🚀 go-pugleaf

This post covers extra aspects of the notorious "MacLibel" case in
which the multi-billion dollar multi-national, McDonalds, is suing an
English couple, as poor as church mice, in Britain's longest running
libel case

Thankfully, McDonald's seems to be copping a caning in court, and no
matter what the outcome in court, wish that they had never started the
whole thing, for there can be no positive outcome for them.

"~" <natas@wsu.edu>, who is too much of a prawn to put their name to
their posts wrote in reply to 

>HotSex <zane@student.adelaide.edu.au> wrote:

[A lengthy post on the evils of McDonalds is hereby snipped, to be
selectively quoted and commented upon after dealing with this idiot
"~"'s comments.

For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to this idiot as Mr Tilde,
the tilde being the character: "~" for those who don't already know,
and my appelation "Mr" being out of due respect for the female
species, who doesn't seem to generally descend to the level of Mr
Tilde, at least in this newsgroup (soc.culture.australian)]

> Sorry, but maybe you should get an education before making these claims,
>as well as be able to back up this kind of bullshit with real statistics.  
> get out and have a cheeseburger or something.  

You should get an education, starting with a few social graces, the
possession of which nobody is likely to accuse you. How are "real"
statistics, a term which you are yet to define, all that relevant to
most of the contentions made in the original post?

The post is already long enough without its being burdened down by
unnecessary statistics, many of which are easily available, and
generally superfluous to the author's apparent intent.

Where is all of the bullshit about which you speak? You have not
bothered writing a proper, informed critique, and given the nature of
your reply, then I would say: "Bless'ed be we for small mercies".

Much of what was said, has been produced in evidence in a court of
law, ie.., the notorious "MacLibel" case 

You do know about the "MacLibel" case, don't you, Mr Tilde? As you
seem to be from the USA, then you probably don't, as, according to the
UNO, your media is very far from being free from vested economic and
political interests.

Given that, it is unlikely that the fact that one of your more high
profile institutions has been receiving a caning in a British court,
would have received much publicity over there.

Mr Tilde, try answering the original post with a proper critique, and
you may give your case some credibility. Until that time, then we can
only assume that you are the one talking 'bullshit", and that you are
the one in need of an education.

I shall gladly provide you with part of that much needed education.

As McDonalds have already taken two people to court for libel, then I
should point out that anything I say about McDonalds in the following
article, by way of fact, is to the best of my knowledge, and may be
prone to error, a statement I make in the full knowledge that
McDonalds would not dare to take anybody else to court for libel given
the farcical situation they now find themselves in a British court.

>HotSex <zane@student.adelaide.edu.au> wrote:

>> McDonalds spend a fortune on advertisements, trying to cultivate an image
>> of being a "caring" and "green'. company that is also a fun place to eat.
>> Children are lured in (dragging their parents behind them) with the
>> promise of "free" toys and other gimmicks. 

Children have long been the target of McDonalds. In the MacLibel case,
McDonalds were stupid enough to quote from one of their official hand
books over some policy issue. 

They were stupid in that either they forgot that once part of a
document is admitted into a court, then the whole of that document is
admissible, or they assumed that the defence would not actually read
the whole document!

By the time the defence had finished with it, McDonald's probably
wished that they had never written that handbook, let alone introduced
it as evidence in a court of law.

In essence, McDonalds tried to establish itself in Australia but with
no success. They decided that the problem was that they could not
compete against the traditional Australian diet, including hamburgers,
and that the only way to lure Australians to McDonalds, was by
targeting the children, who would then hopefully convert the parents.

There you have it, mums and dads in Australia. The bastards got into
this country by targeting YOUR children. That was official policy, and
that is straight from the McDonald's handbook as presented by
McDonalds in a British court of law.

I wonder what else was in that little book... let's see .... Japan!

The reason that the Japanese are yellow and short is that they have
been living off fish and rice for thousands of years. If they were to
eat a western diet, ie., McDonalds, then the Japanese would end up
tall and white.

No, I did not make that up, I don't want to sued for libel by this
morally and socially bankrupt company, McDonalds. The statement, while
not verbatim, is correct in essence, and comes from the same handbook.

By this point, McDonalds were wishing that they had never pursued the
libel case, and people from all over the world should be wondering
what dirty tricks this company used to get into their country..

