Day 305 - 25 Nov 96 - Page 18


     
     1        would have engaged members of London -- not members,
     2        supporters, activists, whatever -- of London Greenpeace
     3        scores of times in pubs and whatever, and they did not
     4        manage to get a single piece of evidence to back up their
     5        case on my responsibility for publication.  I think that is
     6        highly significant, because of course it is the truth.
     7
     8        I am getting my notes together, they are very confusing.
     9        There are references dotted throughout the Plaintiffs'
    10        evidence about anti-McDonald's leaflets.  As we know, in
    11        this case, that could mean anything; it could mean the
    12        Veggies leaflet, of which there were large and small
    13        types -- I mean, there was the fact sheet and there was A5
    14        types; there was a London Greenpeace fact sheet; there were
    15        various versions of an A5 smaller leaflet, smaller in text
    16        but not in the actual shape; and, indeed, there were other
    17        leaflets floating about of a similar nature.  Mr. Rampton
    18        handed one up only last Friday, when he was purporting to
    19        give you the London Greenpeace A5 leaflet.  As far as we
    20        can see, he gave you the original which was, as we heard
    21        from Mr. Gravett, produced by Hackney and Islington Animal
    22        Rights.
    23
    24   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The one Mr. Rampton handed up was one which
    25        was a Manchester animals group.  But it was just that there
    26        are clearly various types of A5 leaflet.  But you correct
    27        me if I am wrong, because I thought that what we have
    28        called the A5 leaflet is text bearing, to some extent, from
    29        time to time, but essentially it had "What's wrong with
    30        McDonald's?" and then the cartoon, which covered the top
    31        half of the front page, and then the text started, and it
    32        contained some of the same sort of messages as the fact
    33        sheet did on the remainder of the front page and on the
    34        back.
    35
    36   MR. MORRIS:  Yes.
    37
    38   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  That, I thought, was a leaflet which Veggies
    39        originally produced probably in 1987.
    40
    41   MR. MORRIS:  I mean, all I can say is that that emphasises what
    42        I was trying to say.  You have one that was actually
    43        produced in Manchester.  The A5 leaflets, there were a
    44        number of different versions produced by a number of
    45        different groups, and that is not the leaflet, the
    46        fact sheet, complained of.
    47
    48   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  No.
    49
    50   MR. MORRIS:  But it comes under what you might call in the 
    51        evidence "anti-McDonald's leaflets", which, even in this 
    52        court after a number of years, there is still confusion 
    53        even now over who is referring to which leaflet:  when,
    54        produced by whom, what size is it, is it the same as this,
    55        what is the text?  Therefore, whenever the agents of
    56        McDonald's have referred to anti-McDonald's leaflets,
    57        unless they have been able to specifically identify and
    58        retain a copy of the London Greenpeace fact sheet, then we
    59        cannot assume or even infer that it is the London
    60        Greenpeace fact sheet complained of.  It would be unsafe to

Prev Next Index