Heads up - "McLibel" documentary

[P]

Some years ago, an independent UK production company made a documentary
about the longest libel case in British legal history.

The so-called "McLibel" case made headlines internationally in the late
1990s after two London Greenpeace activists, very vocal and literate
campaigners against McDonald's, were taken to court by McDonald's for their
part in the publication and distribution of an anti-McDonald's leaflet
titled "What's Wrong With McDonald's". Rather than do what others before
them had done - give into pressure and apologise thus avoiding legal
proceedings - they figured they had nothing to lose and allowed McDonald's
to sue them in the hope that this would provide an unprecedented look into
McDonald's operations, which it most certainly did to a breathtaking extent.

After approximately a year of court proceedings (untold sums being thrown at
the case by McDonald's for the best available legal team and to fly in the
best expert witnesses, compared to the meagre fundraising which the
campaigners had to resort to since it was a libel case and under British law
they were ineligible for legal aid), McDonald's only managed to defend
themselves on four of the seven main complaints. A real David and Goliath
story.

The original documentary told the story up to and slightly beyond the end of
the court case. Tonight, SBS in Australia screens the follow-up
documentary, "McLibel!", which brings us right up to date with the effect of
the case not only for the public but for Helen Steel and Dave Morris who
must be heartily sick of the whole McLibel thing by now.

Not to be missed television - "McLibel" (listed as "Cutting Edge"), SBS at
8.30pm tonight 21/6/05.

Apparently there is also now a double DVD containing both documentaries and
about 4 hours of extras. Details at http://www.spannerfilms.net/?lid=1316

[David Hardie]

Thanks for posting that.

D.

In article <6jJte.24579$F7.6155@news-server.bigpond.net.au>, "P"
<peteTAKETHISOUT3194@msn.com> wrote:

>Some years ago, an independent UK production company made a documentary
>about the longest libel case in British legal history.
>
>The so-called "McLibel" case made headlines internationally in the late
>1990s after two London Greenpeace activists, very vocal and literate
>campaigners against McDonald's, were taken to court by McDonald's for their
>part in the publication and distribution of an anti-McDonald's leaflet
>titled "What's Wrong With McDonald's". Rather than do what others before
>them had done - give into pressure and apologise thus avoiding legal
>proceedings - they figured they had nothing to lose and allowed McDonald's
>to sue them in the hope that this would provide an unprecedented look into
>McDonald's operations, which it most certainly did to a breathtaking extent.
>
>After approximately a year of court proceedings (untold sums being thrown at
>the case by McDonald's for the best available legal team and to fly in the
>best expert witnesses, compared to the meagre fundraising which the
>campaigners had to resort to since it was a libel case and under British law
>they were ineligible for legal aid), McDonald's only managed to defend
>themselves on four of the seven main complaints. A real David and Goliath
>story.
>
>The original documentary told the story up to and slightly beyond the end of
>the court case. Tonight, SBS in Australia screens the follow-up
>documentary, "McLibel!", which brings us right up to date with the effect of
>the case not only for the public but for Helen Steel and Dave Morris who
>must be heartily sick of the whole McLibel thing by now.
>
>Not to be missed television - "McLibel" (listed as "Cutting Edge"), SBS at
>8.30pm tonight 21/6/05.
>
>Apparently there is also now a double DVD containing both documentaries and
>about 4 hours of extras. Details at http://www.spannerfilms.net/?lid=1316

[richard20_bris@hotmail.com]

I read this case while doing first year Law. These people made lots of
"elaborate" and "shocking" claims against McDonalds, but they had
virtually no evidence with which to back them up.

>From memory the only things they COULD prove was that McDonalds
targeted children with their advertising (surprise, surprise) and that
McDonalds food was rather unhealthy in general. All that crap about
McDonalds destroying the rainforests and forcing native people off
their lands and contributing to the Greenhouse effect was sheer
poppycock. But I'm sure that it "felt right" for them. I mean,
McDonalds is AMERICAN and is SUCCESSFUL - so there must be some kind of
dark, evil story behind it all, right?

Anyhow, McDonalds won, and rightly so. These people weren't any better
at proving what they claimed was true than those conspiracy theory
nutters who say that the moon landings were faked, or that Bush flew
remote-controlled planes into the WTC and the Pentagon on September 11.

[John]

<richard20_bris@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119328432.926545.60100@g49g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>I read this case while doing first year Law. These people made lots of
> "elaborate" and "shocking" claims against McDonalds, but they had
> virtually no evidence with which to back them up.
>
>>From memory the only things they COULD prove was that McDonalds
> targeted children with their advertising (surprise, surprise) and that
> McDonalds food was rather unhealthy in general. All that crap about
> McDonalds destroying the rainforests and forcing native people off
> their lands and contributing to the Greenhouse effect was sheer
> poppycock. But I'm sure that it "felt right" for them.

