Neil Wilby Media

One of West Lancashire’s most persistent, mendacious liars, Paul Arthur Ponting, also widely known as ‘The Ormskirk Vigilante‘ has, in the past few months, formed a close bond with another notorious, internet trolling, Walter Mitty character in neighbouring Greater Manchester, Raja Miah.

Apart from shared infamy, and their propensity to pursue wild conspiracy theories, violent fantasies and mindless vendettas, the two are also drawn together by being on conditional police and court bail, respectively, over allegations of harassing the same 40 year old lawyer from the Salford area. A matter that has attracted the attention of Greater Manchester Police who arrested Miah in July 2021 and Ponting in March, 2023. Both deny wrongdoing (read more here and here).

Now there is another string to their collective bow: Tameside-based Miah, widely recognised on social media as ‘The Malicious Beggar‘ (or, more simply, ‘The Beggar’) has, it seems, quickly trained his new partner to squeeze out money from his followers on the flimsiest of pretexts.

‘The Beggar’, who has been unemployed since 2017, is estimated to have netted around £40,000 over the past four years from his supporters whom, appositely, self-style as The Rabble (or Raja’s Rabble). A group largely comprised of elderly local cranks, axe-grinders, political malcontents and internet trolls into which Ponting has been very warmly welcomed.

Thus, ‘The Vigilante’ has launched his own fundraising efforts with this extraordinary Facebook post in which he seeks to raise £7,200 through donations:

Now, the court case to which Ponting refers just happens to be one to which the author of this article, Neil Wilby, is adjacent. Having attended Manchester Civil Justice Centre for one of the three public hearings – and obtained copies of documents filed at court under the open justice principle and, more specifically, Civil Procedure Rules 5.4C(1) and 5.4D(1)(b).

The fact that Ponting is seeking to raise money via donations from Facebook or Telegram users, on the grounds he has set out and absent of any objective facts or evidence, is a twofold cause for very serious public interest concern. Indeed, it could well be argued that it is (i) a further means by which Ponting continues to harass and intimidate the Claimants in the injunction proceedings (ii) a calculated fraud designed to alleviate financial problems elsewhere (read more here).

One commentator has described it as ‘daylight robbery’ and, on the analysis set out below, it is hard to disagree:

– Paul Ponting routinely seeks to demonstrate on social media how adept he is at representing himself as a litigant in person. Regularly taking on police forces by way of judicial review applications, for example.

– A committal application, framed in the manner of his Facebook post, would, very arguably, be much less complex.

– An application for committal on the grounds stated would require the permission of the court before doing so. Most competent lay litigants, as he repeatedly claims to be and is, in fact, acting in that capacity in the subject injunction proceedings against him, would be able to draft a permission application and exhibit supporting evidence.

– There are no complex matters of law in issue in the contemplated committal application. It would be fact and evidence based, although the burden of proof is very high. The old-fashioned test of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ applies, as a contempt in the face of the court could be punished by a prison sentence. From the perspective of the author of this article, that is almost impossible to conceive in this particular case.

– In his Order dated 6th April, 2023, handed down ex-tempore at the conclusion of the second hearing, the judge was clear upon what he had founded the granting of an interim injunction in favour of the Claimants: It was the ‘realistic prospect of success’ of harassment proceedings against Ponting, based upon submissions prepared by counsel and what the judge had seen himself of the conduct of Ponting on social media and via other recordable, digital means. HHJ Bird had also taken the opportunity, first hand, to assess the impact of Ponting’s conduct on the Claimants and wrote: ‘I am satisfied that this is a proportionate interference [the injunction] when bearing in mind the obvious harm and distress he has caused’

– The interim injunction was, decidedly, not based on ‘lies by the Claimant’. The tipping point for the judge, and likely any other independent assessor, is the Respondent’s own behaviour: ‘I am struck by the deeply unpleasant and threatening tone of Mr Ponting’s emails and actions and note, in particular, that his Twitter feed at ‘@UKCorruptPolice’ has what appears to be a force logo that gives Mr Ponting an air of authority that he would otherwise lack’.

