* (Under Construction)
Smoke without fire: A re-examination of the Angel of Mons
by Steve MacGregor
During World War One there was a widespread belief in Britain that some form of
supernatural intervention saved allied troops during the retreat from Mons. Since
the war this event, generally known as the “Angel of Mons” has been variously used
as evidence of supernatural intervention in combat, an example of a collective hallucination
or as an urban myth unwittingly originated by a piece of fiction. The most prosaic
explanation is that the Angel was no more than a misinterpretation of odd cloud
formations seen by weary troops. The only thing that most theories agree on is that
something strange happened during the retreat from Mons in August 1914 and that
this was witnessed by British (and possibly German) troops. However, a re-reading
of the evidence puts even this most basic point of convergence in doubt and raises
the possibility that the story of the Angel owes more to military expedience than
I make no claim to have discovered “new” facts. The story of the Angel has been
exhaustively investigated and documented by a number of researchers over many years.
In this article I have drawn from several sources in an attempt to provide a brief
and objective overview of the subject. If I have inadvertently quoted or adopted
anyone else’s work without crediting it, please accept my apologies.
The underpinning facts are not in dispute. On August 22nd 1914, just eighteen days
after the British declaration of war, the 2nd Corps of the British Expeditionary
Force (BEF) occupied defensive positions along the Mons – Conde canal in Belgium.
The daunting task facing the 40,000 men of 2nd Corps was to stop or delay the numerically
superior 1st German Army under General Alexander von Kluck. After successfully holding
off the initial wave of German attacks, the British were forced to undertake an
exhausting fighting withdrawal between 23rd and 26th August. The sudden retreat
of the BEF came as a stunning blow to a British public conditioned to regard their
troops as the best in the world. Many contemporary newspaper reports were extremely
gloomy. On 30th August The Times reported that the attacking German infantry was
so strong that "that they could no more be stopped than the waves of the sea."
The German advance was finally fought to a standstill on the River Marne in early
September. Combat in Flanders then descended into the bloody inertia of static trench
Working for a British newspaper at the time was Arthur Machen, a Welsh writer of
popular gothic horror stories. His novel The Great God Pan, a racy mix of
horror, sex and violence published in the early 1890s, had found a large and eager
audience in Victorian Britain. However his subsequent efforts had not fared so well,
and by 1914 Machen was reduced to working on the staff of the London Evening News,
chiefly as unofficial correspondent for arts and religion. He also provided occasional
fictional pieces for the newspaper. On 29th September 1914 a short story by Machen
called The Bowmen appeared in the Evening News. Set during the battles
at Mons the story told of a group of soldiers of the BEF fighting desperately against
overwhelming German attacks. One of the British soldiers unwittingly summoned the
spirit of St George and, just as it seems that they can no longer hold out;
“… he saw before him, beyond the trench, a long line of shapes, with a shining about
them. They were like men who drew the bow, and with another shout their cloud of
arrows flew singing and tingling through the air towards the German hosts.”
In the story, thousands of Germans are killed by the ghostly archers, and the attack
is turned back.
The Bowmen was not specifically labelled as fiction, and potentially confusingly
another piece in this edition of the newspaper was titled “Our Short Story”.
However, given the style and format of the piece, it’s difficult to believe that
it could have been read as anything but fiction. And this generally seems to have
been the case. Contrary to subsequent claims, the notion of supernatural assistance
coming to the rescue of the BEF did not instantly seize the British popular imagination
after publication of The Bowmen. The only immediate response was that Machen
was contacted by the editors of two specialist publications - The Occult Review
and the spiritualist magazine Light. Both asked whether The Bowmen
was based on a true story? Machen assured them that it was simply a piece of fiction.
For more than six months newspapers made no mention of ghostly forces assisting
British troops at Mons, though several parish magazines reprinted The Bowmen
as a piece of patriotic fiction.
Up to this point we are dealing with verifiable facts. After this we begin to slide
into a morass of uncertainty, disinformation and outright lies.
On 3rd April 1915 a small English provincial newspaper, the Hereford Times, carried
an article called “A Troop of Angels”. This appears to have been where the
term Angel of Mons was first used in print. The article was a second-hand account
originating from a story told by a Miss Marrable (described as "the daughter of the
well-known Canon Marrable".) Miss Marrable had met two officers from the
BEF "both of whom had seen angels which had saved their left wing from the Germans
when they came right upon them during our retreat from Mons ."
