> Well well, you lost everything bar two counts, Erm!! bar at least three actually but that is not the point.
Is a class half full or half empty?
If you think that McDonald's 'won' everthing bar some...
it must be clear to you that McDonald's 'LOST' on others.
The judge considered that the defendants had PROVED certain points
and failed to prove others.
> Mcdonalds workers were low paid (wow! What a revelation!)
If it's so obvious (which it is) why were McDonald's allowed to even bring a case on this issue?
> they are, indirectly responsible for some of the cruelty towards
> animals.
In fact Bell ruled that McDonald's were 'cuplably responsible' - thats not 'indirect' at all.
> All the other allegations were trashed as lies.
The judgement does not show that anything in the leaflet was lies - just that Helen and Dave had failed to prove the critisism to the satisfaction of the British legal system and Judge Bell.
> 60k damages, which Mcdonalds indicated months ago they weren't
> interested in collecting.
McDonald's told the press months ago that they were not pursuing damages at all - but they lied. As for collecting it - they can't collect what the defendants don't have.
> Two clowns in a punch-up with another clown over an issue no one
> really cares about. Fascinating!
Issues no one cares about = freespeech vs censorship, nutrition and health, environment protection, animal welfare, workers rights, exploitation of children etc. Yeah right... no interest in any of that!
None.
