McLibel: Two Worlds Collide
Final online
English script, full version
Dur: 52’41’’
© One-Off Productions Ltd.
Verdict day. Helen and Dave outside court. Crowds cheering.Caption: 19th June 1997
Interview: Michael Mansfield
QCIdent: noneInterview: Keir Starmer
Cheering
Helen Steel: This is so strange
Dave Morris: What do we do, do we stay here all day?
Helen Steel: This is weird, this is really weird. Hold your bag up.
Mike Mansfield: These are the most important issues I think that any of us have to face living our ordinary lives - we should be concerned about it. This trial has it all, that's why it's the most important trial this century.Keir Starmer: We pride ourselves on the fact that we've all got free speech, but in reality of course that simply isn't the situation.
00.42-00.56-01.03 McDonald's in a puddle.
McDonald's name in lights.
Graphics: List of past legal actions.Dave at press conferenceNarration: Criticising McDonald's is not for the faint hearted. The corporation is notorious for defending its reputation with legal action and the prospect of a trial and damages has been enough to secure apologies from even their harshest critics. Many fear that this has led to a climate of self-censorship in which no-one dares challenge McDonald's. Dave: They told us basically "you're bashing your head against a brick wall". Well, whenever we come up against brick walls we like to knock them down and I think we've done that.
01.14 Titles McLibel - Two Worlds Collide (clapping)
01.22 Helen Steel gardening.Ident: Helen Steel, co-defendant
Helen Steel: (V/O) Well, when I was quite young, there was a boy at the end of our street who basically used to bully everyone around, and everyone used to go crying to their mums and dad. I think eventually my mum got fed up with it and said 'well, hit him back''. SO I did, and after that he didn't hassle me anymore.
01.44 Interview: Helen Steel
Helen Steel: It's the same with McDonald's really. If someone is trying to make you do something which you don't believe in, then, you have to stand up to them and say "no, I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to give in to your intimidation and bullying".
01.56 Interview: Dave Morris Ident: Dave Morris, co-defendant
Dave: It's not a personal battle between me and Helen and McDonalds. This is about the public's right to know what the most powerful organisations in the world - which are multi-national corporations - are really doing.
02.13-02.28 Dave coming out of his bedroom.Charlie waking up, cleaning teeth. Dave making breakfast.Washing up.Cycling off.
Dave Morris:(shouts) CharlieNarration: Dave Morris, a former postman, is a single father with a six-year old son.
Dave (v/o): I have a responsibility to encourage him to question things, and to think for himself, and to be himself and not just be obsessed with the next Power Rangers toys.He's growing up in a very hostile environment - all the images that are forced on kids from advertising, from the media, it's all bombarding him telling him the way the world should be.
02.52 Narration: A small campaigning group meets regularly in this North London office to coordinate protests on issues such as nuclear weapons and Third World Debt
03.03 Graphics:1982: Dave Morris joins.1988: Helen Steel follows. Campaigners: chatter
03.11 Leaflets being printed. The group wrote themselves into history in 1986 when they produced a leaflet called 'What's Wrong With McDonald's' - accusing the corporation of everything from exploiting workers and contributing to heart disease to deceiving customers and destroying rainforests.
03.25 Interview: Dave MorrisHanding out leaflets.Woman leafleting Protest outside McDonald's. Dave sync.
Dave Morris (v/o & sync): The McDonalds campaign has picked on a company that's so much in the public eye - that seems to symbolise a whole system, a whole way of life. A whole, you know, mass production, mass society - everything the same. You know, junk food, crap jobs and to have a leafleting and educational campaign against McDonalds... is putting the alternative point of view. But, of course, I just had no idea what it would lead to. That later it would just completely take-over my life.
04.04 People eating and reading Narration: Increasingly worried about the impact the leaflet was having, McDonald's decided to take action.
04.12 Card: 1989: McDonald's employ seven private investigators to infiltrate the group.
04.15-04.23-04.35 Interview: HelenRostrum: Photos of spy. Ident: ""Anthony" Interview: DaveCampaigner talking to member of public.
Helen: This guy turned up at the meetings who, didn't quite seem to sort of, you know, fit in...... But at the time we just thought 'well, you know, maybe he's a policeman', but we're not doing anything wrong, or illegal or anything, so well, why worry about it?'. Dave: I knew that Helen suspected that there were some kind of infiltrators in the group and I said 'Don't be stupid, that's just something which, you know, you read about in books.'
04.47-04.50 Rostrum: photo of spyIdent: "Paul" Spy giving out leaflets Ident: "Shelley" Narration: Over 18 months the infiltrators worked their way into the group's activities - one even having an affair with another volunteer. At some meetings there were as many spies as campaigners present.
04.57 Campaigners' meeting.Interview: Fran Tiller.Ident: "Jan". Fran Tiller, former enquiry agent. Fran Tiller, McDonald's private investigator: You go in there and you're playing a role - you're trying to be very natural and not blow your cover, so to speak. My role was actually to notice everything that was happening where it was being held, describe the place that it was being held in, the people who were there, what they were wearing, what their names were, and everything that was said, and in particular everything that was said in relation to McDonald.
05.21 Interview: Dave Dave Morris: One of them wanted to get my address and he... asked someone in the group what, what my address was because he wanted to send me some baby clothes for my son Charlie. And he actually sent these clothes to me ah...which...which Charlie wore - which I feel really disgusted with now, considering the purpose of that.
05.44 Charlie and Dave playing in park.
Charlie: Dave!
05.49 Card: 20 Sep 1990: McDonald's serve libel writs over the "What's Wrong With McDonald's" leaflet.
05.55 Interview: Helen Steel Rostrum: the writ. Zoom into McDonald's name.
Helen Steel: I think it was dark, and there was a guy standing in front of me as I stepped from the van, and he said 'Helen?' and I didn't say anything, cos I didn't know who he was. And he just threw this envelope at my feet, and when I picked it up and opened it, it was the writ.
06.13 Interview: Mike LoveIdent: Mike Love, Head of Communications, McDonald's UK
Mike Love: We believe that we have a very good story to tell. We have over a million customers a day in the UK, who enjoy coming to McDonald's and trust us. We believe that to repay that trust we have to establish that these allegations are untrue.
06.27-06.38 Glossy McDonald's shots. Hamburger University More glossy McD's shots. Narration: Helen and Dave faced a daunting opponent: McDonald's is one of the world's most successful corporations with a 30 billion dollar annual turnover and 35 million customers every day.
Lecturer: Good morning, welcome to Hamburger University and to advanced operation course number 48. Narration: Fiercely proud of their business and determined to protect their reputation, McDonald's offered Helen and Dave a simple choice: apologise for the criticisms made in the leaflet or go to court.
06.57 Interview: Dave Morris Dave Morris: After the writs were served we had two hours of free legal aid, which effectively meant being told 'you've got no chance'.
07.08-07.26 Interview: Helen SteelHelen in her house, sorting files.
Helen Steel: For me it just sort-of really stuck in the throat to apologise to McDonald's. I didn't think that we'd done anything that deserved an apology, I thought it was them that should be apologising to us. Well not us specifically, but to society for the damage that they do to society and the environment. Even though we were being told that it was a virtually an impossible battle, me and Dave decided to carry on and fight it anyway, come what may really.
07.41 Card: 28 June 1994: trial starts. McDonald's barrister estimates 3 to 4 weeks in court.
07.49-08.06-08.18-08.32 High Court exterior. Legal people going in.Justice Bell, outside court.Rampton, Atkinson, Patti and McDonald's team going in. Helen and Dave going in.
Narration: It had taken 4 years of appeals and preliminary hearings for the trial to finally start in Court 35 of the Royal Courts of Justice, London. McDonald's had successfully argued that the case was too complicated for a jury to understand and so the whole trial would now be decided by a single judge, Mr Justice Bell.McDonald's hired top libel expert Richard Rampton QC, at about 2000 pounds a day, as well as a Junior barrister and about 7 solicitors and clerks from a leading city law firm. Dave and Helen were representing themselves.
08.39 BBC News piece
Newsreader, BBC: The fast-food company McDonald's has begun a high court libel action against two environmental campaigners. They had printed a leaflet alleging that McDonald's products caused ill-health and destroyed rainforests, but in court this morning counsel for McDonald's said that the allegations were totally false.
08.56 Drama:Ident: Richard Rampton QC Counsel for McDOnald's. (actor)
Mr Rampton: So far as McDonald's are concerned, anybody is free to express his criticism in whatever forrm he wishes. McDonald's may not like it, but they would never try to prevent it. They cannot and do not object to fair and reasonable and honest criticism of their business or their products.
09.12 Interview: Helen Steel
Helen Steel: We just had no idea of the procedure - what we had to say, when we had to say it. Who spoke in what order.
09.21 Interview: Dave Morris
Dave Morris: We were just treated like, you know, 'what are these people doing in my court room?' - that was the attitude we got. I mean in the first hearing we asked the Judge to explain the procedures and he said 'if you don't know the procedure you should be represented'. And we said 'well, there's no legal aid what are we mean to do'.
09.39 Dave working at home. Interview: Keir StarmerIdent: Keir Starmer. Barrister and voluntary legal advisor to the defendantsDave working. Files.
Keir Starmer: It's impossible in my view for anybody to conduct a case as complicated as libel without some form of legal assistance. McDonald's can simply say `you've slandered me, you've libelled me' and then sit back and wait for the defendant to try and prove what they've said is true. I decided that I would do what I could to help them because it raises the fundamental question of whether people are really free to say what they genuinely believe.
10.09 Interview: Helen
Helen: They're all really important issues. You know, the way workers are treated in the workplace, the way the environment is treated, the way animals are exploited, the kind of food that's being promoted to more and more people. And I think it's vital that people feel able to talk about all these issues without the fear of some multinational company breathing down their neck, threatening a libel case.
10.37 Card: July 1994: Evidence starts
10.42 Drama:Caption: Reconstruction from court transcripts.Ident: Richard Rampton QC, counsel for McDonald's. (actor)
Richard Rampton (actor): My Lord, the topic is nutrition. The issue, as I pose it is this: does the plaintiffs' food constitute a significant hazard to human health?
10.53-11.04 McD's food beIng cooked.Close-ups of food products.
Narration: McDonald's was a pioneer of a new kind of eating: fast-food. Their burgers, shakes and fries are high in saturated fat and salt and often referred to as 'junk food'. The leaflet alleged that this kind of diet is linked to chronic diseases.
11.0911.23 Drama:Caption: reconstruction from court transcriptsIdent: Dr Sydney Arnott, Consultant in Oncology (Cancer), St Bartholem's Hospital. McDonald's witness (actor).Dave Morris: Dr. Arnott, is it not a fact that many responsible international governmental and academic organisations have said that they consider there is a link between diet and cancer, although the factors are not known exactly? Would that be reasonable?Dr Arnott (actor): I think what is true to say is that people have suggested that there may well be a link between diet and various forms of cancer, although one has not been able to show that in scientifically conducted trials.... We have conflicting evidence, some of which suggests that there is a relationship between certain items in the diet and cancer, and equally convincing evidence from other studies which fail to demonstrate that.
11.50 Helen working at home. Narration: To attempt to prove the claims in the leaflet Helen and Dave worked full time, collecting evidence and finding witnesses.
11.57-12.24 Interview: Professor. Colin CampbellIdent: Prof. Colin Campbell. Defence witness. Senior Science Advisor, World Cancer Research Fund
Professor Colin Campbell: let me suggest that the high fat intake, the high animal protein intake, the lack of these other things lead into increased risks for cancers of various incendiary kinds, increased risk of the various kinds of heart diseases, diabetes, the kind of disease that actually kill upwards of three quarters of us in Western society before our time.I mean, it's clear the science is really on David and Helen's side - it's not on the McDonald's side.
12.30 Drama: Narration: Turning back to McDonald's expert witness, Dave Morris tried laying a trap.
12.34-12.52-12.56-12.59-13.02-13.04-13.19 Drama:
Dave Morris: I want to ask you about another document about advice to the public. "A diet high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt and low in fibre, vitamins and minerals is linked with cancer of the breast and bowel and heart disease". Is that a reasonable statement?
Dr Arnott (actor): It has been linked, yes.
Dave Morris: So would that be a reasonable statement?
Dr Arnott: Well, it depends to whom it is directed.
Dave Morris: The public.
Dr Arnott: If it is being directed to the public, then I would say it is a very reasonable thing to say, but if it is directed towards the scientific community, then I think one would be a bit more careful in the language that one used.