The 24th April (23rd April is St George’s day) 1915 edition of Light magazine
ran a similar story titled: "The Invisible Allies: Strange Story from the Front."
Although not identical to the Hereford Times piece, this also claimed that
supernatural forces had come to the aid of British forces at Mons. In May 1915 an
article in the Occult Review stated that at Mons "those who could see said
they saw 'a row of shining beings' between the two armies." It will be
recalled that Light and The Occult Review were the two magazines which
had contacted Machen in September 1914 to ask for confirmation that the The Bowmen
was based on fact. His denial does not appear to have dampened their enthusiasm
for the story.
Also in May 1915 a reprint of the Hereford Times article appeared in the
All Saints Church Parish Magazine in Bristol (the April edition of the same magazine
had included a reprint of The Bowmen). Although largely forgotten now, at
the beginning of World War One parish magazines were widely read and influential.
Reverend Gilson, editor of the All Saints magazine was quickly overwhelmed;
“…to find that our modest little parish magazine has suddenly sprung into almost
world-wide notoriety; every post ... has brought letters from all over the country,
not asking merely for single copies, but for dozens of copies, enclosing quite embarrassing
numbers of stamps and postal orders, the more so since there were no more magazines
to be had.”
In June 1915 the story was mentioned in the sermon of the Reverend R. F. Horton.
“… when soldiers and officers, who were in the retreat from Mons say they saw a batch
of angels between them and the enemy…, no thoroughly modern man is foolish enough
to disbelieve the statement or to pooh-pooh the experience as hallucination.”
Reverend Horton was a popular and influential Manchester preacher, and a number
of newspapers became interested. Several reprinted the Miss Marrable story. In August
1915 The Occult Review published the first of a series of articles by a British
Nurse, Phyllis Campbell, who had been stationed in field dressing stations near
the front line in France and Belgium during the retreat from Mons. She claimed to
have heard stories from wounded soldiers of supernatural entities helping British
troops. Many of these stories were repeated in her book Back to the Front,
published in 1915. These stories, or derivations from them, were repeated in newspapers
and parish magazines and used in sermons across the UK. A small number of eyewitnesses
came forward to give first-hand testimony. One of the best known, Private Robert
Cleaver of the 1st Cheshire Regiment gave to newspapers a detailed account of Angels
he had seen at Mons and swore to the truth of this under oath. The Angel of Mons
was frequently cited as evidence that God was on the side of the Allies. By late
summer 1915 it was "unpatriotic, almost treasonable, to doubt it" .
“Shining Angels throw a protective curtain around men from the Lincolnshire Regiment
at Mons”. Illustration by Alfred Pearse published in The Chariots of God, by A.
Even after the war there remained in the UK a widespread belief that some form of
otherwordly intervention had saved British forces at Mons. As late as 1966 respected
British historian A J P Taylor wrote in his history of the First World War that;
"supernatural intervention was observed, more or less reliably, on the British side.
Indeed the 'angels of Mons' were the only recognition of the war vouchsafed by the
Higher Powers. " . In a work published in 1987 it was noted that at Mons;
"Some beleaguered soldiers reported being rescued by angels and ghostly bowmen."
 In recent years some of the few surviving British veterans of the First World
War have appeared on television and radio giving first hand accounts of the Angel.
However, those who examined the evidence quickly found that contemporaneous first-hand
accounts were very difficult to locate. The Imperial War Museum, repository for
a vast array of documents from the period noted that "to pursue the supporting stories
to source is to make a journey into a fog"  What appeared to be reliable
testimony often proved worthless on closer examination. For example, following publication
of his account of seeing the Angels, Private Robert Cleaver became mildly famous
and his story was quoted in a number of newspapers and other publications. It was
also used as the central piece of supporting evidence in a book which set out to
prove the reality of the Angels. However, on investigation it was found that
Cleaver was not inducted into the Army until late August 1914 and did not arrive
in France until 22nd September – four weeks after the end of the battle at which
he claimed to have been present! 
