Day 205 - 17 Jan 96 - Page 17
1 inferential meaning of this leaflet is utter indifference
2 to the welfare of the animals concerned, responsibility for
3 inhumane treatment. They say that even though, as
4 I understand it, a word like "torture" may be opinion, that
5 is neither here nor there. If you are saying it is fair
6 comment, the comment has to be fair on the facts as
7 established.
8
9 Mr. Rampton says, in looking to see whether anything which
10 may be interpreted as comment, if "torture" is to be
11 interpreted as a comment rather than a statement of fact,
12 that is the frame of mind of the Plaintiffs, is not
13 supportable on the facts here, note the facts which are set
14 out in the leaflet, you would say, if it is opinion, it is
15 supportable on all the evidence which I have been enabled
16 to be heard as to practices with regard to rearing and
17 slaughter of animals because of the pleading of the
18 inferential meaning.
19
20 At the end of the day, when I have heard full arguments on
21 both sides, that may not be my view because I have not
22 really heard anything like full argument on it, but that is
23 the way I tend to see it at the moment. There is no reason
24 why you should not have the courage of your convictions.
25 If your case is that McDonald's are utterly indifferent as
26 to the welfare of the animals, quite frankly, I
27 would concentrate less on what Mr. Rampton has said in the
28 past and whether you treated it as an admission or not and
29 concentrate more on justifying that.
30
31 MS. STEEL: I do have the courage of my convictions. I mean,
32 that is exactly why I am standing here in court today and
33 why I have been here for the last year and a half, but I do
34 not particularly want to spend a day longer in this court
35 than we have to, and if Mr. Rampton admits
36 something ------
37
38 MR. JUSTICE BELL: He has not, you see. He has not admitted
39 it. He has said something. This is the way I see it at
40 the moment. He said something on 3rd October 1994 which
41 might have led you to believe, you would say, that what he
42 was saying then and what he had meant to say in opening was
43 that one could forget the word "torture". It seems to me,
44 at least at the moment, that what he said in November and
45 made it clear that that was not his case, and that is 23rd
46 November 1994, which is 14 months ago now.
47
48 MS. STEEL: I understand what you are saying, that he has
49 denied it since, but in the meantime, for example, we had
50 Mr. Gregory after the opening speech. Now, if Mr. Rampton
51 presents his case in such a way as to say something is not
52 an issue because it is accepted, we then do not ask the
53 witness questions about that particular subject -- we had
54 this previously with heart disease -- then is it fair that
55 at a later date he is able to say: "Oh, no, that is not
56 what I meant", even though it is there clear as day that he
57 is not objecting to the word "torture", is it fair that he
58 is allowed to back track on that and say: "That is not
59 what I meant at all; I do not think that torture is just a
60 matter of opinion and it is an issue" because it just makes
