Thursday, April 23

Letters of Note: Arkell v. Pressdram

Sometimes kannu one has to respond in this manner. Classic :)

Letters of Note: Arkell v. Pressdram

"Messrs Jeffrey Benson and Michael Isaacs of Tracing Services Ltd, currently on bail on charges of conspiracy to create a public mischief, appear to have lost most of the work collecting debts and tracing absconders for the Granada group, to the considerable regret of Mr James Arkell, Granada's retail credit manager. Ever since last June, when Tracing Services got the contract, Mr Arkell has been receiving £20 every month from Tracing Services, but the payment now appears to have stopped."
On April 9th of 1971, much to the dismay of one James Arkell, the brief story quoted above was published in Private Eye, a British satirical news publication founded in 1961 which, thanks to its unflinching commitment to uncovering scandals, is no stranger to legal disputes. Indeed, a few weeks after this particular piece hit the shelves, a letter arrived from Arkell's solicitors which can be read below, as can an uncompromising reply from Private Eye which has since become famous in legal and publishing circles for reasons which will become clear.
Never ones to miss an opportunity, Private Eye published the exchange very quickly, and almost immediately Arkell withdrew his complaint. The magazine have since used the dispute as shorthand when responding to threats, e.g. "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram."
Note: 'Pressdram Ltd' is Private Eye's publisher. Also, there was no "case" legally, despite the name by which the dispute is now known.
(Source: Private Eye, via Jon Jenkins — huge thanks to Stephen Bailey.)
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.
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: fuck off.
Private Eye

Wednesday, April 22

Drugs, brothels, al-Qaeda and the Beyonce tax: the Green Party plan for Britain

When I read this and posted it on Facebook son, one of my friends posted a photo of a multi coloured kitten with unicorn horn and butterfly horns. As an allegory to how greens see their world. It's not just rose tinted spectacles. It's like they are completely zonked out of their heads.

Some of the policies I agree with. Like drug legalisation or prostitution decriminalisation.  That's for individual rights. But most of the rest? I was just gaping at the list. And thinking. 1 in 10 Brits support this party.

And the people who are authoring these kinds of documents aren't stupid. I'm guessing they are educated and have a modicum of economic sense. Or do they?

in a strange way, it makes sense. Tax everything so every economic activity will be stupidly reduced. Wealth creation will drop. Educational diversity and standards will be buggered up. So people will be progressively stupider and stupider. And therefore the first objective of consuming less and less will be achieved as they will turn into drooling idiots who cannot handle complicated modern equipment.


But they will influence policy going forward. Countries where the green movement is strong have dozens of policies like Australia and Germany.

We are in for interesting times son.



Drugs, brothels, al-Qaeda and the Beyonce tax: the Green Party plan for Britain - Telegraph
(via Instapaper)

They are on the cusp of an electoral breakthrough - and an examination of Green Party policy reveals a extraordinary list of demands

Matthew Holehouse

By Matthew Holehouse, Political Correspondent

6:30AM GMT 20 Jan 2015

Six months ago, they were on the very edges of British politics. Now, they are within touching distance of dictating terms to the future government.

A surge in support has seen the Green Party overtake the Liberal Democrats in the polls, with support at 11 per cent. Membership is now greater than Ukip’s.

And, with hopes of winning three seats in the general election, Natalie Bennett believes her party will take part in a “confidence and supply” arrangement, propping up a fragile minority administration in exchange for key policies.

What might they demand?

The party is often dubbed the “Ukip of the left”. But an examination of the party’s core priorities - in a document called Policies for a Sustainable Society, set at the party’s annual conference - reveals they are far more radical in their aims than Nigel Farage’s outfit.

In the short term, a Green administration would impose a string of new taxes, ramp up public spending to unprecedented levels and decriminalise drugs, brothels and membership of terrorist groups.

In the long term, they want to fundamentally change life as we know it.

Monday, April 20

a gun in the home is associated with a threefold increase in the risk of a homicide.

this is bloody amazing…..

“[Our research] underwent peer review and was thought to be very solid and worthwhile research,” says Dr. Fred Rivara, who was part of the team that researched gun violence. “The CDC stood by our research — they had funded it and they stood by it. Unfortunately, it raised the attention of the National Rifle Association, who then worked with pro-gun members of Congress to essentially stop funding firearm research.”

Rivara, a professor of pediatrics and epidemiology at the University of Washington at Seattle Children's Hospital, discovered that having a gun in the home is associated with a threefold increase in the risk of a homicide.

“The most common reason that people have a gun is because they have it for home protection,” he says. “Unfortunately, the data indicates that having a gun is associated with both an increased risk of homicide, but even more importantly, an increased risk of suicide. We know that, for example, if there’s a gun in the home, the risk of suicide among adolescents and young adults increases tenfold.”