– Ponting’s reference to breaches of CPR by the Claimants, already before the judge, is utterly risible when taking into account his own conduct as Respondent in these injunction proceedings. At a hearing on 24th April, 2023, at which Ponting was present, the judge ordered a stay of the proceedings so that both parties could remedy any material defects in the Rules, inadvertent or otherwise.

– For the reasons already outlined regarding the requirement of the court’s permission to issue a committal application, the assertion that there would be a public hearing is highly presumptuous. Made even more so by the fact that committal hearings are not always held in public, especially in the circumstances that surround the extant proceedings

Anyone contemplating a donation to this ill-starred Ponting enterprise is strongly advised to think again and consider, instead, bestowing those funds on a worthy local cause such as a hospice, food bank or homeless shelter. If you have already made a donation, then it is respectfully suggested that an immediate refund is requested of Paul Ponting, drawing his attention to this article and asking him to produce a copy of the judge’s Order dated 6th April, 2023 which is in his possession. Absent of which, a report to Lancashire Constabulary, under Section 2 of the Fraud Act, 2006, may well be prescriptive.

Whilst on the subject of Lancs Police any donors, or potential donors, should also point ‘The Ormskirk Vigilante’ to the permanent injunction granted in favour of that force in March, 2020 after a five day hearing in Liverpool County Court (read full ex-tempore judgment here) and ask if that was also based on lies.

Paul Ponting was offered specific right of reply at this weblink. He commented as follows in three separate emails:

1. “Carry on with your crap, and lots of stuff will be made public and you can blame yourself for it”.

2. “You may want to review your lawyer friends’ (sic) knowledge of the law which is of public interest”.

3. “I have told you to cease and desist. I have never emailed you with the comments you have posted. Please be aware, legal action is underway”.

UPDATE: The subject Facebook post has now been removed from Paul Ponting’s Facebook page. But the screenshots live on, as does the claim that at least £3,300 had been raised, and the matter has been referred to Lancashire Constabulary with an invitation for them to record and proportionately investigate the scam as an alleged offence under the Fraud Act, 2006 known as fraud by false representation.

Ponting regularly threatens legal action, as in this case at para 3 above, without specification or apparent cause.  He does not make clear whether he will crowdfund for legal representation or act as a lay litigant. Either way, any claim issued in respect of this public interest reporting would be hopelessly misconceived (read more here).

Important further UPDATE: A journalist colleague has pointed out that the Telegram fundraising to which Paul Ponting referred to in his now removed Facebook post (see above image) was actually done via Raja Miah’s Recusant Nine platform on that channel. That would appear to place both in breach of their respective bail conditions.

Miah is due to appear in Bolton Magistrates’ Court next week for a pre-trial hearing over harassment allegations in which the woman referred to in the Ponting post is the principal witness (read more here).

Follow Neil Wilby on Twitter (here) and Neil Wilby Media on Facebook (here) for signposts to any updates.

Page last updated: Tuesday 1st August, 2023 at 12h55

Thank you for reading and a polite request: If you feel this article is of value and in the public interest, and wish to make a contribution to the running costs of this website, it would be very much appreciated. Donations can made securely (and anonymously if required), via Buy Me A Coffee at this link or via PayPal at this link.

Corrections: Please let me know if there is a mistake in this article. I will endeavour to correct it as soon as possible.

Right of reply: If you are mentioned in this article and disagree with it, please let me have your comments via this link. Provided your response is not defamatory it will be added to the article.

Picture credit: Twitter

© Neil Wilby 2015-2023. Unauthorised use, or reproduction, of the material contained in this article, without permission from the author, is strictly prohibited. Extracts from, and links to, the article (or blog) may be used, provided that credit is given to Neil Wilby Media, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.