Day 294 - 05 Nov 96 - Page 11
1 whether the meaning might be justified or not when deciding
2 what the meaning was.
3
4 Anyway, there you are. I have asked the question I wanted
5 to. If you want to come back to it later, and you have
6 said you were going to say more about the meaning anyway,
7 then do so.
8
9 MR. MORRIS: Yes. I think that a lot of what McDonald's have
10 claimed is defamatory is not defamatory in this fact sheet
11 and people should have a right to express their opinion on
12 those subjects without facing libel actions.
13
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: You have made that point before.
15
16 MR. MORRIS: Right. In terms of context, I think the same
17 applies to the context of this section as to any other
18 sections, especially in the light of the - it is clear, you
19 know, part of the gimmicky dressing up of low quality food
20 is talking about a general trend in the food industry.
21
22 For example, in the second paragraph of the "Toy Food"
23 section, again there is a kind of general point that does
24 not only apply to McDonald's; it applies to the food
25 industry. And clearly the "What's Your Poison" box does
26 not even mention McDonald's at all.
27
28 So again, in terms of context, we are talking about general
29 concerns about general problems to do with an industry and
30 the way they promote their products, when of course they do
31 not promote them by saying what the reality is, they do it
32 by portraying it as a fun event and all that kind of
33 stuff. Contrast that with what this leaflet is doing, is
34 trying to show the reality in that industry. Now, if I
35 move on from the fact sheet.
36
37 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes.
38
39 MR. MORRIS: To the press release issued by McDonald's, that we
40 counterclaimed against. They say that the leaflet states
41 that McDonald's "uses ingredients, beef and chicken, which
42 carry a risk of food poisoning". Well, that is a very
43 useful summary of part, if not all, of this section of the
44 case coming from them, and the question is, do the
45 ingredients beef and chicken carry a risk of food
46 poisoning, those kind of ingredients, which is clearly
47 yes. And obviously McDonald's completely agrees about
48 that, because they claim to have all kinds of concerns and
49 policies and procedures to try to neutralize that risk.
50 Whether or not they neutralize it is immaterial, in one way
51 of looking at it, to the fact that there is that risk. And
52 we will look, of course, at how effective they are or are
53 not or can or cannot be, as a secondary matter.
54
55 So what McDonald's have to prove from the counterclaim, and
56 we would defend against it, is that it uses ingredient
57 which do not carry a risk of food poisoning and that me and
58 Helen know that fact; not only do we know that fact, but we
59 knew that fact apparently after the service of witness
60 statements which McDonald's claim we should have, you know,
