might recognise that the Headmistress's letter is not really from a troubled high school". Zimdars later removed the website from her list, after the Eye had contacted her for clarification. Litigation Private Eye has long been known for attracting libel lawsuits, which in English law can lead to the award of damages relatively easily. The publication maintains a large amount of money as a "fighting fund" (although the magazine frequently finds other ways to defuse legal tensions, for example by printing letters from aggrieved parties). As editor since 1986, Ian Hislop is reportedly one of the most sued people in Britain. From 1969 to the mid-1980s, the magazine was represented by human rights lawyer Geoffrey Bindman. The first person to successfully sue Private Eye was the writer Colin Watson, who objected to the magazine's description of him as "the little-known author who ... was writing a novel, very Wodehouse but without the jokes". He was awarded £750. For the tenth anniversary issue in 1971 (number 257), the cover showed a cartoon headstone inscribed with a long list of well-known names, and the epitaph: "They did not sue in vain". In the case of Arkell v Pressdram (1971), the plaintiff was the subject of an article. Arkell's lawyers wrote a letter which concluded: "His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply." Private Eye responded: "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." The plaintiff withdrew the threatened lawsuit. 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". As with "tired and emotional" this usage has spread beyond the magazine. Another litigation case against the magazine was initiated in 1976 by James Goldsmith, who managed to arrange for criminal libel charges to be brought, meaning that, if found guilty, Richard Ingrams and the author of the article, Patrick Marnham could have been imprisoned. He sued over allegations that he had been one of the members of the