Issue # 1

| McLibel | Bouncer Brutality | Events Review | Other Issues |

The continuous battle between McDonalds and environmentalists came to a head in 1990, when McDonalds sued Helen Steel and Dave Morris, two unemployed members of London Greenpeace for putting out a leaflet entitled ‘What’s Wrong With McDonalds....Everything They Don’t Want You to Know’. The Mclibel Trial as it’s called became the longest trial of any kind in British history last November, the verdict is due in Spring sometime. Dan Mills from the Mclibel Support Campaign spoke to Tina about the case.
 

How do you think the Mclibel verdict will go ?
Who knows how the verdict is gonna go. It’s all down to one judge and in fact he’s going to be deciding on lots of issues separately. So probably the most likely scenario is that he’ll decide some points in our favour and some in McDonalds favour. But the way we see it is that we’ve already won because McDonalds motive in bringing the trial was to stop the distribution of the ‘What’s Wrong With McDonalds’ leaflets and they’ve singly failed to do that, because the leaflets in fact are getting circulated in every greater numbers.

So it’s a moral victory for the Mclibel Two as well as the support campaign in general ?
Yes, that’s right. McDonalds when they brought the case were trying to intimidate their critics into silence and in fact this was a tactic that they’ve used very successfully many times in the past. But with this case it completely backfired for them, because when Helen and David decided to fight the case it really turned the tables on McDonalds and when it came to the trial it was actually McDonalds that was on trial. It was their operations that were being examined in minute detail. So they found it a very uncomfortable and embarrassing experience.

Would you agree that their glossy consumer image has been tarnished in the eyes of the public ?
Very much so. Their dirty laundry has been aired in public well and truly. All the criticisms they wanted to brush under the carpet have come very much more out into the open as, through the publicity the trial has received. have been People outraged by this attempt by them to silence their critics and have decided and determined that they will carry on handing out leaflets. More people have come along and joined in with that. So altogether over 2 million of the ‘What’s Wrong With McDonalds’ leaflets have been handed out on the streets since the writs were served on the McLibel two.

What sort of reaction has there been from the public from the support campaign ?
We’ve had a tremendous amount of support. Altogether the funding from the defence has come from ordinary members of the public and we’ve had a tremendous response with appeals for funds. Up and down the country, people have pledged support and have helped with the campaign by handing out leaflets, by spreading info about McDonalds in one way or another. And all of the support has given Helen and David a big boost and it’s really what has kept them going through this exhausting battle.

Has the media played an important role in swaying public opinion ?
Yes. I’ve been on pickets myself outside McDonalds stores over the years and I’ve certainly noticed that more and more people have become aware of the trial and of the issues, and of course that’s largely due to the publicity.

Have the issues covered  (nutrition, exploitation of children, etc.) been investigated and examined thoroughly in the trial ?
In the trial we’ve had 180 witnesses, which roughly divides half and half for each side. So every issue has been examined very thoroughly. We feel the evidenced has gone very strongly in our favour.

So you think the media have actually glossed over the points about the environment and exploitation, etc. and have really focused on the fact that it is a multinational company V’s two unemployed people defending themselves ?
Yes. There have been notable exceptions where journalists in the tv or print field have actually gone into the issues in depth. But on the whole the issues have only been touched on and journalists haven’t shown the depth of the evidence that has come out. So it has been a little frustrating but I think generally the libel laws in this country are still having an effect and journalists and editors are still scared of possible law suits.

If McDonalds lose this case it will obviously be a blow to their corporate ethics of maximum profits, exploit people. Do you think that no matter what way the verdict goes that McDonalds will learn a lesson from this ?
As I was saying earlier, McDonalds have used the threat of libel law to silence their critics time and time again. It has been a very successful tactic for them. They’ve managed to get Channel 4, the BBC, various Trade Unions, the Vegetarian Society, local newspapers, lots of different organisations and groups who’d criticised them to actually back down, or go bust in trying to fight a libel case, because of the sort of difficulties and expenses involved in fighting libel. But really the McLibel Trial has turned that on its head, because for the first time someone has actually stood up to this threat and called McDonalds bluff if you like and I’m sure McDonalds have learned a lesson from that, that they will never want to get involved in such a case as this again. Also other companies will be looking at that I’m sure, and learning their lesson.

Will it only encourage them to be more carefully in covering up their tracks or will they actually distance themselves from such controversial issues ?
The whole basis of their business revolves around their image and there is really little difference between McDonalds and a hamburger stand at a football match, apart from the fact that McDonalds spend $1.8 billion every year on advertising promotions, which builds up this image and hype around its product. So any dent in that image damages its business. So I’m sure they will be very concerned in the future as much as they have been in the past about bad criticism. At the same time I’m sure that they will now be weighing up the disadvantages of taking any litigation’s or threatening any litigation’s because they’ve certainly come a cropper this time around.

In the aftermath of the trial, what does the msc plan to do ?
What we’re gonna do is carry on campaigning against McDonalds because this is what the whole case is about, the fact that McDonalds are not a stop campaigners handing out leaflets and putting across points of view which they believe to be true. In fact on the Saturday after the verdict, we’re calling for an International Victory Day of Action all across the country and all around the world, whatever the verdict, to show that we believe the verdict is true and that McDonalds have not stopped the leaflet from being circulated. Really the whole point of the case is that that’s gonna continue, and campaigning will continue.
 
