- McLibel -

the allegations regarding McDonalds and rainforests.

Posted by: alexander stollznow ( australia ) on June 12, 1999 at 12:50:11:

In Reply to: Doesn't this remind you of the tobacco companies? posted by Dee on June 29, 1996 at 10:31:13:

there is no similarity here between tobacco companies and the allegations regarding McDonalds and rainforests. You have only to read the judgement to see that there was simply no evidence to support the claims in the pamphlet. If the entire anti McDonalds movement does not have any evidence to support these claims - certainly there was nothing specific in the trial - it is time to drop the issue.

McSpotlight: No evidence?! Don't the court statements of sixteen expert witnesses count as evidence?

(Note; the McLibel Support Campaign weren't able to produce half the witnesses in court on this subject that they would have liked to; they simply couldn't afford to fly the witnesses over to London for the trial.)

Oh; if you read the Judgement; you'll find that the claim was ruled "unproven" (not "false") because the areas McDonald's was implicated in destroying didn't get enough rain to be called "rainforest"; the correct term was "dry tropical forest"; which is splitting hairs to all but the most legalistic of minds.

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup