Day 052 - 21 Nov 94 - Page 15


     
     1        I do not think that would have found expression in large
     2        italicised block type as something worthy of observation by
     3        readers of the newspaper.  As I pointed out during the
     4        argument, we have frequently in this Court, when dealing
     5        with revenue cases, to decide the very difficult question
     6        whether a particular profit or gain is to be considered
     7        income so as to attract tax, or is a capital increment.  I
     8        have never know the Daily Herald or any other daily
     9        newspaper, if some person has falsely stated that to be
    10        capital which has turned out ultimately to be income, to
    11        honour that state of things by a statement in large letters
    12        in italics: "False return to the Income Tax Authorities".'"
    13
    14        My Lord, taking those observations of Slesser L.J. and
    15        applying them to this case, I ask a rhetorical question:
    16        Would the reader of a publication such as this leaflet
    17        suppose that the Defendants were merely asserting that
    18        there was an interesting body of scientific or medical
    19        opinion which asserted some kind of statistical or
    20        epidemiological association between diet and cancer?
    21
    22        I say it is a rhetorical question, I ought to answer it.
    23        The answer is plainly, no, he would not, and that is even
    24        before one starts to look in detail (as one must) at the
    25        context in which that particular passage is embedded.
    26
    27        My Lord, I start, if I may -- I hope your Lordship has
    28        managed to recover the broad sheet version?
    29
    30   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I have the one which you kindly handed up.
    31        My original one still has not come to light.
    32
    33   MR. RAMPTON:  One starts obviously at the beginning:  "What's
    34        wrong with McDonald's?" The face behind the mask, as it
    35        were.  "Everything they don't want you to know".  Then
    36        really those headings come next under the facsimile of the
    37        McDonald's trademark, the Golden Arches.  The third one
    38        along is "McCancer".  "McMurder", plainly (and we accept
    39        this in context because we must take the context, as must
    40        the Defendants) does not apply.
    41
    42   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That is animals?
    43
    44   MR. RAMPTON:  Exactly.  No reasonable person, having read the
    45        leaflet as a whole, could suppose that this leaflet was
    46        suggesting that McDonald's murder their customers.
    47        "McCancer", "McDisease" and "McDeadly".  Then one goes on
    48        and one finds it starts all over again on the fifth page,
    49        "McDeadly", "McCancer".  I do not know that "McDisease"
    50        gets a second appearance but "McDeadly" and "McCancer" 
    51        certainly do. 
    52 
    53        Then one looks at the introduction.  One envisages an
    54        ordinary reader sufficiently interested in this document to
    55        bother to read it, and the introduction has these words:
    56        "This leaflet is asking to think for a moment about what
    57        lies behind McDonald's clean, bright image.  It's got a lot
    58        to hide".  Skipping the next paragraph:  "We're all subject
    59        to the pressures of stupid advertising, consumerist hype,
    60        and the fast pace of big city Life - but it doesn't take

Prev Next Index