Day 305 - 25 Nov 96 - Page 24
1
2 MR. JUSTICE BELL: All the cheques I have seen in the past
3 heaven knows how many years have had the name of the person
4 whose account it -----
5
6 MS. STEEL: That is if you have got a cheque book, but that is
7 not if you have got a building society account, which, we
8 have heard in evidence, was the case with London
9 Greenpeace.
10
11 MR. JUSTICE BELL: A building society account, then. It may not
12 be on the cheque. What may be suggested against you, in
13 case you want to deal with it, it is not just a few people
14 who tend to meet at a pub on such and such an evening a
15 week to talk over things; it had sufficient identity to
16 have a building society account.
17
18 MS. STEEL: Well, I am going to come back to this. Well, I am
19 going to carry on going through it, actually, because
20 I just do not want to get too out of order in the way I am
21 doing this.
22
23 If I just say, on the same date, which was 24th May 1990,
24 Mr. Bishop said that Mr. Pocklington said that the
25 signatories to the account were myself and Mr. Morris
26 (sic), which was in fact incorrect. Really, I think that
27 shows the danger of relying very heavily on what the spies
28 said was stated at meetings.
29
30 On the same date, Mr. Bishop gave evidence that I had
31 arrived with a request from Mr. Morris to know what was
32 going on and that I had then 'phoned Mr. Morris, who spoke
33 to Marion, and Mr. Morris was trying to change the subject
34 of the meeting.
35
36 For starters, that was completely wrong. I did not make
37 the 'phone call. That was confirmed by the notes of
38 Mr. Pocklington which said that Dave 'phoned the meeting.
39 That was on page 120 of the bundle of spies' notes, and
40 Mr. Pocklington confirmed that on day 263, pages 41
41 and 42.
42
43 In fact, Mr. Bishop admitted on day 260, pages 22 and 23,
44 that he could not recall who had initiated the 'phone call
45 and that he did not actually know whether or not it was
46 Mr. Morris on the 'phone; he only assumed it.
47
48 But the point is, even if it was true, so what -- as
49 Mr. Rampton might say, and he quite frequently does say,
50 "So what". What has that got to do with the subject of
51 the action, the fact sheet? Basically, the Plaintiffs are
52 trying to create a smokescreen to portray us as being the
53 leaders or the most vociferous, et cetera, in order to say
54 that we are responsible. But -- and this is the point I am
55 coming back to -- even if we were elected presidents of the
56 group, McDonald's would still have to show specific acts
57 relating to the fact sheet which showed our assent. The
58 fact of the matter is that, obviously, we were not elected
59 presidents and there were not any positions of authority
60 within the group.