The also succeeded with the claim that McDonalds used animal products from
animals kept and slaughtered cruelly.

[mrb]

John wrote:> >I read this case while doing first year Law. These people
made lots of
> > "elaborate" and "shocking" claims against McDonalds, but they had
> > virtually no evidence with which to back them up.
> >
> >>From memory the only things they COULD prove was that McDonalds
> > targeted children with their advertising (surprise, surprise) and that
> > McDonalds food was rather unhealthy in general. All that crap about
> > McDonalds destroying the rainforests and forcing native people off
> > their lands and contributing to the Greenhouse effect was sheer
> > poppycock. But I'm sure that it "felt right" for them.
>
> The also succeeded with the claim that McDonalds used animal products from
> animals kept and slaughtered cruelly.

>From the mcspotlight website:

The verdict was devastating for McDonald's. The judge ruled that they
'exploit children' with their advertising, produce 'misleading'
advertising, are 'culpably responsible' for cruelty to animals, are
'antipathetic' to unionisation and pay their workers low wages. But
Helen and Dave failed to prove all the points and so the Judge ruled
that they HAD libelled McDonald's and should pay 60,000 pounds damages.
They refused and McDonald's knew better than to pursue it. In March
1999 the Court of Appeal made further rulings that it was fair comment
to say that McDonald's employees worldwide "do badly in terms of pay
and conditions", and true that "if one eats enough McDonald's food,
one's diet may well become high in fat etc., with the very real risk of
heart disease."

Richard, I agree, the greenhouse/rainforests claim was over the top.
The rest was pretty spot on. I have the new 2005 McLibel DVD and its
excellent. The extended version of the movie is 85 minutes and SBS's
running time is 60 minutes, so I'm unsure what version you'll see. The
newer version is far superior. If it starts with a Star Wars type
scroll, its the newer version, although they might cut it down to fit
in the 60 minute slot. As a first year law student I would have thought
you would have appreciated 2 people going up against one of the most
powerful corporations in the world and winning on half the issues with
1/100th the resources and money that McDs had. (Later proved to be more
like 3/4 the issues)

I used to enjoy McDonalds occasionally, but after watching this doco
and reading the excellent Fast Food Nation, I'll never eat there again.
Going to the local fish and chip shop for burgers is a far wiser move
ethically. Its amazing when people who dont know the full picture go
into bat for McDonalds. McDonalds is a symbol for all that is wrong in
the corporate world. It's fun watching them squirm and backpeddle after
feeding us McCrap for 40 years and creating an obesity epidemic. If
people didnt speak out, like the heroes of McLibel, do you really think
they'd be working so hard to change their image?

[P]

> Thanks for posting that.

And thank you for expressing your appreciation. I think this is one of the
most important documentaries ever made, and in the interest of the
furtherance of free speech, and pointing out what one or two people can
achieve on a world scale, it should be compulsory viewing. SBS are
particularly brave (McDonald's is one of their advertising clients) and in
screening this documentary and its predecessor (twice) it has gone where
many broadcasters overseas have feared to tread.

As it turned out, this version drew heavily on the 1997 one with about a 10
minute update. Today I ordered the double DVD from Spanner Productions (I
can ill-afford it but I love their work and added a £2 donation in an
attempt to express this). After reading 'mrb''s comments I'm now really
looking forward to seeing the full 85-minute version.

Dave and Helen, the subjects of the documentaries, are absolute heroes. The
story ceased being solely about McDonald's some time ago. The precedent
Dave and Helen have set has the potential to make large corporations
answerable for their questionable practices in British courts of law...
provided future citizens have the same guts as they did to stand up against
the big boys.

[Darkfalz]

> I used to enjoy McDonalds occasionally, but after watching this doco
> and reading the excellent Fast Food Nation, I'll never eat there again.

I don't go there anyway but it has little to do with ethics. I just
don't like going in that kind of place, and if I do have a fast food
craving I usually get it at KFC (who mistreat chickens, I know, and
it's sad, but that's life).

I still only get it now and again (like, every few months), mind you I
still eat a lot of junk, but it's usually pizza or from the supermarket
rather than from Maccas etc. because that's too expensive. Although I
do cook a lot and reasonably healthy, but I still eat too much.