Dave Morris: That is actually a quote from the London Greenpeace factsheet which is the subject of the libel action.
13.26 Interview: Keir Starmer
Keir Starmer: The cross-examination was devastating so far as McDonald's were concerned. Many top lawyers would have been very proud to have got the answers that Helen and Dave managed to get out of McDonald's experts.
13.38 Interview: Helen Steel Helen Steel: Here they were suing us to try and prevent us saying that diet was linked to heart disease and cancer and their own expert was saying it was a very reasonable thing to say. I mean, to me that should have been the end of it, the Judge should have said 'right we don't need any more on this'.
13.55 Drama: Richard Rampton: If the public should come to the conclusion as a result of this verdict that the plaintiffs' food is apt to give them cancer of the bowel or breast it would be the kiss of death for the plaintiffs.
14.07-14.18 Graphics.:the verdict not proved that eating at McD's leads to heart disease or cancer for the majority of customers.for people who eat at McD's several times a week for very any years: "very real risk of heart disease in due course and that it was possible that there would be some increase in the risk of cancer of the breast and cancer of the bowel."
Narration: In his verdict at the end of the trial, the Judge ruled that Helen and Dave had not proved that eating at McDonald's leads to heart disease or cancer for the majority of their customers. But he went on to say that for the small number of people who eat at McDonald's several times a week for very many years, there would be a "very real risk of heart disease in due course and that it was possible that there would be some increase in the risk of cancer of the breast and cancer of the bowel."
14.39 Dave knocks on bedroom door.Sarah Inglis waking upCharlie putting on shoes.Washing up.
Dave - Sarah, it's about 10 past 8.
14.54-15.12 Dave and Sarah preparing for court.Meet Helen at tube.Working on tube.Going in to court.
Dave(v/o): we got together about 80 witnesses..... experts, researchers, people that had worked for mcd, people that had inside experience one way or another. Some of them stayed up at my house, some of them put themselves up in hotels.Helen: Normally witnesses would be paid to attend court and experts would be paid to write their reports, as no doubt McDonald's did. But with us we didn't have that kind of money .... but as soon as we explained what the case was about and what was at stake people were just very willing to help because they saw the importance of the issues.
15.35 Drama
Richard Rampton:May it be credibly suggested that McDonald's wish to sell food leads them to deceive people as to the composition and the health value of the food?
15.44-15.55-16.06-16.30 Interview: Paul PrestonIdent: Paul Preston, President of McDOnald's UKMcD's advertising. Steps, billboards Golden Arches.
Paul Preston: We comply with all legislation, all regulatory agencies in our advertising practies and I stand by those.
Narration: McDonald’s spends 2 billion dollars each year on advertising and promotions - research shows that the Golden Arches are now more recognised than the Christian Cross.
Helen: Without advertising McDonald's wouldn't exist - that's what Paul Preston said when he was in the witness box - it's all image and, you know, creating this image of a happy place to go and, you know, how wonderful they are for society and the environment. And, really, you know, if you can get behind that and expose the reality of the corporation then, you know, there's nothing left.Narration: Helen and Dave argued that McDonald's deliberately deceive the public by promoting their food as healthy and good for you. Their next witness had clashed with McDonald's over exactly these issues.
16.45-16.54-17.09Interview: Stephen Gardner Ident: Stepen Gardner. Former Assistant Attorney General, Texas. Defence witness.Rostrum: McDonald's 'nutritious' ad campaign.
Stephen Gardner The point was the entire ad campaign - not one little claim in one little ad but a whole campaign - was intrinsically deceptive. We didn't mind them promoting their foods, we weren't trying to stop them from selling their foods. Our concern was simply that they would be selling it under a false pretext, that they would be telling people "Don't worry about eating at McDonald's because you're really eating healthy food." And I do believe that for McDonald's to call it's food nutritious is a lie to the public, whether the British public or the American public.
17.16 Graphics:"the verdictvarious of (McDonald's) advertisements, promotions and booklets have pretended to a positive nutritional benefit which McDonald's food... did not match." Narration: At the end of the trial the Judge ruled in favour of Helen and Dave, concluding:"various of (McDonald's) advertisements, promotions and booklets have pretended to a positive nutritional benefit which McDonald's food... did not match."
17.32-17.39-17.43-17.59-18.55 Drama: Rampton.McD's advert.Interview: Sue Dibb, Food CommissionIdent: Sue Dibb, Co-Director, The Food Commission. Defence witness.Kids playing with McD's toys.McD's advert
Rampton: Do the plaintiffs aim and I quote, nearly all their advertising at children.Advert: lots of fun for everyone.Sue Dibb: Advertisers like McDonald's are very aware of 'pester power'. Pester power, as any parent will know, is the ability children have to pester them for something that they want and they can exert a tremendous amount of influence. And this has been recognised by marketeers. In particular they give away gifts and collectable items with many of their meals - particularly with their Happy Meals which are targetted towards younger children. And of course, if you want to collect the whole set you have to go back week after week.
Advert : At the sign that says 'you're welcome'. A visit to McDonald's makes your day.
18.2618.3618.47 Interview: Geoff GuilianoIdent: Geoff Guiliano, former Ronald McDonald actor. Defence witness.Geoffrey as Ronald
Geoff Guilliano:(v/o) Hi boys and girls, how're you doing today? It's Ronald McDonald, your friend, and boy gosh we're going to have a lot of fun today. (sync) I mean I was like - who was the guy in the Third Reich who was the propaganda minister? That's who I was. Ronald McDonald. Kids love him. They don't know why they love him - they love him cos they were told to love him and somebody paid somebody to make them love him.
18.5619.06 DramaIdent: David Green. Head of Marketing, McDonald's Corporation. McDonald's witness (actor)
Dave Morris: Why is it continually necessary for the McDonald's corporation to have that constant bombardment of young children with commercial advertising?
David Green: First of all, I would not agree with your characterisation of bombardment. It is certainly a large marketing effort, and if the children enjoys these activities, we would want them to participate in them. Obviously, we want them to remember McDonald's and, by remembering McDonald's the next time they have a chance to go out to eat, they might select that as opposed to one of our competitors.
19.31-19.39 Rostrum: Operations Manual“Remember, children exert a phenomenal influence when it comes to restaurant selection. This means you should do everything you can to appeal to children’s love for Ronald and McDonald’s”.
Narration: McDonald’s tactics were revealed in their confidential “Operations Manual”:“Remember, children exert a phenomenal influence when it comes to restaurant selection. This means you should do everything you can to appeal to children’s love for Ronald and McDonald’s”.
19.49-19.54 The Funday. Ronald arriving, Ronald with kids.Charlie playing with balloons.
Kids: yeah
Ronald: give me the thumbs up.
Narration: Two years into the trial, it was Charlie's turn to experience McDonald's marketing techniques.
20.02-20.11-20.21 Interview: Dave at Funday.Ron
ald with chequeRonald's mindersIdent: Suna Scutcher, parent. Dave Morris (V/O): Basically, they've just completely taken over the event. For a miniscule amount of money got borough wide publicity, it's disgusting.
Narration: McDonald's donateed £500 to Charlie's playcentre and brought Ronald McDonald and 12 officials to their summer Funday.
Parent: It must seem very tempting if a big organisation offers them money, like that. Unfortunately they don't realise how their own hard work and their own FunDay is hijacked then for publicity purposes.
20.37 Kids chanting
Dave Morris: There was so much hype that the children were being encouraged to chant Ronald McDonald.Kids: Ronald McDonald!
20.48 Interview: Sue Dibb
Sue Dibb: I think that by employing that strategy they are really exploiting children. They're exploiting children's special relationship that they have with characters like Ronald McDonald, and they're using that to encourage children to go to McDonald's. And I think there's a question of whether its right for any company to do that. One could say that in fact it was cynical exploitation of children.
21.14-21.28 Graphics"exploit children by using them, as more susceptible subjects of advertising, to pressurise their parents into going to McDonald's."
Interview: Geoff Guilliano
Narration: The Judge ruled in favour of Helen and Dave, and said that McDonald's "exploit children by using them, as more susceptible subjects of advertising, to pressurise their parents into going to McDonald's." Geoff Guilliano : I mean anyone can really manipulate a child you know, this is not that difficult, and I just went home one night and said 'I can't live with myself if I continue to do this."
21.41 Graphics: August 1994:. McDonald's initiate settlement negotiations.
Settlement meeting
21.47 Interview: DaveExterior of office where meeting was held.Graphics: Shelby Yastrow, Executive Vice-President, McDonald's Corporation.Dick Starmann, Senior Vice-President, McDonald's Corporation.
Dave Morris: After the first few months of the case we got a note out of the blue that McDonald's wanted to meet us anyplace, anytime, and they would fly over members of their Board of Directors, which they did, cos they wanted to settle the case. So obviously we agreed - it showed they were feeling on very weak ground having heard the arguments up to that point. And they flew over - Shelby Yastrow and Dick Starmen - to have secret talks with us: me and Helen.
22.24 Subtitles
Yastrow: I think it would be a prerequisite to any settlement we make that we agree on how it would be portrayed. Because you're good at this press stuff and I don't want to get involved in that. I don't want to have to worry that you're going to go out and say 'This guy flew over from America with a bag full of money or 'this guy privately acknowledged that this is a stupid lawsuit'. I can't take a chance on being stung twice.
Outside of building
Shelby Yastrow: I think it would be a prerequisite to any settlement we make that we agree on how it would be portrayed. Because you're good at this press stuff and I don't want to get involved in that. I don't want to have to worry that you're going to go out and say 'This guy flew over from America with a bag full of money or 'this guy privately acknowledged that this is a stupid lawsuit'. I can't take a chance on being stung twice.
22.54 Interview: Helen
Helen Steel: I just felt that I don't want them to be able to pull out of this case and then do the same thing to other people, and other people to go through 5 years of exhaustion and stress and whathaveyou.
23.06 Subtitles
Yastrow: They have a right to their opinions about McDonalds, god love 'em for that - freedom of speech, depending on how you say it. But we have a right to defend ourselves in court too.
Shelby Yastrow: They have a right to their opinions about McDonalds, god love 'em for that - freedom of speech, depending on how you say it. But we have a right to defend ourselves in court too.
23.14-23.20 Steel: You know, it's quite serious to say to someone "you can't hand out any leaflets full stop."Yastrow: I don't think you ought to hand out leaflets about McDonalds. I think you've played that card, Helen. You've done it, you've had your day in the sun. And I'm insisting that any comments you make about McDonalds has to be private.
Helen Steel: You know, it's quite serious to say to someone "you can't hand out any leaflets full stop."
Shelby Yastrow: I don't think you ought to hand out leaflets about McDonalds. I think you've played that card, Helen. You've done it, you've had your day in the sun. And I'm insisting that any comments you make about McDonalds has to be private.
23.35 Interview: Helen
Helen Steel: We wrote them back a letter saying that we would consider that if they agreed not to run any more advertisements about McDonald's. And said, of course this agreement would not prevent you from privately recommending McDonald's to your friends and neighbours, sort of thing. But they didn't reply to that one.
23.54-24.04-24.16-24.18-24.20-24.21-24.22Subtitles
Starrman :You think you're going to win the case - we think we're going to win the case. It's ironic that two sides can see the same thing and see it so differently. Of course, I guess that's true of a lot of the issue too.Morris: You're saying that the McDonalds corporation, which you represent, is seeking to prevent us handing out leaflets which in America we'd have a constitutional right to give out.
Yastrow: : I'm not trying to stop you. If you wanna do it, fine.
Morris: You are trying to stop us.Yastrow: : But no, no, but then forget the....
Morris: You are - that's what the whole thing's about Yastrow: Forget the settlement then.
Dick Starrman - You think you're going to win the case - we think we're going to win the case. It's ironic that two sides can see the same thing and see it so differently. Of course, I guess that's true of a lot of the issue too.
Dave Morris: You're saying that the McDonalds corporation, which you represent, is seeking to prevent us handing out leaflets which in America we'd have a constitutional right to give out.
Shelby Yastrow: : I'm not trying to stop you. If you wanna do it, fine.
Dave Morris: You are trying to stop us.
Shelby Yastrow: : But no, no, but then forget the....Dave Morris: You are - that's what the whole thing's about Shelby Yastrow: Forget the settlement then.
24.24 Interview: Dave
Dave Morris: You know, if they'd come up with something that protected the right to free speech and compensated those they'd sued in the past - and us - then we would have considered it. But there was really such a gulf between the two sides that they just couldn't bear to accept any of our demands really. And so it was back to court
.
