The Prankster has no problem with this; he respects the work the forum team do, and that the forum has rules which ask that names not be identified. He will try to remember not to name names from now on, on MoneySavingExpert, although of course on The Parking Prankster blog and website The Prankster has full editorial control and can mention Jonathan Langham's name whenever it is relevant and in the public interest.
He does find it a little strange that the forum team have not removed Jonathan Langham's name from the quote in post #17.
He is also mentioned in post #9, along with a large number of other ParkingEye employees.
A large number of other posts in the thread also mention ParkingEye employee names.
Perhaps the forum team are intending to redact all these, but are just working through a backlog of editing requests from ParkingEye, Hill Dickinson, or some other body.
Of course, there is another possible explanation; it might be Jonathan Langham himself who asked for his name to be redacted. Jonathan Langham confirmed in a telephone call this week that he is leaving ParkingEye. The Prankster wishes him well in his new job. It may be that he finds it slightly embarrassing that his name comes up confirming his porky pies as #4 in Google searches.
That reminds The Prankster. He did write a follow up, 'Is Jonathan Langham of ParkingEye a reliable witness, Part 2', which he forgot to post. He will have to address that at some point.
Anyway, back to Jonathan Langham leaving ParkingEye...
The Prankster would not want to get in the way of any ParkingEye employee who wishes to leave ParkingEye for pastures anew. If any ParkingEye employee is thinking of leaving, or has already left, they can email The Prankster personally to confirm this, giving links to blog entries where their name appears, and the Prankster will do his best to replace them with generic job titles as soon as possible. ParkingEye employees can contact The Prankster at prankster@parking-prankster.com, safe in the knowledge he will not inform ParkingEye they are planning to leave.
So for instance, if Alex Cooke, chief enforcer of ParkingEye, found that the public knowledge of his refusal to cancel the parking charge for an 89 year veteran was not helping a career move, the Prankster could helpfully redact his name. Similarly, if Shona Hegarty, Operations Co-ordinator, found the posts detailing car parks where the cameras did not cover all entrances and exits were an embarrassment, The Prankster could leap into action to help any forthcoming career move.
Happy Parking
The Parking Prankster
on
Hill Dickinson must be sending out a lot of missives to fora this weather.
ReplyDeleteI see your predictive text is much like mine.
DeleteOn a completely different and unrelated point, have you ever studied SEO techniques? Purely out of interest
ReplyDeleteI almost peed myself reading that last paragraph, not making light of the pending court case of the said 89 year old.
ReplyDeleteMade me chuckle too. Who knows why Jonathan Langham wouldn't want to be associated with Parking Eye
ReplyDeleteYou forgot to ask for any potential whistleblowers ;)
ReplyDeleteTaking part in egregious scamming has its price,
ReplyDeleteNow they are trying to leave the ship (perhaps as part of the Crapita induced clearour prior to moving the jobs to the far East) they will have to pay the price for their participation as most employers now search the internet for details of potential recruits before hiring.
"I was only obeying orders" is not a good excuse as others found out in the past.`
I worry for his big box of redacting crayons they will be so lonely without him.
regards
RR
I heard Walter Mitty wouldn't sign any more contracts either LOL
ReplyDeleteThere's a couple of serious points here.
ReplyDeleteFirstly is that any ongoing cases which rely on one of his fabricated Witness Statements should be hotly contested unless he makes an appearance.
After all, one of the reasons for him leaving may be that he can't take the heat of all the untruths in his statements and is afraid he'll be caught out in court and pay the consequences for it.
Second point to consider is what the hell is happening at PE?
It's my guess that they are doing a clear-out which will leave more than one person really peed off at their treatment. If that'smthe case then just wait for the anonymous ex PE employee to start chipping in with details of how they saw the inside operations and the factual impropriety within.
Watch out Rachel. You will be target number 1.
Now, how you spell P45??????
It would be terrible if Jonathan Langham of ParkingEye were to be continually picked up as an unreliable witness and ParkingEye (or maybe Parking Eye) lose in court, or lose a judgement.
ReplyDelete