top of page

Intro

Whatever your thoughts about human rights as a political issue, the fact is that businesses are facing increasing scrutiny and pressure to improve workers rights and working conditions. The US, the EU, Japan, Australia, even China are taking a good close look at imports and importers, which have even a suggestion of human rights violations in their activities and their supply chains. And that is significant for Asia's exporters. Company companies hoping they might stay under the radar of national regulators are taking a big risk. A growing number of concerned activists are now on constant watch. Take the case of the world's biggest exporter of disposable latex gloves, Malaysia's Top Glove, one of six glove companies, which suffered punitive measures from the US because of their labor issues. And those issues came to light because of the diligence of just one man.

 

Darian McBain (DM) 

What we're talking about here is very much the S of ESG. In many cases, business risk really comes to the fore when you're looking at social issues, and particularly human rights in supply chains. And there are many companies and businesses in this region who actually are getting caught out by international regulations that they think don't necessarily apply to them in the countries in which they operate. And yet they're enforced on the border of countries that their products might be going to. This is happening in many of the demand countries. And when we look at Southeast Asia, in particular, you have a lot of countries that are supplying to these Western markets. And they absolutely need to understand what is happening in their own premises, but also their supply chains. And particularly from a worker rights perspective.

Teymoor Nabili (TN)

What's really interesting to me about this story, is that sense that you just mentioned, of companies thinking they can get away with it seems to be really prevalent. In this case, the companies involved were in fact getting away with it, because the audits and the regulatory systems and the checks and balances that have been put in to try and stop this stuff were completely ineffective in this case. What it took was actually individual shoestring journalism, from people on the ground who had no part of this oversight in industry at all.

 

DM 

So there's a great quote from The Diplomat that was sent recently, and I'll read it out to you and we can put the link in the show notes. "For now, it seems that the fragmented efforts by civil society organizations, including corporate watchdog groups, media investigations, and shoestring activists, remain the only independent monitors and public awareness raisers. Their budgets are far below the millions of dollars pocketed by the audit industry. But sometimes it takes just one person to initiate change. The Malaysia glove case is a textbook case of that." And I know of no better shoestring activist in this topic than Andy Hall.

 

TN

Andy, welcome to the program.

 

Andy Hall (AH)

Thank you very much.

 

TN

Great to have you on. And like Darian said, we're talking about the biggest glove manufacturers in the world latex glove manufacturers in the world operating in plain sight, contrary to all the values and the regulations, and the audits weren't catching them. It took someone like you. this shoestring activist, as Darian put it, or as The Diplomat put it, to bring this up. And and it goes back way beyond that that article was in 2021, wasn't it? Whereas you were working on this from 2018?

 

AH

Yeah, I was actually in Malaysia doing some forced labor mapping for the electronics industry, which is an industry that  has quite improved, relatively more than than other industries, when I came across this. And it was a really shocking experience. And actually, one of the things that actually made me get into the gloves issue was that at exactly the same time, a resolution that was passed by the Five Eyes by the UK, US, Canada, New Zealand and the UK, basically saying that they wanted to focus on preventing forced labor in their public procurement supply chains, and they wanted to focus on ethical ethical recruitment of migrant workers. And this was happening at the same time as I was in Malaysia and it was actually a Diwali celebration. I was taken to the gloves factory, Top Glove, actually, they make one in four or five of the gloves around the world. And I was taken to a celebration and I came across this just absolutely appalling situation of migrant workers who fit pretty much all of the ILO indicators of forced labor, and it was a real shock for me to to uncover that. And then in the weeks that followed, to just realize that this was a systemic issue that social audits were not picking up. And luckily, I had the networks with the media at that time to really expose that. And that's when the journey began, which obviously is carrying on until today.

 

TN

And that journey began with an article and Reuters that basically picked up on your work, but didn't really credit you with it. But I guess to a certain extent, you were you were trying to keep a low profile because of the potential political risk to your own person. But this was in December of 2018, where this stuff first began, so just tell me how you got into Reuters and how that Reuters article, and the subsequent action on the back of that really set the whole motion into place.

