# The fabulous case of Arkell v. Pressdram [Private Eye]



## editor (Oct 18, 2011)

In the light of very recent legal threats to this esteemed website - and with more and libel cases in the press - I am grateful to MrsM for reminding me of this wonderful exchange between Private Eye and a plaintiff suing for damages.



> An unlikely piece of British legal history occurred in what is now referred to as the "case" of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971).
> 
> The plaintiff was the subject of an article relating to illicit payments, and the magazine had ample evidence to back up the article. Arkell's lawyers wrote a letter which concluded: "His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply."
> 
> ...


 
I have to add MrsM was urging me to post a similar defence to the person who was threatening us, but I deferred, instead referring to the equally fabulous Barbara Streisand Effect.


----------



## past caring (Oct 18, 2011)

I have no idea what the ed could be on about here.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 18, 2011)

Maurice Picarda is good on particular piece of legislation.

Am intrigued about threats and bullshit going on but I suppose you'll tell us or not when ready.


----------



## Brixton Hatter (Oct 18, 2011)

give us a clue then Ed - surely we can help you out with the Barbara Streisland effect?!


----------



## past caring (Oct 18, 2011)

Look for a thread started by one moderator and with the last post by another - 9 posts in all. Then look for a much longer thread with almost exactly the same title.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 18, 2011)

Golly. *somethingaboutTheLeft*


----------



## Dan U (Oct 18, 2011)

theres quite a bit in the 50th Anniversary Book (which is a good toilet read) about the history of legal action at PE, the run ins with Carter Fuck, Goldsmith, reader appeals for money when they almost went out of business in the 60s etc due to being permanently sued etc

Arkell vs Pressdram is a classic though.

good luck with your current pickle


----------



## stavros (Oct 18, 2011)

Hislop's line regarding Robert Maxwell's litigation was good too;

"I've just given a fat cheque to a fat Czech."


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Oct 18, 2011)

interestingly, in a case, that of course bears no relation to any that may or may not have a passing resemblance to something that we are clearly not discussing here, I was in favour of sending a missive that read "we have, because of legal threats, taken out certain parts of this thread which imply something for which there is no basis, but all the posts that imply the would-be litigant is a tedious little wanker remain."


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Oct 18, 2011)

5t3IIa said:


> Maurice Picarda is good on particular piece of legislation.
> .



Not really. Whatever the mods are dealing with here is very different from the issues that a tiny, unindexed board faced.


----------



## 5t3IIa (Oct 18, 2011)

Maurice Picarda said:


> Not really. Whatever the mods are dealing with here is very different from the issues that a tiny, unindexed board faced.



Oh I just meant more of a Eye thing. Throaway.


----------



## dylans (Oct 18, 2011)

My favourite was a Pirate Bay reply to a legal threat from a US source. (Dreamworks I think) It included a geography lesson



> As you may or may not be aware, Sweden is not a state in the United States
> of America. Sweden is a country in northern Europe.
> Unless you figured it out by now, US law does not apply here.
> For your information, no Swedish law is being violated.
> ...


----------



## killer b (Oct 18, 2011)

this thread intrigues me. but i'm too thick to work out wtf it's about - pm if anyone can be arsed?


----------



## agricola (Oct 18, 2011)

Mrs Magpie said:


> interestingly, in a case, that of course bears no relation to any that may or may not have a passing resemblance to something that we are clearly not discussing here, I was in favour of sending a missive that read "we have, because of legal threats, taken out certain parts of this thread which imply something for which there is no basis, but all the posts that imply the would-be litigant is a tedious little wanker remain."



Not unlike Rupert Allason MP then, who is a conniving little shit.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Oct 19, 2011)

killer b said:


> this thread intrigues me. but i'm too thick to work out wtf it's about - pm if anyone can be arsed?


 
Yeah,  And me.   I can't find the 9 post long thread!


----------



## Dan U (Oct 19, 2011)

its on the second or third page of this here forum.

eta - actually it may have gone, i couldnt just see it either.


----------



## DotCommunist (Oct 19, 2011)

basically in the 'beating the fascists' thread regarding the book of the same title someone was made to look like a walt and a liability of dubious provenance. Legal handbags ensue. Everyone lols a bit.


----------



## pogofish (Oct 19, 2011)

killer b said:


> this thread intrigues me. but i'm too thick to work out wtf it's about - pm if anyone can be arsed?



