Day 002 - 29 Jun 94 - Page 06

     
     1        whatsoever that show anybody handing out the fact sheet
              complained of.  You will later hear evidence that the fact
     2        sheet was not used for general distribution on pickets,
              and also that by the time the plaintiffs got around to
     3        taking any action over this leaflet, which they consider
              so highly defamatory, there are very few copies of the
     4        leaflet left in existence, and, as is referred to in the
              statement of some of the plaintiffs' spies, a new up-dated
     5        publication on McDonald's practices was being prepared.
 
     6        Yesterday, Mr. Rampton said that I had given an
              interesting answer to the interrogatory concerning the
     7        pickets on October 16th 1989.  He said that in answer to
              the question:  "Did you not on that day hand out the
     8        leaflet annexed hereto to members of public?  If so, to
              approximately how many people?" that I had answered:
     9        "I cannot remember".  In fact, that is not the whole
              answer.  I actually said:  "I can't remember, but I do not
    10        think so".
 
         This is not an evasive answer.  These interrogatories were
              served in November 1992.  That is three years after the
    12        picket took place.  I doubt very much whether many people
              can remember exactly what they were doing three years
    13        previously.
 
    14        We have never denied handing out leaflets about
              McDonald's.  We have stated that since this action started
    15        we have handed out leaflets.  These were other updated
              leaflets.
    16
              I want to move on to some of the issues now in the case
    17        although, as I say, I am not going to go into any great
              detail about them because Mr. Morris is going to be doing
    18        that.
 
    19        One of the most controversial issues which the plaintiffs
              have denied for several years is the issue of
    20        responsibility for rainforest destruction.  They have
              threatened legal action against numerous organisations and
         eminent individuals over the rainforest issue, despite the
              fact they do use beef from cattle reared on former
    22        rainforests.
 
    23        There is one matter, in particular, that I would like to
              draw to the court's attention now.  Yesterday, Mr. Rampton
    24        stated on behalf of the plaintiffs that there is no room
              for any suggestion that McDonald's, whether by accident or
    25        design, whether in the United States or anywhere else in
              the world, uses or ever has used beef from rainforest 
    26        countries.  He drew your attention to a letter from 
              McDonald's head office in the USA to a Mr. Hooper in July 
    27        1982.  I will read out part of the letter again that he
              read yesterday:
    28
              "McDonald's has a long standing policy of buying all of
    29        our products from suppliers in the host country where we
              are doing business.  This policy is designed to increase
    30        the financial stability of the host country and to ensure
              the freshest and highest quality products.  As a result,