: if "what's wrong with mcdonalds" isn't legally sound right now, why endanger the freedom of others by suggesting that they distribute copies? "WWWM" is legally sound - every claim in the leaflet can be backed up by evidence from a third party (or frequently McDonald's themselves!). This can be seen in the referenced version of the Factsheet, which is available at http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/pretrial/factsheet_ref.html.
The leaflet was ruled originally to be libellous because some of the claims made were felt by the judge to be unproven - not because they were false.
Furthermore, it would require a severe miscarriage of justice for someone else to be imprisoned for handing out a leaflet produced by London Greenpeace. The recorded incidents are generally due to secondary charges, like obstructing the pavement.
: also, what's wrong with burger king, or wendy's or whatever else there is in the u.k.?
Check out the Beyond McDonald's page, which features other multinationals, including Burger King. The reason this site covers McDonald's is because it was set up to make public the evidence unearthed in the McLibel trial.
: it's fair to wonder if your propaganda is paid for by a rival chain.
Hardly. As we've said repeatedly, we exist on a non-profit basis and are funded by no-one apart from the general public. And for the record, there isn't a fast food chain in existence that doesn't churn out unhealthy food and encourage the overconsumption and waste of the Earth's resources. From KFC to Subway to BKs to McDonald's, there's no difference in their harmful effects on the world.
: even more believable is the notion that perhaps there are enough overzealous slaughterhouse-bombing vegans in the world with an itch to soil mcdonalds' reputation to go to all this trouble.
On the contrary, McD's is paranoid enough to try and suppress anything they feel might be slightly critical of them.
Take the statement in the Factsheet that excessive consumption of fast food is linked with ill health; the original finding was made by the UN World Health Organisation; even in court, McDonald's expert witness, Dr. Sydney Arnott said (of that claim in the Factsheet):
"If it is being directed to the public then I would say it is a very reasonable thing to say."
That was McDonald's own expert commenting about one of the claims in the leaflet that McDonald's particularly objected to; one of the major points of the libel trial.
(For other great quotes, check the McQuotes page)
:now, i want to believe this, but i'm not exactly following the trail of the truth... it gets a little sketchy. maybe mcdonalds u.k. can be accused of everything in "what's wrong with mcdonalds", but what about in the states?
OK. The only points that can really be said to be UK-specific are the employment conditions (which vary from country to country) and the slaughterhouse methods (for the same reason).
The basic and fundamental points (the basic unhealthy nature of the food, the exploiting of children and "pester power", their opposition to any criticism, the way that the McDonald's-inspired diet is contributing to global starvation) are the same whether in the UK or US; which is why the McLibel trial was brought to the UK courts by both McDonald's UK Ltd. and McDonalds U.S. (as joint plaintiffs).
In fact, for the US market, the evidence that McD's contributed to the destruction of rainforest is stronger; the UK gets much less beef from tropical forests.
:it's just not clear enough. give me proof and i'll give 'em hell... until then, i will not risk a libel suit. please reply.
Read through this site; you will find a page for each of the issues at stake (go here). You can also find witness statements and full trial transcripts of the case here.
Read them; we've got a fair amount of solid information to sink your teeth into...
Rex, McSpotlight.
