Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 41
1 never put out any press releases, I am quite sure that
2 there would have been media interest in this trial.
3
4 So, McDonald's have to show our specific involvement in a
5 specific article which they may wish to rely upon.
6 McDonald's may not like the fact that the media are
7 interested in reporting about this case, but that is the
8 reality. They are interested. They would be more
9 interested, in fact, if they were not being intimidated by
10 McDonald's.
11
12 On page 13... I am trying not to cover old ground, so just
13 the fact that I am missing out parts does not mean I do not
14 have anything to say about it. Page 13, paragraph 4: "The
15 Defendants' involvement in achieving such publicity is
16 plainly apparent in regard to their participation in
17 broadcast interviews". Now, most of the -- well, I do not
18 know. I mean, we get phone calls from the media asking us
19 to take part in broadcast interviews and that does not mean
20 that we have set out to court that. It just means that
21 because we are one of the parties in it they are interested
22 in speaking to us. If McDonald's want to assert that it is
23 at our instigation, they have to show how we instigated it
24 in each particular case.
25
26 The paragraph at the bottom of page 13 and the top of
27 page 14, which refers to items -- "The appearance in the
28 printed media of articles and items expressly seeking to
29 elicit donations to the McLibel Support Campaign based at
30 the address of London Greenpeace of which the Defendants
31 are and have been leading members". Now, there is
32 absolutely no evidence in this case about who is a member
33 of the McLibel Support Campaign, and certainly who were
34 leading members of it.
35
36 Actually, I have read that wrong. No, it is about us being
37 leading members of London Greenpeace. I am sorry, I did
38 read that wrong. The point is that there is no evidence
39 about us being leading members of London Greenpeace. In
40 fact, all the evidence points the opposite way, that there
41 are no leaders in London Greenpeace. Yes, there is also no
42 evidence whatsoever of what has happened within London
43 Greenpeace since 1990 -- since the spies, since the last
44 date that any spy gave evidence about, which was September
45 1990.
46
47 MR. MORRIS: Can I emphasise that McDonald's have to have
48 evidence on each of these points if they are going to make
49 these claims, unless they are just trivial and fruitless
50 claims, and where is the evidence to say that Helen and I
51 have been leading members of London Greenpeace,
52 specifically, say, since 1990 to justify this privileged
53 self-defence, let alone the challenged evidence about that
54 before that date? I doubt there is any evidence that has
55 been brought in this case showing that London Greenpeace
56 still exists.
57
58 MS. STEEL: On page 14 there is a reference to their relying on
59 the fact that there have been photographs of us in the
60 printed media which they say in most cases, apparently,
