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
