot of people seem to like it. The free week netted over six thousand downloads.

In case you hadn’t realised, thousands Kindle e-books are available free on Amazon all the time. It’s one of the ways in which authors try to build up their market presence and attract new readers. This was the first time one of my books had been on this kind of offer, and I was hoping it might creep up the rankings as a result.

On Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01CK1XVHK.

On Amazon US: www.amazon.com/dp/B01CK1XVHK.

Alternative Outcome Amazon link

Alternative Outcome cover

Alternative Outcome is a mystery story with a strong romantic thread. The leading character, downbeat journalist Mike Stanhope, has written his own mystery novel as a diversion from the rat race of his day job, basing it on a real events. But pretty soon he starts wondering if his fiction has come a bit too close to the truth.

For those with an interest in the world of e-commerce, there’s a strong logistics background to the plot – but don’t worry if this means nothing to you; you don’t need to understand it to appreciate the various predicaments Mike finds himself in. However, if you do, you should find yourself smiling in recognition all the way through.

There are plenty of twists and turns along the way. Here’s what one reviewer said:

It’s hard to put my finger on what I found more striking: its intricate and interwoven plot and fast-paced story-telling, or the author’s uncluttered, economic narrative style and use of absolutely spot-on dialogue between his characters – all of which keeps you on top of the many layers of intertwining plot lines.”

I won’t argue with any of that!

By the way, there weren’t many reviews on the Amazon US website when I wrote this post, but there were quite a lot on the Amazon UK site. Have a look there if you want to see more.

There’s lots more information about the book on my website. See for instance this page.

I published the follow-up novel, Deficit of Diligence, at the turn of 2017, so if you’ve read the first one, you might like to give that a try too. It’s at www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01N0PRFV0.

  
Posted in Discussion | Leave a comment

‘Sorry, we don’t review e-books.’ The self-publishing paradox

As part of the launch of my latest mystery drama, Deficit of Diligence (www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01N0PRFV0/) I sent a press release out to the literary press, and immediately received several replies saying, “Sorry, we don’t review e-books.”

I expected nothing else. How could they? If they did, or even intimated that they might, they would be inundated with emails containing e-books or links to them. It must be hard enough for mainstream reviewers to dig their way through all the printed books that traditional publishers send them. If you multiply that number by a massive factor, you’ll arrive at the number of e-books they’d receive.

Far more challenging for them than the numbers alone, however, is the absence of the “credentials” that a traditional publisher is seen to confer by its very involvement in any book. It says the book has been considered, checked, corrected, massaged and fine-tuned with a professional’s eye. It has the backing of a business that’s prepared to invest its own money – speculatively – on the chance that it might make a profit from the publishing process for itself and the author.

By contrast, a self-published e-book comes recommended by the author alone. From a reviewer’s point of view, what value has that? Every author thinks his or her book is wonderful, but it proves nothing. Life is too short for most mainstream reviewers to read even a single page to find out if an e-book seems to have potential.

So I’m sanguine – but I’m also sad. I think my books, and the books of thousands of other independent writers like me, do deserve an airing by mainstream reviewers. The trouble is, I don’t know how it will ever happen. Publishers, whether you love them or hate them, are believed to confer a kind of authority. Their participation represents a massive tick box, whether the individual book happens to be good or bad. Independent books have no such benefit.

Self-evidently, some alternative “credential” is required – some stamp of authority that says a given e-book is at least worth putting in the starting gate when it comes to consideration for review. But what on earth would this look like? Who could confer such a thing without reinventing the notion of a “gatekeeper” – which is exactly what many indie writers hate about the publishing establishment? I don’t have answers, and I’d love to know if anyone else does.

If you’re interested, the whole text of my press release for literary publications is here as a PDF. In it, I quote myself (well, why not?) as follows:

“Without some kind of qualitative mediation on traditional lines, the sheer magnitude of e-book output is in some ways its own worst enemy. That’s the self-publishing paradox.

“In a way this press release is my own appeal for open-mindedness. That’s all I can ask, really. The world doesn’t owe me a living, and I’m not saying my new book is the best thing since sliced bread. It’s not. But I believe that like a lot of indie books, it deserves a wider audience than it is likely to get the way things are now.”

 

  
Posted in Discussion | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Read this. No don’t! Yes, do.

My new mystery thriller, Deficit of Diligence, is out now! It’s a sequel to the earlier Alternative Outcome, and follows the fortunes of downbeat journalist and would-be novelist Mike Stanhope as he settles into his new life in the West Country.

As you’ll quickly find out, he doesn’t actually get much breathing space. He’s soon on the move to the north of England, where a lot happens to him in a remarkably short time. His part-time boss has an assignment for him there, and he also has his own agenda – to find out more about a mysterious legacy.

But here’s a bit of a puzzle. I want to promote my new novel, but for people who haven’t read the first novel, the new one contains spoilers. So what should my message be? I want to say, “My new book is out, but please don’t read it – read the other one.” Yet that sounds daft!

Deficit of Diligence - link to Amazon book page

Deficit of Diligence – the new mystery drama from Peter Rowlands

I suppose it’s wonderful when anybody reads any book of mine, so perhaps I shouldn’t worry too much about who reads what, or in which order. But I don’t want to deter people from reading the first book by letting them find out too much about it in the second. Is this a problem for all series writers?

All I can say is, if you like the sound of my new book but you haven’t read the first one yet, you’ll find it will pay you to start there. But if you’re determined to lunge straight into the second, please don’t let me stop you!

 

  
Posted in Discussion | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Can logistics be exciting?

Certainly! Read my new mystery drama, Deficit of Diligence, and then you’ll believe me. High drama in the high-bay, conspiracy on the conveyor line, hijacking on the highway – not to mention overstocking in the warehouse and financial finagling on the fiscal front.

Oh, and then of course there’s a deficit of diligence: due diligence, that is. A company acquisition is on the agenda, but the course of true love isn’t running smoothly. (Or is that another part of the plot?)

If all this sounds a bit mad, don’t worry. Deficit of Diligence is a proper mystery drama. You can sail through the logistics bits without knowing a single thing about them. But if you do know the business, you should find yourself smiling in recognition – or maybe in disbelief!

Deficit of Diligence - link to Amazon book page

Deficit of Diligence – the new mystery drama from Peter Rowlands

So what’s the book really about? Well, it follows the fortunes of downbeat journalist Mike, whom we met in the first novel of this series, Alternative Outcome. He’s just learned about an unexpected legacy from an unknown benefactor in north-east England, so he’s happy when he’s sent there with his job. He hopes he’ll find out what it’s all about.

Instead, some bad decisions result in conflict with his colleagues, and his efforts to put things right soon lead him into deadly danger. It takes every ounce of his resource to get his life back on an even keel.

Like its predecessor, Deficit of Diligence is fast-paced and strong on character, and is packed with lively dialogue. And it’s driven by not one mystery but several, including that of a girl Mike spots in an ancient film. Who is she, and could she have a bearing on his legacy?

The logistics backdrop is there all the way through, but it’s never obtrusive. The focus is on the people, and on how the various plot lines will be resolved.

Logistics? Exciting? Well, maybe not as such, but I’m finding that the subject offers a vivid context for some engrossing mysteries. I hope you agree.

  
Posted in Discussion | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

© Peter Rowlands 2024

 

 

Peter Rowlands on Facebook Peter Rowlands on Twitter

About me

Contact me

 

 

Sitemap

Reset cookies

 

© Peter Rowlands 2024

 

 

 

 

Peter Rowlands on Facebook Peter Rowlands on Twitter

 

About me

Contact me

 

 

 

Sitemap

Reset cookies