Day 245 - 07 May 96 - Page 23
1 Q. You did not write this press release but you are put
2 forward as a witness to give evidence about the motives of
3 the company in doing these press releases and the leaflets
4 which were distributed in the stores. Did you speak to the
5 people who wrote the press releases and the leaflets?
6 A. I certainly spoke to them. Whether I read every word
7 before it went out, I could not say. The releases were
8 done in an attempt to balance what you yourselves had put
9 out since the first of the year, that year 1994. Until
10 then we had said nothing whatsoever.
11
12 Q. Who was it who wrote these press releases?
13 A. Communications Department. I would guess several
14 people were involved, I do not know who.
15
16 Q. That includes Mike Love, Edi Bensilum?
17 A. Could very well have been.
18
19 Q. You do not know?
20 A. I just told you I did not know who specifically wrote
21 every line of the press release, no.
22
23 Q. Did you see these press releases before they went out?
24 A. Sure.
25
26 Q. You did?
27 A. Yes.
28
29 Q. Who handed it to you? Was there a memo attached to it
30 saying: "Mr. Preston, will you have a look at this and see
31 whether you think it is OK"?
32 A. I do not remember who handed it to me.
33
34 Q. Anyway, they went out on your say so. You did not bother
35 to check whether or not they were true before they were
36 sent out?
37 A. Well, there was no reason for my people not to say
38 something untrue if they genuinely believed it to be so.
39 They just do not -- as I say, there is no future in trying
40 to deceive the public or deceive me.
41
42 Q. If you look at tab 13, which is number 13 in the top right
43 corner in red writing?
44 A. Yes?
45
46 Q. Do you remember this article? It is about you. It is
47 dated 21st October 1995 and it is in The Times?
48 A. I remember some of it, yes.
49
50 Q. Right: "Boss who relishes the heat in the kitchen" and in
51 the third column?
52 A. Yes?
53
54 Q. It says:"A typical week for Preston would not be complete
55 without a visit to the High Court where the infamous
56 McDonald's libel case has dragged into its second year. 2
57 unemployed penniless environmentalists allegedly
58 distributed leaflets using McDonald's of environmental
59 destruction and selling food link to heart disease and
60 cancer. So far more than 35 thousand pages of documents