 

AH 

When I discovered this it wasn't just gloves. It was also in the condoms industry, I actually found a condom factory that was supplying to Durex, and many of the other big companies, including USAID, for instance, they were a big supplier of condoms for the for the USAID and AIDS programs across the world. And and when I found this problem, I kind of reached out to the civil society organizations and people that I knew in Malaysia, and I realized really quickly that nothing was going to happen with these groups of people,  they didn't really have any budget, and Malaysia is quite a developed country, they don't get as much funding as others, but also their capacity was really low, because they focused on human rights issues and not linking those with business human rights issues. And I realized it was impossible to build a big coalition to really launch this internationally. And because the situation was so poor, I decided very much that it was going to be me and the media that was going to expose this. And so because I've worked very closely with the media, within three or four weeks I had Reuters and The Guardian, and the ABC on the ground in Malaysia. And it was very easy because there was just such a terrible situation, it was so prevalent, and we managed to get the headlines. And it was really then that people started to reflect on what had gone wrong. And I think one of the big issues that people started to focus on was how this was missed. And then we realized that about a decade of social auditing had not detected what I had managed to detect essentially in five minutes by a few minutes speaking to a few workers at a Diwali celebration, which was that there was systemic force labor in the Malaysian gloves industry that was providing gloves for the whole world, both the public and the private sector.

 

DM 

Andy, could you talk a little bit about how you actually get this information? Because I know that you have different methods to a lot of NGOs or audit firms, for example. So how do you understand what's actually happening on the ground.

 

AH

It's actually really, really difficult and people don't understand the difficulty in actually getting workers to trust you and to speak to you. And and it was really frustrating in Malaysia also, because I reached out to many of the civil society organizations who were very reactive. They didn't go to the field and meet migrant workers, and they didn't make attempts to go out and find the issues. And so when I went to Malaysia, I essentially spent days, weeks in the streets, outside mosques and temples and churches and going to community activities, in the sun in the rain, standing outside workers' accommodation. going to Nepali, Bangladeshi coffee shops and restaurants. And I essentially just went out there and tried to meet the workers. And in this case, in terms of the gloves industry, it was actually the connections with remittance agents. So I managed to make friends with some remittance agents, who are really trusted, I guess, by the migrant community, because they use a system for sending money illegally, often back to their home countries. And they have a lot of trust in these remittance agents who send them money. And so because these remittance agents had the trust of the communities, when I went to meet with the communities, they were very relaxed. And so when I approached them and started to ask questions about about their work conditions, they were really honest, and they felt comfortable in the environment they were in. And that's really different to when somebody is approached by some very educated, often well dressed auditors, many times foreign, many times speaking a language they don't understand, a very formal language. And most of audits take place within the four walls of a workplace. So the way in which I engage the workers is just so different to your standard social compliance auditor, and the way they would approach the situation.

 

TN

Just tell me what your thoughts are on the auditing process, the people that do it, and is it fit for purpose?

 

AH

I still believe that audits have a role to play even though so many of my peers in the industry really, really don't you know. They're so cynical. Because you know, in so many parts of the world, there is no civil society, there are no unions. There are no other ways for workers to have their voice heard than if somebody goes into the factory or the workplace and speaks to them. So I do believe that there's a role for social audits, but they have to be made fit for purpose. And what that means is that sometimes the methodology needs to be adapted. Like, for instance, with the Malaysian recruitment fees issue, auditors were asking how much did you pay in recruitment fees in Malaysia for your jobs, and the workers used to respond "we paid nothing". The reason they paid nothing is because they paid all the money in their home countries. So sometimes the actual frameworks of the audits are not fit for purpose. But you know, they've improved a lot and to give credit to some of the audit companies in response to this gloves industry in response to the Rana Plaza incident, for instance, in Bangladesh, when a factory that was certified with audit standards collapsed and 1000s of people died, the audit industry has reflected and tried to improve itself. But I would say that, you know, there's still a lot more that needs to be done. And also we need to look at who's paying for the audits, because we know that the social compliance industry is embroiled with this systemic corruption, where we see auditors being bribed to not report the truth. And we also see auditors incentivized to give better reports, because they want to keep the business of the customers that are paying them. So there's so many areas that need to be improved. But I do believe that there is a role for social audits, but in a very enhanced form.

 

DM 

But Andy, I worked for the NHS in the early 2000s. And I had started to look into what we now call ethical recruitment, and issues around the factory, conditions for medical equipment being sent to the NHS. It never really got traction. Why do you think in 2018 2019, this story started to get traction.

