Day 306 - 26 Nov 96 - Page 14


     
     1        "There is nothing in your notes about it, so do you know
     2        how it got into the statements?" Answer, "As I previously
     3        said, the statement was compiled for me."
     4
     5        Then at line 29, page 30, "To the best of my recollection
     6        the smaller leaflet was on the shelves and the larger
     7        leaflet or the longer version was in the metal filing
     8        cabinet, to the best of my memory."  So here we have
     9        confusion again between the reality, the notes, the reports
    10        and the statements, and up to evidence-in-chief, and it is
    11        only under cross-examination that the lack of evidence or
    12        the incorrect evidence comes out.
    13
    14        Sorry, on page 14, line 33, I said, "Did you ever, nobody
    15        ever said that it was going to be reprinted the longer
    16        version of the leaflet".  Answer, "I did not hear anyone
    17        say that."  Then he says that the longer versions of
    18        leaflets were sometimes out of stock and other times there
    19        were quantities.  Then he says, line 43, page 14, "In the
    20        filing cabinet or on the shelf or on the table."  And, as
    21        we know, the filing cabinet would have contained reference
    22        copies, and that is not for distribution.  So, really, even
    23        if sometimes there were longer versions of the leaflet
    24        which may have been Veggies, or likely to have been Veggies
    25        ones as from March onwards, whenever it went out of stock,
    26        as Mr. Bishop says, then, indeed, only even the Veggies
    27        fact sheets may have been kept in the filing cabinet for
    28        all his evidence can reveal.
    29
    30        Again, we say that McDonald's must have a positive burden
    31        of proof on all these matters.  Not just, 'it may have been
    32        this', 'it may have been that'.
    33
    34        Then on page 16, talking about line 24, "Individuals
    35        obviously had an interest in a particular field" -- this is
    36        in terms of who was involved with different activities.
    37        Then line 41 to 53, "A particular person might be
    38        particularly concerned about one of those items on the
    39        agenda?  Answer, "Oh, yes."   Question, "And be known as
    40        the person who would be concerned about that matter?"
    41        Answer, "Yes."  Question, "And more likely to organise
    42        things about that?"  Answer, "Yes, indeed, yes."  Question,
    43        "The meetings were very informal in that way?"
    44        I emphasise 'in that way'.  Answer, "Very informal."
    45
    46        The point we are making there is that there was no
    47        delegation or representation involved even in terms of
    48        Mr. Gravett, for example, who was clearly the person most
    49        concerned about the anti-McDonald's matters.  The evidence
    50        of Mr. Bishop is that those people that were doing those 
    51        things were not people that were delegated, elected or 
    52        representative, but that they were just the people who were 
    53        more likely to do those things in that kind of very
    54        informal way, and, as we heard, we said before, about
    55        Mr. Gravett being criticised when he claimed to represent
    56        other people in the group on anti-McDonald's matters.  That
    57        is the end of Mr. Bishop.
    58
    59   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  We will break off there.  If I were to adhere
    60        strictly to the timing which I laid down, that would be it

Prev Next Index