Neil Wilby Media

A notorious 54 year old Liverpudlian, widely known as ‘The Ormskirk Vigilante‘ (read more here) is in the legal wars, yet again.

After his absence from Twitter (now officially known as ‘X’) between early October 2023 and January 2024, believed to be a ban by the social media giant, he has announced that his main account (@UKCP) is about to disappear again.

Evidence points towards him running a number of other anonymous accounts. The latest of which is an account with the unoriginal Twitter name ‘John Doe‘ and a rather more complex handle, @Doe1_John333. Comparison of style, specific content and interactions with Ponting’s previous Twitter associates would, more likely than not, persuade any judge that it is one and the same person controlling that account.

Paul Arthur Ponting is a former computer and hair curler repairer (read more here), whom, over the past seven years or so, has gained infamy as a prolific internet troll, persistent and frequently outrageous on-line harasser, and near permanent spectre within police stations, court administration offices and courtrooms where district and circuit judges, warranted police officers, control room and court staff deal with his multitude of civil and criminal skirmishes.

He did, however, suffer two very serious setbacks in court hearings 35 miles apart last week. With yet more in store as a number of his mindless vendettas unravel. 

On Wednesday 10th April, 2024, Paul Ponting was a party to a mention hearing at Preston Magistrates’ Court involving private prosecutions he has brought against three men. It was held remotely by telephone. Ponting was present in the hearing, but made no representations. 

The Crown Prosecution Service has confirmed that they have taken over the proceedings against two of the men and discontinued them through ‘lack of evidence’. The defendants were not required to be present at the hearing said the CPS, in letters, to both.

One of the men, a 44 year old male from the Dudley area in the West Midlands, had faced an allegation of a Section 5(1) Public Order Act offence, which he denied.

Two previous private prosecutions by Ponting against the same man, alleging malicious communications, were also ended by CPS discontinuances, in or around December, 2022 and September, 2023. The accused has now indicated that he will bring a malicious prosecution claim in the civil courts against the Ormskirk man, following the collapse of the latest case against him.

The second man, whose case was formally ended by the CPS on Wednesday, from the Wolverhampton area and aged 38, faced malicious communications allegations, which he denied. 

The third man, from the Dunstable area, aged 66, faces the same charge and his case was adjourned until 22nd May, 2024 to allow the CPS to conduct a review of the case before deciding upon their next steps. That allegation is also denied.

In Manchester Civil Justice Centre, on the same day, following some extraordinary scenes which will be reported upon at a later date, judgment was ordered against Ponting in two claims: A harassment claim in which he was defendant and a data breach claim in which he was claimant. The author of this article, Neil Wilby, was a witness in the harassment claim, the fact of which which is recorded in the sealed judgment.

Ponting was the subject of an interim injunction between April, 2023 and the adjourned harassment trial at the same court in January, 2024. The principal witness in the data breach proceedings no longer supported the claim and he was railing against three separate findings by the Information Commissioner’s Office that there was no data breach, as he alleged. But still, in typical style, he ploughed on, persistently misleading the court regarding the absent witness. 

Ponting was ordered to pay £26,440 in costs and damages to the harassment claimants – and the data breach claim which could, at very best, be described as speculative, even when supported by the principal witness, was duly struck out.

An until further Order (permanent) injunction, with a power of arrest, was also put in place against Paul Ponting to protect the claimants, who cannot be named for legal reasons, from further harassment. An injunction can include a power of arrest in cases where the perpetrator has used or threatened violence, or if there is a significant risk of harm to others.

He has to remove every reference he has made to those three claimants from all his various social media and internet channels. Before he left the court peremptorily, Ponting told the court that he was going to appeal the district judge’s refusal to adjourn the proceedings on 10th April and the judge’s subsequent refusal of Ponting’s permission to appeal. If filed and served, court rules say that a circuit judge within the same court centre will hear that renewed appeal for permission. 

In the public interest and in a wider context, it should be noted that Paul Ponting is also red-flagged as a Potentially Violent Person (PVP) by His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service as a consequence of his questionable behaviour in courtrooms and precincts.

It is also understood that at least two court applications have either been made, or contemplated, that will seek to have him placed on a vexatious litigant register to limit his opportunities to waste more of the courts’ and other people’s time and money.

In March, 2020, Lancashire Constabulary (Lancs) also obtained a permanent injunction against Paul Ponting in a civil action brought against him by way of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, 2014 (read full judgment here).

That Order places considerable restrictions on his contact with Lancs officers, either on-line or in person. He was also ordered to pay Lancs £30,000 in legal costs, plus bearing his own costs which were estimated to be between £5,000 and £10,000.

Following an operation involving two police forces, Greater Manchester Police and Lancs, he was arrested in March, 2023 over allegations of stalking, harassing and assault and has been on conditional police bail, in one form or another, ever since (read more here). He denies all the allegations, the latter now being statute barred, in any event.

Much more recently, in what is plainly a continuation of his course of conduct of harassment against Neil Wilby, he, along with his wife, Anna Ponting, issued a Pre-Action Protocol Letter before Claim alleging harassment. In two lengthy, highly detailed Responses it has been made perfectly plain that the purported claim by the Pontings is vexatious, an abuse of the court’s process and completely without merit.

The Pontings are now on notice of a very substantial Counterclaim which, on the basis of recent findings against Paul Ponting, is almost certain to succeed and, in consequence, he would face another hefty adverse damages and costs finding – and yet another permanent injunction.

Perhaps, that is the ‘legal dispute’ to which he refers. But there are so many who can be sure? What is more certain is that it is not necessary to de-activate a social media account to ‘retain evidence’ as Ponting claims in his perpetually ludicrous style. 

Having read this article, readers can form their own view as to why ‘The Ormskirk Vigilante’ has been forced into yet another humiliating retreat.

Paul Ponting was offered specific right of reply to this article but did not acknowledge the email carrying that invitation. 

Instead, he posted on ‘X’ (formerly Twitter) that this article was ‘malicious’ and authored by ‘a sad, old man’. He is using an account with the handle @UKCP_temp after de-activating his main account, @UKCorruptPolice, on 25th April, 2024. Four days after this article was originally published

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

Page last updated: Sunday 28th April, 2024 at 2035 hours

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.

Picture credit: ‘X’ (formerly Twitter)

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

© Neil Wilby 2015-2024. 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.