Day 306 - 26 Nov 96 - Page 13


     
     1        group and given to London Greenpeace because they had been
     2        misprinted with London Greenpeace's name on, and there is
     3        not any evidence at all of any printing by London
     4        Greenpeace of any leaflets, fact sheets, any single
     5        anti-McDonald's event in the whole period up to the service
     6        of writs since the anti-McDonald's fair.
     7
     8        Incidentally, if I can say about the anti-McDonald's fair,
     9        as Paul Gravett said it did not really have any
    10        anti-McDonald's content; that was used as a kind of
    11        symbolic name for the issues that were being raised at the
    12        fair, although obviously McDonald's was referred to in the
    13        programme.  So it was not strictly an anti-McDonald's
    14        fair.  It was a fair about issues raised by McDonald's, as
    15        we know that the mail-out that went out did not even
    16        include, before the writs were served did not include,
    17        anti-McDonald's leaflets, although it did mention the
    18        campaign.  In fact, I think at that meeting on 20th, myself
    19        and Ms. Steel had been involved in the mail-out, which had
    20        been started, incidentally, by Charlie from London
    21        Greenpeace and Michelle Hooker, one of the agents,
    22        McDonald's agents.  Then we, apparently, Helen and myself,
    23        on 20th September helped with that mail-out and no-one
    24        seemed bothered that there was no anti-McDonald's leaflets
    25        in it, as we have heard from various witnesses.
    26
    27        Then page 12 of day 261.  I said at the top of the
    28        page, "You said the longer version of the leaflet was out
    29        of stock.  Sometimes a longer version of the leaflet was
    30        out of stock?"  Answer, "Yes."   Question, "Do you know
    31        which version of the longer version of the leaflet".
    32        Answer, "No".  Question, "Was generally kept?"  Answer,
    33        "No, I cannot answer that."  I asked him, "How would you
    34        know there was a pile of leaflets that were the fact
    35        sheets, the leaflets?"  Answer, "The ones that were
    36        entitled 'What is wrong with McDonald's'.  Yes, that is
    37        because they had the title on them 'What's wrong with
    38        McDonald's'.  I do not remember now what they looked like,
    39        no."  Question, line 41, "When you say the leaflet
    40        complained of, you mean a leaflet that had 'What's wrong
    41        with McDonald's' written on it?"  Answer, "Yes."  Question,
    42        "And you don't know which particular version of it?"
    43        Answer, "Not at this length of time, no."  Anyway, that is
    44        emphasised.
    45
    46        Then he said, line 50, question, "If it was a long version
    47        or a short version you do not know which version of those
    48        versions it would have been?"  Answer, "No, I would not
    49        have had that knowledge."  That is interesting, because it
    50        is not only can he not say so now, but he is saying there 
    51        at the time he would not have been able to recognise 
    52        different versions of the variety of leaflets about 
    53        McDonald's, he would identify it by the title 'What's wrong
    54        with McDonald's?'
    55
    56        Then you intervened at the bottom of page 12 to say that
    57        that raises the issue again of what leaflet was on the
    58        shelves, which I think had been put to the witness, he had
    59        given evidence that the leaflet complained of was the one
    60        on the shelves.  Then I put to him at the top of page 30,

Prev Next Index