 

AH

it's funny, you should mention the NHS. Just to answer part of your question. Myself and friends in the UK, we had to take the UK government to court in 2021. Because even after the US had sanctioned many of these companies for forced labor, the NHS was still putting them on a priority list of contractors for tender. So even with all of this stuff, the NHS didn't take any action. And it was only when we took them to court and the court ruled as part of a settlement that they had to take these issues into consideration that they started to do so. But also in terms of public procurement at the end of the day, and one of the things that I find so frustrating as an activist, both in the public sector and the private sector, is that price matters. And at the end of the day these global buyers, these global brands talk so much about ESG, about social issues, forced labor issues, labor issues, migration issues, migrant worker issues, but they're not willing to pay the money.

 

DM 

And particularly I can remember the head of sustainability for a very large retailer saying to me, the trouble with modern slavery is that it actually does make financial sense.

 

AH 

I think I think that's a really important point. And I think what you said is true that forced labor and modern slavery, it really does make business sense. And

 

DM 

I think we see it in industries time and time again, where is the money coming from to pay the workers a living wage, and it just doesn't happen,

 

AH 

Many of the workers are silenced. You know, they don't have a voice in many parts of the world, especially where I work. There's almost no civil society, there's no trade unions representing the people that need the support the most. The audits are not working, they're not picking up the workers voice, the workers' suffering. And because of that, it does make business sense. And of course, we know now, for instance, from Malaysia, from looking at, for instance, the case where Dyson pulled out of sourcing from Malaysia, we know that now forced labor exposes can really make significant financial impact on companies. And so we're now seeing, you know, and this is a kind of a positive thing, we are seeing that some investors and some companies really are starting to realize that there can be huge financial implications if forced labor is discovered in their supply chain.

 

TN

And we've already seen that. In this particular case of the glove industry those manufacturers are being forced now to pay millions of dollars to the workers in recompense, right?

AH

It was an interesting situation because it was during the COVID pandemic. So it was a suppliers market. So the suppliers controlled everything, and everyone was desperate for gloves. And so, you know, the financial impact on these companies was really quite minimal. The reputational impact was probably more. But the people that paid that money back to the workers, and we're talking about an estimated $150 million that was paid back to workers in the Malaysian gloves industry, from my understanding 99.9% of that money came from the suppliers. It didn't come from the buyers it didn't come from the rbrands that profited from that forced labor for many years. And so we still see this unfair focus of putting the burden on the suppliers. And then the workers were only ever compensated for the recruitment fees that they paid sometimes up to 10 years ago. They weren't compensated for the situations of modern slavery for the isolation for the awful accommodation. They didn't have passports, they couldn't move. They were having deductions from their salary for food that was terrible, and that they weren't eating. The fact that they were being forced to work excessive overtime, the fact they were being harassed. They were never compensated for any of that. And that's why we've taken the case in the US against Kimberly Clark and Ansel to try to say, Look, you were enriched by this process, it's not enough that you just tell your suppliers to give the workers their recruitment fees back, we need brands, we need buyers, and we need investors to also be responsible for what's happening.

AH

We've also got the government involvement in this as well, haven't we, because the CBP, the US regulators, were just basically stopping any supply coming in from Malaysia on the back of these reports. And so the damage to the manufacturer and the people who were exploiting the workers does come through at some point,doesn't it?

 

AH

The government, the CPB, is a is a strange creature in many ways. You know I think at the time, it was useful to use that mechanism, because there was no risk to the workers. If the US and certain US companies stopped sourcing from Malaysia, Malaysia would just sell the gloves to another jurisdiction. And we saw that happening. The gloves were going more to Australia, to the EU to Japan, Korea. So there was no risk. It's quite difficult to use these mechanisms at the best of times, because the US CPB doesn't require remediation of workers, it just requires that there's no ILO indicators of forced labor present in a workplace that's been sanctioned. So as long as the company eradicate those indicators of forced labor, then they're allowed to export to the US. And in this case, in order to eradicate the indicators of forced labor, they had to eradicate one - that is debt bondage. And so in order to eradicate the ILO indicator of forced labor, that is debt bondage, they had to pay the workers back the money. But they didn't have to pay the workers back the salaries that they didn't give them in the past and the unlawful deductions and things like that. So I mean, it's a useful tool, but you have to use it very, very carefully. And of course, we're now seeing the introduction of these kinds of tools in the EU. They're now debating a regulation on forced labor, which is likely to be passed at the beginning of next year. So I think the government's have an important role. But at the end of the day, we all know that it is really the private sector, and the investors that have the leverage and the power to make change. The government's can set up some good regulatory mechanisms but really it is the private sector and the investors that  really have the leverage to make these these changes.

