Day 177 - 26 Oct 95 - Page 55
1 MR. RAMPTON: It is in paragraph 3 of the amended Statement of
2 Claim. The front cover is pleaded together with the whole
3 of the introduction I notice, with a sigh of relief,
4 because context does have to be pleaded. That was
5 decided----
6
7 MR. JUSTICE BELL: The bit which ----
8
9 MR. RAMPTON: The truth about ----
10
11 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I have found it. It is because in -- it is
12 my own fault -- but it is because in paragraph 2(1)(ii) --
13 2(1)(ii)(a) was, "What's wrong with McDonald's? Everything
14 they don't want you to know." (b) was, "It's got a lot to
15 hide", but then only pleaded which, of course, was
16 sensible, the actual words of the remainder of the
17 introduction upon which you rely. It has got: "You don't
18 need any special intelligence ... The more you find about
19 McDonald's processed food ... The truth about hamburgers".
20 Yes, they are all pleaded.
21
22 MR. RAMPTON: They are all there, my Lord.
23
24 MR. JUSTICE BELL: I am sorry, that was a complete red herring.
25
26 MR. RAMPTON: Then, my Lord, the scene is set. Here the reader
27 sees he is going to be told the truth, and no doubt when he
28 opens it up, "What's wrong with McDonald's? Everything
29 they don't want you to know", the first thing that catches
30 his eye are what are, it must be said, very effective and
31 eye catching headlines -- no doubt in breach of McDonald's
32 trademark rights but never mind that -- McDonald's,
33 McGreedy, McCancer, McMurder, McDisease, McProfit,
34 McDeadly, McHunger, McRip-Off, Mctorture, McWasteful,
35 McGarbage, Mcdollars, and so on and so forth - what one
36 might call (accurately perhaps) a vicious circle because it
37 goes on and on in the same way.
38
39 I have already submitted, and I simply repeat it in one
40 sentence, the reader will necessarily take those headlines
41 as being the leaflet's own summary of the facts, the truth,
42 which he is going to learn in this leaflet. That
43 impression of the effect of the headlines could only be
44 displaced or dispelled if, as in Charleston's case but not
45 in this one, the text were apt to contradict the clear
46 meaning of the headlines.
47
48 Then looking, perhaps -- I am using the facsimile of the
49 original because that is how the ordinary reader would see
50 it -- looking at the bold headings, the questions: "What's
51 the connection between McDonald's and starvation in the
52 Third World", implied in that necessarily an assertion that
53 there is such a connection. The rhetorical question in the
54 middle page: "Why is it wrong for McDonald's to destroy
55 rainforests". That is an assertion that they do so. "What
56 is so" -- and I have expanded the apostrophe taking it out
57 -- "What is so unhealthy about McDonald's food? Answer:
58 It is plainly unhealthy and we will tell you why". "How do
59 McDonald's deliberately exploit children" -- not "do they"
60 but "they do". "In what way are McDonald's responsible for