> Going to the local fish and chip shop for burgers is a far wiser move
> ethically. Its amazing when people who dont know the full picture go
> into bat for McDonalds. McDonalds is a symbol for all that is wrong in
> the corporate world. It's fun watching them squirm and backpeddle after
> feeding us McCrap for 40 years and creating an obesity epidemic. If
> people didnt speak out, like the heroes of McLibel, do you really think
> they'd be working so hard to change their image?

It's not really different though. Sure, MacDonalds as WHOLE uses up a
shit load of animals and produces a ton of waste, but one individual
"restauarant" doesn't.

If you stuck together all the fish and chip shops and conunted them as
one, they'd use up a lot of animals and create a lot of waste too. Does
it really make a difference if they are all under one
franchinse/corporation name or not?

The only reason to do it is that it's better to simply support a local
business rather than a big corperation, that's why I always buy fruit
and veg from local grocer and then I buy meat from a butcher and buy my
asian cooking stuff from the asian stores rather than getting
everything from a Coles or Woolies (it's usually much cheaper anyway).

That whole MacDonald's causing obesity and so on is bullshit if you ask
me. Everyone knows the food isn't healthy, and you shouldn't eat it all
the time. Nobody is forcing it on you. And TONS of active people eat it
regularly and aren't overweight (usually when you go in, you'll see
tons of thin people). Obesity has more to do with lack of exercise,
also from overeating but it's because also of sitting around watching
TV or playing computer, naturally you want to eat when you do it, if
you were out doing something active you wouldn't be eating at the time.
Point is, society as a whole is to blame, Maccas hasn't made anyone
fat, people who ate too much of it and other stuff and didn't exercise
made themselves fat.

[Wojo]

<richard20_bris@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1119328432.926545.60100@g49g2000cwa.googlegro ups.com...
>I read this case while doing first year Law. These people made lots of
> "elaborate" and "shocking" claims against McDonalds, but they had
> virtually no evidence with which to back them up.
>
>>From memory the only things they COULD prove was that McDonalds
> targeted children with their advertising (surprise, surprise) and that
> McDonalds food was rather unhealthy in general. All that crap about
> McDonalds destroying the rainforests and forcing native people off
> their lands and contributing to the Greenhouse effect was sheer
> poppycock. But I'm sure that it "felt right" for them. I mean,
> McDonalds is AMERICAN and is SUCCESSFUL - so there must be some kind of
> dark, evil story behind it all, right?
>
> Anyhow, McDonalds won, and rightly so. These people weren't any better
> at proving what they claimed was true than those conspiracy theory
> nutters who say that the moon landings were faked, or that Bush flew
> remote-controlled planes into the WTC and the Pentagon on September 11.
>

Right up P's alley. He can never prove or even back up anything he says
either.

[Mike Burch]

so there must be some kind of
>>dark, evil story behind it all, right?

> Right up P's alley. He can never prove or even back up anything he says
> either.

Wojo, do you think Ronald is a creepy clown? I do but I just can't
prove it. :-)

[Craig Welch]

On 21 Jun 2005 01:02:23 -0700, "mrb" <mrblonde@jc.com.au> wrote:

>McDonalds is a symbol for all that is wrong in
>the corporate world.

Yep, naughty corporations meeting consumer demand, how dare they?

>It's fun watching them squirm and backpeddle after
>feeding us McCrap for 40 years and creating an obesity epidemic.

As opposed to the idiots who *eat* McCrap and get obese? It's their
fault.

--
Craig

[Fish! - of Arcadia.]

In article <77phb1tm1g6m63m8c5sd0no5rh6n6bjtl6@4ax.com>,
craig@pacific.net.sg says...
> On 21 Jun 2005 01:02:23 -0700, "mrb" <mrblonde@jc.com.au> wrote:
>
> >McDonalds is a symbol for all that is wrong in
> >the corporate world.
>
> Yep, naughty corporations meeting consumer demand, how dare they?

Yeah, bring on legalised Heroin, that way they corporations could REALLY
supply what people need.
>
> >It's fun watching them squirm and backpeddle after
> >feeding us McCrap for 40 years and creating an obesity epidemic.
>
> As opposed to the idiots who *eat* McCrap and get obese? It's their
> fault.
>
>

[Craig Welch]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:47:03 +1000, Fish! - of Arcadia.
<tastyfish@fugu.com> wrote:

>Yeah, bring on legalised Heroin, that way they corporations could REALLY
>supply what people need.

You mean what people *want*, not what they *need*.

But if heroin were legal of course corporations would be, and should
be free to supply it. Just as they are free to supply tobacco and
alcohol products.

--
Craig

[Fish! - of Arcadia.]

