I have been sat in the court of Appeal, Court number 1, at the Royal Courts of Justice this week watching the case, in its first week.I would suggest to the preceeding writter that he seriously ought to avail himself of the facts first. It is not the opinion of Dave and Helen, in my view, that every ought to stop eating burgers at McDonalds. It is, however, their point that every person in this country should be given the right to discuss the parctices of a large compnay, such as a multinational, in teh forum of public debate, without the currently asvailable threats of libel actions.
The two respondents, McDonalds Restaurants limited, and McDonalds Corporation, spent an estimated £10 million on the trial at first instance. They have one the best, and most expensive Barristers in the country, Mr. Rampton QC. It is not my personal beliefe that any be denied justice by having such a representative, but it is my opinion that it is grossly unfair that a country that purports to allow free speech will not defend a persons right to this by offering legal aid in the cases where the large companies have tried threats of libel action. The libel laws of England are particularly difficult. Every single word of the leaflet had to be proved. That is rather difficult, as it was a rather large leaflet.
It is good that a company can defend itself, but what does a company such as McDonalds (with an annual advertising budget of $2 billion)have to fear from such a small group? Indeed what do they fear from the public debate fo their company?
I would respectfully refer the letter writer to the notice of appeal that is posted on this website.
ALSO, before he thinks that I am a campaigner who does nothing but sit and watch law cases all day, I am actually a law student at KINGS COLLEGE, LONDON, (which happens to be the countries best law school.) Whilst watching this very interesting case last week, I was also sitting important law examinations.
