It is a shame that that people such as the Mclibel two are
determined to drag a respectable company down, with wild
accusations and tentative links. The evidence provided on
behalf of the defence has very little FACT content on McDonalds
and appears to be purely speculation. I believe that these
individuals are just trying to make a name for themselves as
anarchists. They are wasting time and money and will clearly
lose - if you are going to try to take on someone such as
McDonalds you need clear distinct facts, not rambling
accusations with very little factual basis (and then it is
only historical - very little fact was actually relevant at
the date of publication of What's wrong with McDonalds).
My hope is that the Mclibel two will wake up and smell what
they are talking!_____________________
McSpotlight replies:
So you haven't bothered reading any of the evidence then?
Mush of the evidence has been admissions from McDonald's own
witnesses. I suppose that an admission from McDonald's that
they have used beef from ex-tropical forest land is
'purely speculation' and that the admission that McDonald's
don't sell nutrition is just 'rambling accusation'?
And perhaps the McDonald's supplier of beef patties in th UK
admitting that because of the meat industry, the suffering
of animals is inevitable, isn't a 'clear distinct fact'.