Day 248 - 13 May 96 - Page 31
1 contact the group, there was no... Unincorporated.
2
3 Q. You had the address?
4 A. Well, we had written, as we had once before, and had no
5 response, so...
6
7 Q. You have agreed ----
8 A. We went to the party.
9
10 Q. You have agreed you do not know whether you got a response
11 or not?
12 A. We had no response to the first letter.
13
14 Q. If you did have no response, it could have been because the
15 letter got lost in the post, could it not, so that is not a
16 reason for not writing again?
17 A. The fact remains we asked Greenpeace if they had any
18 knowledge of yourselves. They knew of you, and disavowed
19 any link.
20
21 Q. Just getting on to the point I was asking you about
22 before. We got a bit side-tracked. How soon after the
23 leaflet came into your possession -- the fact sheet we are
24 being sued over -- was it that you spoke to Mr. Nicholson?
25 A. In 1989. I do not remember the exact date. I think
26 '89, it must have been summertime, autumn time, September
27 time, when I had said, "Sid, we have got to find out more
28 about it, will you handle, sir".
29
30 Q. Right. The situation was that you took no action over the
31 leaflet for two years approximately?
32 A. That is about right.
33
34 Q. Right.
35 A. Other than tell our people to keep and continue
36 monitoring what is happening.
37
38 Q. Mr. Nicholson said in his statement that he had visited the
39 London Greenpeace fayre in October 1988. Were you aware of
40 that?
41 A. That he visited the fayre, yes. He visited several
42 fayres over several years, I believe.
43
44 Q. Yes but this was before the Company had taken any action?
45 A. Yes.
46
47 Q. You were aware of that?
48 A. Yes.
49
50 Q. Was it your instructions he should go to the fayre?
51 A. I do not know if they were my instructions or not. He
52 certainly went.
53
54 Q. Did he give you any feedback on what he found out?
55 A. Yes.
56
57 Q. What was it he told you?
58 A. He told me in general what had gone on, what he had
59 seen.
60
