This page concerns legal matters. If you are too stupid to understand this, then I suggest you turn off the PC and go and watch something more adapted to your level, like CBeebies, Jonas Brothers or Jeremy Kyle.
This case is well known among lawyers and journalists, especially the phrase "I refer you to the reply given in Arkell and Pressdram". Basically, it refers to a legal case whereby Mr Arkell was accused by British satirical magazine Private Eye of illicit payments, and they had ample evidence to back this up. After printing the allegations, they recieved the following letter:
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."
So, if you have been referred to the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram, basically: fuck off.