Day 306 - 26 Nov 96 - Page 12


     
     1        and it turns out that that is not in his notes but that it
     2        is something which he says -- Ms. Steel says on line 40,
     3        page 56:  "Is that, basically, what that is based on, that
     4        because we were present we would have been commenting on
     5        the letters?"  Answer: "The meeting followed the usual
     6        pattern as previous ones, which was the usual pattern."
     7        Question:  "Which was that anybody present at the meeting
     8        could comment on the letter?"  Answer:  "Yes."  Then she
     9        says:  "That is what paragraph 5 is based on?"  Answer:
    10        "Yes."
    11
    12        So, here we have, in the statement, something which is
    13        supposition based upon notes that did not contain that
    14        information, where it was basically elevating to prominence
    15        the people that the Plaintiffs in this case are trying to
    16        elevate.
    17
    18        On page 59, line 47, answer to a question: "It was not
    19        unusual for discussions to take place that ended without
    20        any decisions being made, simply because they ran out of
    21        steam?"  Question:  "Or, for example, they were unable to
    22        agree on any particular aspect?"  Answer:  "Many aspects of
    23        the coming events, some people want to do something, other
    24        people want to do something else; there was no agreement at
    25        that time."
    26
    27        I think that is very significant.  Without some kind of
    28        show of hands, the Plaintiffs cannot show participation in
    29        a decision by myself and Ms. Steel unless they have got
    30        concrete evidence on that and the burden of proof is on
    31        them, and that admission by Mr. Bishop basically rules out,
    32        we would say, any inferences to be made about people
    33        agreeing or not agreeing with any planned activities.
    34
    35        Then on page 3 of day 261 we have the reference in
    36        Mr. Bishop's notes, or report -- I do not know which -- the
    37        part which had said in his notes, top of page 3, "This last
    38        part illustrates what I firmly believed to be the present
    39        anti-McDonald's movement.  While London Greenpeace
    40        certainly initiated the idea... and supplied the original
    41        drive for the anti-McDonald's concept, now it has been
    42        taken over by other groups such as the Hackney Solidarity
    43        Group, the Haringey and Islington Direct Action movements,
    44        and most certainly by the various Animal Rights groups
    45        throughout the country.  For example, the demonstration
    46        organised for Dalston Junction, as related in my last
    47        report, has nothing to do with London Greenpeace; neither
    48        are any of its members expected to attend."  He verified
    49        that.
    50 
    51        So, this was on 20th September.  This is the day the writs 
    52        were served and the evidence clearly is, as clear as day, 
    53        that London Greenpeace had virtually, if not completely,
    54        withdrawn from the anti-McDonald's campaign, which had been
    55        taken over by other groups on the day that the writs were
    56        served on myself and Ms. Steel, that the fact sheet had
    57        been out of print and that Paul Gravett had intended to do
    58        a new fact sheet, but had not done it, the fact sheet had
    59        not been reprinted.  The group was relying on Veggies to
    60        supply leaflets.  A5 leaflets had been printed for another

Prev Next Index