Day 276 - 09 Jul 96 - Page 29


     
     1
     2   Q.   It is a note to news editors is it?
     3        A.  That is the one, yes.
     4
     5   Q.   Yes.
     6        A.  Firstly, in the first paragraph it says that "We are
     7        representing the self-styled anarchist group London
     8        Greenpeace, we are not representatives of" -- well, it is
     9        not a particularly important point but, you know, we are
    10        sued as individuals, we are not sued as representatives of
    11        London Greenpeace.  The second thing is that in the third
    12        paragraph it says, "Please note that London Greenpeace is
    13        nothing to do with the respected Greenpeace organisation",
    14        which implies that London Greenpeace is not respected and,
    15        obviously, London Greenpeace has got a history going back
    16        over 20 years of campaigning on various issues, ecological
    17        issues and social issues, and it is a respected
    18        organisation.
    19
    20             It was the original Greenpeace group in this country,
    21        International Greenpeace having -- well, the situation was
    22        that in the early 70's various Greenpeace groups were set
    23        up around the world, London Greenpeace being one of them,
    24        and Vancouver Greenpeace being another one, and that in
    25        about 1977 Greenpeace Vancouver decided to become an
    26        international organisation and it was then that they came
    27        to this country.  So, London Greenpeace has a longer
    28        history in this country than Greenpeace International.
    29
    30             Going on to the second page of this fax.  I will not
    31        go through all the points every time they come up, I assume
    32        it will just be taken as, you know, I would make the same
    33        points.  Under the background section, in the third
    34        paragraph where it says that "in December 1984 McDonald's
    35        solicitors wrote to the group expressing concern about the
    36        leaflet" and so on, obviously that is not true.  They did
    37        not write about the leaflet which we are being sued over,
    38        they wrote about a different leaflet which, in my view, is
    39        totally different to the one that we are being sued over.
    40
    41             And they then go on to say: "Despite several
    42        subsequent letters no acknowledgment or reply was ever
    43        received and persistent distribution of the leaflet
    44        continued."  Firstly, it is my understanding through what
    45        was said at group meetings that in fact there was a reply
    46        sent to the original letter.  But, obviously, it was not
    47        about the same leaflet anyway because the fact sheet was
    48        not, as we have heard from Mr. Gravett and as we have -- as
    49        is stated in some of the documents which appear in the
    50        Plaintiff's list of documents in their bundles, the
    51        fact sheet was not produced until October 1986 or
    52        thereabouts for World Day 1986.
    53
    54             So, if McDonald's solicitors wrote in 1984 then they
    55        could not have written about the leaflet that we are being
    56        sued over.  Certainly, despite "several subsequent
    57        letters", that "no acknowledgment or reply was ever
    58        received and persistent distribution of the leaflet has
    59        continued", there were no subsequent letters.  The only
    60        letter which anybody, the only letter which anybody

Prev Next Index