24.50 Helen/ Dave meet at Turnpike Lane
Narration: The court is in session almost every day so Dave and Helen must use whatever time they can find for legal preparations.
24.58 On platform
Dave Morris: You doing the cross-examination today or am I doing it? who's starting?
25.05 Helen Steel: You can start. I'm not ready - as per usual. Mind you are you ready?
25.12 On tube
Helen Steel: I mean I read all through Alimi's statement and Ray Coton's as well. I'm looking at the wage slips. I was half way through doing a chart but I was completely exhausted and I couldn’t finish it, I just had to go to bed.
25.31 Walking through gates/ along street/ into court
Helen (V/O): Normally if you're campaigning against a multinational if you ever get to speak to someone its the PR department and they can just hide behind their glib answers, whereas when you have an executive in the witness box they have to answer your questions. So it is a unique opportunity to get the inner workings of a huge multinational company out into the open.
25.55 DramaPeople unfurling banner outside court "Big Mac Grilled Over Workers Rights."
Mr Rampton: Then I pass to employment. The issue I pose here is: do the plaintiffs cynically exploit their workforce for the sake of a fast buck? Are the plaintiffs hostile to Trade Unions?
26.14 Workers in McD's restaurant
Narration : McDonald's today employ more than a million people. Most are young: two thirds of them under 21.
Narration: To keep work rates high, workers must hustle: work at speed.
26.30 Interview: Paul Preston, McD's UK PresidentIdent:Paul Preston, President, McDonald's UK
Paul Preston: Hard work doesn't frighten youth of today - not at all. They want to be part of something that is victorious, something that they can see as the shining light.
26.41 Interview: Ian WhittleIdent: Ian Whittle, former McDOnald's worker. Defence wtness.More workers Ian Whittle - It’s funny, when you’re first employed at McDonald’s you’re given this impression that it’s a really fun place to work. It’s like joining a gang. As soon as it gets busy it’s like working in a submarine or something in warfare, you’re really pushed to the limits... to deliver as much as you possibly can, and that’s all that the managers are interested in.Manager - (shouts a lot.)
27.02 Interview: Dan GallinIdent: Dan Gallin, General Secretary, International Union of Food WorkersTrainer in restaurant.
Dan Gallin: The type of work organisation promoted by McDonald’s - the extreme breaking down of simple repetitive operations and so forth is essentially dehumanising . Trainer: I love the way you turn it, it's great.
Dan Gallin: Under the high stress and exhausting work being performed they cannot last very long.
27.22 Interview: Dave Morrismore workers.
Dave: I think people might say... "well, what do you expect, if you work for a company you get exploited". But the kind of conditions that McDonald's have helped to pioneer - McJobs - are becoming more and more normal and that's exactly why we need to scrutinise and criticise those kinds of conditions. Otherwise it will be accepted as something that can't be challenged.
27.53-28.11 Helen working in clubInterview: Dan GallinHelen (v/o): After about a year of the trial I got a job working in a nightclub. It's just quite a release from the case cos it's so busy in there. I work a cupe of nights a week and take home about 65 pounds a week.Dan Gallin: Trade unions are about human dignity. That is the basic motivation and the reason for existence of unions is the defence of human dignity.
28.19-28.26-28.31DramaIdent: Sid Nicholson. Former Head of Scurity & Presonnel, McDonald's UK. McDOnald's witness (actor)Mr Morris: If somebody amongst the crew was a member of a union, or wished to be a member of a union, they would not be allowed to collect subscriptions, would they, from other people in the store?
Sid Nicholson. No, no.
Q. They would not be allowed to put any notices on the notice boards?
A. No.
28.33-28.39-28.42
Q. They would not be allowed to inform the union about conditions inside the stores?
A. I do not know how we could stop that. If we found out about it, yes.
Q. ... Informing outside organisations about in store conditions is in the Gross Misconduct, a summary sackable offence?
28.4728.50
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Are crew members at McDonald's allowed to organise a meeting, union meeting on store premises?A. No.
28.5529.03
Mr Justice Bell: Can I summarise it this way: they would not be allowed to carry out any overt union activity on McDonald's premises?
A. That's absolutely correct, sir.
Mr Justice Bell (to Mr Morris): Can you do better than that?
29.08-29.20
Graphics "strongly antipathetic to any idea of unionisation". Pay low wages, thereby helping to depress wages across the industry.Working conditions not "bad".
Narration: The Judge ruled that McDonald's UK are "strongly antipathetic to any idea of unionisation" and that they pay low wages thereby helping to depress wages across the catering industry.He also ruled that although the work at McDonald's UK stores was hard and often hectic, that there were no guaranteed hours, often inadequate breaks and sometimes unlawful hours worked, he did not consider conditions to be "bad" as stated in the leaflet.
29.35-29.40-29.46-29.49-29.50 Charlie feeding ducks.Helen and Dave meeting in park
DM: what's happening on Tuesday? Crawford, you've got to speak to Professor Crawford.
HS: Yeah tomorrow evening. No, tomorrow we're supposed to be having a legal meeting with Keir.
DM: Oh god yeah. then we've got the Daily Mirror coming round on Tuesday evening. NBC want to do something as well.
HS: Do we know when?
DM: They're going to show it in the summer holidays but they're going to start the filming...(continue chatting)
29.59-30.08-30.09-30.14-30.17-30.32Still in park. Helen being interviewd.Dave & Helen with media scrum outside court. night.Cameras on the tube.Dave interview on phone.More media scrum.
Helen (v/o) I'm normally quite a private person and I actually find it quite hard talking to the media, particularly on film and on radio
Reporter: How's it affected your home lives?
Dave Morris: What home lives?
Dave Morris: And that's why it's going on so long.
Reporter: Jeremy, back with you there.
Helen: (v/o) Its particularly frustrating when you spend, you know, a couple of hours talking to a journalist about all the issues in the case, and then two weeks later you see the article and its just completely, stuff about your haircut, or what jumper you've got on.
Helen (sync): I feel absolutely fine speaking in court, but put me in front of a camera and I just like.. (laughs) just want to curl up.
30.42-30.46 Graphics: We could worsen the contoversy by adding our opinion. We want to keep it at arms length - not become guilty by association. McD's Australia memo, 1992Narration: Something of McDonald's media tactics was revealed by a leaked company memo from Australia."We could worsen the contoversy by adding our opinion. We want to keep it at arms length - not become guilty by association."
30.57 Interview: Lynne FranksIdent: Lynne Franks, PR guru.Rostrum: Article on front page of Wall Street Journal.
Lynne Franks: I do think it's been a public relations disaster. It's arrogant, its the arrogance of the multi-nationals to think that they can own and silence everything and they can't anymore. Had that information continued to be distributed the way it was it would have caused certain ripples in a very small way. By turning it into a libel case quite obviously McDs have turned a major international spotlight onto the very thing they wanted to keep quiet.
31.23 Card: 16th February 1996: McSpotlight internet site launched.
31.28 Launch of McSpotlight Internet site.
Dave Morris: This McSpotlight web site is a library of information about McDonald's corporation. All the things they don't want you to know and all the things they've now failed to stop the public finding out about.
31.4231.59 McSpotlight screens.Interview: Ben Leamy, McSpotlight volunteer Ident: Ben Leamy, McSpotlight volunteer.
Narration: the website made over 20,000 pages of information available worldwide: all the daily transcripts from court, banned material from previous libel cases and of course 'What's Wrong With McDonald's' leaflets, now translated into a dozen languages and ready to be printed off.Ben Leamy - We've taken what Helen and Dave did one stage further and made this available internationally for all time, never to be censored again.
32.08 McSpotlight screen: "20 March '96. McSpotlight: 1,000,000 accesses in the first month!!"
Interview: Lynne Franks
Lynne Franks: With Internet, with communications and technology progressing the way it is - and cable TV and digital TV and so on - there are going to be so many more successful ways for information to be distributed around the world that companies, multinationals will not be able to keep secrets anymore.
32.28-32.33 Card: Day 270. 2nd anniversary of the trial.Helen and Dave outside court with birthday cake.
Dave: Does anyone want to come and eat Ronald McDonald?
32.35 Narration: The four week trial had turned into a marathon for everybody. McDonald's UK Vice-President was in court every day and a stream of executives from both sides of the Atlantic were called to give evidence.
32.47-32.57 DramaInteview: Charles SecrettIdent: Charles Secrett, Director, Friends of the Earth. Defence witness.McDonald's Big Mac lorries.Lorries with logs.Caption: McDonald's wood pulp suppliers, HollandFactory: Caption: McDonald's paper suppliers, Finland.
Mr Rampton: (Starts as v/o) I state the issue in this way, and I hope your Lordship will think it a fair way of stating it. Is the plaintiffs use of resources significantly detrimental to the environment?
Charles Secrett: Any company as large as McDonalds is bound to have a huge and usually very bad impact on the environment. I mean, when one thinks of all their tens of thousands of stores world-wide and the demand that McDonalds as a corporation creates for wood and paper pulp and chemicals and metals the environmental impact of these production processes is huge - in pollution terms, in the waste of energy and in the use of land for what must be described as trivial consumer products.
33.35 Speech: Paul Preston
Paul Preston: We take our environmental responsibility very seriously. We take the goals of reduce, recycle and reuse and apply them where practical across the entire business.
33.48 Packaging lying around in stores.Worker emptying bin.Litter.
Narration: McDonald's produce 900,000 tonnes of packaging every year, used for just a few minutes before being discarded. But does it end up as litter on the streets?
34.01-34.05-34.09-34.19-34.24 Drama:Ident: Ed Oakley, Head of Purchasing, McDonald's Europer. McDonald's witness (actor)
Dave Morris: Is it not a fact of life that virtually every main street has a great amount of McDonald's packaging?
Ed Oakley: No, it is not a fact of life.
Dave Morris: Dozens, if not hundreds of items? Ed Oakley: Not a fact of life. I walked through Paddington this morning. I found one McDonald's package which I disposed of. So, I think that is a gross overstatement.
Mr Justice Bell: There were two on Waterloo Bridge this morning, but I did not dispose of them, I am afraid.
Ed Oakley: I would have done.
34.27 Interview: Helen at home
Helen Steel: During the summer last year I really felt like I needed to get away from the case and get away from McDonald's as well. And went up to Scotland and I climebed up Ben Lomand on one day. . You expect it - everywhere you go in London you see their litter and so on, but, you know, I climbed up the top of this mountain - it was the last place I expected to be reminded of McDonald's and there you are, there's someone sitting at the top in a McDonald's t-shirt. You can't get away from them.
34.57 McD's paper bag.Rainforests - aerial view.Cattle ranching.Chainsaws.
Narration: The most controversial allegation made in the leaflet was that McDonald's are involved in the destruction of rainforests to create pasture for cattle.
35.13 Interview: Paul Preston
Paul Preston: McDonalds has absolutely nothing to do with the rainforest, in terms of beef production. We never have and we never will.
35.2035.3335.44 Interview: DaveDave marking map of Brazil.Interview: Keir Starmer
Dave: We always knew it would be an uphill struggle to get evidence of direct involvement by McDonald's in tropical forest desturction. After all, all the witnesses and the official documents and so on, were on the other side of the world. And we didn't have the resources to track them down and bring them to court. And also it was avery sensitive and high-profile issue for the corportion.
Keir :if you sit back and think about some of the witnesses that could have come on behalf of Dave and Helen, but didn't because nobody could pay their air fare, the verdict pales into insignificance, it's meaningless. If both sides had had all the witnesses they wanted there, then a true verdict might have been possible, but with the best will in the world the judge can only give a verdict according to the evidence and the evidence costs money.
36.14-36.20-36.27-36.35 Graphics"proportion of recycled paper is "small", not "tiny"McD's not responsible for litter.McD's not involved in rainforest destruction. The Judge came down heavily on Helen and Dave in the environment section of the case. He ruled that although McDonald's used only a "small" amount of recycled paper, the proportion was not "tiny" as stated in the leaflet.He discounted the evidence on litter saying that it was the customers who dropped it who were responsible, not McDonald's.And he ruled that, although the production of beef in South America has led to the destruction of the rainforests, there was no evidence of direct involvement by McDonald's.
36.44 Helen and Dave walking out of court.
Helen: I'm really exxahsuted. It was OK though. I mean it was really stressful.
Dave: They didn't get anywqhere, tht's the main thing.
36.53 Helen and Dave walking down street.
Helen (v/o): Its quite funny cos the transcripts sometimes come out with that me or Dave have said 'something, something m'lud' and we've never once said 'm'lud' . Wee believe in treating him with respect as another human being but, don't believe in deferring or whathaveyou.
