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

Prev Next Index