The niceties of legal language

Some people reading this (if indeed there are any) may have heard of Private Eye magazine. For those who haven't, it is, in brief, a combination of satirical, investigative and media journalism. Which basically means it's devoted to rarking up public figures and other organs of the press, as well as investigating scandals and exposing hypocrisy. I quite enjoy it, even if it is occasionally heavy going, and even when it criticises the Guardian, one of my more trusted sources of information.

The people behind Private Eye are also quite fearless and the regular targets of lawsuits in the UK. It has been said that the current editor, Ian Hislop, is the most sued man in Britain. In this he's really only continuing a long-running tradition of the magazine, as the following illustrates.

The magazine had made an allegation relating to a Mr Arkell, apparently with ample proof. He lawyered up, apparently the exchange goes like this:

" Solicitor (Goodman Derrick & Co.):
We act for Mr Arkell who is Retail Credit Manager of Granada TV Rental Ltd. His attention has been drawn to an article appearing in the issue of Private Eye dated 9th April 1971 on page 4. The statements made about Mr Arkell are entirely untrue and clearly highly defamatory. We are therefore instructed to require from you immediately your proposals for dealing with the matter. Mr Arkell's first concern is that there should be a full retraction at the earliest possible date in Private Eye and he will also want his costs paid. His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.

Private Eye:
We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off.

[No further reply]"

There has been a subsequent tendancy to respond to other legally menacing letters with the phrase:
"We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram"

More here: http://gruntfuttock.posterous.com/arkell-v-pressdram and on Private Eye generally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_Eye