Day 292 - 01 Nov 96 - Page 33


     
     1         - that that is something to do with the Bill that Miss
     2        Link is involved in through Parliament.  I am not sure
     3        about that last point.
     4
     5        The effect of all that, we would say, is that despite
     6        Professor Ashworth being a McDonald's witness and being in
     7        an organisation with commercial dependency on McDonald's,
     8        that he had to concede that McDonald's was a very important
     9        part of the problem and that no amount of sponsorship of
    10        people trying to deal with the problem can take away the
    11        reality of the situation.
    12
    13        We think that McDonald's sponsorship is evidence in our
    14        favour of the company's approach to criticism, not only on
    15        this but on other issues as well, that it is quite
    16        remarkable how McDonald's sponsorship crops up on subjects
    17        where they have received public criticism, and they are
    18        always very keen to ensure that the public is aware of
    19        their sponsorship, so far as we have heard in this case,
    20        that we are not talking about benevolent, anonymous
    21        donations, or just benevolent donations with, you know,
    22        kind of humility; it is always something which guarantees
    23        that their logo gets blasted around and that they trumpet
    24        the facts of their sponsorship.
    25
    26        So we would say that corporate sponsorship is an extension
    27        of their advertising strategy, it is part of their
    28        advertising strategy, and is part of their attempt to
    29        deceive the public and sidestep criticisms.
    30
    31        I think that is basically my, if you like, core submission
    32        in general.  If I can just collect my thoughts a minute.
    33
    34   MR. JUSTICE BELL:   Yes.  (Pause)
    35
    36   MR. MORRIS:   Just to come back to some context here, in
    37        McDonald's press release regarding what we counterclaimed
    38        against, page 2, bullet points two and three relate to what
    39        they say the leaflet, that they are complaining of, the
    40        fact sheet, states, and they say:  The leaflet states that
    41        McDonald's uses large volumes of paper/packaging -- not
    42        paper packaging ----
    43
    44   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No, I understand.
    45
    46   MR. MORRIS:  ---- without concern for the environment.  They
    47        then say, "damages the ozone layer".  So they have clearly
    48        taken an inferential meaning, or implicit or related
    49        meaning, from the words complained of.
    50
    51        Then there are a number of issues which they claim they are
    52        going to demonstrate in court, relating to packaging.  That
    53        is the first bullet point.  That is the "environmentally
    54        responsible" section of that page, which I will not bother
    55        to read out, it will not take us much further.  It does
    56        include CFCs.
    57
    58        We have counterclaimed against this.  They have effectively
    59        said that these are the lies that we now say they must
    60        prove.  They have said effectively, and that is the clear

Prev Next Index