Day 306 - 26 Nov 96 - Page 12
1 and it turns out that that is not in his notes but that it
2 is something which he says -- Ms. Steel says on line 40,
3 page 56: "Is that, basically, what that is based on, that
4 because we were present we would have been commenting on
5 the letters?" Answer: "The meeting followed the usual
6 pattern as previous ones, which was the usual pattern."
7 Question: "Which was that anybody present at the meeting
8 could comment on the letter?" Answer: "Yes." Then she
9 says: "That is what paragraph 5 is based on?" Answer:
10 "Yes."
11
12 So, here we have, in the statement, something which is
13 supposition based upon notes that did not contain that
14 information, where it was basically elevating to prominence
15 the people that the Plaintiffs in this case are trying to
16 elevate.
17
18 On page 59, line 47, answer to a question: "It was not
19 unusual for discussions to take place that ended without
20 any decisions being made, simply because they ran out of
21 steam?" Question: "Or, for example, they were unable to
22 agree on any particular aspect?" Answer: "Many aspects of
23 the coming events, some people want to do something, other
24 people want to do something else; there was no agreement at
25 that time."
26
27 I think that is very significant. Without some kind of
28 show of hands, the Plaintiffs cannot show participation in
29 a decision by myself and Ms. Steel unless they have got
30 concrete evidence on that and the burden of proof is on
31 them, and that admission by Mr. Bishop basically rules out,
32 we would say, any inferences to be made about people
33 agreeing or not agreeing with any planned activities.
34
35 Then on page 3 of day 261 we have the reference in
36 Mr. Bishop's notes, or report -- I do not know which -- the
37 part which had said in his notes, top of page 3, "This last
38 part illustrates what I firmly believed to be the present
39 anti-McDonald's movement. While London Greenpeace
40 certainly initiated the idea... and supplied the original
41 drive for the anti-McDonald's concept, now it has been
42 taken over by other groups such as the Hackney Solidarity
43 Group, the Haringey and Islington Direct Action movements,
44 and most certainly by the various Animal Rights groups
45 throughout the country. For example, the demonstration
46 organised for Dalston Junction, as related in my last
47 report, has nothing to do with London Greenpeace; neither
48 are any of its members expected to attend." He verified
49 that.
50
51 So, this was on 20th September. This is the day the writs
52 were served and the evidence clearly is, as clear as day,
53 that London Greenpeace had virtually, if not completely,
54 withdrawn from the anti-McDonald's campaign, which had been
55 taken over by other groups on the day that the writs were
56 served on myself and Ms. Steel, that the fact sheet had
57 been out of print and that Paul Gravett had intended to do
58 a new fact sheet, but had not done it, the fact sheet had
59 not been reprinted. The group was relying on Veggies to
60 supply leaflets. A5 leaflets had been printed for another
