Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 25


     
     1        published their press releases and leaflets.  We do not
     2        check or agree to everything sent out by the support
     3        campaign before it is sent out.  We could not, we have not
     4        got the time to do it, and it should not be inferred that
     5        we are responsible for everything emanating from the
     6        support campaign, or indeed for any individual document
     7        unless it was specifically put to me while I was in the
     8        witness box and has been proven, or proven in some other
     9        way.  As far as I can tell, there was not any other
    10        evidence on this matter.
    11
    12        If I just point out that -- (Pause) -- I cannot actually
    13        find what I am looking for at the moment, but there is a
    14        disclaimer which appears on the McLibel Support Campaign
    15        documents which does state that we are not support for
    16        everything that comes out of their office, and the reality
    17        is that we do not have time to read everything that comes
    18        out of the support campaign and we cannot be taken to be
    19        responsible for all of it.  Not that I have seen anything
    20        put in front of this court which is in any way inaccurate,
    21        anyway, but the point is that it is up to McDonald's to
    22        show that we are responsible for any particular document
    23        emanating from the McLibel Support Campaign which they want
    24        to rely upon for any purpose.
    25
    26        I mean, just really this point, you may remember reference
    27        to the 'McDonald's Bill', as it was called in the USA,
    28        which was about the creation of a sub-minimum wage for
    29        youth or student employees which would benefit companies
    30        such as McDonald's and was considered to have been
    31        sponsored or promoted by them.  If we had put in a pleading
    32        in our case that because it was dubbed the 'McDonald's
    33        Bill' it was to be inferred that McDonald's were
    34        responsible for the Bill, because it was identified with
    35        them and they would benefit from it, Mr. Rampton would have
    36        screamed the heavens down and, you know, he would have
    37        demanded evidence of specific acts to show a connection
    38        between McDonald's and this Bill.
    39
    40        Why should it be any different for, you know, McDonald's?
    41        There should not be two standards of proof, one for
    42        multinational companies who can infer certain acts and
    43        another for litigants in person who have to bring concrete
    44        evidence of specific acts.  So, we would say that it is up
    45        to McDonald's to prove that we are connected to any
    46        specific document which they want to rely upon for any
    47        purpose.
    48
    49   MR. MORRIS:   We do believe we have proved by one means or
    50        another the connection to McDonald's anyway.  I just 
    51        thought I would point that out.  But the burden of proof 
    52        was on us to do so. 
    53
    54   MS. STEEL:   Again, the same thing applies to page 7, the third
    55        paragraph.  Again, they used the word 'inferred'.  They
    56        cannot just infer it.  Where is there any evidence to
    57        connect either myself or Mr. Morris to the publication of
    58        materials in the media and also any evidence where there is
    59        any evidence to connect either myself or Mr. Morris to the
    60        publication of early day motions in the House of Commons?

Prev Next Index