Needs no working out - The two threads are blatently obvious on a quick look.


----------



## killer b (Oct 19, 2011)

pogofish said:


> Needs no working out - The two threads are blatently obvious on a quick look.


it wasn't last night. it's much more so now...


----------



## past caring (Oct 19, 2011)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Yeah, And me. I can't find the 9 post long thread!



It was 9 posts long when I posted. Now it has 10.


----------



## petee (Oct 19, 2011)

stavros said:


> Hislop's line regarding Robert Maxwell's litigation was good too;
> 
> "I've just given a fat cheque to a fat Czech."



they put maxwell on the cover, part of this iirc, with the bubble, "if they put me on the cover again i'll sue them". i found an image at google but can't put it up b/c the url was blocked at my job.


----------



## editor (Oct 19, 2011)




----------



## newharper (Oct 19, 2011)

Their bravery in going after Cap'n Bob when they were not the national treasure they seem to have now achieved, was extraordinary.
The constant risk of closure due to damages would have intimidated most.


----------



## danny la rouge (Oct 19, 2011)

past caring said:


> Look for a thread started by one moderator and with the last post by another - 9 posts in all. Then look for a much longer thread with almost exactly the same title.


I'm going to sue you for the fact I can't find either.  Better clues, please.


----------



## stavros (Oct 19, 2011)

Bloody hell, the Eye was only 45p back then?  (£1.50 is still bloody good value for what you get.)

I think it was last year, in their humourous pages, they did a spoof Torygraph expenses piece about the Barclay brothers (owners of the Torygraph) costing the taxpayer millions by living on their private Channel Island. Despite it being very obviously a spoof, the brothers' lawyers (probably Schillings or Carter Fuck) still issued them with a letter threatening legal action. 

ETA: Just found a Press Gazette piece on this.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Oct 19, 2011)

Does anyone remember the "spoof" Private Eye copy that Maxwell ordered his minions to put together during his legal bunfights w/the Eye?  Pretty homophobic stuff (accusing Ian Hislop of cruising in various London parks, toilets etc) by the accounts I've heard of it's existence, but alas, Cap'n Bob was foiled when Mr Hislop and Peter Cook blagged their way into Maxwell's office and nicked all the proofs for the fake mag


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Does anyone remember the "spoof" Private Eye copy that Maxwell ordered his minions to put together during his legal bunfights w/the Eye? Pretty homophobic stuff (accusing Ian Hislop of cruising in various London parks, toilets etc) by the accounts I've heard of it's existence, but alas, Cap'n Bob was foiled when Mr Hislop and Peter Cook blagged their way into Maxwell's office and nicked all the proofs for the fake mag



You mean  Malice in Wonderland?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 19, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You mean Malice in Wonderland?



It was published in mag form (2 issues IIRC) and later as a book. Probably the sleaziest piece of shit that Joe Haines was ever involved in.


----------



## petee (Oct 19, 2011)

this was brilliant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_for_Britain_(Private_Eye)
even from ovah heah, not getting quite all the jokes, i was doubled over sometimes


----------



## DaveCinzano (Oct 19, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Does anyone remember the "spoof" Private Eye copy that Maxwell ordered his minions to put together during his legal bunfights w/the Eye? Pretty homophobic stuff (accusing Ian Hislop of cruising in various London parks, toilets etc) by the accounts I've heard of it's existence, but alas, Cap'n Bob was foiled when Mr Hislop and Peter Cook blagged their way into Maxwell's office and nicked all the proofs for the fake mag



http://www.magforum.com/notprivateeye.htm


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Oct 19, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> It was published in mag form (2 issues IIRC) and later as a book. Probably the sleaziest piece of shit that Joe Haines was ever involved in.



Just found this link about the whole affair, the mag itself was called, with stunning originality, "Not Private Eye": http://www.magforum.com/notprivateeye.htm

e2a:  Ah, "Malice In Wonderland" was Maxwell's "impartial" (cough cough ahem etc) account of himself vs the Eye.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Oct 19, 2011)

MellySingsDoom said:


> Just found this link about the whole affair, the mag itself was called, with stunning originality, "Not Private Eye": http://www.magforum.com/notprivateeye.htm
> 
> e2a: Ah, "Malice In Wonderland" was Maxwell's "impartial" (cough cough ahem etc) account of himself vs the Eye.



e2a again: DaveCinzano beat me to it.


----------

