Day 307 - 27 Nov 96 - Page 40


     
     1        document.
     2
     3        Then the other one, which is really the thrust throughout,
     4        about the word "we", "McDonald's have billions of pounds to
     5        play with.  We just have each other".  This is just,
     6        basically, a ridiculous argument by McDonald's, because
     7        "we" can refer to anybody who is a supporter of the
     8        McLibel Support Campaign, London Greenpeace, anybody who
     9        supports, anybody who wants to identify themselves either
    10        with the campaign against McDonald's or, for that matter,
    11        ordinary people standing up for their beliefs and their
    12        rights.
    13
    14        The use of the word "we" in this context does not mean that
    15        myself and Mr. Morris wrote it.  I mean, not that I have
    16        ever been to a football match, actually, but you only have
    17        to hear a crowd of football fans chanting "We are the
    18        champions" or "We are the best", whatever, to know that
    19        just because you shout "we" something does not mean that
    20        you are the player, you are the one in the game.  It just
    21        means that you are identifying with the people who are in
    22        battle.
    23
    24        Further on on that page there is a reference to it having
    25        to be inferred that myself and Mr. Morris were the ultimate
    26        source of information appearing in the McLibel file.  I
    27        mean, apart from, obviously, the point I made before about
    28        inferences, that you cannot infer things, the other thing
    29        about being an ultimate source is that, obviously, by the
    30        time information gets passed on it can get changed.  We,
    31        therefore, cannot be responsible for what somebody did, you
    32        know, ten steps down the line or five steps down the line.
    33
    34        I mean, I do not know whether or not there are any examples
    35        of inaccurate reports in the files, either in terms of, you
    36        know, leaflets that have been published elsewhere about the
    37        case or in terms of press articles.  I am sure I have seen
    38        press articles that are incorrect, usually incorrect, about
    39        myself and Mr. Morris rather than about McDonald's.  I
    40        mean, I have not had time to read them all, but that is
    41        just a general point, that if there were mistakes in there
    42        that does not mean it is my fault or Mr. Morris's fault,
    43        just because information may or may not have originally
    44        come from us, you know, five stages down the line.
    45
    46        Page 12, McDonald's have pleaded that each of the items in
    47        the media and early day motion files are, basically, down
    48        to our responsibility, and they say their case is that:
    49        "As part of the McLibel Support Campaign, the Defendants
    50        and others (it is to be inferred) have sought and achieved 
    51        publicity through the written and broadcast media". 
    52        Obviously, I make the same point about inference and the 
    53        fact that there is no evidence from the Plaintiffs to show
    54        that we are responsible for each publication, each press
    55        release or whatever, or leaflet.
    56
    57        But, in any event, even if we had been responsible for some
    58        particular press releases, it does not follow that any
    59        particular article that appears in the newspaper has been
    60        instigated by us.  Even if the McLibel Support Campaign had

Prev Next Index