Day 278 - 11 Jul 96 - Page 27
1
2 Q. As far as I am concerned, Miss Steel, you can put that file
3 away now. Can you please go back to pink 1A and turn
4 please -- I am sorry to be slow about it but I lost it for
5 a moment, turn to tab 68 which I hope is a Mclibel file
6 support campaign document -- is it? There is a couple of
7 symbols or logos at the top of the page, "McDonald's versus
8 Greenpeace London". It was not actually against Greenpeace
9 London at all was it?
10 A. No, it was not.
11
12 Q. According to you?
13 A. It was not. It was against individuals, but I expect
14 that Paul did that because the individuals were not named
15 whereas the organisation was.
16
17 Q. Sorry, the individuals?
18 A. The individuals were not. I said I expect that Paul
19 did that because the individuals were not known whereas the
20 organisation was.
21
22 Q. Well now, could you please--
23
24 MR. JUSTICE BELL: What to you mean, the individuals weren't
25 known?
26 A. The five people that were named in this leaflet, would
27 not be--
28
29 Q. You mean they would not mean anything to the reader?
30 A. They would not mean anything to public, yes.
31
32 Q. They would not mean anything to the reader, yes.
33
34 MR. RAMPTON: Then, if you please, look at the third paragraph.
35 "Now they have resorted to serving writs on five members
36 of London Greenpeace. Paul Gravett, Helen Steel, Andrew
37 Clarke, Dave Morris and Jonathan O'Farrell. They are
38 claiming damages for libel for the leaflet, "What's Wrong
39 with McDonald's?" which has been used all over the world.
40 Since London Greenpeace is not a limited company and cannot
41 be sued they have to sue five of us as individuals. If
42 McDonald's think we will apologise..." -- and so on and so
43 forth -- "we are going to fight them every inch of the way
44 and are launching our fight(??) for the campaign."
45 A. Yes.
46
47 Q. Is there anything in what Mr. Gravett wrote, and I
48 understand this to have been distributed quite early on
49 after the writ was issued, is there anything in what
50 Mr. Gravett has written here which you do not agree with?
51 A. Certainly, if I had written the leaflet, I would not
52 have written it like this. I do remember thinking at the
53 time that I did not think it was a particularly good idea
54 to put "no surrender" bearing in mind that Jonathan did
55 feel that he had to apologise because of his personal
56 circumstances, and because of what we were told by the
57 lawyers. The bit that you mentioned about members,
58 obviously, there is no membership of London Greenpeace.
59 However, on occasions people would use the word in leaflets
60 or in conversation just simply because it is a bit of a