 

DM 

What the US did with the trade and tariffs act and getting Customs and Border Protection CBP to enforce this rule, it did actually change the way businesses and certainly businesses I worked with, had to investigate the prevalence of forced labor in supply chains. And I think it's very interesting that the trade facilitation and Enforcement Act came out of a change to the 1930s Tariffs Act in the US, which was what was called "closing the consumptive demands loophole". The idea had been that you couldn't import goods into the United States unless there was a demand that it couldn't be supplied elsewhere, without forced labor. And so it opened a loophole for prison labor and forced labor and goods to be imported into the US and that loophole was closed. And yet then we had the pandemic, the COVID-19 pandemic, and there literally was a consumptive demand all over the world for personal protective equipment. And so as you said, in the National Health Service, many different medical services companies all around the world said, essentially, we don't care what the conditions are, we need those gloves now. I mean, don't you think that consumptive demand played a very interesting role in how the Malaysian gloves issue played out?

 

 

AH

I think so, also because we had this extraordinary letter from the EU ambassador to Malaysia during the pandemic, recommending to the Malaysian industry that they would support them to operate 24/7. And there was no one mentioned in that letter of labor rights or social welfare issues, even though the ILO is being funded by the EU to do massive programs in Malaysia. So we really see the hypocrisy of that situation. But yeah, I agree that when they actually imposed the first sanctions on a glove maker, when the pandemic started, because the gloves from that company were actually really important for US hospitals, they immediately lifted the sanctions on that first company that was banned from exporting into the US. And yeah, it was very extraordinary that they were doing that. But at the same time, I don't think it ever had any serious impact on their ability to get gloves, to be honest, because there were so many other options for them. But the fact they were willing to do it was really important.

 

TN

It just seems to me that despite what Darian said, about seeing an impact on company behavior and company attitudes as a consequence of some of this, from what you're saying, Andy, it seems as if there is still not enough motivation for companies to actually take this particularly seriously. The audit industry still presumably has its problems, the loopholes that you've just described, and the ways that they can wiggle out of real responsibility all seem to be available. And the regulatory mechanisms also seem to be subject to things like COVID and changing conditions. So for a company that is sitting there looking at its Asian supply chain, the question that comes into my mind is, is there still much more upside for them to ignore the rules than to abide by the rules?

 

AH

I mean, that's a really interesting question. And I think actually, when you look at the US Customs and Border Protection Department of Homeland Security's they have so many options available to them for taking action against the companies. They can they can imprison the owners or the directors of US based companies, they can prevent companies from being able to bid in public procurement contracts, they can fine the companies . But we don't see that happening. What we see the US CPB doing is banning goods from overseas suppliers. We don't see the CPB taking any action against the brands and the buyers that are based in the US.  I'm working on some some things at the moment that might well change that situation. But until we see more companies and shareholders and investors and directors and owners of companies actually in the dock, actually imprisoned, actually feeling the consequences of these regressions on them their personal everyday life, I think there's always going to be a challenge in enforcing this. The media also have a part to play in exposing, for instance, what we call the poor buying practices of these global companies and brands, and also the poor investment practices of investors. Because it is these poor buying practices, these poor purchasing practices, these poor investment practices that really lead to this happening. And often we only exposed the end of the chain, you know, the gloves, makers in Malaysia, or the garment factories in Bangladesh, the people that are abusing. But we really need to turn the tables and focus more on the investors and the buyers and the brands because they are really the ones with leverage to bring.

 

TN

Are we actually doing that? Darian, you you said the companies are responding. Do you do you see real meaningful change going on?

 

DM 

Yes, I do. In industries where there has been a spotlight shone.We've been talking about the Malaysian glove sector, I used to work in the Thai seafood sector, and you mentioned the electronics sector, where the spotlight has been shone, you do see some real change. But the trouble is, it's only ever on usually one country, one industry at a time. And it's occurring in many countries in many industries. So we need a lot more spotlights. Maybe Andy, if you could tell us a little bit more about how investors should be involved, because having recently worked more with the financial sector the issues around forced labor, human trafficking, modern slavery has even less relevance within the financial sector than you find in the commercial sector. So how do you work with investors? And what would you suggest that they should be looking for? And how could they do something beyond what they're currently doing?

