Day 308 - 28 Nov 96 - Page 29
1 of trying to discredit us; and that, in any event, it just
2 all melted away into nothing.
3
4 He brought in the Chrissie Hynde matter, which turned out
5 to be a Greenpeace International event. There were all
6 kinds of what we would say complete irrelevances which he
7 deliberately concocted to try to find a reason why they
8 were bringing the case at that time.
9
10 He would have known that the Greenpeace letter that was
11 included in the mail-out, the Greenpeace International,
12 Greenpeace UK letter in the mail-out, can only have gone in
13 with their mail-out in 1994, could only have gone in an
14 attempt to discredit and attack us.
15
16 The timing of the press releases and the leaflets on the
17 eve of trial was calculated to cause maximum discredit at a
18 time when there was going to be maximum press interest.
19 Also, the timing was clearly when they were about to defend
20 their business practices in court. Therefore, there can be
21 no excuse for a malicious and libelous leaflet and press
22 release, because they had every opportunity to put their
23 case.
24
25 The wording of the leaflet, which he authorised, is clearly
26 defamatory and malicious and a personal attack. He even
27 admitted in cross-examination that he would not have used
28 those words; but he did, and he authorised it.
29
30 So, the scale of the attack on us, the distribution of the
31 leaflets and press releases, the fact that it was clearly
32 part of the PR campaign, this was a calculated, carefully
33 thought out attempt to discredit us -- and that is
34 absolutely clear -- on a large scale, and he would have
35 known that. That is why it is malicious.
36
37 No doubt, personally -- and this is common sense --
38 personally, as the person most identified with bringing the
39 case, he would no doubt have needed to protect his position
40 in terms of within the Company, to show that he is doing
41 something, and that he would therefore feel -- he is bound
42 to, if he is a human being, bound to feel personally
43 involved in how the case is perceived by the Company and by
44 the public. He would know that he had every available
45 opportunity to address any criticisms that had been made by
46 me or Helen, for example, in Company promotional
47 literature, with their advertising, with their media
48 contacts, with their McFact book; and, most importantly,
49 only a few weeks later they were going to walk into a trial
50 where every opportunity would be made available to them to
51 put over their point of view.
52
53 I would say this: considering that they are bringing a case
54 against a leaflet, a fact sheet, where they initiated the
55 proceedings, they have made full use of the libel laws to
56 suppress what they say is inaccurate material; that it is
57 absolutely staggering hypocrisy for both him and for
58 McDonald's in general to have attacked us in this false and
59 malicious literature.
60