37.08 Interview: Helen
Helen (sync): We do stand up though, when he comes in. Which is a bit of a sell out.
37.14 Helen and Dave walking down street.Interview: Dave
Dave: I think Helen and me have a particularly good working relationship because erm, you know, we've campaigned together on a number of issues for erm, over ten years. We shared an allotment - we even shared a house for some time with other people as well but that's about As far as it goes (laughter)- erm, there's no sex angle, I'm afraid.
37.33 Interview: Dan Gallin
Dan Gallin: What they’ve actually done is hold McDonalds accountable to society on behalf of our society. I think they’re heroes of our time. Of course we support them.
37.52-37.56-38.15 Dan Mills, McLibel Support Campaign co-ordinatorMcLibel Support Campaign officeDan opening money, faxing, phoning etc. Volunteers stuffing enevlopes in front room Volunteer(sync) - McLibel Support Campaign.
Helen (v/o): The support we've had from the public has been amazing, every time there's an article in the papers we get a flood more letters wishing us well um, sending in donations to keep the case going and so on. And that's really what's given us the strength to carry on.
Narration: Volunteers working from a spare room in a flat in North London raised about 30,000 pounds for witness airfares and court costs. Estimates for McD's total expenditure range between 5 and 15 million pounds.
38.32 Dave in his office. Sorting files.
Dave Morris: We've got 40,000 documents and 420,000 pages of testimony to read through - it's impossible, without a trained team of 10 lawyers to even read a 10th of the material in this case. It's just too much for us. It's got to the point where I just don't have tim for Charlie anymore - communication's just broken down between us and I end up shouting at him and I have to say 'look, Charlie, just go off and play, because I've got work to do'.
39.05-39.21 Helen and Dave walk into Keir's office.Helen/ Dave/ Keir having meeting
Dave (v/o): We've invested our lives. Especially the last three years have been just constant pressure of administration, of the paperwork, preparations and questioning, and all kinds of legal complexities, all down on us all the time.
Keir: Hang on. The principles extracted from the case of Derbyshire are equally applicable and should be applied.
39.2439.44 Interview: HelenKeir meeting
Helen Steel (v/o): after court on Friday I went to the doctor's to get a certificate,to say that, you know, I'm totally exhausted and I need a break. I just felt totally burnt out and I wasn't really able to carry on. So we're going to be making an application for the court to be adjourned for two weeks.There was just so much stress really that we just ended up taking it out on each other.
Dave Morris: I can't work on things in different files. I need to be able to shift stuff around. So I want it all in the same document.
Helen Steel: It's actually very easy to shift things from one document to another
Dave Morris: I can't do it. That's just a fact.Helen Steel: Well if you took about 2 minutes you could learn.
Dave Morris: Well I can't.
Helen working at home at night.
Narration: The 2 week rest period recommended by Helen's doctor was turned down by the Judge who ruled that the trial must continue.
40.02 Card: 1 November 1996. McLibel becomes longest trial in English history
40.15 Helen and Dave on tube on way to court
Narration: As the trial past another historic landmark the court heard the last of the evidence.
40.21 Drama Richard Rampton: My Lord, the rearing and slaughter of animals is next. Here I express the issue in this way: are the methods by which animals to make McDonald's food are reared and slaughtered cruel and inhumane?
40.38 Cooking at McD's. Patties.Meat racks.Cattle dangling. Narration: Animal products are McDonald's chief ingredient: beef, chicken, pork and milk, eggs and cheese.
The corporation's the world’s largest user of beef, using meat from 6% of the world’s cattle.
40.51-41.00 Drama:Ident: David Walker. Chairman McKeys Ltd. Commissioner, MEat & Livestock Commission. McDonald's witness (Actor)
Mr Rampton: Would you summarise for us what is your attitude to the welfare of pigs and cattle which are used to produce food for human consumption?
Mr Walker: My conceptions are that no animal will put on weight or grow unless it is healthy and contented. You cannot force an animal to increase its weight. I definitely think that we have consideration for animals and their well?being, and I do both in terms of abattoirs and in terms of farming.
41.26-41.42 Sun Valley exteriors.Caption: Sun Valley, McDonald's suppliers.Battery chickens.Caption: library footageNarration: 27 million birds for McNuggets and McChicken Sandwiches are raised in these sheds every year.
Nearly half have leg abnormalities and 4000 die prematurely every day. McDonald's eggs come from more than 3 million battery hens, the battery cage system producing eggs significantly cheaper than free range.
41.51-41.53-41.56-41.59 Drama:Ident: Ed Oakley, Head of Purchasing, McDonald's Europe.
Helen: Would you describe a battery cage as "comfortable"?
Mr Oakley: I think it is pretty comfortable. Helen. You would like to spend the whole of your life crouched on a wire floor?
Justice Bell: Is it really helpful to anthropomorphise these things?
42.044-2.09-42.14 Helen: Are you seriously asserting it is comfortable for chickens to stand on a wire floor for the whole of their lives?
Mr Oakley: I do not know that it is not comfortable, so how can I say?
Helen: You do not know that it is not?
Mr Oakley:.No ?? any more than you do.
42.19-42.32 Chicks on escalatorCaption: library footage Hens having throats cut.
Narration: At McDonald's suppliers, in similar conditions to these, 1000 unwanted chicks are gassed every week.For the adult birds, pre-slaughter stunning often fails, so each day about 1300 chickens have their throats cut whilst still fully conscious.
42.43-42.49-42.58-43.07 DramaIdent: David Walker. Chairman McKeys Ltd. Commissioner, MEat & Livestock Commission.
McDonald's witness (Actor)
Narration: Helen attempted to push McDonald's hamburger supplier into a frank assessment of the meat industry.
Helen: .The point I was making was that Mr. Walker seemed to be accepting that as a result of the meat industry the suffering of animals is inevitable. Is that correct?
Mr Walker: Are you asking me a question, sorry?
Helen: As a result of the meat industry the suffering of animals is inevitable?
Mr Walker: The answer to that must be yes.
43.12 Graphics" culpably responsible for cruel practices in the rearing and slaughter of some of the animals which are used to produce their food".
Narration: The Judge found 9 examples of cruel practices at McDonald's suppliers and concluded that McDonald's are " culpably responsible for cruel practices in the rearing and slaughter of some of the animals which are used to produce their food".
43.27 Card: 13th December 1996: Day 313. End of hearing.
43.31 Helen and Dave coming out of court. Dark.Rampton/ team coming out.
Narration: After two and a half years in court the longest trial in English legal history finally came to an end. For both sides there was nothing left but the suspense of a 6-month wait while Mr Justice Bell considered his verdict.
43.4644.01 New store being constructed.Rostrum: Annual Report: 'Strategies for Global Domination'
Interview: Dave MorrisMcD's in IndiaCaption: Delhi, India. Opened 1995Rostrum: South Africa McDonald's. Caption: 'Cape Town, South Africa. Opened 1994.'
In the time that the trial had been running, McDonald's made profits of 3.6 billion dollars, opening more than 6,000 new stores in 31 new countries - that's one every three hours. Dave Morris: Multinational corporations are moneymaking machines geared to making maximum profits and increasing their power and expanding and the only way they can do that is by exploiting the worlds resources, exploiting their workers and customers for the companies own needs and ok they might throw in a salad option on the menu to pretend they're concerned about healthy eating but there's really nothing they can do because fundamentally they exist for that one purpose - making profits for their shareholders....
44.39-44.57 Houses of Paliament.Interview: Jeremy Corbyn MPIdent: Jeremy Corbyn MPDave and friends loading files into landrover
Jeremy Corbyn MP: We have this enormous corporation -McDonalds - which is global in every sense of the word and, to me, is acting in a sort of appalling manner towards people who have raised perfectly legitimate questions. Now anyone that might seriously be concerned about McDonalds products will take one look at their use of libel and the way they've used it to silence people in the past and think "Well hang on, I can't drag my institution/ my newspaper/ my magazine into all this", so they go and look at something else. And I'm just concerned that we have this sort-of massive corporation that nobody dares speak out against.
45.18 Interview: Keir Starmer
Keir Starmer: It's very interesting to see that the courts have now recognised that er. government departments and local authorities can't sue for libel on the basis that it would stifle free speech. Er. in my view the same ought to apply um. for multi-nationals.
45.38 Interview: Mike MansfieldIdent: Michael Mansfield QCMike Mansfield: Oh, there's no question ordinary people should have the right to criticise multinationals, Government agencies, anything that is being done that affects the welfare of their daily lives. The public should be in a position to make judgements for themselves because we're dealing with individual welfare, and I must be in a position to decide whether I want - and this is the basic thing - when I walk down the High St, do I want to go in there and participate in an organisation which is doing the kind of things that have been exposed in the case? Do I want my children to go into a kind of organisation like that?
46.13 Card: 19th June 1997: Judgment day.
46.18 Dave drawing on the bus.
46.32 Dave writing on bag.Helen/ Dave walk into court. Reporters: Dave! Dave!
46.37-46.40-47.07 Court exteriorsGraphicsVerdict - not provenrainforest destructionfood poisoningThrid World starvationbad woring conditonsprovenexploit childrenfalse advertisingcruel to anialsantipathetic to unionspay low wagesNarration:
Mr Justice Bell took 2 hours to read his summary to a packed court room: Helen and Dave had not proved the allegations against McDonald's on heart disease and cancer, food poisoning, starvation in the Third World, rainforest destruction, and bad working conditions. But they had shown that McDonald's "exploit children" with their advertising, produce misleading advertising, are "culpably responsible" for cruelty to animals, are "strongly antipathetic" to unions and pay their workers low wages. He ruled that Helen and Dave had libelled McDonald's, but as they had proved many of the allegations, they would only owe 3/5ths of the claimed damages: £60,000.
47.17-47.34-47.38-47.40-48.13 Helen and Dave outside court.Media scrum on streets.Press conference:Caption: Helen and Dave's press conference cheering
Helen: this is weird, this is really weird This is so strange,
Dave: What do we do, do we stay here all day.
Helen: Stand here for long enough for them to get a load of photos. Hold your bag up.
Mike Mansfield: Many, many other people and within the British public, owe a debt of gratitude to these two young people. It is safe to say that they have dared to tread where no otheres have dared to tread, where those with resources have drawn back.
48.35 Press conference:Caption: McDonald's press conference.
Paul Preston: We are, as you can imagine, broadly satisfied with the Judgment heard this morning. It's my responsiblity to protect our reputation and that's exactly what w've done. Very serious allgations were made about our company. They were proven to be false.
48.53 Press conference:
Keir Starmer: For McDonald's the only victory was to win on all 7 issues. They had the libel team, the expert team of lawyers working for the last 5 years behind the scenes and in court for them.That's where the victory lies, in the fact that Dave and Helen have won almost half of this case with those odds stacked against them.
49.11-49.23-49.32-49.48 H & D'S Press conferenceMcD's press conferenceH & D'S Press conferenceMcD's press conference
Helen: As far as we're concerned, what would have been a loss is if w hadn't fought the case and people had been intiidated nto silence.
Preston: well, this wasn;t a matter of costs, it wasn;t a matter of damages. it was a atter of establishing the truth. That's what we set out to do and that's exactly what we did.
Helen: We're not going to pay the damages. McDonald's don't deserve a penny and in any event we haven't got any money.
Reporters: Are you going to be pursuing the damages? Sit down!Over here, mate.
49.51 H & D'S Press conference
Dave: Obviously we're exhausted and stressed, face bankruptcy, you know, but that is not going to deter us because that's so trivial compared to the need to stand up to the people who are dominating our planet.
50.11-50.19-50.28 Graphics: McD's decided not to pursue their damages or an injunction against Helen and Dave, despite these being their stated aims in bringing the trial.They declined to participate in this film.In parliament, Jeremy Corbyn MP is calling for legislation to prevent multinational corporations from suing for libel.Caption: 2 days after the verdict.
50.30 Helen and Dave leafleting outside McDonald's.
50.42 Graphics: 450,000 leaflets were given out worldwide in the week of ther verdict.The McSpotlight Internet site was accessed 2.2 million times.
51.10 People reading leaflets.
50.53 Graphics: Helen and Dave are preparing to go to the European Court of Human Rights to claim that their non-jury, no-legal aid trial was oppressive and that the libel laws are unfair.They hope to finish with McLibel around the year 2002.
