Arkell v Pressdram 2019: A massive pair of balls or a complete idiot?

#1
I know there's some legal eagles on here so they might be interested in the recent case of Grayling v North. Even if you aren't in that dismal trade the case serves as a warning to be moderate in what goes out online under your own name.

In May 2018, Pete North a Brexiteer (@petenorth303) tweeted:

‘I’d bet good money that AC Grayling has a hard drive full of underage botty sex videos.

The AC Grayling (@acgrayling) in question is an academic of some note and a Remain campaigner.

Some weeks later solicitors for Grayling sent a Letter of Claim to Mr North seeking an apology for the tweet and an undertaking not to repeat the accusation. A few days later Mr North acknowledged the letter and emailed the following response: “I don’t know if this will qualify as a satisfactory proposal but I strongly suggest your client goes and fucks himself.

This response echoes the famous Arkell v Pressdram affair in 1971 where a similar reply given to a Mr Arkell whom, correctly it transpired Private Eye had accused of corruption (Pressdram is the name of Private Eye's company).

The phrase 'Arkell v Pressdram' has subsequently become an oblique term in the legal trade and beyond for telling someone to **** off, as in 'I refer the counsel for the prosecution to answer given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram.'

North did not file a defence to the claim and Grayling was granted judgement in default with an award of £20,000 for the libel, plus costs which are reckoned at around £50,000 - a rather large sum for an undefended case which began and finished in a day and much of which was made up of barrister's fees.

So now North is looking at a bill of around £70,000 for a seventeen word Tweet.

Victory to Grayling, but judgement is one thing, collecting on the judgement is another. You can read North's account of the action here, that incredibly contains the original tweet which the court has forbidden to be repeated. North claims to have no assets other than a 'battered collection of model aeroplanes' and if no assets can be realised Grayling will have to foot the legal bill and his victory may seem rather hollow.
 
#2
I know there's some legal eagles on here so they might be interested in the recent case of Grayling v North. Even if you aren't in that dismal trade the case serves as a warning to be moderate in what goes out online under your own name.

In May 2018, Pete North a Brexiteer (@petenorth303) tweeted:

‘I’d bet good money that AC Grayling has a hard drive full of underage botty sex videos.

The AC Grayling (@acgrayling) in question is an academic of some note and a Remain campaigner.

Some weeks later solicitors for Grayling sent a Letter of Claim to Mr North seeking an apology for the tweet and an undertaking not to repeat the accusation. A few days later Mr North acknowledged the letter and emailed the following response: “I don’t know if this will qualify as a satisfactory proposal but I strongly suggest your client goes and fucks himself.

This response echoes the famous Arkell v Pressdram affair in 1971 where a similar reply given to a Mr Arkell whom, correctly it transpired Private Eye had accused of corruption (Pressdram is the name of Private Eye's company).

The phrase 'Arkell v Pressdram' has subsequently become an oblique term in the legal trade and beyond for telling someone to **** off, as in 'I refer the counsel for the prosecution to answer given in the case of Arkell v Pressdram.'

North did not file a defence to the claim and Grayling was granted judgement in default with an award of £20,000 for the libel, plus costs which are reckoned at around £50,000 - a rather large sum for an undefended case which began and finished in a day and much of which was made up of barrister's fees.

So now North is looking at a bill of around £70,000 for a seventeen word Tweet.

Victory to Grayling, but judgement is one thing, collecting on the judgement is another. You can read North's account of the action here, that incredibly contains the original tweet which the court has forbidden to be repeated. North claims to have no assets other than a 'battered collection of model aeroplanes' and if no assets can be realised Grayling will have to foot the legal bill and his victory may seem rather hollow.
I think Mr North is going to be dry bummed (Financially) by Mr Grayling. I reckon he'll lose more than his aeroplanes,
 
#3
Preusumably Private Eye knew they had the truth behind them. Mr North bluffed that Mr Grayling wouldn't go to court. Two useful rules - If you bluff, prepare to have it called & Don't gamble if you can't afford to lose [both of which most of us have ignored on occasion]
 
#4
A complete idiot especially repeating a libel which is the same as libelling someone all over again. Thick as mince.

"The aim here is a vindictive attempt to bankrupt me and if possible silence me purely because I am a Leave campaigner. "

No it's because you accused him of paedophilia you dim bulb.
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
The difference being, Private Eye knew what they were doing. This one obviously didn't. Still, it amazes me that people write stuff in an open forum that they would hopefully think twice without writing in a letter

The good news being that once brexit arrives, the quislings, remainers and traitors will be dealt with and he sins of the brexiters will be washed away.
(Might contain sarcasm)
 
#7
" North claims to have no assets other than a 'battered collection of model aeroplanes' and if no assets can be realised Grayling will have to foot the legal bill and his victory may seem rather hollow. "

If Grayling wanted to be vindictive he could garnish North's wages or, presumably, make him bankrupt which would screw his life up for 6 years at least.
 
