The Private Eye Story: The First 21 years

Published by Fontana, 1983, softcover, A4 format, illustrated, index, 240 pages, condition: as new.

Private Eye has now for a long time been established as Britain's premier satirical magazine, and in consequence has rather lost its edge. This book chronicles their early years, when they were young, hungry and willing to take absurd risks. It's very funny. Their basic strategy is summed up by an editorial board meeting reported here. "Suppose we're planning to write an article on Albert Schweitzer," says the editor of the time. "My first question is going to be: what dirt do we have on Albert Schweitzer?"

The best story is definitely the one about Arkell v. Pressdram. I quote the account in Wikipedia:

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: f**k off."

In the years following, the magazine would refer to this exchange as a euphemism for a blunt and coarse dismissal: for example, "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram"; or, perhaps, "His reply was similar to that given to the plaintiff in Arkell v. Pressdram".