refer someone to the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram
Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word refer someone to the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word refer someone to the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say refer someone to the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word refer someone to the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram you have here. The definition of the word refer someone to the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofrefer someone to the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Coined in 1971 from an incident in which Pressdram, publisher of Private Eye magazine, received a legal letter from a Mr Arkell. Pressdram's reply stated:
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 is written as a pseudo-legal citation, as if Arkell v Pressdram were a real court case, although the proceedings never actually made it to court.
2015 February 3, skipweasel, “Unhelpful councilfolk”, in uk.rec.sheds (Usenet):
I'd be tempted to refer them to the reply given in Arkell vs Pressdram.
2016 October 31, Mike Tomlinson, “My post was "discarded" - why?”, in uk.net.news.moderation (Usenet):
Go on then, fatso. May I first refer you to the reply given in Arkell vs Pressdram
2020 February 28, Elise Noble, Demented: A Paranormal Romantic Suspense Novel, Undercover Publishing Limited, →ISBN:
Greg Tillis mentioned that he'd once tried to barter dessert privileges in exchange for her cooperation, and she referred him to the response in Arkell versus Pressdram.
2021 November 19, The Chatterer, “Downing Street wants you to know it’s not suing over PM marriage trouble claims…”, in New Statesman:
One can picture Kelly responding in the style of hard-bitten newspaper hacks of old: “see you in court”. Or perhaps even referring the caller to the reply given in Arkell v Pressdram.
