> Charles, good morning. (Well its morning here). And it's (a lovely) morning here too ;-)
> When you say lack of accountability what do you mean.
> Could you please expand on this.
Multinationals are accountable to no higher power since they operate cross national border and therefore even if made to act one way in one country by local law, they can do something different somewhere else.
McDonald's for example are forced to act responsibly in Germany in terms of recycling, but in the UK, they don't. I recently heard that Marks & Spencers don't even bother doing the right thing in Germany, apparently they ship they waste to the UK to dump. Multinationals choose countries often operate in countries were they can get away with dumping toxic waste, using very cheap labour, and buying up all competetion. Governments can't control the actions of multinationals, they are often dependent on them themselves. The only
power to which multinationals are effectively accountable is the consumer - but only if the consumer knows what is going on.
> So its Mcds fault that people throw its rubbish on the streets and
> dont recylce it. Come on thats an educational matter that should be
> addressed by the individual concerned who s actually throwing out
> the rubbish.
No, it's no McDonald's fault that their customers dump their packaging. But it is their fault that it is produced in the first place. Whether the customers dump it in the streets or in the bin, it has still been produced. Hundreds of thousands of tonnes of waste packaging for just a few minutes of use. Even if it doesn't end up as litter, it will end up in land fill sites - it's hardly a sound or sustainable use of resources is it.
> In australia we have regular recycling pickups. Also our children are
> taught about recycling in schools. So education is the key.
Much packaging is unrecyclble. Even if it were all recyclable, and actually collected and recycled, remember that energy and resources are
still used making, collecting, transporting, reprocessing etc. More important than recycling is reducing, and the pointless packaging of the fast-food industry is a prime candidate.
> As far as the exploitation of workers is concerned there is no doubt
> a few workers have been mistreated. But these are isloated instances
> and its quantum leap to suggest Mcds expoilts ALL their workers.
Why do you assume it is isolated instances? In the McLibel trial it was shown that McDonald's had in the 19080's rountinuely and illegaly underpaid hundreds of workers. That is not isolated. It was shown that 400 attempts to unionise stores in the US were prevented by a trade union busting flying squad - again - hardly isolated. McDonald's admitted in court that they couldn't pay any lower start wage without falling foul of the law. Furthermore, the UK Health & Safety Executive
reported that McDonald's was putting the service of customers before the safety of employees. Nuff said I think.
> As far as their advertising goes well isnt that what advertising is?
> Getting people to buy your products through a variety of mediums.
> Hey its not breaking the law. The only laws that appear to have been
> broken are Mcspotlight laws.
In fact in some countries, the type of advertising employed by McDonald's would be illegal. Even in the UK it is against ITC policy to allow advertising that plays on children emotions (shame they don't enforce it). Misleading advertsing is illegal in most countries and McDonald's have fallen foul of the law in the USA. So if you want to argue law rather than ethics (which I would prefer) then fine.
> I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me on propaganda. Are you
> saying that Mcds & Mcspotlight peddle in it?.
Depends on how you define propaganda. The images that the term creates in the public mind is far more sinister than the dictionary definition appears to provide. Depending on your definition you could put forward a good case for both McDonald's, McSpotlight, the bible, and Mac User magazine.
> Your comment concerning years & years of corporate and capitalist
> propaganda strikes me as being a bit strange. Do you hate Mcds
> because of what they are, or because they support capitalism,
> or all of the former.
Isn't that obvious? You obviously still haven't looked around the site.
McDonald's is a target because it is a great example of the capitalist system. McDonald's is a target because is is a household name. McDonald's is a target because they were stupid enough to sue, hence providing further evidence on them through the court case.
> If you hate them because of the capitalist side then thats good.
> On your next campaign or cause you can just white out their name
> & use your previous agruments and apply them to the next target.
Again. Look around the site (try the Beyond McDonald's section) and you
will see that the campaign is more than just McDonald's already. McDonald's is the symbol - not the campaign.
> Heres an interesting question. At what time in your life did you
> decide to dislike capitalists. Was there a defining moment or one
> morning did you wake up hating the world.
I have always hated injustice and exploitation and that is what capitalism is. (I do not dislike capitalists, it is capitalism that I dislike). The more I learn, the more I find that the political and economic systems currently existing only further the exploitation of people, animals and the environment. In all the causes I support, I find that there is a common element, the system.
> The court transcripts show one expert witness denying what the other
> one said. Thats what I meant when I said "show me your expert witness
> & I'll show you mine. Stalemate.
You could look at it that way, or you could judge for yourself (as the Judge must do) which expert is best qualified, experience and presents the best argument and evidence to back a claim.
> So the Mclibel defendants are both anarchists. Makes it a bit
> difficult to gain meaningful employment. No doubt they have no
> problem putting their hands out to collect unemployment benefits
> said benefits being extracted from the tax dollars of the
> capitalists they hate so much. Sounds like a convenient excuse to me.
Meaningful employement is what they have with the trial - I can't think of much more meaningful employement than that. Helen works at a night club, Dave is a single parent. The welfare state is hardly part of the free market capitalist system.
> I'm sure the Mclibel support campaign read this site. If they are
> please post a detailed summary of donations versus expenses.
There are, on average, a dozen new messages in the debating room everyday and I should think I am the only person that reads them all.
If you want a detailed break down of the MSC finances, write to them.
If you want the general details, they are given on the MSC pages on the site. If you are going to write, do it quick or wait untill after the verdict - the MSC will be very busy around the time of the verdict.
> And yes I do believe I can liken Jim & Tammy to the Mclibel Trial.
> Its not too far of a jump.
I would be interested to see how you manage that. The McLibel trial is about two people who refused to appoligise or give in to a bullying multinationals attempts at censorship. McDonald's spent over ú6,000 per day in court (some estimate about ú10 million in total), the defendents spent about ú35,000 in the fives years since the writs were served.
