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,

Prev Next Index