- McSpotlight -

So you agree McD causes

Posted by: Siamak ( UK ) on September 15, 1997 at 13:57:25:

In Reply to: Maybe you just don't want anyone critisizing St. Helen posted by Ms. anon on September 13, 1997 at 22:56:10:

: No mate, that is not what is bothering me about Helen Steele. I feel, as I have already stated that the alcohol industry is one that has caused more suffering that McDonalds.

So you do believe that McD has caused "some" suffering. Good, at least we agree on something!

You should know that nobody here criticises individual crew members for working at McD whether they agree or disagree with the company policies. I myself worked for the company dispite opposing everything it stands for. If working in a pub makes Helen a hypocrite, then believe me, most of us who have to work for a living are hypocrites. The capitalist market limits our choice of work to such an extent that we have to take on what job is available rather than jobs we prefer to do. Perhaps you don't know this because you are one of those lucky ones who is satisfied and completely happy with what you do. But put yourself in a capitalist job market and let's see how long you will last before you have to take on jobs you don't like or are unhappy with. And then you may stop using the term hypocrite as easily as you do now.

:Ronald McDonald didn't put her in the spotlight, she did.

You either don't know the whole McLibel history or have a selective memory. What Helen was doing along with many others was to criticise the operation of a multinational company. That is all. I hope you agree she had every right to do that. Now McD did not like this for obvious reasons. So it threatened Helen and others with court action. She was not intimidated. McD sent spies to gather evidence. The spies cocked up. They caused criminal damage. They handed out anti-McD leaflets to prove their commitment to London Greenpeace (presumably you agree this WAS a hypocritical thing to do). They could not find strong evidence that Helen was involved in anti-McD campaign directly. Nevertheless McD sued. Then later realising their case was not strong enough McD tried to drop it and settle out of court. Helen and Dave did not accept their terms and the case continued. And we all more or less know the rest. Perhaps after this crash course in the history of the case you will agree it was McD which blew the whole thing out of proportion trying to strangle their critiques.

: Maybe you just don't want anyone critisizing St. Helen.

Nice one for a provocative statement. But as far as I and many others are concerned, it is not Helen herself but rather what she represents that is important. And if you truely believed in independent thinking you would understand why Helen and Dave did what they did. But I don't expect you either understand or agree with this point.

:I probably use a poor choice of words when I said "fair game". I was just pointing out the fact that she put herself in the news and opened herself up to criticism. Of course, you don't think she was responsible for this.

No it's not that I don't think, I know she was not responsible for it. She was defending her natural rights to hold some beliefs and express them. Are you saying she should not have stood up to McD if she did not want to be in the news? Hope you don't teach your kids to deal with bullies in this way!

Follow Ups:


The Debating Room Post a Followup