Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 44


     
     1        at the highest level with McDonald's and their PR firm, not
     2        a wild response to defend themselves -- sorry, not a kind
     3        of instinctive self-defence mechanism.  It was also
     4        carefully timed.  The issuing of those leaflets and press
     5        releases could have been done at any time in the previous
     6        ten years, in fact.  But it was done on the eve of the
     7        trial after months of preparation.  That is not a
     8        coincidence; it was a deliberate timed act.
     9
    10        Now, I do not think it was a response at all.  It was an
    11        attack upon our character.  The question is:  In terms of
    12        putting over, as Helen said, the views of the McDonald's
    13        business about their business practices, are McDonald's
    14        able to do that?   First of all, they are a company with an
    15        advertising budget and quite capable of putting over their
    16        point of view.  Secondly, they are probably the largest
    17        advertisers, or certainly one of them, and promoters in
    18        this country.  They have an enormous amount of publicity in
    19        the media.  Therefore, their point of view is put over in
    20        not just through their advertising, but through the media,
    21        with the credibility that that gives to them.  The case was
    22        imminent -- and this is a very important point; I am going
    23        to come on to that again in a minute -- wherein all their
    24        points of view would be there laid bare in a public forum
    25        about anything they had been criticised about; that it is
    26        absolutely ludicrous to say that me and Helen could attack
    27        a UK subsidiary of a multi-national corporation.  In any
    28        event, we are two impoverished members of the public and
    29        they are an extremely powerful, high profile corporation
    30        and that, in balance, would automatically, we say, rule out
    31        the privileged self-defence line of McDonald's.
    32
    33        If I can say a couple of other things about this.  On the
    34        first day of the trial, Mr. Rampton, in his opening speech
    35        on page 27 -- the whole page, in fact, is a complete
    36        negation of what they have been saying about the necessity
    37        for privileged self-defence, because the whole page,
    38        Mr. Rampton talks about their consideration.  It says:
    39        "The Plaintiffs or the Defendants can expect a vindication
    40        of their position in a reasoned judgment".  That is in this
    41        case.
    42
    43        "It is this consideration, coupled with the hope that they
    44        may also obtain an injunction, which has led the Plaintiffs
    45        to conclude that this action must be pressed to its end.
    46        This is a small sacrifice for the Plaintiffs. .... When
    47        these Defendants decided they would contest the case, the
    48        Plaintiffs were driven to take the action to its conclusion
    49        because, my Lord, the inescapable alternative was that the
    50        world at large would say to itself this:  'McDonald's have 
    51        retired in the face of defence allegations', et cetera." 
    52 
    53        Then he moves on to say:  "If the Plaintiffs are right, a
    54        reasoned judgment asserting the validity of that
    55        proposition and the reasons why it was valid, coupled with
    56        an injunction, can only do the Plaintiffs an immense and
    57        lasting service" -- the word "lasting" is important there
    58        -- "however much it may cost in money to obtain it."
    59
    60        Then later on, line 28, he says:  "What these Plaintiffs

Prev Next Index