Neil Wilby Media

Following the publication of a recent news article by Neil Wilby Media, which, essentially and accurately, reported a series of criminal and civil court outcomes (read full article here), a standard right to reply request was emailed to its principal subject.

The public interest in all the matters reported upon is substantial, with one case, in particular, involving a failed and ‘vexatious’ private prosecution of a serving police inspector. Another shone light on a second until further Order (permanent) injunction intended to protect two directors of a legal consultancy in Greater Manchester from further harassment (read more here). 

The reply from Paul Ponting, also widely known as ‘The Ormskirk Vigilante‘ (read more here) was short and to the point:

“I have taken your article and sent it to the police. I have reported a malicious communication and this email had been attached to show you wrote it.”

The Malicious Communications Act, 1988 criminalises the sending of communications that are grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing, or that convey information known to be false, with the intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient.

However, the threshold for invoking this Act in the context of a news article is, understandably, quite high and would, generally, not apply to poorly written or inaccurate journalism unless it crosses specific lines.

For a news article to reach the threshold for an investigation under the Act, the content would need to meet several stringent criteria:

Threshold Criteria

Intent to Distress or Cause Anxiety: The article must be written with the specific intent to cause distress or anxiety to the recipient. This means the author or publisher must have knowingly intended to upset or harm a specific person or group.

Grossly Offensive, Indecent, Obscene, or Menacing: The content of the article must be grossly offensive, indecent, obscene, or menacing in nature. This goes beyond bad writing or inaccuracies and delves into the realm of content that is profoundly offensive or threatening.

False Information: If the article contains false information, it must be known to be false by the author and intended to cause distress or anxiety. This is more than a simple mistake or poor fact-checking; it involves deliberate deception.

Examples of Content that Could Cross the Threshold

Targeted Harassment: An article that intentionally harasses or bullies an individual, particularly with grossly offensive language or threats.

False and Malicious Accusations: Publishing knowingly false and damaging accusations against an individual with the intent to ruin their reputation and cause distress.

Obscenity and Menace: Articles that include obscene content or menacing threats directed at a person or group with the intent to cause fear or serious anxiety.

Context Matters

The context in which the article is published also plays a significant role. Factors such as the nature of the news outlet, the usual tone and content of its publications, and the expectations of its readership are considered. For example, mainstream newspapers are generally held to higher standards than sensationalist tabloids or freelance journalists, but all must avoid crossing the lines set by the Act.

Legal Process

Complaints: Individuals or groups who believe they are the target of such communications can file a complaint with the police.

Investigation: The police would investigate whether the article meets the criteria for prosecution under the Malicious Communications Act.

Prosecution: If sufficient evidence is found, the case would be forwarded to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) for a charging decision and, potentially, prosecution.

Conclusion

In summary, for a news article to reach the threshold for investigation under the Malicious Communications Act, it must contain content that is not just poorly written or inaccurate, but deliberately and grossly offensive, obscene, or threatening – and with the intent to cause distress or anxiety. This high threshold ensures that the Act is used to target genuinely malicious communications rather than poor journalism or editorial mistakes.

Paul Ponting has failed to provide any specification as to how the subject news article, neutrally and factually written and very much in the public interest, could reach any of those thresholds or satisfy the necessary legal tests.

He and his wife, Anna Ponting, recently issued a Pre-action Protocol Letter before Claim against the author of that article, Neil Wilby, alleging that previous articles written about them or their former company, Danoli Solutions Ltd., in a similar style and, again very much grounded in public interest (read more here), amounted to a campaign of stalking and harassment.

They have, apparently, abandoned that scheme after being notified, in a lengthy formal Response, that any legal action in those terms would attract a far better grounded and very substantial counterclaim.

In that Letter before Claim neither Paul nor Anna Ponting could point to any line, paragraph or section of any Neil Wilby Media article that was not grounded in fact and truth. 

That failed enterprise followed unsuccessful reports of stalking and blackmail to both Lancashire Constabulary and West Yorkshire Police against Neil Wilby made in June and July, 2023. No action was taken against the journalist, who strongly denies that the latest article (or any other article for that matter), about which Paul Ponting has again complained to the police, either by context, or content, goes remotely close to the threshold of a malicious communication.

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

Page last updated: Sunday 19th May, 2024 at 1745 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: Open Rights

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.