51.35 Credits:Camera: Neve CunninghamEditor: Gregers SallAssistant Producer: San DaveyProducer/ Director: Franny Armstrong© One-Off Productions Ltd 1997
Final online
English script, full version
Dur: 52’41’’
© One-Off Productions Ltd.
Verdict day. Helen and Dave outside court. Crowds cheering.Caption: 19th June 1997
Interview: Michael Mansfield
QCIdent: noneInterview: Keir Starmer
Cheering
Helen Steel: This is so strange
Dave Morris: What do we do, do we stay here all day?
Helen Steel: This is weird, this is really weird. Hold your bag up.
Mike Mansfield: These are the most important issues I think that any of us have to face living our ordinary lives - we should be concerned about it. This trial has it all, that's why it's the most important trial this century.Keir Starmer: We pride ourselves on the fact that we've all got free speech, but in reality of course that simply isn't the situation.
00.42-00.56-01.03 McDonald's in a puddle.
McDonald's name in lights.
Graphics: List of past legal actions.Dave at press conferenceNarration: Criticising McDonald's is not for the faint hearted. The corporation is notorious for defending its reputation with legal action and the prospect of a trial and damages has been enough to secure apologies from even their harshest critics. Many fear that this has led to a climate of self-censorship in which no-one dares challenge McDonald's. Dave: They told us basically "you're bashing your head against a brick wall". Well, whenever we come up against brick walls we like to knock them down and I think we've done that.
01.14 Titles McLibel - Two Worlds Collide (clapping)
01.22 Helen Steel gardening.Ident: Helen Steel, co-defendant
Helen Steel: (V/O) Well, when I was quite young, there was a boy at the end of our street who basically used to bully everyone around, and everyone used to go crying to their mums and dad. I think eventually my mum got fed up with it and said 'well, hit him back''. SO I did, and after that he didn't hassle me anymore.
01.44 Interview: Helen Steel
Helen Steel: It's the same with McDonald's really. If someone is trying to make you do something which you don't believe in, then, you have to stand up to them and say "no, I'm not going to do it. I'm not going to give in to your intimidation and bullying".
01.56 Interview: Dave Morris Ident: Dave Morris, co-defendant
Dave: It's not a personal battle between me and Helen and McDonalds. This is about the public's right to know what the most powerful organisations in the world - which are multi-national corporations - are really doing.
02.13-02.28 Dave coming out of his bedroom.Charlie waking up, cleaning teeth. Dave making breakfast.Washing up.Cycling off.
Dave Morris:(shouts) CharlieNarration: Dave Morris, a former postman, is a single father with a six-year old son.
Dave (v/o): I have a responsibility to encourage him to question things, and to think for himself, and to be himself and not just be obsessed with the next Power Rangers toys.He's growing up in a very hostile environment - all the images that are forced on kids from advertising, from the media, it's all bombarding him telling him the way the world should be.
02.52 Narration: A small campaigning group meets regularly in this North London office to coordinate protests on issues such as nuclear weapons and Third World Debt
03.03 Graphics:1982: Dave Morris joins.1988: Helen Steel follows. Campaigners: chatter
03.11 Leaflets being printed. The group wrote themselves into history in 1986 when they produced a leaflet called 'What's Wrong With McDonald's' - accusing the corporation of everything from exploiting workers and contributing to heart disease to deceiving customers and destroying rainforests.
03.25 Interview: Dave MorrisHanding out leaflets.Woman leafleting Protest outside McDonald's. Dave sync.
Dave Morris (v/o & sync): The McDonalds campaign has picked on a company that's so much in the public eye - that seems to symbolise a whole system, a whole way of life. A whole, you know, mass production, mass society - everything the same. You know, junk food, crap jobs and to have a leafleting and educational campaign against McDonalds... is putting the alternative point of view. But, of course, I just had no idea what it would lead to. That later it would just completely take-over my life.
04.04 People eating and reading Narration: Increasingly worried about the impact the leaflet was having, McDonald's decided to take action.
04.12 Card: 1989: McDonald's employ seven private investigators to infiltrate the group.
04.15-04.23-04.35 Interview: HelenRostrum: Photos of spy. Ident: ""Anthony" Interview: DaveCampaigner talking to member of public.
Helen: This guy turned up at the meetings who, didn't quite seem to sort of, you know, fit in...... But at the time we just thought 'well, you know, maybe he's a policeman', but we're not doing anything wrong, or illegal or anything, so well, why worry about it?'. Dave: I knew that Helen suspected that there were some kind of infiltrators in the group and I said 'Don't be stupid, that's just something which, you know, you read about in books.'
04.47-04.50 Rostrum: photo of spyIdent: "Paul" Spy giving out leaflets Ident: "Shelley" Narration: Over 18 months the infiltrators worked their way into the group's activities - one even having an affair with another volunteer. At some meetings there were as many spies as campaigners present.
04.57 Campaigners' meeting.Interview: Fran Tiller.Ident: "Jan". Fran Tiller, former enquiry agent. Fran Tiller, McDonald's private investigator: You go in there and you're playing a role - you're trying to be very natural and not blow your cover, so to speak. My role was actually to notice everything that was happening where it was being held, describe the place that it was being held in, the people who were there, what they were wearing, what their names were, and everything that was said, and in particular everything that was said in relation to McDonald.
05.21 Interview: Dave Dave Morris: One of them wanted to get my address and he... asked someone in the group what, what my address was because he wanted to send me some baby clothes for my son Charlie. And he actually sent these clothes to me ah...which...which Charlie wore - which I feel really disgusted with now, considering the purpose of that.
05.44 Charlie and Dave playing in park.
Charlie: Dave!
05.49 Card: 20 Sep 1990: McDonald's serve libel writs over the "What's Wrong With McDonald's" leaflet.
05.55 Interview: Helen Steel Rostrum: the writ. Zoom into McDonald's name.
Helen Steel: I think it was dark, and there was a guy standing in front of me as I stepped from the van, and he said 'Helen?' and I didn't say anything, cos I didn't know who he was. And he just threw this envelope at my feet, and when I picked it up and opened it, it was the writ.
06.13 Interview: Mike LoveIdent: Mike Love, Head of Communications, McDonald's UK
Mike Love: We believe that we have a very good story to tell. We have over a million customers a day in the UK, who enjoy coming to McDonald's and trust us. We believe that to repay that trust we have to establish that these allegations are untrue.
06.27-06.38 Glossy McDonald's shots. Hamburger University More glossy McD's shots. Narration: Helen and Dave faced a daunting opponent: McDonald's is one of the world's most successful corporations with a 30 billion dollar annual turnover and 35 million customers every day.
Lecturer: Good morning, welcome to Hamburger University and to advanced operation course number 48. Narration: Fiercely proud of their business and determined to protect their reputation, McDonald's offered Helen and Dave a simple choice: apologise for the criticisms made in the leaflet or go to court.
06.57 Interview: Dave Morris Dave Morris: After the writs were served we had two hours of free legal aid, which effectively meant being told 'you've got no chance'.
07.08-07.26 Interview: Helen SteelHelen in her house, sorting files.
Helen Steel: For me it just sort-of really stuck in the throat to apologise to McDonald's. I didn't think that we'd done anything that deserved an apology, I thought it was them that should be apologising to us. Well not us specifically, but to society for the damage that they do to society and the environment. Even though we were being told that it was a virtually an impossible battle, me and Dave decided to carry on and fight it anyway, come what may really.
07.41 Card: 28 June 1994: trial starts. McDonald's barrister estimates 3 to 4 weeks in court.
07.49-08.06-08.18-08.32 High Court exterior. Legal people going in.Justice Bell, outside court.Rampton, Atkinson, Patti and McDonald's team going in. Helen and Dave going in.
Narration: It had taken 4 years of appeals and preliminary hearings for the trial to finally start in Court 35 of the Royal Courts of Justice, London. McDonald's had successfully argued that the case was too complicated for a jury to understand and so the whole trial would now be decided by a single judge, Mr Justice Bell.McDonald's hired top libel expert Richard Rampton QC, at about 2000 pounds a day, as well as a Junior barrister and about 7 solicitors and clerks from a leading city law firm. Dave and Helen were representing themselves.
08.39 BBC News piece
Newsreader, BBC: The fast-food company McDonald's has begun a high court libel action against two environmental campaigners. They had printed a leaflet alleging that McDonald's products caused ill-health and destroyed rainforests, but in court this morning counsel for McDonald's said that the allegations were totally false.
08.56 Drama:Ident: Richard Rampton QC Counsel for McDOnald's. (actor)
Mr Rampton: So far as McDonald's are concerned, anybody is free to express his criticism in whatever forrm he wishes. McDonald's may not like it, but they would never try to prevent it. They cannot and do not object to fair and reasonable and honest criticism of their business or their products.
09.12 Interview: Helen Steel
Helen Steel: We just had no idea of the procedure - what we had to say, when we had to say it. Who spoke in what order.
09.21 Interview: Dave Morris
Dave Morris: We were just treated like, you know, 'what are these people doing in my court room?' - that was the attitude we got. I mean in the first hearing we asked the Judge to explain the procedures and he said 'if you don't know the procedure you should be represented'. And we said 'well, there's no legal aid what are we mean to do'.
09.39 Dave working at home. Interview: Keir StarmerIdent: Keir Starmer. Barrister and voluntary legal advisor to the defendantsDave working. Files.
Keir Starmer: It's impossible in my view for anybody to conduct a case as complicated as libel without some form of legal assistance. McDonald's can simply say `you've slandered me, you've libelled me' and then sit back and wait for the defendant to try and prove what they've said is true. I decided that I would do what I could to help them because it raises the fundamental question of whether people are really free to say what they genuinely believe.
10.09 Interview: Helen
Helen: They're all really important issues. You know, the way workers are treated in the workplace, the way the environment is treated, the way animals are exploited, the kind of food that's being promoted to more and more people. And I think it's vital that people feel able to talk about all these issues without the fear of some multinational company breathing down their neck, threatening a libel case.
10.37 Card: July 1994: Evidence starts
10.42 Drama:Caption: Reconstruction from court transcripts.Ident: Richard Rampton QC, counsel for McDonald's. (actor)
Richard Rampton (actor): My Lord, the topic is nutrition. The issue, as I pose it is this: does the plaintiffs' food constitute a significant hazard to human health?
10.53-11.04 McD's food beIng cooked.Close-ups of food products.
Narration: McDonald's was a pioneer of a new kind of eating: fast-food. Their burgers, shakes and fries are high in saturated fat and salt and often referred to as 'junk food'. The leaflet alleged that this kind of diet is linked to chronic diseases.
11.0911.23 Drama:Caption: reconstruction from court transcriptsIdent: Dr Sydney Arnott, Consultant in Oncology (Cancer), St Bartholem's Hospital. McDonald's witness (actor).Dave Morris: Dr. Arnott, is it not a fact that many responsible international governmental and academic organisations have said that they consider there is a link between diet and cancer, although the factors are not known exactly? Would that be reasonable?Dr Arnott (actor): I think what is true to say is that people have suggested that there may well be a link between diet and various forms of cancer, although one has not been able to show that in scientifically conducted trials.... We have conflicting evidence, some of which suggests that there is a relationship between certain items in the diet and cancer, and equally convincing evidence from other studies which fail to demonstrate that.
11.50 Helen working at home. Narration: To attempt to prove the claims in the leaflet Helen and Dave worked full time, collecting evidence and finding witnesses.
11.57-12.24 Interview: Professor. Colin CampbellIdent: Prof. Colin Campbell. Defence witness. Senior Science Advisor, World Cancer Research Fund
Professor Colin Campbell: let me suggest that the high fat intake, the high animal protein intake, the lack of these other things lead into increased risks for cancers of various incendiary kinds, increased risk of the various kinds of heart diseases, diabetes, the kind of disease that actually kill upwards of three quarters of us in Western society before our time.I mean, it's clear the science is really on David and Helen's side - it's not on the McDonald's side.
12.30 Drama: Narration: Turning back to McDonald's expert witness, Dave Morris tried laying a trap.
12.34-12.52-12.56-12.59-13.02-13.04-13.19 Drama:
Dave Morris: I want to ask you about another document about advice to the public. "A diet high in fat, sugar, animal products and salt and low in fibre, vitamins and minerals is linked with cancer of the breast and bowel and heart disease". Is that a reasonable statement?
Dr Arnott (actor): It has been linked, yes.
Dave Morris: So would that be a reasonable statement?
Dr Arnott: Well, it depends to whom it is directed.
Dave Morris: The public.
Dr Arnott: If it is being directed to the public, then I would say it is a very reasonable thing to say, but if it is directed towards the scientific community, then I think one would be a bit more careful in the language that one used.
