Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 15
1 appears to be an afterthought. This does not give the
2 appearance of a leaflet that was needed in order to set the
3 record straight, as McDonald's have claimed. It is more
4 consistent with being a PR move to deal with customer
5 inquiries once the trial started getting the inevitable
6 media coverage.
7
8 (F), page 7, appears to have been produced in February. It
9 has not actually got a date on the top of it but if you
10 look in the bottom right-hand corner it has a kind of print
11 out reference page, or something, that says February 1994.
12 Yes, it appears to have been produced in February after the
13 first meeting to discuss their strategy. It is headed
14 "McDonald's London Greenpeace trial communications
15 strategy"; it is not headed "Strategy for countering
16 McLibel support campaign press releases and leaflets". And
17 whilst there are some matters which may be a response to
18 matters raised by the Defendants or others, such as
19 preventing freedom of speech, this is clearly not the main
20 thrust of the document.
21
22 Obviously, in a high profile trial both parties are likely
23 to speak to the media. However, this does not give
24 McDonald's the right to make statements they know to be
25 false, or to make statements either not caring whether or
26 not they are true, under the guise of "privileged
27 self-defence".
28
29 Can I just say to this point about whether or not it was a
30 response, it is possible that the particular point about
31 free speech could have been a response to something raised
32 in press releases. However, it is equally possible that at
33 this time it was a response to a question which kept
34 cropping up because it is something of a question that
35 might fairly spring to the mind of a journalist as a
36 relevant issue to ask questions about, and that in that
37 case, you know, the McDonald's response to this issue may
38 in fact have been prompted by questions raised by the
39 media.
40
41 I think in later documents they do mention -- in the last
42 press release they produced they did mention the group
43 having complained about McDonald's attempting to stifle
44 free speech, but prior to that press release there is no
45 indication about whether or not they are replying to
46 printed leaflets or-----
47
48 MR. RAMPTON: My Lord, I am sorry. Ms. Steel has not got the
49 document in front of her. It is inevitable, therefore,
50 that this document which she is reading from may be
51 selective. It is, I am afraid, selective because the very
52 paragraph before the one she is referring to says, "to
53 minimise the negative impact of the Defendants' evidence,
54 witness statements and out of court activities", and that
55 is immediately followed by the words "to counterclaim that
56 McDonald's prevent free speech and any other inaccuracies
57 which might arise before, during and after the trial".
58
59 MS. STEEL: No, there are three bullet points under
60 "communication objectives". Those that Mr. Rampton read
