Day 246 - 09 May 96 - Page 19
1 Q. In your communications objectives you have the position of
2 McDonald's as seekers after the truth, to minimise the
3 negative impact of the Defendants's evidence, witness
4 statements and out of court activities, and to
5 counterclaims that McDonald's prevent free speech and any
6 other inaccuracies which might arise before, during and
7 after the trial.
8
9 So, the second of those you were concerned about the truth
10 coming out during this trial by way of our witnesses'
11 evidence and you were trying to negate the impact that that
12 might have?
13 A. I am not at all worried about the negative impact of
14 evidence. If there is evidence to come forward, which is
15 honest and truthful and can be substantiated, I think it
16 should be brought before the court for his Lordship to deal
17 with. That is not a problem. I have a difficulty, and
18 would fully support the statement as a result, in allowing
19 things to be said which are totally capable of not being
20 substantiated. Again, that is a matter for his Lordship.
21 It is not a matter for me.
22
23 Q. If we turn to page 8, this is a draft statement for
24 internal briefing sheet, do you know who this was a
25 briefing for? Was it for employees, management?
26 A. Well, it says "internal". I would guess it would have
27 been certainly for management. Whether it had gone down to
28 restaurant managers or not, I am not sure. But it
29 certainly says "internal".
30
31 Q. Right. Again, you cannot help us with the purpose of this?
32 A. No, I cannot.
33
34 Q. Can I ask you, under "Why we are bringing the case", is
35 written "Since 1988 London Greenpeace has consistently
36 spread malicious, false and damaging accusations about our
37 company through their own publications and propaganda which
38 have damaged our business reputation and, most importantly,
39 questioned our integrity", in this draft it says "1988".
40 Do you know why it was that in the versions that were
41 actually published it was changed to 1984?
42 A. I do not know. Maybe they made a mistake. I have no
43 idea. Maybe the typist hit 88 twice rather than 84, I can
44 only speculate on that. I am glad it was titled "draft".
45
46 Q. You see, you said on Tuesday that the parts in the leaflets
47 that were actually distributed which said that the leaflet
48 had been distributed worldwide since 1984 you accepted were
49 incorrect?
50 A. I am sorry, you will have to refer me to the question
51 in the transcript.
52
53 MR. JUSTICE BELL: Just put your point on this.
54
55 MS. STEEL: The point is that it appears as though it is less
56 of a mistake, Mr. Preston, and more of a deliberate act to
57 change it to 1984, which you knew was incorrect, in order
58 to give a false impression to the public and the media.
59
60 MR. JUSTICE BELL: That is not my recollection having rechecked
