Difference between revisions 122296557 and 122296558 on dewiki

{{otheruses|Private eye}}
{{Infobox Newspaper |
name = Private Eye |
image = [[Image:Private Eye Cover.jpg|thumbnail|centre|200px|[[4 March]] [[2005]] cover of ''Private Eye''. This is a typical example of the magazine's front cover.  The caption refers to the wedding of [[Charles, Prince of Wales|Prince Charles]] and [[Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall|Camilla Parker-Bowles]].]] |
type = Fortnightly [[satire|satirical]] <BR> [[magazine]]-newspaper |
format = [[Magazine]] |
(contracted; show full)

==Litigation==
The magazine is sued for libel on a regular basis and maintains a large quantity of money as a "fighting fund" (although experience has taught those behind the magazine quick ways to defuse legal tensions, usually by printing a letter from those concerned). As editor, Ian Hislop has become the most sued man in Britain.<ref>{{cite news
|date=[[2006-10-23]] 
|url=http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article1919416.ece 
|author= Byrne, Ciar
|title= 
''Ian Hislop: My 20 years at the "Eye"'' 
|publisher=''[[The Independent]]''
|accessdate=2006-10-23}}</ref>

Those who have sued the magazine include many famous names, though (as the editors noted,) while politicians are a prime target they "tend to take their medicine like men", and the largest number of lawsuits issue from journalists. For the tenth anniversary issue, the cover showed a cartoon headstone inscribed with a long list of well-known names, and the epitaph "They did not sue in vain".<ref>http://www.private-eye.co.uk/pictures/covers/full/257_big.jpg</ref>

An unlikely piece of British legal history occurred in the case ''[[Arkell v. Pressdram]]''.   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 in which, unusually, they said: ''"Our client's attitude to damages will depend on the nature of your reply"''. The response consisted, in part, of the following: ''"We would be interested to know what your client's attitude to damages would be if the nature of our reply were as follows  : Fuck off"''.  This caused a stir in certain quarters.  In the years following, the magazine would use this case as a euphemism for an obscene reply: In subsequent cases, instead of using the obscenity, ''Private Eye'' (and others) would say something like "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 "''".  LikeAs with "[[tired and emotional]]" this usage has spread far beyond the magazine.

The most famous litigation case against the magazine was initiated by [[James Goldsmith]] (known within ''Private Eye'''s pages as '(Sir) Jammy Fishpaste'<ref>{{cite journal
 | year = 1996
 | month = September
 | title = Colour Section
 | journal = Private Eye
 | issue = 907
 | pages = 5
 | publisher = Pressdram
 | language = English
 | quote = Now that the victory of Sir Jammy Fishpaste's Referendum party is assured by the addition of zoo-keeper John Aspinall to its candidates' list, Jammy is checking his members more carefully.}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal
 | year = 1996
 | month = October
 | title = Colour Section
 | journal = Private Eye
 | issue = 908
 | pages = 6
 | publisher = Pressdram
 | language = English
 | quote = Referendum Party News. Sir Jammy Goldsmith's briefing session for more than 100 Referendum party faithful}}</ref>), who managed to arrange for criminal libel charges to be brought (effectively meaning that, if found guilty, those behind the ''Eye'' could be imprisoned).  He sued over allegations that members of the [[Clermont Set]], including Goldsmith, had conspired to shelter [[Richard Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan|Lord Lucan]] after Lucan had murdered his family nanny, [[Sandra Rivett]].  Goldsmith won a partial victory and eventually reached a settlement with the magazine.  The case threatened to bankrupt the magazine, which turned to its readers for financial support in the form of the Goldenballs Fund. Goldsmith himself was referred to as Jaws. The solicitor involved in many litigation cases against ''Private Eye,'', including the Goldsmith case, was [[Peter Carter-Ruck]] (or "Carter-Fuck", as the ''Eye'' referred to him).<ref>{{cite news | publisher=BBC News |
url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/essex/3338643.stm | title=A-list libel lawyer dies |date=December 21, 2003}}</ref>

[[Robert Maxwell]] (Captain Bob) also sued, for the suggestion he looked like a criminal. He won a significant sum. The editor, [[Ian Hislop]], summarised the case: "I've just given a fat cheque to a fat Czech." [[Sonia Sutcliffe]] also sued after allegations that she used her connection to her husband, the Yorkshire Ripper, [[Peter Sutcliffe]], to make money. She won £600,000 which was later reduced to £60,000 on appeal. However, the initial award caused Hislop to quip outside the court: ''"If this is justice, I'm a banana."''.<ref>{{cite news |
url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1617495.stm | title=Private Eye - 40 not out ... yet |
publisher=BBC News |date=October 25, 2001}}</ref>  Readers raised a considerable sum in the "bananaballs fund", and ''Private Eye'' scored a PR coup by donating the surplus to the families of Sutcliffe's victims.

A rare victory for the ''Eye'' came in late 2001, when a libel case brought against the magazine by a [[Cornwall|Cornish]] [[chartered accountant]], Stuart Condliffe, finally came to trial after 10ten years.  The case was thrown out after only a few weeks as Condliffe had effectively accused his own legal team (Carter-Ruck and Associates) of lying.<!---If someone can expand this, please do -- my copies of the issues concerned are a hundred miles away...--->

==The Paul Foot Award==
(contracted; show full)[[Category:Criticism of journalism]]
[[Category:Publications established in 1961]]
[[Category:Biweekly magazines]]
[[Category:Satirical magazines|Private Eye]]

[[fr:Private Eye]]
[[nl:Private Eye]]
[[ru:Прайвэт Ай]]