>>But behind the smiling face of Ronald McDonald lies the reality
>>McDonald's only interest is money, making profits from whoever 
>>and whatever they can.

Didn't you know that Ronald McDonald stopped smiling?

The actor who used to play Ronald McDonald on British television
became aware of the MacLibel case, and eventually appeared on British
prime time TV, where he apologised to the children of Britain for
leading them astray, and causing them to do "bad things". Among the
bad things was the subsidising of the raising of poultry in inhumane
conditions.

By this point, McDonalds were wishing that they had never pursued the
libel case.

>> Starving The Poor

[comments about the relative inefficiency of meat production in the
face of a world food shortage snipped]

There are an estimated 700 million people suffering from malnutrition.
(W.H.O.)

Do those statistics make you happy Mr Tilde?
 
>> Destroying The Earth
 
>> The world's most beautiflil forests are being destroyed at an appalling
>> rate by multinational companies. McDonald's have at last been forced to 
>> adrnit to using beef reared on ex-raiforest land, 

They were eventually forced to admit that in the court, in the face of
over whelming evidence against them, and despite their previous
publicity stunts.

>>preventing the regeneration of forests. Also, the use of farmland by
>>multinationals and their suppliers forces local people to move on to other 
>>areas and cut down further trees.

>>McDonald's is the world's largest user of beef. 

It is the *single* largest user of beef.

>>Methane emitted by cattle reared for the beef industry is a major cause of the
>>"global warming" crisis. 

That is not correct. It is true that this source of methane is a
factor, but it is not a major cause. The gasses implicated in warming,
in descending order of the magnitude of the effect, are: carbon
dioxide, CFCs, ozone, and methane. Water vapour is a major player, but
its concentration in the atmosphere depends on many factors.

The major source of methane is actually from bogs and dams, followed
by bovine bottoms and coal mining. Human activities may be reducing
the amount of methane in the atmosphere through the reclamation of
bogs, but that is unlikely.. 

The slash and burn form of tropical rainforest deforestation is
particularly damaging to a non-renewable resource, top soil. Forests
in temperate climates, due to the very long time taken for
decomposition, keep most of their nutriments in the soil.

In tropical rain forests, dead plant tissue is recycled in a few
years, and so most of the nutriments are in the plant life. Destroy
the forest and you take the nutriments with it. You get 3 years of
spectacular pastures, and then the soil is dead.

Destroying rain forests does not destroy a carbon sink (the forests
are in carbon equilibrium), however burning them, or burning the waste
releases a lot of carbon dioxide, and through destroying the soil, a
potential carbon sink has been removed. Furthermore, one is playing
around with the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, and the
cooling effect of forests.

>>Every year McDonald's use thousands of tons of unnecessary packaging,
>> much of which ends up littering our streets 

McDonalds denied this, but photographic, anecdotal,  and statistical
evidence started coming in from all over Britain and other countries,
and a New Zealand court ruling against McDonalds was introduced into
the libel case.

I think that McDonalds is not allowed to advertise the "caring, green
and friendly" image in New Zealand anymore.

>> Ruining Your Health
 
>> McDonald's promote their food as "healthy", but the reality is that it is
>> high in fat, sugar and salt, and low in fibre and vitamins. 

From memory, McDonalds tried to argue against this, but they lost that
argument in the face of expert testimony.

>>A diet of this type is linked with a greater risk of heart disease, cancer,
>>diabetes and other diseases. 

McDonalds tried to deny this, but lost that one, too.

>>Their food also contains many chemical additives, some of which may
>> cause ill health, and hyperactivity in children. 

I don't remember if that was argued in the case. Perhaps others could
comment.

>>Don't forget too that meat is the cause of the majority of
>>food poisoning incidents. 

Fish is also responsible for quite a few.

>>In 1991 McDonald's were responsible for an outbreak of food poisoning
>>in the UK, in which people suffered serious kidney failure. 

>> Murdering Animals

>> The menus of the burger chains are based on the torture and murder of
>> millions of animals. Most are intensively farmed, with no access to fresh air 
>> and sunshine, and no freedom of movement. 

McDonalds tried to argue that there was nothing wrong with the way
that animals, especially poultry are raised for slaughter. They didn't
fare too well in that argument, either.

>>Their  deaths are barbaric - "humane slaughter" is a myth. We have the choice to
>> eat meat or not, but the  750 million animals massacred for food in Britain each year have no
>choice at all.
 
