Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Olivia Troye's attorney has responded to Kash Patel's demand for a retraction [View all]Emrys
(8,061 posts)35. Solicitors' letter to Private Eye:
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.
The reply that the Eye sent back was:
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.
A libel writ with a "curt note" arrived by return of post. The legal process continued for more than a year before the case fell apart and Private Eye was awarded costs. The Eye wrote "In view of the above, Mr Arkell has now, albeit belatedly, complied with the suggestion made to him at an earlier stage in the proceedings."
https://prunescape.fandom.com/wiki/The_Reply_Given_in_Arkell_v_Pressdram_(1971)
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.
The reply that the Eye sent back was:
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.
A libel writ with a "curt note" arrived by return of post. The legal process continued for more than a year before the case fell apart and Private Eye was awarded costs. The Eye wrote "In view of the above, Mr Arkell has now, albeit belatedly, complied with the suggestion made to him at an earlier stage in the proceedings."
https://prunescape.fandom.com/wiki/The_Reply_Given_in_Arkell_v_Pressdram_(1971)
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
60 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Olivia Troye's attorney has responded to Kash Patel's demand for a retraction [View all]
LetMyPeopleVote
Dec 6
OP
I'm reminded of the partner who would send scathing "fuck you" letters this time of year,
rsdsharp
Dec 6
#12
Your point? Your link does not support the usage in the letter, not one bit
Bernardo de La Paz
Dec 6
#30
I'd assumed he meant swath (or even swathe) too, but that link does support this uncommon usage:
Emrys
Dec 6
#36
'Monty Python enters the chat': National Security expert scoffs at FBI nominee's threat
LetMyPeopleVote
Dec 7
#54