Dave Morris: That is actually a quote from the London Greenpeace factsheet which is the subject of the libel action.
13.26 Interview: Keir Starmer
Keir Starmer: The cross-examination was devastating so far as McDonald's were concerned. Many top lawyers would have been very proud to have got the answers that Helen and Dave managed to get out of McDonald's experts.
13.38 Interview: Helen Steel Helen Steel: Here they were suing us to try and prevent us saying that diet was linked to heart disease and cancer and their own expert was saying it was a very reasonable thing to say. I mean, to me that should have been the end of it, the Judge should have said 'right we don't need any more on this'.
13.55 Drama: Richard Rampton: If the public should come to the conclusion as a result of this verdict that the plaintiffs' food is apt to give them cancer of the bowel or breast it would be the kiss of death for the plaintiffs.
14.07-14.18 Graphics.:the verdict not proved that eating at McD's leads to heart disease or cancer for the majority of customers.for people who eat at McD's several times a week for very any years: "very real risk of heart disease in due course and that it was possible that there would be some increase in the risk of cancer of the breast and cancer of the bowel."
Narration: In his verdict at the end of the trial, the Judge ruled that Helen and Dave had not proved that eating at McDonald's leads to heart disease or cancer for the majority of their customers. But he went on to say that for the small number of people who eat at McDonald's several times a week for very many years, there would be a "very real risk of heart disease in due course and that it was possible that there would be some increase in the risk of cancer of the breast and cancer of the bowel."
14.39 Dave knocks on bedroom door.Sarah Inglis waking upCharlie putting on shoes.Washing up.
Dave - Sarah, it's about 10 past 8.
14.54-15.12 Dave and Sarah preparing for court.Meet Helen at tube.Working on tube.Going in to court.
Dave(v/o): we got together about 80 witnesses..... experts, researchers, people that had worked for mcd, people that had inside experience one way or another. Some of them stayed up at my house, some of them put themselves up in hotels.Helen: Normally witnesses would be paid to attend court and experts would be paid to write their reports, as no doubt McDonald's did. But with us we didn't have that kind of money .... but as soon as we explained what the case was about and what was at stake people were just very willing to help because they saw the importance of the issues.
15.35 Drama
Richard Rampton:May it be credibly suggested that McDonald's wish to sell food leads them to deceive people as to the composition and the health value of the food?
15.44-15.55-16.06-16.30 Interview: Paul PrestonIdent: Paul Preston, President of McDOnald's UKMcD's advertising. Steps, billboards Golden Arches.
Paul Preston: We comply with all legislation, all regulatory agencies in our advertising practies and I stand by those.
Narration: McDonald’s spends 2 billion dollars each year on advertising and promotions - research shows that the Golden Arches are now more recognised than the Christian Cross.
Helen: Without advertising McDonald's wouldn't exist - that's what Paul Preston said when he was in the witness box - it's all image and, you know, creating this image of a happy place to go and, you know, how wonderful they are for society and the environment. And, really, you know, if you can get behind that and expose the reality of the corporation then, you know, there's nothing left.Narration: Helen and Dave argued that McDonald's deliberately deceive the public by promoting their food as healthy and good for you. Their next witness had clashed with McDonald's over exactly these issues.
16.45-16.54-17.09Interview: Stephen Gardner Ident: Stepen Gardner. Former Assistant Attorney General, Texas. Defence witness.Rostrum: McDonald's 'nutritious' ad campaign.
Stephen Gardner The point was the entire ad campaign - not one little claim in one little ad but a whole campaign - was intrinsically deceptive. We didn't mind them promoting their foods, we weren't trying to stop them from selling their foods. Our concern was simply that they would be selling it under a false pretext, that they would be telling people "Don't worry about eating at McDonald's because you're really eating healthy food." And I do believe that for McDonald's to call it's food nutritious is a lie to the public, whether the British public or the American public.
17.16 Graphics:"the verdictvarious of (McDonald's) advertisements, promotions and booklets have pretended to a positive nutritional benefit which McDonald's food... did not match." Narration: At the end of the trial the Judge ruled in favour of Helen and Dave, concluding:"various of (McDonald's) advertisements, promotions and booklets have pretended to a positive nutritional benefit which McDonald's food... did not match."
17.32-17.39-17.43-17.59-18.55 Drama: Rampton.McD's advert.Interview: Sue Dibb, Food CommissionIdent: Sue Dibb, Co-Director, The Food Commission. Defence witness.Kids playing with McD's toys.McD's advert
Rampton: Do the plaintiffs aim and I quote, nearly all their advertising at children.Advert: lots of fun for everyone.Sue Dibb: Advertisers like McDonald's are very aware of 'pester power'. Pester power, as any parent will know, is the ability children have to pester them for something that they want and they can exert a tremendous amount of influence. And this has been recognised by marketeers. In particular they give away gifts and collectable items with many of their meals - particularly with their Happy Meals which are targetted towards younger children. And of course, if you want to collect the whole set you have to go back week after week.
Advert : At the sign that says 'you're welcome'. A visit to McDonald's makes your day.
18.2618.3618.47 Interview: Geoff GuilianoIdent: Geoff Guiliano, former Ronald McDonald actor. Defence witness.Geoffrey as Ronald
Geoff Guilliano:(v/o) Hi boys and girls, how're you doing today? It's Ronald McDonald, your friend, and boy gosh we're going to have a lot of fun today. (sync) I mean I was like - who was the guy in the Third Reich who was the propaganda minister? That's who I was. Ronald McDonald. Kids love him. They don't know why they love him - they love him cos they were told to love him and somebody paid somebody to make them love him.
18.5619.06 DramaIdent: David Green. Head of Marketing, McDonald's Corporation. McDonald's witness (actor)
Dave Morris: Why is it continually necessary for the McDonald's corporation to have that constant bombardment of young children with commercial advertising?
David Green: First of all, I would not agree with your characterisation of bombardment. It is certainly a large marketing effort, and if the children enjoys these activities, we would want them to participate in them. Obviously, we want them to remember McDonald's and, by remembering McDonald's the next time they have a chance to go out to eat, they might select that as opposed to one of our competitors.
19.31-19.39 Rostrum: Operations Manual“Remember, children exert a phenomenal influence when it comes to restaurant selection. This means you should do everything you can to appeal to children’s love for Ronald and McDonald’s”.
Narration: McDonald’s tactics were revealed in their confidential “Operations Manual”:“Remember, children exert a phenomenal influence when it comes to restaurant selection. This means you should do everything you can to appeal to children’s love for Ronald and McDonald’s”.
19.49-19.54 The Funday. Ronald arriving, Ronald with kids.Charlie playing with balloons.
Kids: yeah
Ronald: give me the thumbs up.
Narration: Two years into the trial, it was Charlie's turn to experience McDonald's marketing techniques.
20.02-20.11-20.21 Interview: Dave at Funday.Ron
ald with chequeRonald's mindersIdent: Suna Scutcher, parent. Dave Morris (V/O): Basically, they've just completely taken over the event. For a miniscule amount of money got borough wide publicity, it's disgusting.
Narration: McDonald's donateed £500 to Charlie's playcentre and brought Ronald McDonald and 12 officials to their summer Funday.
Parent: It must seem very tempting if a big organisation offers them money, like that. Unfortunately they don't realise how their own hard work and their own FunDay is hijacked then for publicity purposes.
20.37 Kids chanting
Dave Morris: There was so much hype that the children were being encouraged to chant Ronald McDonald.Kids: Ronald McDonald!
20.48 Interview: Sue Dibb
Sue Dibb: I think that by employing that strategy they are really exploiting children. They're exploiting children's special relationship that they have with characters like Ronald McDonald, and they're using that to encourage children to go to McDonald's. And I think there's a question of whether its right for any company to do that. One could say that in fact it was cynical exploitation of children.
21.14-21.28 Graphics"exploit children by using them, as more susceptible subjects of advertising, to pressurise their parents into going to McDonald's."
Interview: Geoff Guilliano
Narration: The Judge ruled in favour of Helen and Dave, and said that McDonald's "exploit children by using them, as more susceptible subjects of advertising, to pressurise their parents into going to McDonald's." Geoff Guilliano : I mean anyone can really manipulate a child you know, this is not that difficult, and I just went home one night and said 'I can't live with myself if I continue to do this."
21.41 Graphics: August 1994:. McDonald's initiate settlement negotiations.
Settlement meeting
21.47 Interview: DaveExterior of office where meeting was held.Graphics: Shelby Yastrow, Executive Vice-President, McDonald's Corporation.Dick Starmann, Senior Vice-President, McDonald's Corporation.
Dave Morris: After the first few months of the case we got a note out of the blue that McDonald's wanted to meet us anyplace, anytime, and they would fly over members of their Board of Directors, which they did, cos they wanted to settle the case. So obviously we agreed - it showed they were feeling on very weak ground having heard the arguments up to that point. And they flew over - Shelby Yastrow and Dick Starmen - to have secret talks with us: me and Helen.
22.24 Subtitles
Yastrow: I think it would be a prerequisite to any settlement we make that we agree on how it would be portrayed. Because you're good at this press stuff and I don't want to get involved in that. I don't want to have to worry that you're going to go out and say 'This guy flew over from America with a bag full of money or 'this guy privately acknowledged that this is a stupid lawsuit'. I can't take a chance on being stung twice.
Outside of building
Shelby Yastrow: I think it would be a prerequisite to any settlement we make that we agree on how it would be portrayed. Because you're good at this press stuff and I don't want to get involved in that. I don't want to have to worry that you're going to go out and say 'This guy flew over from America with a bag full of money or 'this guy privately acknowledged that this is a stupid lawsuit'. I can't take a chance on being stung twice.
22.54 Interview: Helen
Helen Steel: I just felt that I don't want them to be able to pull out of this case and then do the same thing to other people, and other people to go through 5 years of exhaustion and stress and whathaveyou.
23.06 Subtitles
Yastrow: They have a right to their opinions about McDonalds, god love 'em for that - freedom of speech, depending on how you say it. But we have a right to defend ourselves in court too.
Shelby Yastrow: They have a right to their opinions about McDonalds, god love 'em for that - freedom of speech, depending on how you say it. But we have a right to defend ourselves in court too.
23.14-23.20 Steel: You know, it's quite serious to say to someone "you can't hand out any leaflets full stop."Yastrow: I don't think you ought to hand out leaflets about McDonalds. I think you've played that card, Helen. You've done it, you've had your day in the sun. And I'm insisting that any comments you make about McDonalds has to be private.
Helen Steel: You know, it's quite serious to say to someone "you can't hand out any leaflets full stop."
Shelby Yastrow: I don't think you ought to hand out leaflets about McDonalds. I think you've played that card, Helen. You've done it, you've had your day in the sun. And I'm insisting that any comments you make about McDonalds has to be private.
23.35 Interview: Helen
Helen Steel: We wrote them back a letter saying that we would consider that if they agreed not to run any more advertisements about McDonald's. And said, of course this agreement would not prevent you from privately recommending McDonald's to your friends and neighbours, sort of thing. But they didn't reply to that one.
23.54-24.04-24.16-24.18-24.20-24.21-24.22Subtitles
Starrman :You think you're going to win the case - we think we're going to win the case. It's ironic that two sides can see the same thing and see it so differently. Of course, I guess that's true of a lot of the issue too.Morris: You're saying that the McDonalds corporation, which you represent, is seeking to prevent us handing out leaflets which in America we'd have a constitutional right to give out.
Yastrow: : I'm not trying to stop you. If you wanna do it, fine.
Morris: You are trying to stop us.Yastrow: : But no, no, but then forget the....
Morris: You are - that's what the whole thing's about Yastrow: Forget the settlement then.
Dick Starrman - You think you're going to win the case - we think we're going to win the case. It's ironic that two sides can see the same thing and see it so differently. Of course, I guess that's true of a lot of the issue too.
Dave Morris: You're saying that the McDonalds corporation, which you represent, is seeking to prevent us handing out leaflets which in America we'd have a constitutional right to give out.
Shelby Yastrow: : I'm not trying to stop you. If you wanna do it, fine.
Dave Morris: You are trying to stop us.
Shelby Yastrow: : But no, no, but then forget the....Dave Morris: You are - that's what the whole thing's about Shelby Yastrow: Forget the settlement then.
24.24 Interview: Dave
Dave Morris: You know, if they'd come up with something that protected the right to free speech and compensated those they'd sued in the past - and us - then we would have considered it. But there was really such a gulf between the two sides that they just couldn't bear to accept any of our demands really. And so it was back to court
.
