Day 288 - 28 Oct 96 - Page 17


     
     1        see where you were before I asked you.
     2
     3   MS. STEEL:   Yes.  The second admission made by the Plaintiffs
     4        regarding torture and murder was on day 30, which is
     5        October 3rd 1994, page 2 of the transcript.  Where
     6        Mr. Rampton was referring to the fact that the Plaintiffs
     7        were applying to amend their Statement of Claim with regard
     8        to both the nutrition section of the leaflet and the animal
     9        section of the leaflet, and on page 2, line 43, Mr. Rampton
    10        says - and this is about the new, amended meaning, L, on
    11        animal welfare:  "All we have tried to do there is to
    12        follow more closely both what we see as being advice of the
    13        pamphlet and what we see as being our room for complaint.
    14        We have conceded, as your Lordship will remember, in
    15        opening that it is obviously a matter of opinion whether
    16        the slaughter of animals for human consumption might be
    17        regarded as inhumane or might be properly or fairly be
    18        called torture..." and so on and so forth.  That is a
    19        reference to the word 'torture', not 'murder'.
    20
    21        Then he says, "What we are concerned about are the
    22        mis-descriptions, as we see them, of fact that the leaflet
    23        contains.  That is what that is intended to reflect."  And
    24        he is referring there to the changes in the Statement of
    25        Claim where McDonald's crossed out the words that were
    26        originally pleaded, 'are responsible for the inhumane
    27        torture and murder of cattle chickens and pigs' and
    28        replaced them with the phrase 'are utterly indifferent'.
    29        We say that clearly that is an indication that we are
    30        entitled to the view that the animals are being tortured
    31        and murdered.
    32
    33        He does say on page, day 52, page 11, line 45 - and again
    34        he is talking about the proposed amendment to 4L: "What we
    35        propose by the proposed amendment to 4L is to, as it were,
    36        shake out of the existing pleaded meaning those elements of
    37        it which are arguably or probably expressions of opinion
    38        rather than statements of fact.  To confine our complaint
    39        in relation to the treatment of animals to those statements
    40        of fact in the leaflet which we say are false as well as
    41        being defamatory".  (Pause).
    42
    43   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Sit down for a moment.  I will not rise, but
    44        just sit down and collect your thoughts for a minute or
    45        two.  (Pause)
    46
    47   MS. STEEL:   We do not consider that 'utterly indifferent' is
    48        the meaning of this section of the fact sheet.  However, as
    49        I said, we do think that McDonald's are utterly indifferent
    50        to the welfare of the animals reared to be turned into 
    51        their product and we are entitled to try to justify their 
    52        meaning, even if it is higher than our own.  I cannot 
    53        remember the legal reference, or the legal authority, for
    54        that, but if it is challenged then I can dig it out.
    55
    56   MR JUSTICE BELL:   I think probably it will not be.
    57
    58   MS. STEEL:   I do remember it coming up in the nutrition
    59        section.
    60

Prev Next Index