>Dear Cathy, I got my facts from reading both sides of the story & then drew my >own conclusions. Are you saying that you've read other stuff than what's on this site? If so I'd be interested to see it, please tell us where to find it. Can't see anything on McDonald's website.
>Also if you read some of the information on this site you will note the >defendants signed an agreement which stated they in fact did write the leaflet. >However they then turned around and denied it. Once again you can draw your own >conclusions from this.
I can't say I've read everything on this site, but I have read quite a lot, and I've never seen seen anything about any agreement from the defendants that they wrote the leaflet. Can you tell me which part of the site this is in please, so I can read it for myself.
>Also if you take your time and read the transcripts in regards to your >exploited workers you will see that 14 ex workers testified on behalf of the >defendants. Now thats not a bad record when you consider the total amount of >Mcd workers in the UK. You would think if ALL employees were being exploited >they would stampede among themselves to testify.
How many crew gave evidence for McDonald's then to say that everything was fine?
I know quite a few ex-McDonald's employees who all complained about some or all of the things that are mentioned in the leaflets - low pay, burns, no unions etc, but who didn't give evidence for the defendants. Does that mean that secretly they all love McDonald's? NO, it just means that either they didn't know about the case at the time, or how to get in touch or that they've now got jobs elsewhere so would rather not think about McD again, or that they'd rather not put themselves in the firing line. Whatever their reasons, it doesn't mean it's not true that McDonald's exploits its workers.
>I guess the defendants motives were to draw attention to what they consider >wrong doings by the company. They call each other anarchists. How convenient to >call yourself an anarchist whilst living in a democratic capitalistic country >with all the associated benefits. (including unemployment benefits).
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Why is it 'convenient' to call yourself an anarchist? Where's the democracy in the current capitalist system and which 'associated benefits' are you talking about? From what I can see, the only people who really benefit from the kind of capitalist society we have today are company directors and the like who rake in loads of money off the backs of ordinary people who do the work. Or people and companies who own and control the use of land and prevent us from growing food for ourselves in our own communities.
Even if the two defendants were claiming unemployment benefit (which seems unlikely since Helen works in a bar) what would be wrong with that? Would you like people to starve if they haven't got a paid job? I say paid job because they've obviously worked round the clock for several years to fight the case, and Dave is a single parent who has to look after his son too. At least they were doing something useful. I'd rather my taxes went to people like them than to the Queen and the rest of the royal family or to politicians.
>I mean why dont they live with their fellow anarchists. Pick a country, say, >Albania. Go and live there if you enjoy the anarchist way of life so much.
Maybe they already do live with their fellow anarchists. They're not the only anarchists in England. Leaving aside the fact that Albania is not an 'anarchist country', why should people leave the country they were brought up in if they don't want to. Why shouldn't they stay and try to change that country so society is run for the benefit of everyone not just a select few?
>Excuse me the leaflet says McCANCER. If thats not a clear statement then I >dont know what is.
It's not a 'clear statement' it's satire - so can't you take a joke?. McDonald's are endlessly calling everything McThis and McThat, and McCancer is just a play on that. I hardly think people are going to take it to mean that if they eat a McDonald's hamburger they will get cancer. The point is just to draw attention to the FACT that McDonald's sell food that's high in fat and low in fibre and that if you have a high fat/low fibre diet then you have a greater risk of suffering heart disease and cancer, so it's a good idea not to eat too much of that type of food. And like I said, it's not just the two defendants who are saying that, if you go into most hospitals and doctors surgeries you can pick up leaflets from Health Authorities which say exactly the same kind of thing.
>What do you think happened in regards to serving of these writs. Mcds were >walking down the road and said "theres two people lets serve writs on them". >The defendants were standing outside restaurants handing them out. I reiterate, >this is not about free speech, its about defamation.
No, McDonald's were going about their business of exploiting people, damaging the environment and killing animals, whilst at the same time spending a fortune on trying to paint themselves as something wonderful and a benefit to all. Surprise, surprise people around the world didn't take too kindly to that sort of deceit and so decided to put out some leaflets telling the truth about McDonald's. McDonald's didn't want anybody tarnishing the image they had created for themselves so they stamped on anybody criticising them. They could have just accepted that people have a right to express their views and expose what the company is up to. After all they have to accept it in their home country, the USA, where freedom of speech is protected to a greater degree.
I note that you didn't answer my question about which other parts of the leaflet you think are untrue. So apart from the cancer question what exactly _do_ you consider is defamatory?
