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
