Day 002 - 29 Jun 94 - Page 05

     
     1        It is our case that the only time McDonald's change their
              practices is after they have been faced with public
     2        criticism, although we have to say we believe most of the
              changes are simply a gloss and that continued criticism of
     3        their practices is totally justified.  This argument is
              lent a great deal of weight by the plaintiffs' failure to
     4        disclose documents relevant to the time of the alleged
              libel and their substitution of more recent documents.
     5
              Neither Mr. Morris nor myself were responsible for the
     6        creation of the fact sheet, "What is wrong with
              McDonald's?" which is the subject of the libel action.  We
     7        were not the authors or the printers.
 
     8        However, McDonald's are intent on attaching the
              responsibility on us, arguing attendance at meetings makes
     9        us responsible.  They claim that we chose to fight this
              case.  The reality is that we were served with writs
    10        without any warning by letter and the only option given to
              us was to agree to an apology being read out in open
         court.  Although we were not responsible for the leaflet,
              we do believe it is true and we feel that we have
    12        absolutely nothing to apologise for and that, therefore,
              we have no choice but to fight this action.  As far as we
    13        are concerned, it is McDonald's who should be
              apologising.
    14
              I am not ashamed of wanting a society where people are
    15        equal, where animals and the environment are respected and
              treated well.  We do not want to change society for the
    16        sake of it.  There are probably 101 things I would rather
              be doing than campaigning to fight this court case, for
    17        example, climbing mountains, walking through forests,
              gardening, just to name a few.  There is no way that
    18        I would be involved in campaigns and in fighting this case
              just for the fun of it.  So I would like you -- I am just
    19        answering some points Mr. Rampton made yesterday --
              to bear that in mind.  We are involved in campaigns to
    20        change society because of our very great concern at the
              way that profits are put before people, animals and the
         environment.
 
    22        The fact that I want to live in a more caring, equal
              society does not mean that I would deliberately tell lies
    23        about a company.  There is enough that is bad about
              McDonald's without inventing false allegations.  Yesterday
    24        Mr. Rampton continued with the plaintiffs' slur on our
              characters by painting a picture that we had falsely
    25        denied involvement in the campaign.
  
    26        He showed some videos and referred to some photographs 
              which showed myself and Mr. Morris in attendance at 
    27        pickets at McDonald's head office in Finchley.  On one or
              two videos we were seen to be handing out leaflets.
    28        I should draw your attention to the point that those
              videos were taken after this libel action commenced and
    29        that the leaflets being handed out were not the leaflet
              that is the subject of this action.
    30
              Interestingly, there are no photographs or videos