Since the initial publication of her account, Miss Marraple had understandably been
swamped with requests for more information. However, she responded by claiming that
she had been misquoted and irritably wrote to the London Evening News “I shall be
much obliged if you will inform the Editor of The Occult Review that I know nothing
whatever of officers or men who saw the angels" . Despite this her story
continued to be included in leaflets and papers as a true account of a real event,
though now with her name removed. Nurse Phyllis Campbell was also challenged to
provide details of any of the soldiers from who she claimed to have heard of the
angels. She was unable to do so, but claimed in justification that troops had been
ordered not to tell of their experiences at Mons. However, no other nurses or sisters
who had treated the wounded from Mons and the Marne could recall hearing similar
stories. Nurse Campbell’s reliability was further undermined when her fanatical
hatred of Germany was exposed and German atrocities described in her book were proved
to be fictitious.
Even the Society for Psychical Research (SPR), which might have been expected to
support a supernatural explanation, concluded a report in December 1915 by saying
that the stories "prove on investigation to be founded on mere rumour, and cannot
be traced to any authoritative source."  But if there is no factual
basis to the Angel, why did the story become so widely believed in 1915?
Cover of The Bowmen and Other Legends of the War, published in 1915
Arthur Machen maintained that The Bowmen was at the root of belief in supernatural
intervention at Mons. He believed that his original story about ghostly archers
at Mons had gradually evolved and been embellished to become the Angel of legend.
In August 1915 he re-published the story in an anthology, and included in the preface
a clear statement that The Bowmen was fictional and had no basis in fact. He went
“It began to dawn on me that if I had failed in the art of letters, I had succeeded,
unwittingly, in the art of deceit. This happened, I should think, some time in April,
the snowball of rumour that was then set rolling has been rolling ever since, growing
bigger and bigger, till it is now swollen to a monstrous size.”
Although the anthology which included The Bowmen quickly sold out, Machen’s denial
had little effect on belief in the reality of the Angel. However, over time his
view has become more generally accepted. Most recent accounts of the Angel cite
The Bowmen as the probable origin of the story. Two folklorists recently looked
at the Angel and concluded that it represents "a contemporary legend which satisfied
religious and patriotic needs, and became a powerful and enduring part of the mythology
of the Great War" .
So we have what seems to be a perfect example of an urban myth. A story arising
spontaneously (though possibly initiated by a fortuitous piece of fiction) and embellished
as it is passed on by word of mouth. This is a neat and plausible account for the
story of the Angel. And yet it doesn’t provide an entirely satisfying explanation.
Why, for example, did it take more than six months after the publication of Machen’s
story before the Angel was widely discussed or reported? Was it coincidence that
the story seemed to provide divine confirmation of the “rightness” of the Allied
cause at a time of growing British concern about the war?
To answer these questions we have to look at the roots and evolution of the story.
In the years following World War One, uncritical belief in the Angel of Mons was
gradually eroded and replaced by a recognition that it was probably a myth. One
of the most telling points against it was that no mention could be found of any
supernatural event during the retreat from Mons in letters sent home by troops,
in diaries or regimental histories (British or German) or in newspapers produced
before April 1915. Discussion of the Angel in the press and in soldiers’ letters
and diaries and the appearance of “eyewitness” reports all begin after Spring/Summer
1915, following the widespread publication of the story. If the Angel of Mons was
a real event, whether supernatural, a result of mass hallucination or a misinterpretation
of natural occurrences, it is inconceivable that it would not have been discussed
by the troops involved and mentioned in letters and diaries at the time.
However, there were those who after the war continued to maintain belief in the
objective reality of the Angel. These people sought proof, and in particular they
looked for an account of the Angel which pre-dated the publication of The Bowmen.
If they could find mention of the Angel in a letter, diary or other record created
in the five weeks between the retreat from Mons and publication of The Bowmen,
this could be used to prove that the Angel was a real event and not based on Machen’s
story. Despite diligent investigation, no such account was found. In desperation,
believers even suggested that The Bowmen, was actually a true account unknowingly
written with the aid of telepathy because Machen;
“…may have received from the brain of a wounded or a dying British soldier in France
some powerful impression of the battlefield at Mons" (15)
Brigadier John Charteris
Then in 1931 a book titled At GHQ, the war memoirs of Brigadier-General John
Charteris was published. Charteris was part of the intelligence branch of the BEF
and travelled to France on the outbreak of war. He became a close friend of General
Douglas Haig and was promoted by him to Chief Intelligence Officer at GHQ (General
Headquarters of the BEF). Charteris was close to Haig, advising him on intelligence
and wider military matters. He was not popular with fellow officers, being referred
to on more than one occasion as “Haig’s evil counselor”. After the war, Charteris
wrote several books on Haig. During the War he was a compulsive letter writer, sometimes
penning several letters a day to his wife. After the war these letters were collated,
edited and published in book form as At GHQ.
