Listen, the idiots complaining about their stupid McMatch and Win coupons ought to be SHOT. They are just a bunch of cheapskates with nothing better to do than try and scam a big corporation. My own brother found last year's coupons in his drawer - he just wasn't cheap enough to try and win something illegally. That fat bitch whingeing about the fact that her kids couldn't go to Disneyland deserves a slap across the face - how many kids do YOU know who have been to Disneyland? She should just shut up and stuff some more fries down her throat. As a law student, I've studied this case in great detail, and know the only possible finding is for McDonald's - those moronic cheapskates don't have a legal leg to stand on. You are nothing but a pathetic result of the media's attempt to brainwash the halfwit masses.
McSpotlight: Some law student; to make up their mind without any reference to the evidence or arguments in question...
And let's restate this; Justice Rodger Bell found in court that McDonald's UK mislead the public by deceptive advertising, exploit their workers, are culpably responsible for cruelty to animals and that they exploit children's lack of critical faculties; and thus exploit their parents through "pester power". See some key quotes from the judgement.
McDonald's accepted these findings as true.
In addition to this, Lord Justices Pill, May and Keane found that;
"it was fair comment to say that McDonald's employees worldwide 'do
badly in terms of pay and conditions' [Appeal Judgment p247]"
"...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.' The Lord Justices went on to state that this last finding 'must have a serious effect on their trading reputation since it goes to the very business in which they are engaged. In our judgment, it must have a greater impact on the respondents' [McDonald's] reputation than any other of the charges that the trial judge had found to be true'. [Judgment p264]"
McDonald's have not appealed against that finding either.
Are you saying that without looking at any of the evidence's 30,000+ pages, you can overrule the considered verdict of four judges with combined experience totalling over 100 years in the law courts?
Or are you just allowing your personal feelings to show here?