Day 104 - 15 Mar 95 - Page 69


     
     1        charge.  You have not had the opportunity -- the Defendants
     2        did not seem to want to challenge you about it -- of giving
     3        your reaction to that suggestion.  Please say in this court
     4        as frankly and as fearlessly as you would like what you
     5        feel about that suggestion?
     6        A.  Well, I feel very strongly that part of my duty working
     7        within a big company is to help safeguard the welfare of
     8        livestock.  I feel very passionately about protecting that
     9        welfare, their welfare and their livelihood.
    10
    11        I resent very strongly any suggestions that everything I do
    12        is just motivated towards profit.  I think that many people
    13        that would know me would actually understand that I get
    14        very up upset about being accused of being uncaring just
    15        because that is the kind of business that I work in.
    16        I think maybe -- yesterday I tried to indicate that I do
    17        care very passionately about a lot of these issues, and I
    18        see it as part of my job to continuously improve all
    19        aspects of the farm livestock.
    20
    21   Q.   There was a suggestion -- it was in the context of this
    22        line of questioning yesterday, I think, that I picked up
    23        the reaction which you have now given explicitly -- that
    24        you were not really very interested in finding a suitable
    25        form of ventral cutting for your birds, do you remember
    26        that suggestion?
    27        A.  Yes, I do.
    28
    29   Q.   You also said yesterday that you were quite willing for
    30        anybody with an objective mind to come and see your
    31        premises and examine your processes, do you remember that?
    32        A.  Yes, I did.
    33
    34   Q.   It was in the context of your account of your conversation
    35        with Clare Druce to which I will return in a moment.  Do
    36        you regard the MAFF people as objective?
    37        A.  Yes, I do.
    38
    39   Q.   Do you regard the OVSs as objective?
    40        A.  Yes, I do.
    41
    42   Q.   Do you regard Dr. Gregory as objective?
    43        A.  Yes, I do.
    44
    45   Q.   You may not agree with him in every respect; I remember at
    46        one stage you said he was scientist and you were a
    47        veterinarian, but you regard him as objective?
    48        A.  Yes.
    49
    50   Q.   Do you recall that in his report, which he made for the 
    51        purposes of this case when he came to visit your premises 
    52        on 19th April 1994 -- my Lord, this is yellow IX, tab 10, 
    53        page 234, page 8 of the report; there is no need to get it
    54        out, it is only one sentence -- he deals with the question
    55        of how effective your stunning procedure, your new one that
    56        he was examining as it was tried out, how effective it
    57        was.  He said this:  "It is concluded that although the
    58        system employed for stunning and killing the birds was not
    59        ideal from a welfare point of view, it could not be faulted
    60        in terms of the recovery of consciousness during the

Prev Next Index