Neil Wilby Media

A long-running and increasingly acrimonious dispute between a controversial anti-police corruption campaigner and senior officers within Lancashire Constabulary has deepened, following a procedurally fraught court hearing earlier this month that has drawn sharp criticism from legal observers and journalists alike.

Paul Ponting, a 55-year-old former businessman from Ormskirk, is well known for operating the UK Corrupt Police (UKCP) website and the @UKCorruptPolice account on the Twitter (‘X’) social media platform. 

One of Ponting’s most enduring adversaries is Inspector Iain Carr, a long-serving Lancashire officer who was formerly the neighbourhood sergeant in Ormskirk and is now, nominally, the neighbourhood inspector for Preston.

Given their overlapping roles in the same small town, it is almost certain that Carr and Ponting have known one another for over a decade — a familiarity that adds further depth to what has become an increasingly bitter and complex legal and reputational feud.

On 5th March 2025, a hearing at Preston Magistrates’ Court, arising from alleged breaches of court-imposed conditions, has once again placed the two men at the epicentre of controversy. Though described as a public hearing, it was held after 5pm, when the court was locked to the public. No case outcome was uploaded onto the Court Management System (CMS) in the days that followed, and the case did not appear on Courtserve.net, the main portal for public court listings in England and Wales.

Paul Ponting was arrested that morning, after attending voluntarily at Skelmersdale Police Station, and says he was denied access to legal representation whilst in police custody. “You will see your solicitor at court” he was allegedly told.

His solicitor did, eventually, received 140 pages of case materials shortly before she appeared in court via video-link, leaving no time for meaningful consultation or preparation. A brief attempt at private consultation between defendant and lawyer was facilitated in the courtroom, but took place in the presence of a custody officer and with inadequate audio or visual equipment for effective communication.

The solicitor understandably withdrew, citing her regulatory obligations and inability to provide competent representation in the circumstances confronting her.

An initial adjournment, granted by the court’s legal advisor, was later overturned by a senior court official. The trial went ahead late into the evening, with the defendant handed just six pages of paperwork and given ten minutes, in an ante-room to the cells, to prepare. He says he was not offered a duty solicitor.

Two of the five charges were dropped during the hearing. It is understood that they were statute-barred, and the court proceedings were so disorganised that the defendant was not sworn in until part way through his oral testimony.

Legal commentators have expressed serious concern about the apparent erosion of procedural safeguards and the absence of open justice. Enquiries by investigative journalist, Neil Wilby, to Preston Magistrates’ Court, the Ministry of Justice and Lancashire Constabulary yielded no meaningful information. He publicly noted that open justice had “not [been] well served” and, after reviewing Ponting’s own account of the proceedings, observed: “I can now see why nobody at Preston Mags’ wants to talk to a journalist about it.”

This latest controversy is just the most recent in a long series of legal entanglements involving Ponting and the force. In 2018, he was awarded £35,000 in damages after a successful civil claim against Lancashire Constabulary. In March 2020, the force secured a civil injunction against him under the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, and was awarded £30,000 in costs — which, it was recently confirmed, remain unpaid by the defendant.

According to Neil Wilby Media, the force may be attempting to obscure the non-payment and has failed to act on repeated breaches of that injunction by Ponting, despite its legal weight (read more here).

The friction between Ponting and Inspector Carr has also played out in the same criminal court. In January 2024, the Ormskirk man initiated a private prosecution against the officer, making multiple serious allegations that were eventually narrowed to a single charge of perjury.

The allegation related to a bail extension application submitted by Inspector Carr at the same Preston Magistrates’ Court. A senior district judge, after several hearings in which more court procedural defects were aired, dismissed the application for a bench warrant, ruling that there was no case in law and, moreover, insufficient evidence.

Until now, Neil Wilby Media had purposefully declined to name Inspector Iain Carr as the subject of that private prosecution, on the basis that once the charge was dropped, there was no wider public interest (in the public policy sense) in doing so. However, the recent events at the same court — marked by procedural irregularities, lack of transparency, and Inspector Carr’s recurring operational involvement — have tipped the editorial balance.

Naming the officer now serves the public interest in understanding the institutional dynamics behind this ongoing saga.

Inspector Carr is also one of several known members of a dedicated internal Lancashire Police ‘task force’. focused primarily on Ponting. Others include Inspector Daniel Clough, Superintendent Gary Crowe (a Force Operations Manager), and Sharon Cottam (the Force Solicitor).

The task force is believed to operate at a cost of approximately £250,000 per year to the public purse. Yet, when formally asked for information about its scope and function, the Lancashire Police and Crime Commissioner, whose primary function is political oversight of the force, responded that “no information is held” — a claim that is now subject to a robust transparency challenge (read more here).

It is not just the grotesque cost, but the highly questionable decision making and repeated absence of attention to essential detail that needs to be the subject of robust challenge by the PCC at his next session with Chief Constable Sacha Hatchett.

A previous attempt to arrest and charge Ponting, on 30th January, 2025, over the same breach of order allegations, failed through lack of preparation and co-ordination by the Lancs ‘task force’.

One of its officers, the aforementioned Inspector Clough, was reported to the police watchdog by the complainant, who cannot be named for legal reasons, over several alleged breaches of Police Standards, including honesty and integrity; duties and responsibilities; and respect and courtesy over his attempt to conceal what actually happened on that day. He denies any wrongdoing.

Separately, Inspector Carr has come under scrutiny in relation to the collapse of Danoli Solutions Ltd., Ponting’s former company. A police fraud investigation was reportedly opened in December 2024, after serious financial concerns were raised, including possible tax shortfalls, in a published liquidator report. However, as uncovered by Neil Wilby Media, the case appears to have inexplicably stalled — a situation that has drawn criticism and added to wider questions about selective policing and operational priorities (read more here).

As press and public scrutiny continues to mount over the handling of criminal and legal proceedings, public accountability, and the basic principles of justice, the Carr–Ponting saga has evolved into a compelling case study.

What began as a localised dispute between the owner of a computer repair firm and his local police force now raises much broader questions about transparency, proportionality, and institutional integrity within the justice system.

UPDATE: Paul Ponting has not taken up his right of reply in the conventional manner. Instead he has posted the following on the UKCorruptPolice feed. This response is published in full for transparency, though it contains abusive language that some readers may find offensive:

“Because of the ongoing abuse and lies about Paul by a malicious blogger, legal clarification has been provided that there is no f***ing secret task force set up. All bullshit by the king of malicious blogging, the Attorney General is aware.”

Despite being on conditional police bail, following his arrest on 30th January, 2025, over a series of serious on-line allegations and threats made against Neil Wilby, Ponting continues to refer to the journalist, recognised by the National Police Chiefs Council, as a ‘malicious blogger’, a highly defamatory term he has now used almost a hundred times. This is in clear breach of his bail conditions. When previous bail breaches have been reported to Inspector Carr, on 15th February, 2025, he has declined to take any action.

As is his usual modus operandus, Paul Ponting attacks the author of this article (and others) as ‘lies and abuse’ without pointing to a specific line, paragraph or  section of any article that could be characterised as ‘lies’ or ‘abuse’.

Page last updated: Wednesday 23rd July, 2025 at 10h30

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. Provided your response is not defamatory, it will be added to the article.

Photo Credits: NWM

© Neil Wilby 2015–2025. 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, with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.