 

AH

Yeah, I mean, it's a real challenge. I I met with a lady the other day, who was working for an investment company. And I told her about what I was focusing on and the fact that I was trying to work with investors and she laughed, and she said, Well, human beings are the last things that we take into account when we're in our everyday work, it's the last thing we want to think about as investors. I was quite active with the EMS, electronics related sector in Malaysia and when I was speaking out against this sector, we saw a company would lose 20 or 30% of its share value after I was making a comment. And we saw some companies really badly damaged and some supply chains really inconvenienced by the work I was doing. And that was what grabbed the investors' attention because they felt that there was some risk. And I think that's really sad that is only when there is risk, really strong risk to their profits and their investments, that...

 

DM 

It speaks to the whole topic of "Risky Business",  where this is a business risk that not enough companies or investors are paying attention to.

 

AH

I mean, it's like when this Atta thing happened in Malaysia, I was just overwhelmed with investors and with other people contacting me wanting to speak, wanting to know what my next focus was. And at the time, I was really cooperative. And I felt like, you know, this is so important that these investors are coming on board that they're going to help me with my work. But actually, I realized very shortly afterwards, that it wasn't about helping me with my work, it was about protecting their investments. And as we've moved on from that, even now I try to engage investors but because it's not in the spotlight, because they don't see them as a big risk at the moment. They're interest in focusing on things just falls away. I was engaging with investor recently and they said, well we're busy with the economic situation in China, or we're busy with these issues ao we'll get back to this later. So you need to keep shining the spotlight on this issue, you need to keep pushing. And I think it is it is very difficult to work with investors. We do see some initiatives. For instance, in the UK, they have the "find it fix it" mechanism and we do see some other investor coalitions that are looking on this into these issues. But but also with those investor coalitions I've engaged with them on a number of occasions, and I found the engagement to be really unsatisfactory in terms of the material results that they bring, because investors are just so slow to act unless they feel there's there's a there's a risk to their investment. 

 

TN

What class of investor are you talking about here? There are obviously various different routes and different types of investments and investor. Who are the ones that we should be focusing on? And did you see any value being provided in this context, by all these new impact and ESG-focused investment vehicles that are coming out?

 

AH

I'm not the expert on investors and Financial Markets, because it's really something that is really distant from from the work that I'm doing, as much as I tried to understand. But most of the time when when when we hear about startups and these different kinds of investors, they're not focusing on the human beings, they're focusing on the humans as part of, you know, how can we maximize the ability to access all of the suffering and the grievances in a very simple computer program or something like that. They take a big step away from the humanity of the situation. And with this mandatory human rights, due diligence issues in Europe I don't see more companies contacting me for advice, or to get my opinion on things like this. It seems that they're contacting "sustainability experts" and "social compliance experts" and so called "forced labor experts" and it seems to me that they're contacting the wrong people. And a lot of these investors, and a lot of these startups seem to me that they're not actually getting to the source of the problem. And so they're trying to find solutions without understanding the source of the problem. And the only way you can understand the source of the problem is to go to the ground and really try to understand. It's not something you can get from a meeting room or from a PhD or a degree or something like that, you really need to go to the ground and understand the victims and their situations and the people who are supporting them. And you need to build your solutions from a proper understanding of the problem.

 

DM 

I think that is a perfect summary of what companies should be doing. We do need to take a more human centered approach.

 

TN

The other thing I wanted to pick up on Darian with you, how does the investment theme play into the kind of conversations that you have with CEOs and with with corporate leaders on this?

 

DM 

I think it's still relatively nascent, looking at a human rights perspective from an investment view. It's understood when there's reputational risk, and Andy mentioned about share prices dropping so investors are concerned about that.  the companies that they're investing in definitely should be continuing to perform financially. But I don't think there's really the mechanisms at the moment for investors to go into the depth of understanding that's required of what's happening in these companies in their supply chains. So I hope it's something that continues to develop and emerge, particularly with human rights due diligence frameworks becoming more prevalent around the world.

 

TN

We talked a little bit earlier on about how, for many companies, avoiding the problem will still seem to be the more attractive route rather than knuckling under and adopting the regulations and doing the necessary work.

