Day 050 - 10 Nov 94 - Page 16

     
     1        my present view is that that is a matter for comment to me
     2        in due course.
     3
     4        I used the phrase the other day "arguing the toss" with the
     5        witness.  It was not meant to be pejorative, but you reach
     6        a stage in any cross-examination where you have sought to
     7        make your point, and the next stage is to take it up with
     8        the judge in comment, rather than further questions.  Quite
     9        frankly, I think you have reached that stage on this point.
    10
    11   MR. MORRIS:  (To the witness)  In the new proposed Code, there
    12        is a paragraph (which I will not go to; I am sure we all
    13        remember) about excessive eating is not to be encouraged,
    14        or over-consumption?
    15        A.  Yes.
    16
    17   Q.   Is that correct?  How would that affect advertising if that
    18        was passed?
    19        A.  I think that it will not change very much.  At the
    20        moment it is rare that any commercial would be shown which
         encouraged -- the wording is that ---
    22
    23   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  It is (a), is it not, in the Proposed New
    24        Code Section?
    25        A.  Yes.
    26
    27   Q.   "Advertisements must not encourage or condone excessive
    28        consumption of any food"?
    29        A.  Yes.  They give examples of what they mean.  The sort
    30        of thing they would not be happy with would be somebody
    31        filling a supermarket trolley with a lot of chocolate
    32        bars.  There has been one commercial which did that, and
    33        that was allowed through in the past.  What they are saying
    34        is:  "We do not think we would allow that through in the
    35        future."
    36
    37        I think it is unlikely that, apart from that one case,
    38        there would be any significant change in the way food
    39        advertisements are allowed or rejected.
    40
    MR. MORRIS:  What about, say, a Billy Bunter type character that
    42        was obsessed with eating buns?
    43        A.  I am not aware that there has been such an
    44        advertisement.  But your question, I think, was:  would
    45        that change, would this wording change what goes through
    46        and what is stopped today?  I think it is unlikely that
    47        something on those lines would have been allowed in the
    48        past or would be allowed in the future.
    49
    50   Q.   Why would they not have been allowed in the past?  Say, the 
    51        Billy Bunter character that loves to stuff his face with 
    52        buns and things; that is not specifically outlawed at the 
    53        moment, is it?
    54        A.  It is not specifically outlawed, to use your words, but
    55        it would be likely to fall foul of other rules about good
    56        behaviour.  So it is my opinion, though I do not think
    57        there has been such a case, it is my opinion that that
    58        would probably not have been permitted in the past and
    59        would probably not be permitted in the future.
    60