JeffI've read right through the defendants opening speech and contrary to what you suggest I didn't find a single reference or even a hint of the defendants saying that they had written or printed the leaflet. I couldn't find anything to that effect in any of the press releases either. Why don't you just come clean and admit you made a mistake.
Regarding rebuttal witnesses for the 14 ex-employees who gave evidence for the defence, from what I've read none of those who gave evidence for McDonald's were ordinary crew, they were all people in management positions. McDonald's obviously didn't feel confident enough to risk having a crew member in the witness box who wasn't already committed to a long term career at McDonald's, and therefore couldn't be relied on to say the right thing and toe the company line.
So you're getting your 'facts' from the Plaintiffs closing speeches, very fair and unbiased I'm sure. Fine, read them, but don't assume that just because McDonald's say something that means it's true. Sure, some of the employees do enjoy some aspects of the job, like the social side of it - friends and customers. But that still doesn't alter the fact that they're getting paid a shit wage for doing hard work. And that burns and falls (on slippery floors) happen pretty frequently, which may not all have severe consquences, but which shouldn't be happening in the first place if McDonald's didn't make people work so fast in an environment with lots of hot equipment and hot drinks around which care should be taken. Nor does it alter the fact that McDonald's are totally anti-union and desperate to stop workers organising together and fighting back.
>In regards to the anarchist statements I believe its
>offensive to most ordinary working people to label yourself
>a critic of the current system and still enjoy the benefits
>that go along with living in a free country such as England.
I don't know what it's like in Australia, but just about everyone over here is a critic of the current system (the disagreement comes with what to replace it with), so does that mean they shouldn't use the National Health service that they pay into, does that mean they shouldn't use the fire brigade that they pay for in taxes and rates?
And are you suggesting that only people in paid employment should be allowed to express their views? Is that the kind of 'free' country you'd like to see? So people who've been thrown on the scrap heap because they're surplus to industry's requirements right now, shouldn't complain about their lot? Get real. Neither they nor I chose to be born into a society where a few people control most of the land and resources and therefore have control over our lives. If people are laid off, or if they decide they don't want to work in order to make some company director even richer, what can they live on if they don't claim benefit? I'm sure they, like I, would rather have some land where they could grow their own food, or some other means of controlling their own destiny. But they don't, because all the power and wealth in our society is concentrated in the hands of a few. Right now, I'm stuck as a wage slave, my labour is making profits for a company, I'm forced to pay taxes to a government I despise. Did anybody ask me if I wanted to do that? No. And like I said before, I'd rather the taxes I pay went to people who are trying to create a better world, than to parasites like the royal family and the government.
>The McCANCER statement is not satire and is not a joke.
>How can you joke about something as serious as cancer.
>Have you ever seen a loved one die of cancer? I can
>assure you its not funny.
It's not a joke about cancer, it's a satirical joke on McDonald's. The company tries to associate its name with things they consider positive, that will help them to sell more products, like their trademarks 'McFamily', 'McKids', McBaby', 'McMemories', McRecycle' (all trademarks listed on their website), so why shouldn't people turn that back on them by associating the company's name with the kind of thing it should be associated with. Like McCancer, McRip-off, McGarbage etc.
Yes, I have had close relatives die from cancer and I know that cancer is not funny, and that's why I think that it's very important that ordinary people are made aware of things such as diet and smoking that increase their risk of cancer. I think it's good that there are cancer warnings on cigarrette packets. And in the same way I think it's great that campaigners are giving out leaflets to the public with info about the links between diet and disease, because up til fairly recently that kind of information has tended to stay within scientific books and magazines that most ordinary people don't read. If they don't have that information then they cant make the choice for themselves about what risks they want to take with their own lives.
>Your comments regarding the usual exploitation, animals etc etc
>are not based on a balanced argument. Please take the time to
>read both sides of the equation. Lets all not be judge,
>jury & executioner prior to the umpires decision. I would be
>happy to debate each point as it arises & being the gentlemen
>that I am you may if you wish pick the first subject.
I find it strange that you say that we should wait for the judge's decision and yet you have already declared that the leaflet is defamatory. Doesn't that mean that you have pre-judged the issues? I don't mind that you have, as I don't care too much what the Judge thinks, he's only one person. But I would like you to say just what it is in the leaflet that you consider is untrue. I believe all of it is true, and I've asked you twice now to state which parts you think are lies. You've declined to do so - why? Are you secretly not really sure? It wouldn't be surprising considering the amount of pressure we are under to accept our lot in society and trust the word of those in authority.
I _have_ read both sides of the argument about exploitation and oppression. Don't forget that I have it forced down my throat every day. Whenever I watch the TV I watch advertisements telling me how wonderful my life would be if I only had such & such a product. I see the news about how wonderful it is that xyz company has made millions of pounds profits, with no mention of what the cost has been to others or to the environment. I don't need to be reminded of that side of the argument, it's well and truly inside my head. But I'm not interested in it. I'm interested in the alternatives, in creating a society where people are free, where resources are shared among all, where we have control of our own lives and our communities, and where we treat animals and the environment with the respect that they deserve. That's why I support the campaign against McDonald's, because it's part of a wider struggle for a better world.
Why don't you join in?
None.
