Figure 2.8: numbered format of extract 2 1 This is not a battle between the freedom of religion 2 and the freedom of the press; 3 two freedoms which we treasure greatly. 4 This is rather a battle of right and wrong. 5 Has the Daily Mail infringed the plaintiff’s right to a good, clean reputation, 6 or has the plaintiff Mr Orme in all the circumstances no right to any reputation at all in this case because of what he and his organisation have done and do? 7 Was the Daily Mail wrong about its allegations in its article? 8 Was it wrong about its allegations during this case? 9 Or was the plaintiff wrong; 10 was the plaintiff giving a false picture? 11 That is what it is, members of the jury, not a battle between freedom of the press and freedom of religion, 12 but a battle of right and wrong. Looking at Figure 2.8, above, the first two and last two sentences of the extract (lines 1, 2, 11 and 12) form a ‘sandwich’ comprising repetition of the main assertion that the case is not a battle between freedom of the press and freedom of religion. It is as if he is saying that the argument is so because ‘I say so, twice!’. Another example of repetition is found in the structure of the run of three rhetorical questions, both in terms of length and the use of amplification through alliteration: ‘was juxtaposed with wrong’ in lines 7, 8 and 9. The structure of the extract also demonstrates that the judge has the authority to impose that reading of events. For he says, in line 11, ‘This is what it is, members of the jury’. Who is the ‘we’ found in line 3? (a) Is it the royal ‘we’, symbolising the ultimate authority of the court? (b) Is it merely the judge? (c) Does it include judge and jury? ‘We’ is undeniably an inclusive term. It is suggested that, in this instance, the judge is talking in relation to the court and the law, as an official spokesman of the law. The choice of the word ‘battle’, as part of what turns out to be a continuing war metaphor which runs throughout the entire summing up, as a major organising theme that argument is war, is interesting. The word ‘fight’ or ‘skirmish’ is not chosen, but ‘battle’. The reference to battle puts the case ‘high up’ in a hierarchy of modes of physical fighting—for example skirmish, scrap, fight, battle. Battle denotes that opposing armies gather together with their greatest degree of strength to fight for as long as it takes for a clear victor. Of course, it is not unusual to find ‘fighting’ metaphors used to describe English trials. Because of their accusatorial nature (‘He did it judge.’ ‘No, he did it judge.’). Early in the history of English dispute resolution, trial by battle (a physical fight) was used to determine guilt and innocence as a perfectly acceptable alternative to trial by law.

DOI link for Figure 2.8: numbered format of extract 2 1 This is not a battle between the freedom of religion 2 and the freedom of the press; 3 two freedoms which we treasure greatly. 4 This is rather a battle of right and wrong. 5 Has the Daily Mail infringed the plaintiff’s right to a good, clean reputation, 6 or has the plaintiff Mr Orme in all the circumstances no right to any reputation at all in this case because of what he and his organisation have done and do? 7 Was the Daily Mail wrong about its allegations in its article? 8 Was it wrong about its allegations during this case? 9 Or was the plaintiff wrong; 10 was the plaintiff giving a false picture? 11 That is what it is, members of the jury, not a battle between freedom of the press and freedom of religion, 12 but a battle of right and wrong. Looking at Figure 2.8, above, the first two and last two sentences of the extract (lines 1, 2, 11 and 12) form a ‘sandwich’ comprising repetition of the main assertion that the case is not a battle between freedom of the press and freedom of religion. It is as if he is saying that the argument is so because ‘I say so, twice!’. Another example of repetition is found in the structure of the run of three rhetorical questions, both in terms of length and the use of amplification through alliteration: ‘was juxtaposed with wrong’ in lines 7, 8 and 9. The structure of the extract also demonstrates that the judge has the authority to impose that reading of events. For he says, in line 11, ‘This is what it is, members of the jury’. Who is the ‘we’ found in line 3? (a) Is it the royal ‘we’, symbolising the ultimate authority of the court? (b) Is it merely the judge? (c) Does it include judge and jury? ‘We’ is undeniably an inclusive term. It is suggested that, in this instance, the judge is talking in relation to the court and the law, as an official spokesman of the law. The choice of the word ‘battle’, as part of what turns out to be a continuing war metaphor which runs throughout the entire summing up, as a major organising theme that argument is war, is interesting. The word ‘fight’ or ‘skirmish’ is not chosen, but ‘battle’. The reference to battle puts the case ‘high up’ in a hierarchy of modes of physical fighting—for example skirmish, scrap, fight, battle. Battle denotes that opposing armies gather together with their greatest degree of strength to fight for as long as it takes for a clear victor. Of course, it is not unusual to find ‘fighting’ metaphors used to describe English trials. Because of their accusatorial nature (‘He did it judge.’ ‘No, he did it judge.’). Early in the history of English dispute resolution, trial by battle (a physical fight) was used to determine guilt and innocence as a perfectly acceptable alternative to trial by law.

Figure 2.8: numbered format of extract 2 1 This is not a battle between the freedom of religion 2 and the freedom of the press; 3 two freedoms which we treasure greatly. 4 This is rather a battle of right and wrong. 5 Has the Daily Mail infringed the plaintiff’s right to a good, clean reputation, 6 or has the plaintiff Mr Orme in all the circumstances no right to any reputation at all in this case because of what he and his organisation have done and do? 7 Was the Daily Mail wrong about its allegations in its article? 8 Was it wrong about its allegations during this case? 9 Or was the plaintiff wrong; 10 was the plaintiff giving a false picture? 11 That is what it is, members of the jury, not a battle between freedom of the press and freedom of religion, 12 but a battle of right and wrong. Looking at Figure 2.8, above, the first two and last two sentences of the extract (lines 1, 2, 11 and 12) form a ‘sandwich’ comprising repetition of the main assertion that the case is not a battle between freedom of the press and freedom of religion. It is as if he is saying that the argument is so because ‘I say so, twice!’. Another example of repetition is found in the structure of the run of three rhetorical questions, both in terms of length and the use of amplification through alliteration: ‘was juxtaposed with wrong’ in lines 7, 8 and 9. The structure of the extract also demonstrates that the judge has the authority to impose that reading of events. For he says, in line 11, ‘This is what it is, members of the jury’. Who is the ‘we’ found in line 3? (a) Is it the royal ‘we’, symbolising the ultimate authority of the court? (b) Is it merely the judge? (c) Does it include judge and jury? ‘We’ is undeniably an inclusive term. It is suggested that, in this instance, the judge is talking in relation to the court and the law, as an official spokesman of the law. The choice of the word ‘battle’, as part of what turns out to be a continuing war metaphor which runs throughout the entire summing up, as a major organising theme that argument is war, is interesting. The word ‘fight’ or ‘skirmish’ is not chosen, but ‘battle’. The reference to battle puts the case ‘high up’ in a hierarchy of modes of physical fighting—for example skirmish, scrap, fight, battle. Battle denotes that opposing armies gather together with their greatest degree of strength to fight for as long as it takes for a clear victor. Of course, it is not unusual to find ‘fighting’ metaphors used to describe English trials. Because of their accusatorial nature (‘He did it judge.’ ‘No, he did it judge.’). Early in the history of English dispute resolution, trial by battle (a physical fight) was used to determine guilt and innocence as a perfectly acceptable alternative to trial by law.