Lancashire police legal services must pursue a breach of restraining order that they knew was unlawful

Lancashire police used public money (c.£37,000) to pursue a restraining order preventing a man (Mr Ponting) from blogging about Lancashire police.  Mr Ponting is a keen blogger after Lancashire police malicious attack on him costing Lancashire police (actually, you, the tax-payers) £35,000.

Many Lancashire police officers (not all) are renowned for being ‘Snowflake Police’ and quick to use ‘the SnowFlake Act 2020‘, to get their own way.

The restraining order was granted by QC David Knifton (a part-time judge) and alleged Freemason.

QC David Knifton is in fact a full-time barrister and has been found to have declared (on his own CV) that ‘the police’ are his private fee paying clients, yet he failed to disclose this significant ‘conflict of interest‘ when presiding over the case that was brought by ‘his clients’ (the police).

David Knifton granted the order that was written by Lancashire police.

The order has been shown to be;

  • Disproportionate
  • Have no pressing need in a democratic society
  • Goes [way way way] beyond what is necessary

These concerns were raised with Lancashire police legal services.   Legal services replied standing by their ‘interpretation’ that Mr Ponting cannot mention the name of ANY Lancashire police officer anywhere on the internet for any reason at all.

Mr Ponting has now reported to Lancashire police legal services how he has now (innocently) breached this order.  Mr Ponting asked them what he must now do.

Lancashire police now must now pursue Mr Ponting via the criminal courts over this matter as it is a breach of a court order that they enforced.  This is now a matter for the Crown Court.

Either Lancashire police must

  • ‘seek to prosecute’ Mr Ponting, or;
  • Vary the order. (accept they were wrong)

Mr Ponting had already asked Lancashire police to vary the order because, as it stands, it interferes in his Fundamental Human Rights,  but Lancashire police legal services refused, leaving this now as a matter for the Crown Court.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.