 

 

Top of Page

Kids like to express themselves by jumping around like lunatics at gigs. This practice has been around long before the Limelight existed and it will still be around when it’s gone (and lets face it, it’s a better outlet for the youth of today expressing the shit deal they get in life and frustration than beating up and intimidating people on the streets).

Anyway 3 Colours Red on the 9/3/97 would hardly be considered rough by Daniel o’ Donnell patrons. Perhaps when a band like this are playing with a large t.o.t.p. teenage following, the Limelight could have an under 18’s alcohol free gig (sorry underage drinkers!!) Even tho it said over 18’s on the ticket, a large percentage of the crowd were much younger.  I’ve been going to gigs in this venue for quite a while now and I’ve never experienced any problems there before. The whole set up and ethos of the place however seems to have changed. The floor is reduced to almost half its size by a stupid barrier in front of the stage. 

On the night in question, the bouncers were standing behind this barrier and grabbing crowd ‘surfers’ and throwing them with completely unnecessary violence into people who were standing at the side watching the band. One macho huge bloke caused particular problems. He kept slamming people who made their way to the front into the barrier. When wading through the crowd to get a young girl off her friend’s shoulders he violently pushed my friend and me out of the way. In the true spirit of the responsible citizenship we like to encourage here, I asked the bloke to calm down, stating that there was no need to assault anyone. The bouncer threatened to kick me out (with the emphasis on kick) and also said he would see me later! Anyway, after the gig I waited around and the big bloke and another of his work mates came over and asked me if I had a problem with how he did his job. Of course I did and asked to see the manager to make a complaint. At this point (in the true spirit of democracy) the bouncer told us, that if you make a complaint you’re automatically barred ‘and you can take that up with the manager too if your not happy.’ Oh and he asked us to follow him down the back to see the manager. (Hmmmmmmmmmmm am I that brain-dead.) When I asked to see the manager later on I was given some ambiguous spiel about him being ‘over there in a blue t-shirt.’

On the way out I met a guy who I saw being manhandled by the bouncer and asked him did he want to complain. He didn’t want to cause he’s at school and doesn’t live in Belfast and so didn’t want to get involved.

I understand that bouncers are there to do a job and to stop the night from getting violent. The only violence I could see on this night however was from the security. I think the Limelight should seriously review the bouncer situation before somebody gets hurt. More sensitive security (?!) by bouncers who understand what the night is all about is needed.

Oh yeah and by the way I have absolutely no respect for 3 colours red who let this continue under their noses. In the past bands like team dresch, and rollins band, have refused to play until problems like this are sorted out.                                                                               

 

Top of Page

If your wondering what any of those sad protesting type people have been doing with their lives read on. You can join them next time if you can bear to miss Baywatch on the telly.

NIGEN INCINERATOR - BELFAST CITY CENTRE 14-02-97

Belfast celebrated St Valentine’s Day in quite a unique fashion this year. Fri Feb 14th was the public launch date for the ‘NO TO NIGEN’ campaign. Led by the Grim Reaper, protesters from Belfast FOE and Green Action dressed in chemical suits and dust masks, paraded through the busy city centre, distributing awareness leaflets to the lunchtime crowds. As antithesis to the consumerism of St V. Day, black heart balloons, signifying the health hazards that will result if NIGEN get the go ahead to build a waste incinerator near the city centre, were carried and heart shaped ‘toxic’ messages worn by the protesters. Andy

HUNT SAB/DEMO - BANBRIDGE 15/2/97

About 20 people went out to the countryside around Banbridge to make sure the Iveagh hunts men and women weren’t gonna have an easy time eradicating wildlife. The morning started with a protest on the Dublin-Belfast motorway near the half way house pub where the hunt was meeting. Drivers tooted their support and a load of cyclists even rang their bells.

Anyway then we got down to the serious business of making foxes were not murdered by the blood hungry scarlet clad blokes (+ bloketes). The hunt was pretty large over sixty people on horseback. The numbers seemed to be swollen by the fact that a lot of hunters from the stag hunt were present. The sabs encountered the usual difficulties of keeping up with the hunt etc. But with a good turnout, (less scary than when there’s only 5 or 6) morale was high. Anyway after a few scary moments when it looked like we might have lost the mighty fox slayers it turned out to be the most successful sab I’ve ever been on.

With the support of some locals (who were obviously pissed of with the aristocracy using their homes as a stomping ground for their leisure activity) we managed to call all the hounds onto a quiet country lane. This was a euphoric feeling to call the dogs away from their masters, and the police (in heavy presence) didn’t manage to subdue with their nasty and nice routine.

By calling the dogs from the hunters we ensured that no foxes could be killed. The fat guy, who threatens people, came to collect the hounds that were playfully being stroked by the sabs. These hunt supporters and dog owners can in no way be described as animal lovers as could be seen by the way the dogs were thrown into the van. Anyway over all it was a good and successful sab and congratulations to everyone involved. Darren