Reading through these messages, I could not believe the sad fools who seem to think McDonalds are just Jesus with Nikes on. If that's not bad enough, they then proceed to spout that McDonalds have come out of this case looking lack pure lambs - this is far from the truth!!!A number of issues have been proved *true* as stated in the leaflet; others are irrelevant for a libel action; some could be true, but as stated imply that they are facts (I refer to the food/health risk issues in particular). From my very limited legal knowledge I took from the summary that the main reason the case fell down was because most of the issues were presented as *facts*, like "McDonalds destroy the rainforest". Although the McDonalds Corporation may not *actively* cut down trees, and the Restaurants certainly don't, surely it's not a great stretch of the imagination to say that if McDonalds get their patties from companies who get their beef from cows reared on former rainforest land, then McDonalds are responsible to an extent for the use of that land? I mean, they were found "culpably responsible" for the animal cruelty, even though they do not own the chicken farms. I just don't get it.
Could someone who *knows* about legal issues maybe explain why one of these was upheld while the other not?
Anyway, back to my original point - Read the summary and watch the news before you criticise McSpotlight and the McLibel campaigners.
Dave
xxx
None.
