Day 246 - 09 May 96 - Page 30


     
     1        being put to you is this: Granted that you wanted to
     2        explain in the face of criticism from either the Defendants
     3        themselves, or those who were supporters of theirs, why
     4        McDonald's were suing them; granted that you wanted to say
     5        that what was in the leaflet was inaccurate or untrue.  Why
     6        actually say that it was lies --  just pause a moment --
     7        bearing in mind that your definition of a lie yesterday was
     8        "something which is untrue and known by the giver of the
     9        information to be untrue"?
    10        A.  Yes, sir.
    11
    12   Q.   Why take that further step?  Why not just say: "We are
    13        taking this action to clear our name in the face of
    14        allegations about our policies and practices which are not
    15        accurate"?  It may be dressed up in better PR language than
    16        that but why say "lies"?
    17        A.  I did not select the words, and it could have been done
    18        that way.  However, I do firmly believe they knew, the
    19        Defendants, that what was in that leaflet was not true.
    20
    21        Why do I say that, sir? In the face of people like the
    22        BBC 2, The Guardian or The Scotsman apologising to us on
    23        the rainforest issue, that, having had quite wide
    24        circulation, it is just inconceivable to me that someone
    25        who even today asserts the 100 per cent truthfulness of
    26        every word in the leaflet could have ignored the entity
    27        such as that apologising.  I have no power, no strength
    28        over those people.  When they were presented the facts in
    29        the matter, they apologised.
    30
    31        In this case, I would have hoped and probably thought, the
    32        Defendants having seen what others had done, might realise
    33        that we quite possibly have it wrong yet they continued to
    34        go forward even today asserting that everything in those
    35        leaflets is 100 per cent truthful.
    36
    37        I do say to you, and I say so quite sincerely, I do not
    38        know if I had written the document I would have used those
    39        words but I do believe they knew what was in there was
    40        incorrect.
    41
    42   MR. MORRIS:  You brought up the fact that you are claiming that
    43        because BBC 2, for example, and The Guardian made an
    44        apology rather than fight a court case, anybody in the
    45        world who puts over similar criticisms must be lying and
    46        that is the basis for your belief in that critics must be
    47        lying because some others have apologised in open court; is
    48        that correct?
    49        A.  Mr. Morris, that is not what I said.  I said in the
    50        face of entities such as this, who have a fine reputation, 
    51        they having been given the McDonald's story, I assume 
    52        having made some inquiries of their own, chose to say:  "We 
    53        got it wrong".  At the very least I would have thought that
    54        you would have re-examined that which you say with a view
    55        towards:  "Maybe, just maybe, we got it wrong".
    56
    57   Q.   Right.  OK.  I would accept that we have had a chance to
    58        examine.  That is why we called 70 witnesses.
    59
    60   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  I am sorry, this is just turning into an

Prev Next Index