The book includes a letter from Charteris to his wife dated 5th September 1914 –
almost two weeks after the retreat from Mons and critically, twenty four days before
the publication of The Bowmen. The letter contains the following lines;
“... the story of the Angel of Mons going strong through the 2nd Corps of how the
angel of the Lord on the traditional white horse, and clad all in white with flaming
sword, faced the advancing Germans at Mons and forbade their further progress.”
Taken at face value, this looks like the proverbial smoking gun for those who believed
in the reality of the Angel. Written by a respected senior officer and clearly dated
before publication of Machen’s story, this letter seems to prove that supernatural
intervention at Mons was being discussed before publication of The Bowmen. It is
curious though, that no other contemporary document can be found that supports this.
In a follow-up letter dated 11th February 1915, Charteris again mentions the Angel;
“I have been at some trouble to trace the rumour to its source. The best I can make
of it is that some religiously minded man wrote home that the Germans halted at
Mons, AS IF an Angel of the Lord had appeared in front of them. In due course the
letter appeared in a parish magazine, which in time was sent back to some other
men at the front. From them the story went back home with the "as if" omitted, and
at home it went the rounds in its expurgated form.” 
This is demonstrably false. The publication in a parish magazine to which Charteris
refers must be the magazine for All Saints Church which gave the account of Miss
Marrables’ experiences. But this was published in May 1915, so it would not have
been possible for Charteris to refer to it in February 1915. This text can only
have been written some time after the event and inserted in a letter claiming an
Microfilm copies of the original letters on which At GHQ was based are held by the
Liddell Hart Centre for Military Archives at King's College, University of London.
A search of the archive by social historian Dr David Clarke found that there are
no letters dated 5th September 1914 or 11th February 1915 in the collection. The
originals of the Charteris papers were donated to the Intelligence Corps Museum
on his death, but the letters are not to be found there either . It is possible
of course that the relevant letters have been lost. However it is also possible
that they never existed and that the entries published in At GHQ (or at least the
dates) have been falsified. But why would Charteris do this?
From Bewitched Battalion, Fantastic No. 11, 1955
To understand possible motives we need to look more closely at Charteris career
and in particular at the significance of propaganda, disinformation and rumour in
1914. At that time the only means for the public to obtain news other than through
personal contact with soldiers was through newspapers, magazines and letters from
the front. This was often several days out of date, and content was strictly controlled
by the authorities (reporters were not allowed near the front and generally had
to rely on information provided by the army; censors controlled the content of soldiers
letters). As a result there was a huge appetite for information, and rumours spread
wildly by word of mouth. People eagerly repeated the most unlikely stories as fact.
A well-documented example happened in August/September 1914 when a rumour swept
Britain that thousands of Russian soldiers “with snow on their boots” had been seen
travelling through England by rail to the Channel ports. These were supposed to
be Russian reinforcements hurrying to support Allied troops on the Western front.
The detail of “snow on their boots” is presumably used to add vermisilitude to the
idea that these are soldiers from snowy Russia. The fact that it is plainly absurd
to believe that snow could remain on the boots of a soldier who had travelled all
the way from Russia to England in August did not impede the spread of the rumour.
The German spy Carl Lody passed the information on to the German High Command. It
has been claimed that this was part of the reason that the Germans moved two divisions
to guard the Belgian coast in 1914. The two Divisions that were moved might otherwise
have been present at the battle of the Marne, and their presence there could have
influenced the outcome of this vital battle. There was no truth in the rumour, though
it was widely believed for a short time in Britain and beyond.
Here we can see a possible blurring between rumour and disinformation. This rumour
was clearly beneficial to the Allied cause, and had the added advantage of official
deniability without any loss of credibility. It would certainly be very simple for
those in the military to provide unattributable “off the record” information to
reporters. Likewise censorship would enable not only the removal of harmful information
from soldier’s letters, but would also allow the retention of information that,
although inaccurate, was felt to be helpful. As an intelligence officer, Brigadier-General
Charteris would certainly have been aware of the power and usefulness of disinformation.
