Parking Prankster fails to beat around the bush!

A question about : Parking Prankster fails to beat around the bush!

Say what you think Pranky!

Can't quote him here (or even post the full URL) because MSE would surely delete it, but Pranky is not so bashful!

https://goo.gl/iAXHNc

Best answers:

• Definitions of defamation:
  https://legal-dictionary.thefreedicti...com/defamation
  Any intentional false communication
  https://www.businessdictionary.com/de...efamation.html
  Making of false, derogatory statement(s)
  https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=458
  the act of making untrue statements about another which damages his/her reputation
  https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/what...tory-statement
  A defamatory statement is a false statement
  https://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/legal-...-of-defamatory
  Though the definition of defamation is regarded as the expression of an untrue insinuation against a person's reputation, this meaning needs to be refined for its use in law.
  https://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...ple-29718.html
  A defamatory statement must be false -- otherwise it's not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits.
• They should not be allowed to do this.
  Quote:
• Then you have the Ј50 "solicitor's fee" even though PE have an in-house solicitor who is on the payroll .
• PP forgot :
  > Corrupting local planning conditions set by Brighton & Hove Council by constantly applying ( via their 'employer' Aldi ) to get the time limit reduced from 3 hours to the Parking Eye standard of 90 minutes. When rejected despite locals not wanting a reduction they appealed to the planning inspectorate - who strangely have a building right next to ...... Capita !!!!!
• A year or so ago Parking Prankster received a letter from a third-party firm of solicitors who had been employed by Parking Eye. The letter informed PP that he had been "reported to the police" over some of his blogs about PE. When PP asked for the crime number and the location of the police station where this "crime" had been reported, answer came there none. So it was just a hollow threat.
• As I recall ParkingEye threatened to bring action for defamation and Pranky referred them to Arkell v Pressdram.
  https://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm
  There were no more blogs following this so I presume ParkingEye took Pressdram's advice.
• What they have is "money" and in this country, justice at English courts is the best that money can buy.