In article <ddrhb19ktq49vq42f1ugd26a063k5h1b8g@4ax.com>,
craig@pacific.net.sg says...
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:47:03 +1000, Fish! - of Arcadia.
> <tastyfish@fugu.com> wrote:
>
> >Yeah, bring on legalised Heroin, that way they corporations could REALLY
> >supply what people need.
>
> You mean what people *want*, not what they *need*.
>
> But if heroin were legal of course corporations would be, and should
> be free to supply it. Just as they are free to supply tobacco and
> alcohol products.
>
>


And after a while, they will NEED it (heroin)

Unfortunately people may disagree with a corporations right to legally
provide a slow poison to people.

Are you without ethics entirely or only when it comes to a corporation's
need to make money?

I don't think the word 'free' can be applied to a product that can't
legally be sold to anyone under 18.

[cam86]

In article <ddrhb19ktq49vq42f1ugd26a063k5h1b8g@4ax.com>,
craig@pacific.net.sg says...
> On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 14:47:03 +1000, Fish! - of Arcadia.
> <tastyfish@fugu.com> wrote:
>
> >Yeah, bring on legalised Heroin, that way they corporations could REALLY
> >supply what people need.
>
> You mean what people *want*, not what they *need*.
>
> But if heroin were legal of course corporations would be, and should
> be free to supply it. Just as they are free to supply tobacco and
> alcohol products.
>
>


And after a while, they will NEED it (heroin)

Unfortunately people may disagree with a corporations right to legally
provide a slow poison to people.

.

Maccas is only unhealthy when you eat a large amount of it on a regular basis. Like anything, live on fish and chips and you will get sick, live on apples and you will get sick.

You need a mix of different foods for a good diet, having Maccas once a month is fine, no-one is forcing people to eat there once a week or so on.. That means McDonald's isnt doing anything wrong. Simply supplying the public with food.

I only watched a bit of this and the ending... it seemed to be the usual "Theres no room for big corporations, the world would be a better place without them" crap, they also managed to add some usual left-wing rant about their dislike of governments which i though had nothing to do with anything.

[atreus]

Thanks for the heads up. I've been wanting to see this but have always
missed it.


On 2005-06-21 10:37:22 +1000, "P" <peteTAKETHISOUT3194@msn.com> said:

> Some years ago, an independent UK production company made a documentary
> about the longest libel case in British legal history.
>
> The so-called "McLibel" case made headlines internationally in the late
> 1990s after two London Greenpeace activists, very vocal and literate
> campaigners against McDonald's, were taken to court by McDonald's for their
> part in the publication and distribution of an anti-McDonald's leaflet
> titled "What's Wrong With McDonald's". Rather than do what others before
> them had done - give into pressure and apologise thus avoiding legal
> proceedings - they figured they had nothing to lose and allowed McDonald's
> to sue them in the hope that this would provide an unprecedented look into
> McDonald's operations, which it most certainly did to a breathtaking extent.
>
> After approximately a year of court proceedings (untold sums being thrown at
> the case by McDonald's for the best available legal team and to fly in the
> best expert witnesses, compared to the meagre fundraising which the
> campaigners had to resort to since it was a libel case and under British law
> they were ineligible for legal aid), McDonald's only managed to defend
> themselves on four of the seven main complaints. A real David and Goliath
> story.
>
> The original documentary told the story up to and slightly beyond the end of
> the court case. Tonight, SBS in Australia screens the follow-up
> documentary, "McLibel!", which brings us right up to date with the effect of
> the case not only for the public but for Helen Steel and Dave Morris who
> must be heartily sick of the whole McLibel thing by now.
>
> Not to be missed television - "McLibel" (listed as "Cutting Edge"), SBS at
> 8.30pm tonight 21/6/05.
>
> Apparently there is also now a double DVD containing both documentaries and
> about 4 hours of extras. Details at http://www.spannerfilms.net/?lid=1316

[Highlandish]

