McLibel case

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by semper, Feb 15, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. i think McDonald have shot themselves in the foot over this, the pair did not even write the materials to start with and it is big PR disaster for the corporation as it brought negative publicity.
    had they just ignored the leafleters , the spotlight would never have been brought onto alleged questionable practices by McDonalds think this case has actually brought into focus big multinational corporations business practices and globalisation.
  2. I think mcdonalds should get some mafia types to kill these two santimonoues twats . They went to court they lost pay up and shut up
  3. How does being unable to employ expensive lawyers equate to losing your human rights?
  4. So let me get this right, get found guilty, get fined, appeal,
    get fine reduced, claim because you had to pay for lawyer your rights were abused, get off, pay nothing.
    Seems about right for this day and age.
    No doubt the worry caused by the trial meant they haven't slept peacefully for years and therefore some money as a recompense will be required. Honestly why don't I just put my bank details on the web and let anyone take it direct (no of course you don't have to be British, think of it as a travel loan to get you here), it's got to save more time than going through the chancellor.
  5. forget about the cost and all the money bullshit for one minute.

    the reason i posted this is that McDonald over reacted about them and lauched a dubious case, considering neither of them have written the leaflets, all they did was distribute it.
  6. Which under our defamation law makes them guilty as charged.
  7. i seem to remember McD's suing a small family business for using their copyrighted name! this small business was owned and run
    by a family called McDonald!

    Now i wonder who had the name longest? and how can anyone get a name copyrighted?
  8. So, you have someting to say (let's suppose for a minute that it's completely true and something the public should be made aware of...). Perhaps "BB is the biggest fcuk-up to ever walk the planet. No-one should have anything to do with her"*

    Now, you are a poor working Squaddie oh Humble means and simple lifestyle, while said BB is an all powerful multinational. If you choose to pass on the information you have, BB is going to drag you into court using the best lawyers her vast resources can hire. You, on the other hand, will have to risk everything you earn to pay for whoever you can afford.... and 314 days in court is gonna cost a bundle, WHOEVER you hire.

    The very fact that the case took that long suggests that the "libel" was not as cut & dried as it sounds so was probably promulgated by them with genuine intentions.

    So, there is your "freedom of expression" issue... should you be prevented from passing on information that you genuinely believe to be in the public interest because the people it affects will nail you to the floor?

    And as for the fair trial.... bear in mind that they had NOT committed libel until our courts had ruled that they had, how can it be fair that you have to defend yourself in such a one-sided contest? And what of the next time when it's something that REALLY matters but is never said because of the risk involved?

    OK, so these two may have been campaigning for something you don't agree with but, as long as they've taken reasonable measures to check their facts then they should get a fair hearing on a level field.

    As for McDonalds, totally agree with Semper - what a bunch of prats. Maybe in Amarica, where this sort of thing is commonplace & no-one takes notice, but Big Guy sues Tiny Guy in the UK over something so trivial? bad skills guys :?

    * any characters portrayed in this Scenario are entirely fictitious and any resemblance to any person living, dead or deserve-to-be is purely coincidental
  9. they got a fair trial they lost .So pay up they libelled a corporation
    they did get a chance to aplogise but wanted their day in court .
    a pox on both their houses :roll:
  10. Unless it's a more recent incident you are referring to, I think it may have been the original founders who sold their hamburger business to Ray Kroc, then tried to start a new business using their own name , Mcdonald,(or they kept their original store and wanted to keep the name mcdonald's) and were sued by Mcdonals's for it!
  11. Mr_Fingerz

    Mr_Fingerz LE Book Reviewer

    The whole point is that the European Court has ruled that they didn't get a fair trial. By not allowing them Legal Aid they could not be adequately represented in court, which might have been a determining factor as to why they lost.
  12. Mcdonalds orginally sent the letter to try and threaten them.
    thats how Bullys work thats how Maxwell stayed out of jail so long and aikten etc(':evil:').
    trouble was these two soap dodgers called there bluff (':lol:').
    if MCds had a brain cell they'd have forgotton about it .
    Mcds did'nt win a total victory a lot of points were proven and they were embarssing points at thajavascript:emoticon(':twisted:')
    Twisted Evilt. Thats why they don't shout about there victory much.
    pretty galling really team of expensive lawyers against two hippys and all you can manage is a victory on points now if the hippys had had some decent legal advice MCds might have ended up paying them (':twisted:')
    mind you result mcds look like bully millions have read the leaflets.
    Supersize me got made mind you quite effective Spam bashing j(':twisted:')
  13. They certainly did not have equality of arms - two more or less unemployed people against a multinational like MacDonalds? Whatever you may think of Europe if you were arrested and taken to court you should be thankful we have the system we have.

    "Article 6 – Right to a fair trial
    1 In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
    Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
    Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
    to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
    to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
    to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
    to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
    to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court. "