Day 292 - 01 Nov 96 - Page 33
1 - that that is something to do with the Bill that Miss
2 Link is involved in through Parliament. I am not sure
3 about that last point.
4
5 The effect of all that, we would say, is that despite
6 Professor Ashworth being a McDonald's witness and being in
7 an organisation with commercial dependency on McDonald's,
8 that he had to concede that McDonald's was a very important
9 part of the problem and that no amount of sponsorship of
10 people trying to deal with the problem can take away the
11 reality of the situation.
12
13 We think that McDonald's sponsorship is evidence in our
14 favour of the company's approach to criticism, not only on
15 this but on other issues as well, that it is quite
16 remarkable how McDonald's sponsorship crops up on subjects
17 where they have received public criticism, and they are
18 always very keen to ensure that the public is aware of
19 their sponsorship, so far as we have heard in this case,
20 that we are not talking about benevolent, anonymous
21 donations, or just benevolent donations with, you know,
22 kind of humility; it is always something which guarantees
23 that their logo gets blasted around and that they trumpet
24 the facts of their sponsorship.
25
26 So we would say that corporate sponsorship is an extension
27 of their advertising strategy, it is part of their
28 advertising strategy, and is part of their attempt to
29 deceive the public and sidestep criticisms.
30
31 I think that is basically my, if you like, core submission
32 in general. If I can just collect my thoughts a minute.
33
34 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Yes. (Pause)
35
36 MR. MORRIS: Just to come back to some context here, in
37 McDonald's press release regarding what we counterclaimed
38 against, page 2, bullet points two and three relate to what
39 they say the leaflet, that they are complaining of, the
40 fact sheet, states, and they say: The leaflet states that
41 McDonald's uses large volumes of paper/packaging -- not
42 paper packaging ----
43
44 MR. JUSTICE BELL: No, I understand.
45
46 MR. MORRIS: ---- without concern for the environment. They
47 then say, "damages the ozone layer". So they have clearly
48 taken an inferential meaning, or implicit or related
49 meaning, from the words complained of.
50
51 Then there are a number of issues which they claim they are
52 going to demonstrate in court, relating to packaging. That
53 is the first bullet point. That is the "environmentally
54 responsible" section of that page, which I will not bother
55 to read out, it will not take us much further. It does
56 include CFCs.
57
58 We have counterclaimed against this. They have effectively
59 said that these are the lies that we now say they must
60 prove. They have said effectively, and that is the clear