24.50 Helen/ Dave meet at Turnpike Lane
Narration: The court is in session almost every day so Dave and Helen must use whatever time they can find for legal preparations.
24.58 On platform
Dave Morris: You doing the cross-examination today or am I doing it? who's starting?
25.05 Helen Steel: You can start. I'm not ready - as per usual. Mind you are you ready?
25.12 On tube
Helen Steel: I mean I read all through Alimi's statement and Ray Coton's as well. I'm looking at the wage slips. I was half way through doing a chart but I was completely exhausted and I couldn’t finish it, I just had to go to bed.
25.31 Walking through gates/ along street/ into court
Helen (V/O): Normally if you're campaigning against a multinational if you ever get to speak to someone its the PR department and they can just hide behind their glib answers, whereas when you have an executive in the witness box they have to answer your questions. So it is a unique opportunity to get the inner workings of a huge multinational company out into the open.
25.55 DramaPeople unfurling banner outside court "Big Mac Grilled Over Workers Rights."
Mr Rampton: Then I pass to employment. The issue I pose here is: do the plaintiffs cynically exploit their workforce for the sake of a fast buck? Are the plaintiffs hostile to Trade Unions?
26.14 Workers in McD's restaurant
Narration : McDonald's today employ more than a million people. Most are young: two thirds of them under 21.
Narration: To keep work rates high, workers must hustle: work at speed.
26.30 Interview: Paul Preston, McD's UK PresidentIdent:Paul Preston, President, McDonald's UK
Paul Preston: Hard work doesn't frighten youth of today - not at all. They want to be part of something that is victorious, something that they can see as the shining light.
26.41 Interview: Ian WhittleIdent: Ian Whittle, former McDOnald's worker. Defence wtness.More workers Ian Whittle - It’s funny, when you’re first employed at McDonald’s you’re given this impression that it’s a really fun place to work. It’s like joining a gang. As soon as it gets busy it’s like working in a submarine or something in warfare, you’re really pushed to the limits... to deliver as much as you possibly can, and that’s all that the managers are interested in.Manager - (shouts a lot.)
27.02 Interview: Dan GallinIdent: Dan Gallin, General Secretary, International Union of Food WorkersTrainer in restaurant.
Dan Gallin: The type of work organisation promoted by McDonald’s - the extreme breaking down of simple repetitive operations and so forth is essentially dehumanising . Trainer: I love the way you turn it, it's great.
Dan Gallin: Under the high stress and exhausting work being performed they cannot last very long.
27.22 Interview: Dave Morrismore workers.
Dave: I think people might say... "well, what do you expect, if you work for a company you get exploited". But the kind of conditions that McDonald's have helped to pioneer - McJobs - are becoming more and more normal and that's exactly why we need to scrutinise and criticise those kinds of conditions. Otherwise it will be accepted as something that can't be challenged.
27.53-28.11 Helen working in clubInterview: Dan GallinHelen (v/o): After about a year of the trial I got a job working in a nightclub. It's just quite a release from the case cos it's so busy in there. I work a cupe of nights a week and take home about 65 pounds a week.Dan Gallin: Trade unions are about human dignity. That is the basic motivation and the reason for existence of unions is the defence of human dignity.
28.19-28.26-28.31DramaIdent: Sid Nicholson. Former Head of Scurity & Presonnel, McDonald's UK. McDOnald's witness (actor)Mr Morris: If somebody amongst the crew was a member of a union, or wished to be a member of a union, they would not be allowed to collect subscriptions, would they, from other people in the store?
Sid Nicholson. No, no.
Q. They would not be allowed to put any notices on the notice boards?
A. No.
28.33-28.39-28.42
Q. They would not be allowed to inform the union about conditions inside the stores?
A. I do not know how we could stop that. If we found out about it, yes.
Q. ... Informing outside organisations about in store conditions is in the Gross Misconduct, a summary sackable offence?
28.4728.50
A. Yes, it is.
Q. Are crew members at McDonald's allowed to organise a meeting, union meeting on store premises?A. No.
28.5529.03
Mr Justice Bell: Can I summarise it this way: they would not be allowed to carry out any overt union activity on McDonald's premises?
A. That's absolutely correct, sir.
Mr Justice Bell (to Mr Morris): Can you do better than that?
29.08-29.20
Graphics "strongly antipathetic to any idea of unionisation". Pay low wages, thereby helping to depress wages across the industry.Working conditions not "bad".
Narration: The Judge ruled that McDonald's UK are "strongly antipathetic to any idea of unionisation" and that they pay low wages thereby helping to depress wages across the catering industry.He also ruled that although the work at McDonald's UK stores was hard and often hectic, that there were no guaranteed hours, often inadequate breaks and sometimes unlawful hours worked, he did not consider conditions to be "bad" as stated in the leaflet.
29.35-29.40-29.46-29.49-29.50 Charlie feeding ducks.Helen and Dave meeting in park
DM: what's happening on Tuesday? Crawford, you've got to speak to Professor Crawford.
HS: Yeah tomorrow evening. No, tomorrow we're supposed to be having a legal meeting with Keir.
DM: Oh god yeah. then we've got the Daily Mirror coming round on Tuesday evening. NBC want to do something as well.
HS: Do we know when?
DM: They're going to show it in the summer holidays but they're going to start the filming...(continue chatting)
29.59-30.08-30.09-30.14-30.17-30.32Still in park. Helen being interviewd.Dave & Helen with media scrum outside court. night.Cameras on the tube.Dave interview on phone.More media scrum.
Helen (v/o) I'm normally quite a private person and I actually find it quite hard talking to the media, particularly on film and on radio
Reporter: How's it affected your home lives?
Dave Morris: What home lives?
Dave Morris: And that's why it's going on so long.
Reporter: Jeremy, back with you there.
Helen: (v/o) Its particularly frustrating when you spend, you know, a couple of hours talking to a journalist about all the issues in the case, and then two weeks later you see the article and its just completely, stuff about your haircut, or what jumper you've got on.
Helen (sync): I feel absolutely fine speaking in court, but put me in front of a camera and I just like.. (laughs) just want to curl up.
30.42-30.46 Graphics: We could worsen the contoversy by adding our opinion. We want to keep it at arms length - not become guilty by association. McD's Australia memo, 1992Narration: Something of McDonald's media tactics was revealed by a leaked company memo from Australia."We could worsen the contoversy by adding our opinion. We want to keep it at arms length - not become guilty by association."
30.57 Interview: Lynne FranksIdent: Lynne Franks, PR guru.Rostrum: Article on front page of Wall Street Journal.
Lynne Franks: I do think it's been a public relations disaster. It's arrogant, its the arrogance of the multi-nationals to think that they can own and silence everything and they can't anymore. Had that information continued to be distributed the way it was it would have caused certain ripples in a very small way. By turning it into a libel case quite obviously McDs have turned a major international spotlight onto the very thing they wanted to keep quiet.
31.23 Card: 16th February 1996: McSpotlight internet site launched.
31.28 Launch of McSpotlight Internet site.
Dave Morris: This McSpotlight web site is a library of information about McDonald's corporation. All the things they don't want you to know and all the things they've now failed to stop the public finding out about.
31.4231.59 McSpotlight screens.Interview: Ben Leamy, McSpotlight volunteer Ident: Ben Leamy, McSpotlight volunteer.
Narration: the website made over 20,000 pages of information available worldwide: all the daily transcripts from court, banned material from previous libel cases and of course 'What's Wrong With McDonald's' leaflets, now translated into a dozen languages and ready to be printed off.Ben Leamy - We've taken what Helen and Dave did one stage further and made this available internationally for all time, never to be censored again.
32.08 McSpotlight screen: "20 March '96. McSpotlight: 1,000,000 accesses in the first month!!"
Interview: Lynne Franks
Lynne Franks: With Internet, with communications and technology progressing the way it is - and cable TV and digital TV and so on - there are going to be so many more successful ways for information to be distributed around the world that companies, multinationals will not be able to keep secrets anymore.
32.28-32.33 Card: Day 270. 2nd anniversary of the trial.Helen and Dave outside court with birthday cake.
Dave: Does anyone want to come and eat Ronald McDonald?
32.35 Narration: The four week trial had turned into a marathon for everybody. McDonald's UK Vice-President was in court every day and a stream of executives from both sides of the Atlantic were called to give evidence.
32.47-32.57 DramaInteview: Charles SecrettIdent: Charles Secrett, Director, Friends of the Earth. Defence witness.McDonald's Big Mac lorries.Lorries with logs.Caption: McDonald's wood pulp suppliers, HollandFactory: Caption: McDonald's paper suppliers, Finland.
Mr Rampton: (Starts as v/o) I state the issue in this way, and I hope your Lordship will think it a fair way of stating it. Is the plaintiffs use of resources significantly detrimental to the environment?
Charles Secrett: Any company as large as McDonalds is bound to have a huge and usually very bad impact on the environment. I mean, when one thinks of all their tens of thousands of stores world-wide and the demand that McDonalds as a corporation creates for wood and paper pulp and chemicals and metals the environmental impact of these production processes is huge - in pollution terms, in the waste of energy and in the use of land for what must be described as trivial consumer products.
33.35 Speech: Paul Preston
Paul Preston: We take our environmental responsibility very seriously. We take the goals of reduce, recycle and reuse and apply them where practical across the entire business.
33.48 Packaging lying around in stores.Worker emptying bin.Litter.
Narration: McDonald's produce 900,000 tonnes of packaging every year, used for just a few minutes before being discarded. But does it end up as litter on the streets?
34.01-34.05-34.09-34.19-34.24 Drama:Ident: Ed Oakley, Head of Purchasing, McDonald's Europer. McDonald's witness (actor)
Dave Morris: Is it not a fact of life that virtually every main street has a great amount of McDonald's packaging?
Ed Oakley: No, it is not a fact of life.
Dave Morris: Dozens, if not hundreds of items? Ed Oakley: Not a fact of life. I walked through Paddington this morning. I found one McDonald's package which I disposed of. So, I think that is a gross overstatement.
Mr Justice Bell: There were two on Waterloo Bridge this morning, but I did not dispose of them, I am afraid.
Ed Oakley: I would have done.
34.27 Interview: Helen at home
Helen Steel: During the summer last year I really felt like I needed to get away from the case and get away from McDonald's as well. And went up to Scotland and I climebed up Ben Lomand on one day. . You expect it - everywhere you go in London you see their litter and so on, but, you know, I climbed up the top of this mountain - it was the last place I expected to be reminded of McDonald's and there you are, there's someone sitting at the top in a McDonald's t-shirt. You can't get away from them.
34.57 McD's paper bag.Rainforests - aerial view.Cattle ranching.Chainsaws.
Narration: The most controversial allegation made in the leaflet was that McDonald's are involved in the destruction of rainforests to create pasture for cattle.
35.13 Interview: Paul Preston
Paul Preston: McDonalds has absolutely nothing to do with the rainforest, in terms of beef production. We never have and we never will.
35.2035.3335.44 Interview: DaveDave marking map of Brazil.Interview: Keir Starmer
Dave: We always knew it would be an uphill struggle to get evidence of direct involvement by McDonald's in tropical forest desturction. After all, all the witnesses and the official documents and so on, were on the other side of the world. And we didn't have the resources to track them down and bring them to court. And also it was avery sensitive and high-profile issue for the corportion.
Keir :if you sit back and think about some of the witnesses that could have come on behalf of Dave and Helen, but didn't because nobody could pay their air fare, the verdict pales into insignificance, it's meaningless. If both sides had had all the witnesses they wanted there, then a true verdict might have been possible, but with the best will in the world the judge can only give a verdict according to the evidence and the evidence costs money.
36.14-36.20-36.27-36.35 Graphics"proportion of recycled paper is "small", not "tiny"McD's not responsible for litter.McD's not involved in rainforest destruction. The Judge came down heavily on Helen and Dave in the environment section of the case. He ruled that although McDonald's used only a "small" amount of recycled paper, the proportion was not "tiny" as stated in the leaflet.He discounted the evidence on litter saying that it was the customers who dropped it who were responsible, not McDonald's.And he ruled that, although the production of beef in South America has led to the destruction of the rainforests, there was no evidence of direct involvement by McDonald's.
36.44 Helen and Dave walking out of court.
Helen: I'm really exxahsuted. It was OK though. I mean it was really stressful.
Dave: They didn't get anywqhere, tht's the main thing.
