Day 306 - 26 Nov 96 - Page 13
1 group and given to London Greenpeace because they had been
2 misprinted with London Greenpeace's name on, and there is
3 not any evidence at all of any printing by London
4 Greenpeace of any leaflets, fact sheets, any single
5 anti-McDonald's event in the whole period up to the service
6 of writs since the anti-McDonald's fair.
7
8 Incidentally, if I can say about the anti-McDonald's fair,
9 as Paul Gravett said it did not really have any
10 anti-McDonald's content; that was used as a kind of
11 symbolic name for the issues that were being raised at the
12 fair, although obviously McDonald's was referred to in the
13 programme. So it was not strictly an anti-McDonald's
14 fair. It was a fair about issues raised by McDonald's, as
15 we know that the mail-out that went out did not even
16 include, before the writs were served did not include,
17 anti-McDonald's leaflets, although it did mention the
18 campaign. In fact, I think at that meeting on 20th, myself
19 and Ms. Steel had been involved in the mail-out, which had
20 been started, incidentally, by Charlie from London
21 Greenpeace and Michelle Hooker, one of the agents,
22 McDonald's agents. Then we, apparently, Helen and myself,
23 on 20th September helped with that mail-out and no-one
24 seemed bothered that there was no anti-McDonald's leaflets
25 in it, as we have heard from various witnesses.
26
27 Then page 12 of day 261. I said at the top of the
28 page, "You said the longer version of the leaflet was out
29 of stock. Sometimes a longer version of the leaflet was
30 out of stock?" Answer, "Yes." Question, "Do you know
31 which version of the longer version of the leaflet".
32 Answer, "No". Question, "Was generally kept?" Answer,
33 "No, I cannot answer that." I asked him, "How would you
34 know there was a pile of leaflets that were the fact
35 sheets, the leaflets?" Answer, "The ones that were
36 entitled 'What is wrong with McDonald's'. Yes, that is
37 because they had the title on them 'What's wrong with
38 McDonald's'. I do not remember now what they looked like,
39 no." Question, line 41, "When you say the leaflet
40 complained of, you mean a leaflet that had 'What's wrong
41 with McDonald's' written on it?" Answer, "Yes." Question,
42 "And you don't know which particular version of it?"
43 Answer, "Not at this length of time, no." Anyway, that is
44 emphasised.
45
46 Then he said, line 50, question, "If it was a long version
47 or a short version you do not know which version of those
48 versions it would have been?" Answer, "No, I would not
49 have had that knowledge." That is interesting, because it
50 is not only can he not say so now, but he is saying there
51 at the time he would not have been able to recognise
52 different versions of the variety of leaflets about
53 McDonald's, he would identify it by the title 'What's wrong
54 with McDonald's?'
55
56 Then you intervened at the bottom of page 12 to say that
57 that raises the issue again of what leaflet was on the
58 shelves, which I think had been put to the witness, he had
59 given evidence that the leaflet complained of was the one
60 on the shelves. Then I put to him at the top of page 30,
