Day 305 - 25 Nov 96 - Page 34
1 MS. STEEL: Moving on to the second statement of Mr. Bishop, in
2 paragraph 7 he says that the group agreed to various
3 pickets on 16th October 1990. Just to make the point that
4 there is no evidence in his notes on page 187 -- that is
5 the bundle page of the notes, and this is about the meeting
6 of 13th September 1990, by the way -- there is no evidence
7 in the notes of me making any comment in relation to the
8 pickets; and that, also, even if there were, so what?
9 Where is the evidence relating to the fact sheet? There is
10 no evidence that the fact sheet was going to be distributed
11 on 16th October 1990; and that is particularly so, since it
12 was generally accepted by everybody, as far as I can tell,
13 that it was now out of print.
14
15 The next assertion made by Mr. Bishop was in paragraph 8 of
16 the second statement, and this was relating to a meeting of
17 20th September 1990, where he said that I was organising
18 the printing of leaflets for the London Greenpeace fair.
19 That -- I think Mr. Rampton will not disagree -- has been
20 accepted is incorrect, and that it was in fact that I was
21 organising printing of leaflets about the anti-IMF
22 demonstrations and activities. So, I think that is another
23 demonstration of inaccuracies in the notes and the fact
24 that they cannot be taken at face value.
25
26 Moving on to the third statement by Mr. Bishop, he refers
27 in paragraph 9.1 to the anti-poll tax march which went to
28 Finsbury Park on 16th June 1990 and the event at the
29 George Roby. If I just make the point that, as we have
30 seen from the postcard which I sent, I was in the
31 Outer Hebrides at the time and, therefore, I had absolutely
32 no involvement in this. Additionally, there is no
33 reference in any of the spies' notes to any agreement on my
34 part to do the stall, let alone distributing
35 anti-McDonald's leaflets of whatever kind at the
36 George Roby event and the anti-poll tax demonstration.
37
38 In his statement at paragraph 9.3 he refers to Mr. Gravett
39 saying that he was -- sorry, it should be 9.2, not 9.3, and
40 this was the meeting of 2nd August 1990 again --
41 Mr. Gravett was to do a new up-to-date fact sheet, and he
42 said that it was generally felt that this would counter
43 McDonald's propaganda. There is no record in his notes of
44 any comment by me about this. Anyway, even if people,
45 including myself, had spoken in favour, it would not be
46 evidence of a joint enterprise (or whatever the legal
47 terminology is) in relation to the old fact sheet. At
48 most, it would be a feeling that McDonald's propaganda
49 needed to be challenged and that an up-to-date fact sheet
50 as suggested by Mr. Gravett might be an effective way of
51 doing that. That is not the same publication as the one
52 that we are being sued over. So, it is irrelevant. I
53 mean, anyway, it is irrelevant because there is no evidence
54 of me making any comment about it.
55
56 Paragraph 9.3, which relates to the meeting of
57 9th August 1990, Mr. Bishop said that myself and Mr. Morris
58 were not present; and he said that the meeting lacked
59 direction, because myself, Mr. Morris and Mr. Gravett were
60 not there. That is pure speculation on his part, and it is