Although there is no evidence that Charteris was involved in the spread of rumours
about Russian troops in 1914, we do know that he was personally implicated in the
spread of another piece of disinformation. The ‘Kadaver factory’ (sometimes
called the “tallow factory”) was first mentioned during early 1915. It was
claimed that Germany had set up a "corpse utilisation plant" (Kadaververwertungsanstalt)
where the bodies of dead German soldiers were taken to be boiled down and the results
used in the manufacture of munitions and to produce animal feed. The story caused
repugnance and condemnation around the world. German denials were immediate but
largely disregarded. The story was widely reported in 1915 and continued to feature
sporadically in newspapers throughout the war. There was a revival of interest in
1917 when accounts from eyewitnesses who claimed to have actually seen the factory
were published. We now know that there never was a Kadaver factory. The story
had no basis in fact and all alleged eye-witness reports were invented. The story
was very harmful to the German cause and re-inforced the view promoted by the Allies
that Germans were uncaring and brutal.
In late 1925 Charteris, by that time Conservative Member of Parliament for Dumfries
Shire, made a visit to the United States. During an alcohol fueled after-dinner
speech to the National Arts Club in Manhattan he told a number of anecdotes about
spies and spying during World War One. In one of these he claimed that the stories
about the Kadaver factory (then still widely believed to be true in America),
were actually a creation of British Intelligence. According to a New York Times
report of the lecture on 2nd November, he went on to describe how one day he had
received two photographs. One showed dead German troops being taken for burial.
The other showed dead horses being taken to a rendering plant to be made into fertilizer.
Charteris simply swapped the captions, so that the picture of dead soldiers showed
that they were being sent to a Kadaververwertungsanstalt. At that time Britain
was concerned about the attitude of China, which seemed to be moving towards favouring
Germany. Intending to play upon Chinese reverence for the dead, Charteris sent the
picture and caption to an English language Chinese newspaper in Shanghai. From there,
the story spread around the world.
Punch cartoon, 25th April 1917 “And don’t forget that your Kaiser will find a use
for you – alive or dead.” A reference to the Kadaver factory.
Charteris revelation was widely reported in the UK, and there was an immediate and
furious reaction. The Evening Standard demanded; “It is vital that he deny the statement
instantly. . . . Its effect is to discredit British propaganda past, present and
future." When he returned to the UK after his US tour, Charteris was summoned
to the War Office. He later denied that British military intelligence had any role
in the Kadaver factory story, claimed that he had been “misreported” and
that quotes attributed to him were “incorrect and absurd”.
Charteris’ denial lacks credibility. The New York Times article was published while
he was in the USA, but he made no effort to dispute it at the time. Although he
hadn’t been aware that reporters were present to hear his speech, he said that he
wouldn’t challenge the article because “any errors it might contain were only of
minor importance” . Only some weeks later, after his return to the UK and summons
to the War Office did he issue a vehement denial. In the mid-1920s anything that
could be seen as dishonourable or underhanded was considered to be harmful to British
interests. It seems much more likely therefore that what Charteris told his American
audience was true, and that his later denial was a response to outrage at home and
Could the Angel of Mons also be a story promulgated and encouraged by Charteris
and British Intelligence? We have to consider why Britain might have seen value
in promoting the story of the Angel in March/April 1915? The first Zeppelin raids
on the British mainland had begun, terrifying civilians. The German submarine blockade
of Britain had started, raising fears of starvation. The indecisive battle of Neuve
Chapelle had produced high casualties but few gains. The initial flood of volunteers
to join the British army was lessening. Most of all, war weariness was taking hold
as the public began to realise that this horrific and destructive war was set to
last much longer than had at first been expected. If the story of the Angel of Mons
could help to lift the morale of the British people at this difficult time, persuade
them of the divine rightness of their cause and encourage enlistment, it would surely
make sense for military intelligence to assist in its spread?
There are two further clues that support the suspicion of Charteris’ direct involvement
in spreading the story.
The Reverend C. M. Chavasse served as a chaplain with the BEF in France and Belgium.
