If they are so convinced that they are right and the rest of society has got it wrong, and are prepared to go to court to say so, why is it they expect people to listen to vague arguments, non-definitive testimony that only goes to prove that we should believe the defendents because and only because they say they are right.
If they have no solid facts, then the rest of siciety will treat them with contempt, afraid that they will be their next victims.
What Dave and Helen are doing is akin to stalking. And they want it legalising?
McSpotlight: Do you have any specific point to refer to with your claims, or are you just being "vague" and "non-definitive" with your accusations?
For your information, the entire court transcripts are located on this site, as are references to the original sources for the leaflets; sources like the UN World Health Organization, Friends of the Earth, the UK government and McDonald's themselves.
You can find a referenced version of the leaflet which has all the sources listed at this location.
If we're throwing around accusations of stalking, let's not forget that it was McDonald's who hired a number of private eyes to infiltrate London Greenpeace and find out where Helen and Dave lived and that it was McDonald's who were responsible for the London Greenpeace office being burgled and that it was a McDonald's employed private eye who had an affair with one of the original five defendants (not Helen or Dave). If that's not stalking, what is?
McSpotlight has solid facts in abundance; look around. If, however, you want vague statements, try this one from our Great McQuotes page:
When asked to define 'junk food', Professor Wheelock (McDonald's consultant on nutrition) said it was 'whatever a person doesn't like' (in his case semolina).