Paradise Papers: Tax Havens Exposed

[DarloRich]

I've subscribed to Private Eye for many years and enjoy the inconvenient truths they publish. Looking forward to it dropping through the letterbox tomorrow.

Likewise! Comparing the truth about newspaper magnates and the mutterings of their public organs is always enlightening!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I've subscribed to Private Eye for many years and enjoy the inconvenient truths they publish. Looking forward to it dropping through the letterbox tomorrow.

As a regular reader, is it true that the magazine was once sued by Robert Maxwell and his complaint was upheld with substantial damages awarded against Private Eye?

 

[Dai Corner]

As a regular reader, is it true that the magazine was once sued by Robert Maxwell and his complaint was upheld with substantial damages awarded against Private Eye?

Yes. Private Eye had suggested Maxwell tried to bribe his way to a peerage. Damages of £55,000 were awarded and there were legal costs of around £200,000. As is so often the case the biggest winners were the lawyers.

More here

 

[DarloRich]

They are sued, or at least threatened with the courts, on a fairly regular basis. I do love their standard quote: "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram”

(It may, or may not, be apocryphal)

 

[Dai Corner]

It wasn't a 'case' in the legal sense in that it didn't get to court but there was an exchange of letters between the Eye and the solicitors acting for a Mr Arkell who had been mentioned in the magazine

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2013/08/arkell-v-pressdram.html

29th April 1971

Dear Sir,

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.

Yours,
(Signed)
Goodman Derrick & Co.

------------------------------

Dear Sirs,

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.

Yours,
Private Eye

The original letter had the obvious word, not the ****