>> Exploiting Their Staff
 
>> Workers in the burger chains are paid low wages. McDonald's do not pay
>> overtime rates even when employees work very long hours. 

That depends on the country. 

[snipped: Pressure resulting from understaffing causes a high accident
rate such as burns]

>> The majority of employees are people who have few job
>> options and so are forced to accept this exploitation. Not surprisingly staff 
>> turnover at McDonald's is high, making it virtually impossible to unionise and 
>> fight for a better deal, which suits McDonald's who have always
>> been opposed to Unions.

Many of these facts were brought out in the trial.

>> Censorship And McLibel

>> Criticism of McDonald's has come from a huge number of people and
>> organisations over a wide number of issues. 

That is an accurate assessment of the situation. McDonalds has a
public relations disaster on its hands.

>> In the mid-eighties London Greenpeace drew together many  of those
>> strands of criticisrn and called for an annual World Day of Action
>> against McDonald's.This still takes place every year on Octoher 16th, with pickets and
>> demonstrations all overthe world.

And in the process, receiving very little media attention. Guess who
pays the piper? This has only received mention by our public
broadcaster. Commercial networks have left it alone. I wonder why?

One of the most effective demonstrations was done in Sweden, I think
in the early 70s. A group of people went to McDonalds, bought a
minimum of the rubbish that is dished up there so that they would have
a legitimate reason for being there.

They then proceded to eat all of the condiments such as pepper, salt,
sauce, mustard and whatever, but none of the food, so that they
vomited.

A Swedish court ruled in their favour, for the protestors  had not
taken anything there with which to make themselves sick, they had got
sick from eating the stuff at McDonalds.

>> McDonald's, who spend over one billion dollars every year on advertising
>> and promotions, 

They are one of the idiots supporting basket ball in this country.
They do everything to appear nicey wicey, caring, and socially
responsible. Ho, ho, ho!

On a poster, they showed one of our winning women's sporting teams in
a ticker tape parade through the streets of Sydney. I must say, they
were fascinating women, veritable Amazons, with no busts, and biceps
the size of beer barrels.

There was no ticker tape parade for the women, the parade in question
was for the Wallabies (the Australian Rugby Union team) after they had
won the World Cup.

The McDonalds poster in question had pictures of the heads of the
women, superimposed on the pictures of two of the Wallabies in the
leading car, ie., Nick Farr Jones, (captain), and Phil Kerns (vice
captain), the latter being built like a tank.

This poster was brought to public attention by Media Watch. Yahoo!

Do you think that the commercial media covered this? Go to the top of
the class, of course they did not.

>> are trying to silence the world-wide campaign by threatening legal action against
>> those who speak out. Many have been forced to back down because they lacked 
>> the money to fight a case.

They may have tried to do so in the past, but they have got their
fingers badly burned in the MacLibel case.

>> But this year, Helen Steel and Dave Morris, two supporters of London
>> Greenpeace are defending themselves in a major High Court libel trial. 

I think that proceedings began 5 years ago. The trial has been running
for over a year.

The whole issue arose when the couple wrote a large handout with
pictures of little hamburgers along the top, with names such as
"MacMurder", "MacSuicide", "MacRipoff" etc., and a list of accusations
against McDonalds, with substantive facts .

>> No legal aid is available so the unwaged environmentalists are
>> representing themselves. 

While what you say is true, you have not given an accurate picture of
what is happening, for there is an international network of people
helping them. 

The couple are getting free legal advice from all over the world,
there are donations coming in, and there is a lot of information about
the dirty deeds of McDonalds which has been donated from all over the
world.

Basically, this case has precipitated the impromptu setting up of an
extensive, international anti-McDonalds `organisation'.

>> McDonalds  have engaged in a huge cover up, refusing to disclose 
>> masses of relevant documents. 

The documents can be forced out of McDonalds through due process. You
have to remember that the couple is getting top class help. It's sort
of like David and Goliath, except that in this case, David has gone
nuclear.

>> Also, the defendants have been denied their right to a jury after McDonald's argued
>> that the issues in the case would be "too complex" for members of the public to understand. 

That decision was backed up by the House of Lords. 

The pair (I do not think they form a couple) have, or will be
protesting the decision about the jury, to the European Court of
Justice, and if no satisfaction is received there, will then be going
on to the United Nations Organisation.

YAHOO!.