Quoth The Raven "P"<peteTAKETHISOUT3194@msn.com> in
6jJte.24579$F7.6155@news-server.bigpond.net.au
> Some years ago, an independent UK production company made a
> documentary about the longest libel case in British legal history.
>
> The so-called "McLibel" case made headlines internationally in the
> late 1990s after two London Greenpeace activists, very vocal and
> literate campaigners against McDonald's, were taken to court by
> McDonald's for their part in the publication and distribution of an
> anti-McDonald's leaflet titled "What's Wrong With McDonald's".
> Rather than do what others before them had done - give into pressure
> and apologise thus avoiding legal proceedings - they figured they had
> nothing to lose and allowed McDonald's to sue them in the hope that
> this would provide an unprecedented look into McDonald's operations,
> which it most certainly did to a breathtaking extent.
>
> After approximately a year of court proceedings (untold sums being
> thrown at the case by McDonald's for the best available legal team
> and to fly in the best expert witnesses, compared to the meagre
> fundraising which the campaigners had to resort to since it was a
> libel case and under British law they were ineligible for legal aid),
> McDonald's only managed to defend themselves on four of the seven
> main complaints. A real David and Goliath story.
>
> The original documentary told the story up to and slightly beyond the
> end of the court case. Tonight, SBS in Australia screens the
> follow-up documentary, "McLibel!", which brings us right up to date
> with the effect of the case not only for the public but for Helen
> Steel and Dave Morris who must be heartily sick of the whole McLibel
> thing by now.
>
> Not to be missed television - "McLibel" (listed as "Cutting Edge"),
> SBS at
> 8.30pm tonight 21/6/05.
>
> Apparently there is also now a double DVD containing both
> documentaries and about 4 hours of extras. Details at
> http://www.spannerfilms.net/?lid=1316

fascinating viewing, and sickening, to see the cow still shaking its leg
while hanging upside down on meat hooks nearly turned me vegan, then to see
chooks hanging by their feet and looking around, only to pass through the
head chopper blades.

**** maccas, never again.


--
Stress is that condition created when the mind overrides the body's
basic desire to choke the living s**t out of some arsehole who
desperately needs it.

Take out the _CURSEING to reply to me

[Craig Welch]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 18:08:49 +1000, "Highlandish"
<ckreskay_CURSEING@dodo.com.au> wrote:

>fascinating viewing, and sickening, to see the cow still shaking its leg
>while hanging upside down on meat hooks nearly turned me vegan, then to see
>chooks hanging by their feet and looking around, only to pass through the
>head chopper blades.

Why 'nearly'? You either believe in the principles of vegetarianism
or you don't. I guess you don't.

>**** maccas, never again.

Huh? How does that relate? If you consume meat, it's killed in the
same way when consumed through McDonalds as through you local
hamburger joint, or bought in a nice polystyrene wrap at Woolworths.

--
Craig

[Craig Welch]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 15:44:03 +1000, Fish! - of Arcadia.
<tastyfish@fugu.com> wrote:

>> But if heroin were legal of course corporations would be, and should
>> be free to supply it. Just as they are free to supply tobacco and
>> alcohol products.

>And after a while, they will NEED it (heroin)

Not necessarily. Many people take heroin who aren't addicted to it.

>Unfortunately people may disagree with a corporations right to legally
>provide a slow poison to people.

Of course they do. But my post was based on the predicate 'if heroin
were legal'.

>Are you without ethics entirely or only when it comes to a corporation's
>need to make money?

What problem do you have with my ethics? Please expand on the
veiled, but not properly spelled out criticism.

>I don't think the word 'free' can be applied to a product that can't
>legally be sold to anyone under 18.

The word 'free' can't be applied to a product that is 'sold'.

Are you saying that companies are not free (=able) to sell tobacco
and alcohol to people who are of age?

--
Craig

[Craig Welch]

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 16:13:32 +1000, cam86
<cam86.1r0lgi@no-mx.forums.eyo.com.au> wrote:

>I only watched a bit of this and the ending... it seemed to be the
>usual "Theres no room for big corporations, the world would be a better
>place without them" crap, they also managed to add some usual left-wing
>rant about their dislike of governments which i though had nothing to
>do with anything.

You don't seem to understand the relationship between 'left wing'
and government.

--
Craig

[mrb]

I used to love comfort food, and used to love McDonalds. It was the
only food (along with KFC) that gave a big warm sentimental hug every
time I consumed it. Even the packaging seemed somehow reassuring, not
surprising... they've been marketing to me since I was 3 years old.

When I read about these "evil fast food companies", I went in with a
sceptical mind. Then, the funniest thing happened. The critics seemed
to make valid points, the corporations appeared to have a lot to hide.

So how can I make a difference? I just dont eat at McDonalds, KFC or
Hungry Jacks anymore. Why? I dont want to give companies my money that
A: market unhealthy food to kids
B: work people really hard and pay them low wages
C: arent regionally flavoured and taste the same everywhere
D: use chemicals to create a constant taste and "mouthfeel" to their
food

I'm happy to get flamed for this, but if just 10% of people tried their
local small business restaurant instead, it would hurt the fast food
giants tremendously.

And, from what I've learned, that would not be a bad thing.