Day 245 - 07 May 96 - Page 49
1
2 Q. You have talked about how all the publication bundles with
3 copies of leaflets from around the world?
4 A. They were part of the decision, yes. They were part of
5 it. They were not all of it.
6
7 Q. No, but the point is that not all of those were initiated
8 by London Greenpeace?
9 A. I think most of them are close enough of a lift to
10 think there is an intense relationship. The greatest
11 catalyst for me in going forward were the aims and
12 objectives of the organisation published by yourselves.
13
14 Q. Yes I think we have covered that several times. You had
15 been criticised, certainly about rainforests, for example,
16 in the very early 1980s, and even the late 1970s, by Dr.
17 Normal Myers amongst other people?
18 A. Yes. He got it wrong.
19
20 Q. So you say. There were many other groups criticising you
21 before London Greenpeace produced the fact sheet which is
22 the subject of this action?
23 A. Could be, yes.
24
25 Q. There are other criticisms. For example, the one you
26 mentioned before about McDonald's giving money to Noraid
27 which does not stem from London Greenpeace, does it?
28 A. Well, we know where that stems from.
29
30 Q. It does not stem from London Greenpeace, does it?
31 A. I do not know if you are involved in it or not in some
32 way, shape or form, but it did not stem from you initially,
33 no.
34
35 Q. And you have been criticised by nutritionists before the
36 London Greenpeace fact sheet was produced?
37 A. Yes, sure.
38
39 Q. And trade unionists?
40 A. Sure.
41
42 Q. And environmentalists conservationists and animal welfare
43 people in general?
44 A. Sure.
45
46 Q. There are still many other groups and individuals who have
47 made their own criticisms of McDonald's that are not made
48 in the fact sheet which is the subject of this action and
49 they are still criticising the Company?
50 A. I am sure there will be some in the future. I do not
51 deny people's right to make comment about McDonald's that
52 is truthful at all.
53
54 Q. I think when you gave evidence-in-chief or else, if not,
55 then when we were cross-examining you in June 1994, you
56 said that you did not consider that any parts of the fact
57 sheet were worse than others, that it was all pretty bad or
58 something?
59 A. I think it is terrible.
60
