Day 246 - 09 May 96 - Page 21
1 Q. That was after your American parent company had already
2 been taken to task for exactly the same thing in the United
3 States about falsely trying to claim that the milkshakes
4 did not contain any chemical additives.
5
6 MR. RAMPTON: Again, I am very nervous about this kind of
7 cross-examination. I do not remember the first incident,
8 but as a representation of what happened in relation to the
9 magazine campaign in America in 1985 I regard that premise
10 as wholly misleading so far as the witness is concerned.
11
12 MS. STEEL: That was.
13
14 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What I suggest you do, you put to Mr. Preston
15 how many times an advertising authority has criticised
16 something put out on behalf of either the First or Second
17 Plaintiffs, and then by all means ask him, in the light of
18 however many findings you say they are, whether he still
19 thinks McDonald's is an honest company and then we will
20 have got there rather more quickly and we will not have an
21 argument about whether the way you put the question is an
22 accurate summary of the evidence or not.
23
24 MS. STEEL: Well, it would take me ages to find them all, but
25 I can remember that there are several, and there was
26 another one in Norway, which was a ruling against your
27 company for exploiting the loneliness of the child.
28
29 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Put it in general terms, I suggest, if you
30 want to pursue this line. If either the First or Second
31 Plaintiff, or a subsidiary was criticised by an advertising
32 authority for putting forward allegedly misleading
33 information on -- and then you can substitute 4, 6, 8, 12,
34 30, what you say it is occasions, if that were so, would
35 Mr. Preston still say that they are an honest company, if
36 you think that one way or another the answer is going to
37 help you.
38
39 MS. STEEL: Well, I put it to you, Mr. Preston, that your
40 company has had several rulings against you for misleading
41 advertisements throughout the world, and that it is hardly
42 reasonable to call yourself an "honest company"?
43 A. Well, there is no question we have had some rulings
44 against us in our 40-year history around the world in 91
45 countries of an advertising nature. Whether there were 5
46 or 10 or 15, I really do not know, I never kept track of
47 them. As to that meaning McDonald's is not an honest
48 company, I would again 100 per cent refute that.
49
50 Q. So you think it is possible to put out false statements and
51 still be honest then?
52 A. I think it is possible to make a mistake. I think it
53 is possible to have put something in the media which an
54 authority has blessed and said OK to, and then subsequently
55 have a complaint about it and deal with that accordingly.
56 I do not believe McDonald's knowingly goes out saying
57 something is incorrect.
58
59 Q. There is also the Mcfact cards that Mr. Morris put to you
60 the other day and your fact books which talk about chickens
