Proof that Canada isn’t a real country:
We don’t have a magazine like this and never really have (Frank was the exception that proved the rule — note the past tense, eh?).
Can you imagine such a mag, with the equivalent of Private Eyes’ quarter-million strong subscriber base? Of course not.
PS: A review of those awesome lawsuits.
An unlikely piece of British legal history occurred in what is now referred to as the “case” of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971). The plaintiff was the subject of an article relating to illicit payments, and the magazine had ample evidence to back up the article. Arkell’s lawyers wrote a letter which concluded: “His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply.”
The magazine’s response was, in full: “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.”
