I was writing limericks for the OEDILF when I discovered that among its other expansions in scope there are a number of limericks on specific legal judgements.
No, I don't understand it either but I thought I'd jump on the bandwagon with one of my favourites.

The limerick defines Arkell v. Pressdram

You will sue us? Then go right ahead.
We can back up whatever we said.
It's Arkell v Pressdram.
We couldn't care less. Damn,
You may "fuck off". Please take it as read.

The background is curious but true.
The British satirical magazine Private Eye, owned and published by Pressdram Ltd was threatened with legal action by the solicitors for Mr J. Arkell, about whom they had printed an article concerning illicit payments.
The threat contained a notice that the plaintiff's attitude to damages would be determined by the nature of their reply..

In that reply to the threat, they said, "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."
The phrase Arkell v. Pressdram has since become a kind of legal code phrase for anyone wishing to offer similar sentiments.

I just think this is a terrific use of legal language.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BobHale,

quote:

Arkell v Pressdram

That is hilarious, Bob. I love it and just RFA'd it for you. Here is the case.

Why is it in the curtained room? Because of fuck? They have become quite a nanny state over there, haven't they?

quote:

Originally posted by Kalleh:

quote:

Arkell v Pressdram

That is hilarious, Bob. I love it and just RFA'd it for you. Here is the case.

Why is it in the curtained room? Because of fuck? They have become quite a nanny state over there, haven't they?

I curtained it myself just to err on the side of caution.

An interstiong case.
Not the right one, but interesting nevertheless.

Well, heck. You are correct. And now I can't find the right one. Here is the blog where I found the wrong libel case.

I don't think (though I'm not certain) that the case got as far as going to court.

quote:

Originally posted by BobHale:
I don't think (though I'm not certain) that the case got as far as going to court.

It didn't. Private Eye heard no more.