#8
If Grayling wanted to be vindictive he could garnish North's wages or, presumably, make him bankrupt which would screw his life up for 6 years at least.
Vindictive is good. Allowing shits like that to get away with it (and repeating the offence) happens all too often.

(Incidentally, AC Grayling is a t**t).
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
#10
Vindictive is good. Allowing shits like that to get away with it (and repeating the offence) happens all too often.

(Incidentally, AC Grayling is a t**t).
If that's your honestly held opinion that he's a t**t, fine. The fact that you hold that opinion will do Mr Grayling no hurt or harm. I and many others think a t**t is a good thing and the world is a better place with them in it.


On the other hand what Grayling was accused of by North is not generally seen as a good thing and few if any at all think there should be more of them.
Good for Grayling. It's about time.
 

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
#11
hmm...he's just saying 'he'd bet money' if that was the case. surely there's a difference between expressing an opinion on what you'd gamble on and saying 'this person possesses child porn'? no? ;)
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#12
hmm...he's just saying 'he'd bet money' if that was the case. surely there's a difference between expressing an opinion on what you'd gamble on and saying 'this person possesses child porn'? no? ;)
The Tweet he replied to said "If you consider that every kiddie fiddler is a staunch remainer you will realise why opposition to Brexit in Britain is so strong. These perverts have enough influence in places that matter to stage a coup..."

His reply did not start with 'He'd bet good money'. It started with 'I've had similar thoughts'.

I'd agree with @Whiskybreath - not a fan of Grayling at all but I'm glad this clown is going to get royally reamed.
 
#14
" North claims to have no assets other than a 'battered collection of model aeroplanes' and if no assets can be realised Grayling will have to foot the legal bill and his victory may seem rather hollow. "

If Grayling wanted to be vindictive he could garnish North's wages or, presumably, make him bankrupt which would screw his life up for 6 years at least.
I think, I may be wrong, that this sort of thing goes beyond that. Grayling can have a nominal order on the idiot for the rest of his life with the option for him to be bankrupted at will or paying up more should he come into any money.
 
#15
Eventually even the idiots will cotton on that putting comments on the internet isn’t like a conversation between mates in a cosy lounge bar: it’s like spouting them live on telly, placing announcements in the entire world’s newspapers and going out into the street and bawling them to random passers-by.
Ergo, call someone a paedo online and it won’t be too long before you are called to account. You’d have to be an idiot to do it and you’d have to be a double idiot to baselessly accuse someone of the foulest crime, and then ignore the (rather generous in my opinion) opportunity to apologise for it.
 
#16
Why on earth is Pete North being referred to as a brexiteer? He and his equally odious father have done nothing but try to frustrate brexit after North seniors spineless Flexit bolleaux got kicked back by leave.

Hope the chippy little cnut ends up living in a skip.
 
#17
You’d have to be an idiot to do it and you’d have to be a double idiot to baselessly accuse someone of the foulest crime, and then ignore the (rather generous in my opinion) opportunity to apologise for it.
Yes.
There has been some banter on ARRSE which, while potentially actionable, is 'accepted' as just that - banter.
In your words "a conversation between mates in a cosy lounge bar".
Great analogy.
However, to use the very wide platform of twitter is pure stupidity.
 
#18
I think Mr North is going to be dry bummed (Financially) by Mr Grayling. I reckon he'll lose more than his aeroplanes,
From my limited knowledge of these things Pete North will be in debt for ever, opening his (admittedly limited) assets and future income liable to seizure.
 
#19
Why on earth is Pete North being referred to as a brexiteer? He and his equally odious father have done nothing but try to frustrate brexit after North seniors spineless Flexit bolleaux got kicked back by leave.

Hope the chippy little cnut ends up living in a skip.
Who's his Dad?
 
#20
I think, I may be wrong, that this sort of thing goes beyond that. Grayling can have a nominal order on the idiot for the rest of his life with the option for him to be bankrupted at will or paying up more should he come into any money.
Every last penny above a subsidence level can be seized. Probably with interest and further legal fees added. The total could go into six figures, AFAIK.

Don't libel someone on an open forum.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
oldbaldy The NAAFI Bar 3

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top