Day 313 - 13 Dec 96 - Page 51


     
     1        their reputation, we say that in some areas McDonald's
     2        general reputation is so low that nothing printed in the
     3        leaflet could be taken to further diminish it; for example,
     4        the public's perception of McDonald's representing McJobs,
     5        the poor quality jobs on the market, the effect the
     6        advertising has on children and how fed up parents are
     7        about that, and McDonald's, of course, recognise the value
     8        of pester power in their own surveys.  For example, Tidy
     9        Britain Group evidence of Professor Ashworth on how environment/index.html">litter
    10        is always seen as a big concern when people oppose
    11        McDonald's stores, local residents oppose McDonald's stores
    12        being opened up, and that is before a store opened up.  So
    13        their reputation on, for example, environment/index.html">litter goes before it
    14        and, further, their reputation has been diminished
    15        throughout this case, not only by the facts that have been
    16        proven by the Defendants, but by the fact that McDonald's
    17        have gained apologies under false pretences in the past by
    18        making incorrect false statements in solicitors' letters
    19        regarding rainforests and the captive bolt pistol method,
    20        for example.
    21
    22        The poor reputation, we argue, goes before -- precedes the
    23        distribution by us of the London Greenpeace fact sheet, if
    24        it be accepted by you that we have, which we deny, and, for
    25        example, on rainforests Helen referred to the document she
    26        had read in a book edited by Sir Edmund Hilary called
    27        "Ecology 2,000" which completely identified McDonald's
    28        with rainforest destruction in Central and South America,
    29        which was produced in the early '80s before the McDonald's
    30        campaign even started, let alone the fact sheet.
    31
    32        The other area of issue where they have a very bad
    33        reputation is, of course, the perception of their food as
    34        being junk food which, in their advertising campaign in
    35        America in the 1980s, if you remember, they have said the
    36        campaign was set up to deal with the junk food
    37        misconceptions about McDonald's food.  So, they are
    38        admitting that they have a poor reputation which they are
    39        willing to launch a national campaign to deal with, to
    40        respond to.
    41
    42        Finally, in terms of why they should get no costs, no
    43        damages at all, is that the Company issued 300,000 leaflets
    44        through their stores in the UK.  This is certainly in --
    45        well, the UK must be the only relevant territory here that
    46        issued 300,000 leaflets through their stores and press
    47        releases attacking and undermining the criticisms that have
    48        been made of the company, and that is a fact that has
    49        happened.  Therefore -- attack on us, yes, but the point is
    50        they should not thereby -- they have -- if it is found
    51        against us, then they have, effectively, attacked -- not
    52        attacked -- they should not get damages because they have
    53        issued leaflets putting an alternative point of view, or
    54        putting over whatever the result of your verdict and the
    55        argument that we had about no one knows how, whether your
    56        verdict in detail will be publicised, whether McDonald's
    57        will be able to use it -- no doubt they will, I am sure
    58        they will, if it is in their favour -- but the point is
    59        they have already, pre-trial, issued hundreds of thousands
    60        of leaflets putting over their view and discrediting us, so

Prev Next Index