On Fri, 7 Aug 2015 05:05:52 -0700 (PDT), JimK
wrote:

"In the case of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971), the plaintiff was the subject of an article relating to illicit payments, and the magazine (Private Eye) had ample evidence to back up the article.[26] Arkell's lawyers wrote a letter which concluded: "His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply." The magazine responded: "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: **** off."

Hth

Jim K

James Arkell and I worked for the same company GTVR in 1971, not that
I knew him, or even recall hearing his name at the time.



--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%