Day 186 - 10 Nov 95 - Page 13


     
     1        say is:  "Well, I adopt her argument on that".
     2
     3   MR. MORRIS:  Of course.
     4
     5   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I assume that each of you is adopting the
     6        argument of the other, unless you say something to the
     7        contrary.
     8
     9   MR. MORRIS:  Right.  First of all, I want to say that I do
    10        believe this is actually quite an important issue we are
    11        discussing here, with implications for freedom of speech.
    12        We are not only seeking the protection of the court for our
    13        interests, but also for the public interest, because if the
    14        Plaintiffs succeed in what we say is basically a completely
    15        -- we do not believe they have got an argument in our
    16        case, but if they succeed in, effectively, outlawing what I
    17        would call hyperbole and satire and context, when it is
    18        clear that the text of the leaflet is not defamatory and is
    19        accurate, then it will certainly have implications for all
    20        the national press, the media and especially people that
    21        are critical.
    22
    23        I would say this is clearly a critical leaflet, put out by
    24        people that are critical of a whole industry and capitalism
    25        in general, profit motive, and that context is always going
    26        to be present whenever people who are fundamentally
    27        critical of a system, or part of a system, are inevitably
    28        going to put things out in a critical context.  So I think
    29        that should be borne in mind.
    30
    31        First of all, what I was going to say was -- I am really
    32        following Mr. Rampton's order, so it is not necessarily the
    33        order that -- I may dot about a bit -- in the Gatley
    34        reference which Mr. Rampton did read out -- it was
    35        paragraph 93, page 92 of Gatley, which I think was put at
    36        the front of the authorities -- there is just one thing
    37        I wanted to point out was it was said:  "The natural and
    38        ordinary meaning may also 'include any implication or
    39        inference which a reasonable reader guided not by special
    40        but only by general knowledge and not fettered by any
    41        strict rules of construction would draw from the words'."
    42        I wanted to emphasise the "may" there.  Presumably, it is
    43        may or it may not.
    44
    45        Yes, it was what Mr. Rampton said (which Helen has already
    46        dealt with) about the complex construction.  We noted that
    47        the original meaning of the Plaintiffs on this issue before
    48        they started inventing the complex construction which they
    49        are not exactly entitled to do -- if I can find the
    50        original statement of claim; if you remember, it was 
    51        amended.  Sorry, the original meaning F was the Plaintiffs 
    52        are deliberately misleading the public as to nutritional 
    53        value of the food they sell -- so the issue was the
    54        nutritional value of the food they sell -- when they know
    55        full well that the contents of an average McDonald's meal
    56        are linked with cancers of the breast, bowel and heart
    57        disease.  The contents can only be the nutritional
    58        contents, i.e. the fat, fibre and the salt and sugar
    59        issues.  The issue is a link.  They then went on to create
    60        (which they were allowed to do) a meaning which was quite

Prev Next Index