There is a God...

[Mr T.]

The 'Mc-Libel Two' have just won their case for being denied their human rights - they were not given access to legal aid when sued by the Mickey D's.

[Pigpen]

Originally Posted by Mr T.

The 'Mc-Libel Two' have just won their case for being denied their human rights - they were not given access to legal aid when sued by the Mickey D's.

I don't suppose the judge has ordered that McDonalds stop peddling the cr*p they call food?

[colinpjenkins2]

What you mean is O my GOD us poor tax payers have to pay more money out to line the pockets of the legal aid money grabbers.

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by colinpjenkins2

What you mean is O my GOD us poor tax payers have to pay more money out to line the pockets of the legal aid money grabbers.

£24K - the amount the Appeals Court awarded them - might seem a lot taken in isolation, but when you then see that the lawyers in the Blood Sunday Public Enquiry have been paid over £80m, I think we can stand these two getting what is pocket-change in the grand scheme of things.

I might also add that they funded themselves throughout the whole onslaught of what the McD corporation and its faithless 'retainers' and massed and monied ranks could throw at them.

One up for the little man. Good on 'em.

[colinpjenkins2]

It not so much what they have got, its now that this has been awarded all future case's may well get legal aid. This case cost Mc'd over £10mil. Now I dont eat Mcd or buy them for my grandkid's so have no liking for them but if legal aid had been granted then it would have cost the tax payers at least that much as well.

[MATTBIN]

Originally Posted by colinpjenkins2

It not so much what they have got, its now that this has been awarded all future case's may well get legal aid. This case cost Mc'd over £10mil. Now I dont eat Mcd or buy them for my grandkid's so have no liking for them but if legal aid had been granted then it would have cost the tax payers at least that much as well.

A few more cases and presumably McD's could fold?

Matt

[Mr T.]

Originally Posted by colinpjenkins2

It not so much what they have got, its now that this has been awarded all future case's may well get legal aid. This case cost Mc'd over £10mil. Now I dont eat Mcd or buy them for my grandkid's so have no liking for them but if legal aid had been granted then it would have cost the tax payers at least that much as well.

Colin mate, I can see your point, but now it looks like the law might be changed - and no bad thing - to allow anyone who can't gather the considerable funds required to 'get Carmen' (or someone of his ilk) to seek defence or redress in court as often the only thing preventing the defence of a libel case is the threat of some behemoth (a la McD's) offering to spank the little guy with their massive wealth.

And, in the light of films like 'Super-size Me', it rather looks like the 'Mc-Libel Two' very much had a worthwhile case in publicising what they see as the dangers/concerns of a monied organisation punting what it likes without consequence.

[Spacehopper]

Bren, what's this one all about? I missed the original story.

[Pigpen]

Originally Posted by Spacehopper

Bren, what's this one all about? I missed the original story.

Nicked from BBC web site:-
'McLibel' pair win legal aid case

The pair's libel trial with McDonald's lasted 314 days
Two environmental campaigners should have been awarded legal aid in their long-running fight against a McDonald's libel action, a court has found.
The European Court of Human Rights said the lack of such aid effectively denied the pair the right to a fair trial.

Helen Steel and David Morris, from north London, were dubbed the "McLibel Two" in a 1990s trial, which found them guilty of libelling the company.

The pair had been handing out leaflets called "What's Wrong with McDonald's".



The Strasbourg court's verdict is the end of a subsequent courtroom fight in which the activists accused the UK Government of breaching their human rights.

It ruled they did not receive a fair trial as guaranteed under the Human Rights Convention, to which the UK is a signatory, and that their freedom of expression was violated by the 1997 judgment.

The pair had argued the UK's libel laws, which did not allow them legal aid, denied them freedom of speech.

The legal wrangle - the longest civil or criminal action in English legal history - was triggered when McDonald's decided to act against former gardener Helen Steel, 39, and former postman David Morris, 50.

Libellous leaflets

The leaflets they handed out, containing damaging allegations about McDonald's, were compiled by London Greenpeace - which is not linked to the Greenpeace International environmental group.

Neither Ms Steel nor Mr Morris had any hand in writing the leaflets, but became embroiled in a libel action launched in 1990 and which ended only in 1997 - with a total of 314 days spent in court.

We believe there's an alternative where people and communities have control over decision-making and resources

David Morris


Longest case in UK history

High Court judge Mr Justice Bell ruled McDonald's had been libelled and awarded the company £60,000 in damages, which was later reduced to £40,000 on appeal.

But he found the leaflet was true when it accused McDonald's of paying low wages to its workers, being responsible for cruelty to some of the animals used in its food products and exploiting children in advertising campaigns.

The case is thought to have cost the fast food giant £10m and was described as "the biggest corporate PR disaster in history".

'Huge power'

In the Human Rights court case, Ms Steel and Mr Morris, both from Tottenham, north London, argued that the government breached their human rights by failing to make legal aid available and because the libel laws obliged them to justify every word of anti-McDonald's allegations contained in the leaflets they distributed.

Their legal team said multinational companies should not be allowed to sue for libel because they wield huge power over people's lives and the environment and therefore should be open to scrutiny and criticism.

But government lawyers argued that campaigners for social justice are subject to the same laws of libel as anyone else, even when wealthy multinational corporations are their targets.

Reacting to Tuesday's decision, a spokesman for the Department of Constitutional Affairs said: "We are studying the judgement very carefully."

Law change?

Celebrating the decision outside a London McDonald's, Mr Morris said they had won "both points hands down".

"We believe in people power and we believe people should make the decisions themselves in their own communities," he said.

"It encourages to people to speak up in their own interests."

Ms Steel described the 15-year case as a "complete nightmare" but said it had been good to fight it.

"Hopefully the government will be forced to change the law and that will mean greater freedom of speech," she said.

David Morris earlier said the pair had already won in principle: "There's growing public concern and debate about the activities of the fast food industry and multinational corporations in general," he said.

"We feel completely vindicated by our stance.

"We can see the effects of not just what McDonald's are doing but what all multinationals are doing to our planet."

[Finless]

Originally Posted by Geoff Milne

I don't suppose the judge has ordered that McDonalds stop peddling the cr*p they call food?

Mmmmmmm McD-licious ¼ pounder .

.