Day 276 - 09 Jul 96 - Page 29
1
2 Q. It is a note to news editors is it?
3 A. That is the one, yes.
4
5 Q. Yes.
6 A. Firstly, in the first paragraph it says that "We are
7 representing the self-styled anarchist group London
8 Greenpeace, we are not representatives of" -- well, it is
9 not a particularly important point but, you know, we are
10 sued as individuals, we are not sued as representatives of
11 London Greenpeace. The second thing is that in the third
12 paragraph it says, "Please note that London Greenpeace is
13 nothing to do with the respected Greenpeace organisation",
14 which implies that London Greenpeace is not respected and,
15 obviously, London Greenpeace has got a history going back
16 over 20 years of campaigning on various issues, ecological
17 issues and social issues, and it is a respected
18 organisation.
19
20 It was the original Greenpeace group in this country,
21 International Greenpeace having -- well, the situation was
22 that in the early 70's various Greenpeace groups were set
23 up around the world, London Greenpeace being one of them,
24 and Vancouver Greenpeace being another one, and that in
25 about 1977 Greenpeace Vancouver decided to become an
26 international organisation and it was then that they came
27 to this country. So, London Greenpeace has a longer
28 history in this country than Greenpeace International.
29
30 Going on to the second page of this fax. I will not
31 go through all the points every time they come up, I assume
32 it will just be taken as, you know, I would make the same
33 points. Under the background section, in the third
34 paragraph where it says that "in December 1984 McDonald's
35 solicitors wrote to the group expressing concern about the
36 leaflet" and so on, obviously that is not true. They did
37 not write about the leaflet which we are being sued over,
38 they wrote about a different leaflet which, in my view, is
39 totally different to the one that we are being sued over.
40
41 And they then go on to say: "Despite several
42 subsequent letters no acknowledgment or reply was ever
43 received and persistent distribution of the leaflet
44 continued." Firstly, it is my understanding through what
45 was said at group meetings that in fact there was a reply
46 sent to the original letter. But, obviously, it was not
47 about the same leaflet anyway because the fact sheet was
48 not, as we have heard from Mr. Gravett and as we have -- as
49 is stated in some of the documents which appear in the
50 Plaintiff's list of documents in their bundles, the
51 fact sheet was not produced until October 1986 or
52 thereabouts for World Day 1986.
53
54 So, if McDonald's solicitors wrote in 1984 then they
55 could not have written about the leaflet that we are being
56 sued over. Certainly, despite "several subsequent
57 letters", that "no acknowledgment or reply was ever
58 received and persistent distribution of the leaflet has
59 continued", there were no subsequent letters. The only
60 letter which anybody, the only letter which anybody
