Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 18

     
     1        any party for that matter, would not...  I mean, if you
     2        were to find in McDonald's favour on this, this was a set a
     3        precedents that anyone can just say what they like if a
     4        trial gets publicity.
     5
     6        Anyway, the fact that a high profile inevitably attracts
     7        publicity does not give McDonald's or any party the right
     8        to make statements they know to be false or not caring if
     9        they are true under the guise of privileged self-defence.
    10
    11        Moving on to 4.6, this paragraph is about the PR
    12        circulars.  This is talking about the PR circulars or press
    13        releases produced by McLibel Support Campaign or us, or
    14        London Greenpeace or whoever, which the Plaintiffs say
    15        culminated in the press release of 5th March 1994 in a
    16        comparison of the Plaintiffs with the late Robert Maxwell.
    17        And Mr. Rampton then says the Plaintiffs' response to this
    18        material therefore enjoys a classic "reply to attack"
    19        privilege.
    20
         Even if the paragraph J, which I have dealt with above
    22        previously, was wrong, the Plaintiffs cannot enjoy a
    23        classic "reply to the attack" privilege if their press
    24        releases and leaflets were planned before the attack, and,
    25        as outlined above, the press releases have been planned for
    26        some time before publication and certainly before 5th March
    27        1994, which seems to be the McLibel support campaign press
    28        release that the Plaintiffs have taken most offence to, or
    29        argued that they have found most offensive.
    30
    31        Just that on page 15 of the notes that we have been
    32        referring to previously, there is confirmation that
    33        McDonald's decided on 28th February to produce the A5 which
    34        was sent to all stores in this country, and 300,000 of them
    35        were printed.
    36
    37   MR. JUSTICE BELL:  The "To our customers" one.
    38
    39   MS. STEEL:   Yes, the "to our customers" one, and that is before
    40        the McLibel support campaign press release of 5th March
         1994.
    42
    43        4.7: if McDonald's, as it claims, simply wanted to protect
    44        its reputation with the leaflets that it produced as
    45        opposed to trying to spear and discredit its critics, which
    46        is what we say was the real purpose, why not simply write a
    47        leaflet for distribution throughout its stores stating, for
    48        example, 'McDonald's is not responsible for damage to
    49        rainforests, McDonald's does not exploit children through
    50        advertising, McDonald's is not responsible for inhumane
    51        treatment of animals, McDonald's does not pay low wages and
    52        exploit its workforce', etcetera.  And, 'if you want more
    53        details on McDonald's side of the story, write to Mike Love
    54        at Head Office'.
    55
    56        The reason they did not do that was because they were not
    57        interested in putting over their side of the story, they
    58        were simply interested in maligning myself, Mr. Morris and
    59        other critics.
    60