If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
McLibel... the story continues
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Comments
Instead they managed to publicise the fact they exploit children and are cruel to animals to half the UK...
Congratulations to the two defendants on this court victory.
And fuck McShite.
Legal aid has been cut to such an extent that only the very poorest people have access to civil legal aid, yet the ECHR decrees that these two lying cunts should have been entitled to millions of pounds of aid.
Screw the people who DIDN'T fabricate things, lets pour money down the shithole so two pieces of rectal cancer can sue/be sued by a large piece of rectal cancer.
McDonald's should have screwed them into the ground when they had the chance.
Last time I check, McDonalds was an exploitative, anti-union, low-paying, animal abusing scumbag corporation offering the most atrocious and unhealthy so-called food available anywhere.
It must have been a different McDonalds to the one you visit
I detest McDonald's business practices, don't get me wrong; I just happen to detest those two pieces of lyinhg filth even more. McDonald's mistake, as I said, was not screwing them into the ground like the flies that they are.
What angers me more than anything is how the LSC won't give money out to anyone any more for civil cases, yet these two liars think that they somehow deserve the money to defend their provenm fabrications. These two people seem to think that their lies are more important than the women losing their homes because they cannot afford legal advice to gain fair divorce and child custody settlements; these two people think that their lies are more important than the poor who cannot afford to defend their names against the lies of newspapers; these two people think that their lies are more important than the people who lose their jobs and cannot afford to bring legal action to get compensation.
The LSC is filth to the core (which is why no lawyer with any sense does legal aid work anymore: just the six months waiting to be paid), but that doesn't mean that these two liars of Max Clifford standards should have been entitled to one single penny to defend their proven fabrications.
I agree, yet its shocking to think some people actually say this and then defend a muslims right to eat halal meat, which is the most vile and cruel way to kill an animal possible. Bastards. :mad:
Macdonalds asked for 80,000-120,000 pounds, but were awarded 57,500
The judge was also quite conservative - he said that "eating a macdonalds is bad for you" was defamatory, and they should have said "regularly eating more than one macdonalds a week is bad for you" which he wouldn't have found defamatory
- pretty much describes "bad conditions of work" to me
Why do you keep calling them liars? They didn't lie about anything. As a matter of fact the Court agreed with most of what they said (but couldn't prove all the allegations made without doubt).
McDonalds ARE an explotiative, low-paying, environment and animal welfare unfriendly, anti-union, shit food-serving corporation. Which is exactly what those two accused them of being.
More cruel than foie gras or trapping?
Doesn't matter in a libel case, unless I am much mistaken. Given that damages were awarded against the two I suspect that I may be right...
The origins of halal slaughter were actually to minimise the suffering iirc.
Erm, libel is the publishing/distribution of lies...
What I have against these people is not what they say; they are right to criticise McDonald's business practises. What I have against these people is that they seem to think that their lies (proven in court, I do believe you'll find, though not everything they said was fabricated) are actually deserving of the millions of pounds of legal aid that it would have cost to support them, and that they are actually deserving of the huge damages awarded towards them by the ECHR.
Instead of that money going to help the poor get civil legal advice in divorce, housing/tenancy and employment matters, that money is going to two people who have been found guilty of lying. Now excuse me if I don't think that two morons saying "McDonald's is bad, mmkay!" is worth more than a single mother's right to keep her house and her children.
I just disagree so much with what the "McLibel Two" have done, and how little they seem to care about anyone other than their own little crusade.
short answer: no it doesn't. It means they were found guilty of pulishing defamatory material which they were unable to show was true.
long answer:
I beleive you are wrong on at least two counts.
1) Lying is an intent to deceive
If a "flat earther" said the world was a globe, they would be lying - despite their words being true
If a child tells you Santa Claus Brought them a bicycle for Christmas they would (on balance of probability) be telling the truth - despite their words being untrue.
Unlike McDonalds, your assertion that she was lying is not covered by the special provisons of "qualified privilege"
2) Libel and lying are not tightly linked.
If I were to publish a document claiming you were the most handsome person I had ever met, I would be lying. I could not be found guilty of libel as my lie was not defamatory.
If I knew that you regulary fantasised about having sex with sheep, and published a leaflet, I would be telling the truth, yet I would be found guilty of libel, as I would not be able to show that my statement was (on balance of probabilities) true.
-- in short, libel is the act of publishing defamatory material. Being able to show the truth of a claim is a defence, but being found guilty does not mean the claim is untrue
not entirely true actually
RESIST!!!!
I don't know how you formed that impression. Helen Steel and Dave Morris are committed political activists who campaign on all sorts of issues. Maybe you should try and find out a little bit about it before spouting crap?
Erm, and wasn't this leaflet deceptive then, or was it wholly accurate? Didn't it portray McD in a bad light?
Oh, and intent is irrelevant. A lie is an untruth whether you know it to be or not.
Saying what you believe is telling the truth.
Which claim is wrong?
No it isn't.
It's saying what you believe to be the truth.
I believe that you are a wanker. I cannot prove it, and I may be wrong. If I said you are a wanker then I may have libelled you.
If you state something as if it is fact then you have a duty to substantiate it when challenged.
But, I *am* a wanker.......