>> Despite  all the cards being stacked against them, Helen and Dave are 
>> determined to expose the truth.

Actually, they are defending themselves in a libel case, and in the
process, are successfully exposing the truth in court. Meanwhile,
McDonalds are busily hanging themselves.

YIPPEE!

>> Protests against the $24 billion a year fast food giant continue. It's vital to stand up to
>> intimidation and to defend free speech.

Sorry, I don't see this as a free speech issue. Libel is not
necessarily a free speech issue, and this case is one of libel.

In order to win, McDonalds have to prove just ONE instance of
misrepresentation. At the same time, they are up against the problem
of "a reasonably held conviction".

If the couple have produced their accusations and linked them to
supportive evidence on the paper, and have a reasonably held
conviction that their accusations are true, then they have not
committed libel, even though their accusations may be untrue.

Note that the couple have counter sued McDonalds for libel. :-))

Yah Bloody Hoooooo!

Let us assume that McDonald won both cases, and that they one in which
they sued the couple because the couple were proved to have committed
libel over only ONE issue.

What would McDonalds have won?

They would have won the longest running libel case in British history
against a couple who are as poor as church mice, and who would be
expected to pay McDonald's court costs, plus damages (which may only
be nominal).

That would be GREAT for McDonalds' public relations, and you can bet
that the couple would milk every bit of emotional mileage out of it,
as would the media, all over the world! :-))

This is a bizarre case, the media loves the bizarre, and so the media
from all over the world would have a field day about how a
multinational giant took two people, as poor as church mice, to court
and had millions of pounds in costs awarded against the couple, who
weren't even allowed a jury.

Looks great for McDonalds, doesn't it?

The media would report on the case, would drag up some of the more
bizarre (and damaging to McDonalds) evidence, and would also repeat
the allegations made by the couple, and which were proved NOT to be
libelous, all of which is the very thing which McDonalds do NOT want.

McDonalds may win the case, but whatever the outcome, they lose, and
lose badly, for they have given themselves the very negative publicity
they tried to stop when they first pursued this issue.

If they won, would that stop others from doing what this couple have
done? It most certainly would not.

Libel laws are not international laws, they differ from country to
country, and if McDonalds wanted to sue people for libel, could find
itself involved in libel cases all over the world. What is worse,
there would be a large, organised body of knowledge available upon
which to draw in defence of a case, McDonalds' strategies and
arguments would be on the public record, and there is a well organised
chain of international support.

Basically, McDonalds wish that they had never touched this case, for
there can only be one outcome, and that is that they lose, independent
of the court findings.

It is unfortunate that the media is not giving the attention the case
deserves. The post to which I am replying is the first I have seen
about the MacLibel case on the Internet.

As I understand it, somebody had set up a newsgroup to cover the
MacLibel case. I have not been able to find it, and the last time I
did a web search for the case, I could not find it. If anybody knows
of the existence of a newsgroup, or web site, please publish the
details.

As for the rest of you in Australia, consider the way in which
McDonalds got a foothold in this country by targeting the kids, and
the fact that this is the way that they maintain their position, by
aiming at your children, as they do in other countries.

As for anybody from Japan who may be reading this, consider the
essentially racist attitude which McDonalds has had towards Japan as
evidenced by an official McDonalds handbook as presented by McDonalds
in a British court.

That handbook raises one question as to what depths McDonalds has been
prepared to go in order to boost its profits.

Why do McDonalds put sugar in the buns?

Do you think that a piece of meat placed between two buns, with some
third rate `salad' is going to sell? It won't. Sugar gives a hit of
energy, and people are likely to associate that hit of energy with
eating McDonalds products.

I have heard rumour that McDonalds puts caffeine in its buns. Can
anybody substantiate that? Laws on food additives vary from country to
country. If the addition of caffeine to hamburger buns is allowed in a
country, then I would expect McDonalds to use it, for caffeine gives a
hit of energy and is addictive, and that is precisely the reason that
Coca Cola uses it.

Why do you think that the chips (I refuse to call them French Fries)
are so thin? 

Long skinny chips, randomly oriented, do not pack as densely as normal
chips, and so take up more space. The potatoes are bought by weight,
but the chips are sold by volume. Any trick which increases the
effective volume of the chips, increases the profits.

Nice trick, isn't it? McDonalds is full of little tricks like that
with which to rip you off.

Ian Lowery