Day 272 - 02 Jul 96 - Page 52


     
     1        of view, would they?
     2        A.   I suppose not.
     3
     4   Q.   Yes.
     5        A.   It depends whether they saw it, whether they -- you
     6        know, whether they cared greatly, but, I mean, did it
     7        misrepresent the opinions of Mr. Claire, Mr. Pocklington?
     8
     9   Q.   Never mind them, Mr. Gravett.  We will return to that as a
    10        matter of law in due course.  Did you ever hear Dave Morris
    11        or Helen Steel say, for example, that sentence I have just
    12        read, "Oh, that is absolute rubbish, we do not think that
    13        about McDonald's at all, that is not our opinion."
    14        A.   You mean the sentence that "smashing a multinational
    15        that epitomises everything we despise"?
    16
    17   Q.   Yes, that epitomises everything we despise, that was
    18        entirely their point of view, was it not?
    19        A.  I do not remember them ever saying that it was rubbish,
    20        but then again I do not ever remember them saying to me "I
    21        totally agree with you on that, Paul".
    22
    23   Q.   Then you go on:
    24
    25        "McDonald's themselves are so frightened that they are
    26        resorting to threatening legal action."
    27
    28        That was not against London Greenpeace, was it, that was
    29        against other people?
    30        A.   Yes.
    31
    32   Q.   "A sure sign we are winning".
    33
    34        And the "we" again there is London Greenpeace, is it not?
    35        A.   No, the "we" refers to the whole broad spectrum of
    36        anti-McDonald's campaigns of which London Greenpeace is
    37        just one part.
    38
    39   Q.   Sure.  And then:
    40
    41        "For world food day 1986, October the 16th, we produced a
    42        fact sheet."
    43
    44        What, the whole spectrum of anti-McDonald's people or
    45        London Greenpeace, that "we"?
    46        A.   That "we" refers to London Greenpeace.
    47
    48   Q.  "What's wrong with McDonald's, which is now established as a
    49        classic".
    50
    51        And, as you say, we are in 1989 and that is the leaflet
    52        which is the subject of this libel action?
    53        A.   Yes.
    54
    55   Q.   There is no other document which is ever called the
    56        anti-McDonald's fact sheet?
    57        A.   No.  Well, sometimes I have heard the Veggies' version
    58        referred to as the Veggies fact sheet, but I know what you
    59        mean.
    60

Prev Next Index