Day 104 - 15 Mar 95 - Page 69
1 charge. You have not had the opportunity -- the Defendants
2 did not seem to want to challenge you about it -- of giving
3 your reaction to that suggestion. Please say in this court
4 as frankly and as fearlessly as you would like what you
5 feel about that suggestion?
6 A. Well, I feel very strongly that part of my duty working
7 within a big company is to help safeguard the welfare of
8 livestock. I feel very passionately about protecting that
9 welfare, their welfare and their livelihood.
10
11 I resent very strongly any suggestions that everything I do
12 is just motivated towards profit. I think that many people
13 that would know me would actually understand that I get
14 very up upset about being accused of being uncaring just
15 because that is the kind of business that I work in.
16 I think maybe -- yesterday I tried to indicate that I do
17 care very passionately about a lot of these issues, and I
18 see it as part of my job to continuously improve all
19 aspects of the farm livestock.
20
21 Q. There was a suggestion -- it was in the context of this
22 line of questioning yesterday, I think, that I picked up
23 the reaction which you have now given explicitly -- that
24 you were not really very interested in finding a suitable
25 form of ventral cutting for your birds, do you remember
26 that suggestion?
27 A. Yes, I do.
28
29 Q. You also said yesterday that you were quite willing for
30 anybody with an objective mind to come and see your
31 premises and examine your processes, do you remember that?
32 A. Yes, I did.
33
34 Q. It was in the context of your account of your conversation
35 with Clare Druce to which I will return in a moment. Do
36 you regard the MAFF people as objective?
37 A. Yes, I do.
38
39 Q. Do you regard the OVSs as objective?
40 A. Yes, I do.
41
42 Q. Do you regard Dr. Gregory as objective?
43 A. Yes, I do.
44
45 Q. You may not agree with him in every respect; I remember at
46 one stage you said he was scientist and you were a
47 veterinarian, but you regard him as objective?
48 A. Yes.
49
50 Q. Do you recall that in his report, which he made for the
51 purposes of this case when he came to visit your premises
52 on 19th April 1994 -- my Lord, this is yellow IX, tab 10,
53 page 234, page 8 of the report; there is no need to get it
54 out, it is only one sentence -- he deals with the question
55 of how effective your stunning procedure, your new one that
56 he was examining as it was tried out, how effective it
57 was. He said this: "It is concluded that although the
58 system employed for stunning and killing the birds was not
59 ideal from a welfare point of view, it could not be faulted
60 in terms of the recovery of consciousness during the
