alexander replies a bit more to Kilroy....oh yes, i forgot the most important point!
Kilroy says...
"I think it is fairly easy to tell when exploitation of children is occuring and when it is not"
This is the whole crux of the issue! It is NOT easy to tell, simply because you cant define what this means in a manner that allows an objective appraisal of whether exploitation is occuring or not. When i go to McD's (which i must say is not often because i dont really like their food these days (now there's an irony)), i see teenagers who have been trained to do a fine job. I see people who have learned skills that will likely be useful for them in life eg how to be polite, how to be organised, how to provide an agreeable servie to other people. Kilroy may not value these things. Or he may just think that the pay rates still dont compensate enough even with the intangible benefits. He plainly sees the whole thing differently to me, though i doubt he spends much time in McD's!
Is it exploitation? It is certainly easy for Kilroy to tell, and it is equally easy for me to tell, but all that yields is two personal opinion. Curiously enough, they are not the same opinoin. It is not easy, in fact not possible, to tell if it is exploitation in ALL peoples view.
My original point was simply that the pamphlet allegations which the trial judge found to be true, and therefore not libellous, all fell into this category. Well, in my opinion anyway.
