Wednesday, 27 November 2013

The Prankster redacts

The Prankster has received a letter on behalf of ParkingEye stating that they believe their job titles are confidential and that they do not wish them to be published on the blog. The Prankster does not believe that there is any confidentiality involved in a list of job titles which The Prankster has arbitrarily grouped into categories, but he still respects ParkingEye's wishes and has redacted all job titles and quantities from the blog.



11 comments:

  1. If the job titles were published by Parking Eye, surely they are in the public domain aren't they? How is that confidential?

    Would love to see PE's threatening letter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am surprised that you didn't tell them where to go to be honest. It's not as if you are naming workers and their home addresses, simply stating the scale of this ghastly company, surely??

    ReplyDelete
  3. I would have liked to have seen you carefully consider Parking(brown)Eye's representations before deciding that the blog was created correctly. It's nice to know that even scum sucking parasitical bottom feeding sons of motherless dogs are avid readers of the blog. Why does everyone call you Shirley?

    ReplyDelete
  4. They should've been referred to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Parking Eye I have the transcript of this, and will post it up to a domain that is hosted out of the UK, best of luck trying to get it taken down from a foreign registrar and hosting company!

    ReplyDelete
  6. A quick browse on LikedIn (free membership, and in the public domain) reveals the following ParkingEye employees:

    Karl Russell - National Sales & Retail Manager
    Christopher Lee - Civil Engineering Manager
    Zoe Staziker - Account Manager
    Alexandra Whalley - Procurement Manager
    Berny Parker - Supervisor
    and of course, not forgetting the Wicked Witch of the North-West,
    Rachel Ledson - Head of Legal Services

    One sincerely hopes that all these people will survive the impending rationalisation that will inevitably happen when Capita fully absorb the PE business into their Group, and won't find a black bin bag waiting for them on their desks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Further to the above, I completely forgot to mention Jonathan Langham (Claims Handler), well known author of all those Statements of Truth which are all completely true, and do not contain any untruths, half truths, misleading statements or irrelevant assertions whatsoever.

      Delete
    2. Oh dear oh dear like lemmings they rush headlong towards the edge. In 6 months time the only claims that will preoccupy them will be their own personal claims for JSA after the Capita machine finally agrees with what we all know; namely that the employment of these oxygen thieves is solely without merit. None of them are shareholders they will be discarded like a used sweet wrapping can they fail to see the writing on the wall?

      All those new faces from capita and optima that have started to come to preston to sit in on meetings are not there to learn they are quietly making judgements about how fast preston can be shut down. I pity the fools.

      Delete
  7. Funny how a job list could be seen as objectionable but the assertions of untruthful witness statements, the underhand operational activities and the various dubious contracts they tell us they have aren't also objectionable.
    Perhaps they don't want to test this in a court.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sadly, with our country's Libel laws, defending yourself when you have spoken the truth about someone else is very expensive. Have a Google for Simon Singh.
    On the other hand, there appears to be no penalty for being economical with the truth in the small claims court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. An action of Libel is also dependant on their being untruthful or damaging accusations made. The list is (was) truthful I would assume. If it wasn't truthful then there has to be damage occasioned by the release of the job titles, and there is also room for a defence based on the presentation of the alleged defamatory comments as opinion, even if they are not factual.

      Delete