Day 186 - 10 Nov 95 - Page 48


     
     1        that McDonald's goods are defective in nutritional terms,
     2        that is not in itself defamatory.  We can leave aside the
     3        baker case.
     4
     5   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  Yes.
     6
     7   MR. MORRIS:  That finishes with the authorities.  I do not think
     8        Helen has any more -----
     9
    10   MS. STEEL:   Can I just say something about the cartoon, because
    11        it has been referred to quite a bit and it is a point that
    12        I did not add this morning.  Obviously, it is my position
    13        that the cartoon is about the general effect of the junk
    14        food industry.  I personally do not accept it was to be
    15        taken as a direct reference to consuming junk food.
    16
    17        Can I just point out that there are lots of references in
    18        the leaflet to junk food, including one directly above it;
    19        and I think that the Plaintiffs are putting a very forced
    20        interpretation on the leaflet to connect that cartoon to
    21        the initial paragraph in the nutrition section about diet
    22        being linked to cancers of the breast and bowel;
    23        and I believe that the reason that they are putting that
    24        forced interpretation is that they do recognise that, in
    25        actual fact, that paragraph does not say what they are
    26        alleging that it does say, i.e., that if you eat McDonald's
    27        food you are going to get cancer.
    28
    29        Obviously, in terms of forced interpretation, I think that
    30        was referred to earlier, that the meaning should not be
    31        something that is a forced -- or something that is really
    32        forced, when there is an obvious non-defamatory or less
    33        defamatory meaning available that is far more obvious.
    34
    35        Just about the Charleston case.  I do not really know
    36        whether I need to deal with this.  Maybe I have dealt with
    37        it already.  It was just about the bit about not being
    38        entitled to read either the text or the headline in
    39        isolation from each other and the two combining to form a
    40        single message -- which was something that I think
    41        Mr. Rampton said.  I have a note that he said it
    42        somewhere.  Yes.  He said something about they complement
    43        each other and they point to a single answer.  I did deal
    44        with this this morning, but just to say that the headings
    45        on their own do not say anything.  So if you are reading
    46        both, the only thing you can read is what the text says.
    47
    48        I cannot remember whether I said this this morning or not,
    49        so I will just mention it in case I did not.  Mr. Rampton
    50        read a part that said: "Thus a plaintiff cannot select an 
    51        isolated passage in an article and complain of that alone 
    52        if other parts of the article throw a different light on 
    53        that passage."  I would just say:  or if other parts of the
    54        leaflet throw a different light on a heading or on a
    55        cartoon to what is said.  I am sorry, this is very bitty.
    56        I am virtually finished now.
    57
    58        There was just one point.  Mr. Rampton went into detail
    59        about the whole of the leaflet and setting the context, and
    60        then he went on about the man behind the mask speaking for

Prev Next Index