On his return to England in October 1915, he gave a sermon in which he referred
to the story of the Angel of Mons. He said he had:
“... never yet got first-hand evidence on the subject, but he had been told by a
general, a brigadier, who was far from superstitious, that a captain and subaltern
serving under him were certain they saw something at Mons. They were men who would
never dream of seeing angels, but they said they saw something, some bright pulsating
light, which came between the little company of Englishmen and a troop of charging
Uhlans on their horses…” 
Finally, the publication in the April 24th edition of Light magazine of one of the
first articles about the Angel of Mons was prompted by a visit to their London offices
by an unnamed “military officer”. The article noted that the officer;
“… explained that, whether Mr Machen's story was pure invention or not, it was certainly
stated in some quarters that a curious phenomenon had been witnessed by several
officers and men in connection with the retreat from Mons.”
It’s not possible to prove conclusively that Charteris was the “military officer”
or Brigadier-General referred to in these quotes, but the circumstantial evidence
is strong for British Intelligence involvement in the spread of the myth. This would
also explain the crudely falsified letters in Charteris memoirs – having been hauled
over the coals in 1925 for announcing that the Kadaver factory was an invention
of British Intelligence, he would not wish to be accused of doing the same for the
Angel of Mons in 1931.
There is certainly no good evidence to support the view that anything supernatural
or even unusual happened during the retreat from Mons. The Bowmen may have
had a role in the creation of the subsequent myth, but it does seem likely
that this was at the very least assisted by British Intelligence. If true, the Angel
of Mons is worthy of note not just as an interesting piece of social history, but
also as a masterly and enduring early example of disinformation and propaganda.
. A Troop of Angels.
The Hereford Times, 3rd April 1915
. The Bowmen on the Battlefield: A Rival to the Great Russian Fable.
Evening News, 3rd May 1915
. The Angelic Guard at Mons: Comments by the Vicar of All Saints.
Bath Society Paper, 9th June 1915
. Dr Horton and`The Bowmen'
. London Evening News, 17th June 1915
. The Great War and Modern Memory.
P. Fussell, 1975, p116
. The First World War (An Illustrated History).
A. J. P. Taylor, 1966,
. The 1914 Campaign,
D. David, 1987
. The Angels of Mons.
Information Sheet, no. 24, Booklist no. 1256A, Imperial
War Museum, undated.
. On the Side of the Angels - an answer to Arthur Machen
, H. Begbie, 1915.
. The Angels Take a Bow.
M. Harris, In The Unexplained, ed. Peter Brookesmith,
. No Escape from the Bowmen.
London Evening News, 30th July 1915
. An Enquiry Concerning "The Angels at Mons."
H. Verrall, Journal of
the Society for Psychical Research, December 1915
. Preface to The Bowmen and Other Legends of the War.
A. Machen, 1915,
. A Dictionary of English Folklore.
J. Simpson and S. Roud, Oxford University
. On the Side of the Angels - an answer to Arthur Machen
, H Begbie, 1915.
. At G.H.Q.
Brigadier-General J. Charteris, Cassell, 1931, p25-26
. At G.H.Q.
Brigadier-General J. Charteris, Cassell, 1931, p75
. Rumours of Angels: a legend of the First World War
, D. Clarke, Folklore
magazine, October 2002.
. Myths and Legends of the First World War
, J. Hayward, 2002, p123.
. An Enquiry Concerning "The Angels at Mons."
H. Verrall, Journal of
the Society for Psychical Research, December 1915
. The Invisible Allies: Strange Story from the Front.
References and further reading
The Bowmen and Other Legends of the War.
A. Machen, 1915, link to Project
Angels A to Z
, M. Bunson, 1996.
Rumours of Angels: a legend of the First World War
, D. Clarke, Folklore magazine,
Myths and Legends of the First World War
, J. Hayward, 2002.
The Angel of Mons
, D. Clarke, 2004.
Copyright © 2011 Steve MacGregor
Written by Steve MacGregor. If you have questions or comments on this article,
please contact Steve MacGregor at:
About the author:
My interest in military history began with listening to stories
told by my father, who was a tank driver with the Scots Guards in
World War Two. I live in the Highlands of Scotland and have
travelled extensively in the UK and Europe visiting sites of
military significance. I’m particularly interested in European
history of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. I read military
history avidly and play military games and simulations on the PC.
My other hobbies include riding and restoring old motorcycles and
flying gliders. In my day job I work for the Scottish Government
developing and implementing IT solutions to support inter-agency
Published online: 08/26/2011.