: : If you feel so strongly about Nestle why don't you do something about them yourself?
: But I do! and have been for many years, but what I *personally* do
: is not the issue here. The issue is one of priorities.
What you personally do is of interest when you're so busy slagging off other people. I have campaigned against Nestle and I've also campaigned against McDonald's. I actually find it hard to believe that you've campaigned against Nestle when you have such ignorance of other issues which affect the lives and fate of people on this planet and are so disparaging of those fighting other battles. Go on, tell us what you're involved with.
: > Perhaps if you research and write a more detailed section on the
: >company, McSpotlight will be happy to put it on site.
: But they don't need me to do that, there's already a ton of stuff on
: the net, however you were all too busy chasing the corporate clown.
You seem remarkably reluctant to help them publicise this information which you say is readily accessible and very important. If they're busy on fighting McDonald's and you don't feel that's an important issue, is that any reason for you not to pass on info re Nestle? Do you feel Nestle is an important issue or not? I think if you were genuine you'd do all you could to share the information, not act in such an arrogant and dismissive way.
: : Why criticise others for what they are doing.
: Because, when you engage in a paper tiger hunt like this, other -
: possibly more worthwhile campaigns - suffer. To take a cynical view,
: if the amount of time and effort poured into this non-issue were
: turned instead on Nestle, how many 3rd World childrens' lives could
: have been saved? How many children did the McLibel campaign leave to
Your argument is idiotic and totally insulting. The fault of dying children lies not with the McLibel campaign but with Nestle and other companies like them. They are the ones carrying out the deeds that kill. Not McLibel. Why let them off the hook. Are you some kind of apologist for their actions.
Ahh, poor Nestle, it's not really their fault, they wouldn't have done it if McLibel had stopped them. GET REAL.
People campaign on issues they feel strongly about, and are drawn to campaigns which are positive and suggest a way forward, that's why McLibel has been such a success. People are worried about the rise of junk food, damage to the environment, manipulation of their children through advertising, cruelty to animals, low paid crappy jobs etc. And they see an active campaign which is going a long way to getting these issues aired and fighting for change.
The Nestle campaign could and should be successful too, but it won't be easy with people like you around. Who is going to be attracted to a campaign where instead of criticising and challenging those in power who are causing the damage, the campaigners criticise other campaigners. If you are sincere why don't you step back and think about what you're doing, and how you will deter people from getting involved if you carry on the way you do. If you're not sincere why don't you p*** off, and leave other people to get on with the fight for a more just world.
I'm sure the people who run the campaign against Nestle don't share your views and would probably prefer to do with out your kind of 'help'. In fact I seem to remember when I read 'McLibel' the book, that the McLibel campaign and Nestle did a picket together against some corporate conference. So the Nestle campaign seems well to understand the relevance of McLibel.
: I said in my opening article that I considered this as a trivial and
: unimportant issue on the world scale. I still believe it is. You lost
: and now you are wasting yet more time engaging in 'spin-doctoring'
: trying to turn defeat into victory. Forget it, it's gone. A campaign
: against a burger company or one against a company which kills children?
: There's no contest, the McLibel issue pales into insignificance when
: compared with real world issues of today and is just an unneccessary
: distraction. If you want to pursue corporate giant, pursue one which
: does real damage, not one who's main crime appears to have been to
: sell crap food and been the subject of a rumour campaign.
If you don't want to recognise the damage that McDonald's does to society and to animals and the environment that's up to you. But don't forget that the judge actually found a large number of the complaints made in the leaflets to be true. So much for a rumour campaign. And it seems on reading the judgement that the parts he found against the defendants it was mainly because of semantic arguments about the exact meanings of words like 'rainforest'. If they're causing destruction of ANY forest its a problem that needs to be tackled. Especially in countries like Brazil where large numbers of indigenous people still live in forests, so when forests are destroyed so are their lives and communities. Are you really so callous that you think that doesn't matter?