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

Prev Next Index