Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 25
1 published their press releases and leaflets. We do not
2 check or agree to everything sent out by the support
3 campaign before it is sent out. We could not, we have not
4 got the time to do it, and it should not be inferred that
5 we are responsible for everything emanating from the
6 support campaign, or indeed for any individual document
7 unless it was specifically put to me while I was in the
8 witness box and has been proven, or proven in some other
9 way. As far as I can tell, there was not any other
10 evidence on this matter.
11
12 If I just point out that -- (Pause) -- I cannot actually
13 find what I am looking for at the moment, but there is a
14 disclaimer which appears on the McLibel Support Campaign
15 documents which does state that we are not support for
16 everything that comes out of their office, and the reality
17 is that we do not have time to read everything that comes
18 out of the support campaign and we cannot be taken to be
19 responsible for all of it. Not that I have seen anything
20 put in front of this court which is in any way inaccurate,
21 anyway, but the point is that it is up to McDonald's to
22 show that we are responsible for any particular document
23 emanating from the McLibel Support Campaign which they want
24 to rely upon for any purpose.
25
26 I mean, just really this point, you may remember reference
27 to the 'McDonald's Bill', as it was called in the USA,
28 which was about the creation of a sub-minimum wage for
29 youth or student employees which would benefit companies
30 such as McDonald's and was considered to have been
31 sponsored or promoted by them. If we had put in a pleading
32 in our case that because it was dubbed the 'McDonald's
33 Bill' it was to be inferred that McDonald's were
34 responsible for the Bill, because it was identified with
35 them and they would benefit from it, Mr. Rampton would have
36 screamed the heavens down and, you know, he would have
37 demanded evidence of specific acts to show a connection
38 between McDonald's and this Bill.
39
40 Why should it be any different for, you know, McDonald's?
41 There should not be two standards of proof, one for
42 multinational companies who can infer certain acts and
43 another for litigants in person who have to bring concrete
44 evidence of specific acts. So, we would say that it is up
45 to McDonald's to prove that we are connected to any
46 specific document which they want to rely upon for any
47 purpose.
48
49 MR. MORRIS: We do believe we have proved by one means or
50 another the connection to McDonald's anyway. I just
51 thought I would point that out. But the burden of proof
52 was on us to do so.
53
54 MS. STEEL: Again, the same thing applies to page 7, the third
55 paragraph. Again, they used the word 'inferred'. They
56 cannot just infer it. Where is there any evidence to
57 connect either myself or Mr. Morris to the publication of
58 materials in the media and also any evidence where there is
59 any evidence to connect either myself or Mr. Morris to the
60 publication of early day motions in the House of Commons?