 

DM 

So if a business was listening to this podcast, Andy, what would you say their first step should be to make sure that they don't have forced labor in their operations or supply chain? What are some of the practical things that people could do?

 

AH

I think many businesses don't have transparency or traceability in their supply chains to start with. So they have to know where they're sourcing from. They have to have transparency, they have to have traceability, they have to know where they're sourcing from in order to understand the risks. They need to look at the risks. That's not something that you get from a computer program or from an expert sitting in Geneva, or London or New York. The newspapers reporting that Malaysia is the highest risk country in the world for forced labor or something like that is not a genuine risk. So you have to have the traceability, transparency in your supply chains, you need to understand where is the real risk, not the reported risk, but the real risk. And then you have to start to understand how that risk  is brought about, and then you have to try to find the solutions based on a real understanding. And it's fair enough for companies to have all of these policies and practices and risk assessments, but they really need to also look at their buying practices and how that contributes to, to these risks arising in the first place.

 

DM 

Can I ask you the question on how you are funded? As you know, there are rumors that you are on the take from different companies, which I didn't think to be true.

 

AH

So yeah, of course, it's important. I was on an investor call after this scandal in Malaysia, and one of the investors said to me can you tell us a bit more about your business strategy? And I said, Well, I don't have a business strategy, unfortunately, as you can probably see. And so I do quite a few different private sector consultancies. I work for one gloves company in Malaysia, now a very small company,  as an advisor.  I work for a very large conglomerate in Thailand, I work for two palm oil companies, I'm doing a project with investors. So I have income from those projects. And I use that income in order to fund shoestring activists across the region, and I work with those people, and I support them and ensure that they have enough resources to do the work that we need for our campaigning. They don't need massive amounts of money. And money is not the issue here. Money sometimes really confuses things. But you know, I have enough income to be able to do this work. And again, 95% of my work on a day to day basis is voluntary work. But I do do private sector work. And that's something that I tried to be very transparent about. And I believe that I have a better understanding than most people in this area. And if I'm not going to share that information with companies and brands and investors, it's a real waste, because they're the ones that need to know, and that have the leverage to make a difference.

 

TN

That was a really fascinating conversation, Darien I think, because it's rare to talk to someone in this field who is so very much hands on. We keep going to these conferences and have these conversations. And it's all talk, in conference rooms. Whereas for Andy it's talk in cafes and factory environments, and he's 's really doing meaningful work, if you like, with his bare hands, rather than people like me who just talk and write about these things.

 

DM 

 He absolutely is. And I always value Andy's perspective because he does speak to the migrant workers, he goes to where they are, he has the genuine conversations, he's not reading a report about it,  he's not applying some particular framework. He genuinely has conversation and dialogue-based investigation. And he knows many of these people, personally. And so if I hear from him that something is happening, I certainly do give it a certain amount of credibility. But then there are plenty who don't give his work credibility, because it is so conversation based.

 

 

TN

Yeah, there's also plenty of people who regard him as outright dangerous. I mean, not only the people whose businesses he is disrupting by doing this investigative work, but a whole other bunch of people who seem to consider him perhaps to be insidious, or an agent of some insidious power. You made a comment within that conversation about how he is to some extent under investigation. Tell me a bit more about that.

 

DM 

 So I spoke to a journalist last year who was writing an article about Andy, particularly stemming from his investigation into the gloves industry in Malaysia. And many think that Andy is on the take or getting paid to do his activism. And certainly, from my years of knowing Andy he actually makes very little money out of this. He does it because he's passionate, and he has really a purpose in life. He wants to make sure that people are treated well, and particularly migrant workers are treated well. And there's no end of work to do that. But many can't believe that he is doing it from the goodness of his heart or out of his own interest. They think there's some large payment system going on behind there. And so there was a journalist who was doing a proper investigative piece into Andy and how he works. And you know what impact he was having? I haven't seen the outcome of that article yet, but certainly, I'll be looking out for it.

 

DM 

Yeah, and when it does I'll get back in touch with Andy and put it directly to him. I mean, you mentioned it to him in that conversation briefly. And he answered your question, but we can maybe dig into the real nitty gritty of all those accusations. When and if an article comes out.

 

DM 

Sounds good.

TN

 All right. So talk to you next time.

bottom of page