> Well well, you lost everything bar two counts, Mcdonalds workers were
> low paid (wow! What a revelation!) and that they are, indirectly
> responsible for some of the cruelty towards animals. All the other
> allegations were trashed as lies.
Not forgetting the exploitation of children :)
The other allegations were not *trashed as lies* - it was unlikely that the judge would uphold those issues - that would mean McDonalds were *solely* responsible for them, which is not the case is it?
> 60k damages, which Mcdonalds indicated months ago they weren't
> interested in collecting.
And bad publicity. How much is that gonna cost? Of course McDonalds aren't interested in collecting the 60,000 quid - they have 10 million quid of legal costs to pay!
> Two clowns in a punch-up with another clown over an issue no one
> really cares about. Fascinating!
Oh right, so 14.5 million hits to this web site doesn't count? Being on the main news matters not a jot? People do care about this issue - it's about free speech more than anything else, I think.
I'm off to McDonalds now to see how many people are hassling them - now that they can slag them off for certain issues without fear of reprisal :)