Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 14

     
     1
     2   MS. STEEL:   All the documents I am referring to throughout this
     3        are in that bundle.  Page 3 of that document, or of that
     4        bundle of documents, states, "The following action is
     5        proposed in the run up to 28th February when the libel
     6        action starts".  Not, "the following action is proposed to
     7        counter publicity put out by the McLibel support campaign
     8        London Greenpeace and/or the Defendants".
     9
    10        (C).  On the same page 3, we then have five of the listed
    11        action points, the others having been blanked out by
    12        McDonald's so the court has to assume they are not
    13        relevant.  The thrust of these points and, indeed, the
    14        entire document is how the Company is going to deal with
    15        questions from the media and its staff about the trial, for
    16        example number 4 says about preparing a briefing paper,
    17        covering each of the points covered by the libel action.
    18
    19   MR. RAMPTON:  Can you read the rest of it, please?  My Lord, it
    20        continues.  This is another piece of selective quotation
         for use in response to detailed media inquiries.
    22
    23   MS. STEEL:   Yes, as a result of the trial.  It does not make
    24        any difference to what I am saying.  These questions, as
    25        the Company would be only too well aware, would naturally
    26        arise as a result of the trial in the High Court involving
    27        such a high profile company whether or not the McLibel
    28        support campaign had put out press releases.
    29
    30        There is nothing about answering MSC press releases or
    31        London Greenpeace leaflets, et cetera.
    32
    33        Point 6 on this page is about obtaining a letter from
    34        Greenpeace distancing themselves from London Greenpeace
    35        which can be used in briefing media and consumers, and we
    36        know that this letter was obtained and that McDonald's used
    37        it to try and discredit London Greenpeace by making the
    38        suggestion that it had somehow misappropriated the name
    39        'Greenpeace' and, unlike Greenpeace International, was not
    40        to be respected, despite the fact that London Greenpeace
         was the original Greenpeace group in this country.
    42
    43        Point 6, in particular, reveals McDonald's true motives in
    44        producing the leaflets and press releases since it cannot,
    45        by any stretch of the imagination, be considered a response
    46        which was necessary to "correct" a "misleading impression"
    47        given by the McLibel support campaign, London Greenpeace or
    48        the Defendants, as London Greenpeace, and indeed myself and
    49        Mr. Morris, have always made it clear that
    50        London Greenpeace was a separate organisation and
    51        unconnected to Greenpeace International.
    52
    53        McDonald's just wanted to use this as a another stick to
    54        beat London Greenpeace with, and to try and discredit them,
    55        and therefore us, since the trial is about the leaflet
    56        produced by London Greenpeace and we are therefore
    57        associated with London Greenpeace in the public eye.
    58
    59        (E) on page 4, under "Other items to be considered" comes
    60        briefing sheets for customers and restaurants, which