Day 037 - 14 Oct 94 - Page 74
1 the Sunday Times article of 11th September 1994?
2 A. Yes.
3
4 Q. This time pay attention to the right-hand column?
5 A. Yes.
6
7 Q. I want you to look, please, at the last part of it
8 underneath the picture of you wielding what appears to be
9 a fearsome meat cleaver?
10 A. Yes, that was a very dangerous photo-shoot -- I cut
11 myself actually.
12
13 Q. You did pose in that position with the meat cleaver; is
14 that right?
15 A. At the sincere request of the Sunday Times. In fact,
16 I was posing in front of a huge butcher's block which was
17 very precariously positioned on top of an old filing
18 cabinet in the photographer's studio in imminent danger of
19 falling on top of me!
20
21 Q. Mr. Cox, yes, I dare say. Please look at the
22 paragraphs -----
23
24 MR. JUSTICE BELL: The young woman with the shopping bag on the
25 right-hand side, I can ignore her, can I?
26 A. Well, yes, it is nothing to do with the article.
27
28 Q. Whether or not I can ignore her, she has nothing to do
29 with your article?
30 A. That is right.
31
32 MR. RAMPTON: Immediately below the picture entitled:
33 "Butchers' enemy: Peter Cox", there is a paragraph about
34 threats received by your wife, at least I take it that is
35 what it is, and threats to book shops?
36 A. Yes.
37
38 Q. Then are you reported as saying this "He", that is
39 Mr. Cox, "tells me this, and then observes with some glee
40 that 2,000 butchers' shops close down every week. He does
41 not appear bothered by the effects of unemployment on the
42 butchers themselves or their families. But then Cox, like
43 his book, mixes hard-headed realism with mystical
44 conviction". Ignore that, what shall I say, mixed
45 compliment -----
46 A. I have ignored it all actually. When it came out
47 I ignored it all. I mean, that paragraph is completely
48 inaccurate.
49
50 Q. In accurate?
51 A. Yes.
52
53 Q. You are not pleased about the 2,000 butchery shops that
54 close every week?
55 A. We had lunch at the Savoy. We had a very long
56 conversation for about four hours, in fact. Sadly for
57 David Thomas, this whole article was dreadfully, dare I
58 say, butchered by his sub-editor. You know, as a result,
59 it has been drastically concertina-ed. I know I never
60 observed with any glee (and I certainly did not state)