36.53 Helen and Dave walking down street.
Helen (v/o): Its quite funny cos the transcripts sometimes come out with that me or Dave have said 'something, something m'lud' and we've never once said 'm'lud' . Wee believe in treating him with respect as another human being but, don't believe in deferring or whathaveyou.
37.08 Interview: Helen
Helen (sync): We do stand up though, when he comes in. Which is a bit of a sell out.
37.14 Helen and Dave walking down street.Interview: Dave
Dave: I think Helen and me have a particularly good working relationship because erm, you know, we've campaigned together on a number of issues for erm, over ten years. We shared an allotment - we even shared a house for some time with other people as well but that's about As far as it goes (laughter)- erm, there's no sex angle, I'm afraid.
37.33 Interview: Dan Gallin
Dan Gallin: What they’ve actually done is hold McDonalds accountable to society on behalf of our society. I think they’re heroes of our time. Of course we support them.
37.52-37.56-38.15 Dan Mills, McLibel Support Campaign co-ordinatorMcLibel Support Campaign officeDan opening money, faxing, phoning etc. Volunteers stuffing enevlopes in front room Volunteer(sync) - McLibel Support Campaign.
Helen (v/o): The support we've had from the public has been amazing, every time there's an article in the papers we get a flood more letters wishing us well um, sending in donations to keep the case going and so on. And that's really what's given us the strength to carry on.
Narration: Volunteers working from a spare room in a flat in North London raised about 30,000 pounds for witness airfares and court costs. Estimates for McD's total expenditure range between 5 and 15 million pounds.
38.32 Dave in his office. Sorting files.
Dave Morris: We've got 40,000 documents and 420,000 pages of testimony to read through - it's impossible, without a trained team of 10 lawyers to even read a 10th of the material in this case. It's just too much for us. It's got to the point where I just don't have tim for Charlie anymore - communication's just broken down between us and I end up shouting at him and I have to say 'look, Charlie, just go off and play, because I've got work to do'.
39.05-39.21 Helen and Dave walk into Keir's office.Helen/ Dave/ Keir having meeting
Dave (v/o): We've invested our lives. Especially the last three years have been just constant pressure of administration, of the paperwork, preparations and questioning, and all kinds of legal complexities, all down on us all the time.
Keir: Hang on. The principles extracted from the case of Derbyshire are equally applicable and should be applied.
39.2439.44 Interview: HelenKeir meeting
Helen Steel (v/o): after court on Friday I went to the doctor's to get a certificate,to say that, you know, I'm totally exhausted and I need a break. I just felt totally burnt out and I wasn't really able to carry on. So we're going to be making an application for the court to be adjourned for two weeks.There was just so much stress really that we just ended up taking it out on each other.
Dave Morris: I can't work on things in different files. I need to be able to shift stuff around. So I want it all in the same document.
Helen Steel: It's actually very easy to shift things from one document to another
Dave Morris: I can't do it. That's just a fact.Helen Steel: Well if you took about 2 minutes you could learn.
Dave Morris: Well I can't.
Helen working at home at night.
Narration: The 2 week rest period recommended by Helen's doctor was turned down by the Judge who ruled that the trial must continue.
40.02 Card: 1 November 1996. McLibel becomes longest trial in English history
40.15 Helen and Dave on tube on way to court
Narration: As the trial past another historic landmark the court heard the last of the evidence.
40.21 Drama Richard Rampton: My Lord, the rearing and slaughter of animals is next. Here I express the issue in this way: are the methods by which animals to make McDonald's food are reared and slaughtered cruel and inhumane?
40.38 Cooking at McD's. Patties.Meat racks.Cattle dangling. Narration: Animal products are McDonald's chief ingredient: beef, chicken, pork and milk, eggs and cheese.
The corporation's the world’s largest user of beef, using meat from 6% of the world’s cattle.
40.51-41.00 Drama:Ident: David Walker. Chairman McKeys Ltd. Commissioner, MEat & Livestock Commission. McDonald's witness (Actor)
Mr Rampton: Would you summarise for us what is your attitude to the welfare of pigs and cattle which are used to produce food for human consumption?
Mr Walker: My conceptions are that no animal will put on weight or grow unless it is healthy and contented. You cannot force an animal to increase its weight. I definitely think that we have consideration for animals and their well?being, and I do both in terms of abattoirs and in terms of farming.
41.26-41.42 Sun Valley exteriors.Caption: Sun Valley, McDonald's suppliers.Battery chickens.Caption: library footageNarration: 27 million birds for McNuggets and McChicken Sandwiches are raised in these sheds every year.
Nearly half have leg abnormalities and 4000 die prematurely every day. McDonald's eggs come from more than 3 million battery hens, the battery cage system producing eggs significantly cheaper than free range.
41.51-41.53-41.56-41.59 Drama:Ident: Ed Oakley, Head of Purchasing, McDonald's Europe.
Helen: Would you describe a battery cage as "comfortable"?
Mr Oakley: I think it is pretty comfortable. Helen. You would like to spend the whole of your life crouched on a wire floor?
Justice Bell: Is it really helpful to anthropomorphise these things?
42.044-2.09-42.14 Helen: Are you seriously asserting it is comfortable for chickens to stand on a wire floor for the whole of their lives?
Mr Oakley: I do not know that it is not comfortable, so how can I say?
Helen: You do not know that it is not?
Mr Oakley:.No ?? any more than you do.
42.19-42.32 Chicks on escalatorCaption: library footage Hens having throats cut.
Narration: At McDonald's suppliers, in similar conditions to these, 1000 unwanted chicks are gassed every week.For the adult birds, pre-slaughter stunning often fails, so each day about 1300 chickens have their throats cut whilst still fully conscious.
42.43-42.49-42.58-43.07 DramaIdent: David Walker. Chairman McKeys Ltd. Commissioner, MEat & Livestock Commission.
McDonald's witness (Actor)
Narration: Helen attempted to push McDonald's hamburger supplier into a frank assessment of the meat industry.
Helen: .The point I was making was that Mr. Walker seemed to be accepting that as a result of the meat industry the suffering of animals is inevitable. Is that correct?
Mr Walker: Are you asking me a question, sorry?
Helen: As a result of the meat industry the suffering of animals is inevitable?
Mr Walker: The answer to that must be yes.
43.12 Graphics" culpably responsible for cruel practices in the rearing and slaughter of some of the animals which are used to produce their food".
Narration: The Judge found 9 examples of cruel practices at McDonald's suppliers and concluded that McDonald's are " culpably responsible for cruel practices in the rearing and slaughter of some of the animals which are used to produce their food".
43.27 Card: 13th December 1996: Day 313. End of hearing.
43.31 Helen and Dave coming out of court. Dark.Rampton/ team coming out.
Narration: After two and a half years in court the longest trial in English legal history finally came to an end. For both sides there was nothing left but the suspense of a 6-month wait while Mr Justice Bell considered his verdict.
43.4644.01 New store being constructed.Rostrum: Annual Report: 'Strategies for Global Domination'
Interview: Dave MorrisMcD's in IndiaCaption: Delhi, India. Opened 1995Rostrum: South Africa McDonald's. Caption: 'Cape Town, South Africa. Opened 1994.'
In the time that the trial had been running, McDonald's made profits of 3.6 billion dollars, opening more than 6,000 new stores in 31 new countries - that's one every three hours. Dave Morris: Multinational corporations are moneymaking machines geared to making maximum profits and increasing their power and expanding and the only way they can do that is by exploiting the worlds resources, exploiting their workers and customers for the companies own needs and ok they might throw in a salad option on the menu to pretend they're concerned about healthy eating but there's really nothing they can do because fundamentally they exist for that one purpose - making profits for their shareholders....
44.39-44.57 Houses of Paliament.Interview: Jeremy Corbyn MPIdent: Jeremy Corbyn MPDave and friends loading files into landrover
Jeremy Corbyn MP: We have this enormous corporation -McDonalds - which is global in every sense of the word and, to me, is acting in a sort of appalling manner towards people who have raised perfectly legitimate questions. Now anyone that might seriously be concerned about McDonalds products will take one look at their use of libel and the way they've used it to silence people in the past and think "Well hang on, I can't drag my institution/ my newspaper/ my magazine into all this", so they go and look at something else. And I'm just concerned that we have this sort-of massive corporation that nobody dares speak out against.
45.18 Interview: Keir Starmer
Keir Starmer: It's very interesting to see that the courts have now recognised that er. government departments and local authorities can't sue for libel on the basis that it would stifle free speech. Er. in my view the same ought to apply um. for multi-nationals.
45.38 Interview: Mike MansfieldIdent: Michael Mansfield QCMike Mansfield: Oh, there's no question ordinary people should have the right to criticise multinationals, Government agencies, anything that is being done that affects the welfare of their daily lives. The public should be in a position to make judgements for themselves because we're dealing with individual welfare, and I must be in a position to decide whether I want - and this is the basic thing - when I walk down the High St, do I want to go in there and participate in an organisation which is doing the kind of things that have been exposed in the case? Do I want my children to go into a kind of organisation like that?
46.13 Card: 19th June 1997: Judgment day.
46.18 Dave drawing on the bus.
46.32 Dave writing on bag.Helen/ Dave walk into court. Reporters: Dave! Dave!
46.37-46.40-47.07 Court exteriorsGraphicsVerdict - not provenrainforest destructionfood poisoningThrid World starvationbad woring conditonsprovenexploit childrenfalse advertisingcruel to anialsantipathetic to unionspay low wagesNarration:
Mr Justice Bell took 2 hours to read his summary to a packed court room: Helen and Dave had not proved the allegations against McDonald's on heart disease and cancer, food poisoning, starvation in the Third World, rainforest destruction, and bad working conditions. But they had shown that McDonald's "exploit children" with their advertising, produce misleading advertising, are "culpably responsible" for cruelty to animals, are "strongly antipathetic" to unions and pay their workers low wages. He ruled that Helen and Dave had libelled McDonald's, but as they had proved many of the allegations, they would only owe 3/5ths of the claimed damages: £60,000.
47.17-47.34-47.38-47.40-48.13 Helen and Dave outside court.Media scrum on streets.Press conference:Caption: Helen and Dave's press conference cheering
Helen: this is weird, this is really weird This is so strange,
Dave: What do we do, do we stay here all day.
Helen: Stand here for long enough for them to get a load of photos. Hold your bag up.
Mike Mansfield: Many, many other people and within the British public, owe a debt of gratitude to these two young people. It is safe to say that they have dared to tread where no otheres have dared to tread, where those with resources have drawn back.
48.35 Press conference:Caption: McDonald's press conference.
Paul Preston: We are, as you can imagine, broadly satisfied with the Judgment heard this morning. It's my responsiblity to protect our reputation and that's exactly what w've done. Very serious allgations were made about our company. They were proven to be false.
48.53 Press conference:
Keir Starmer: For McDonald's the only victory was to win on all 7 issues. They had the libel team, the expert team of lawyers working for the last 5 years behind the scenes and in court for them.That's where the victory lies, in the fact that Dave and Helen have won almost half of this case with those odds stacked against them.
49.11-49.23-49.32-49.48 H & D'S Press conferenceMcD's press conferenceH & D'S Press conferenceMcD's press conference
Helen: As far as we're concerned, what would have been a loss is if w hadn't fought the case and people had been intiidated nto silence.
Preston: well, this wasn;t a matter of costs, it wasn;t a matter of damages. it was a atter of establishing the truth. That's what we set out to do and that's exactly what we did.
Helen: We're not going to pay the damages. McDonald's don't deserve a penny and in any event we haven't got any money.
Reporters: Are you going to be pursuing the damages? Sit down!Over here, mate.
49.51 H & D'S Press conference
Dave: Obviously we're exhausted and stressed, face bankruptcy, you know, but that is not going to deter us because that's so trivial compared to the need to stand up to the people who are dominating our planet.
50.11-50.19-50.28 Graphics: McD's decided not to pursue their damages or an injunction against Helen and Dave, despite these being their stated aims in bringing the trial.They declined to participate in this film.In parliament, Jeremy Corbyn MP is calling for legislation to prevent multinational corporations from suing for libel.Caption: 2 days after the verdict.
50.30 Helen and Dave leafleting outside McDonald's.
50.42 Graphics: 450,000 leaflets were given out worldwide in the week of ther verdict.The McSpotlight Internet site was accessed 2.2 million times.
51.10 People reading leaflets.
50.53 Graphics: Helen and Dave are preparing to go to the European Court of Human Rights to claim that their non-jury, no-legal aid trial was oppressive and that the libel laws are unfair.They hope to finish with McLibel around the year 2002.
51.35 Credits:Camera: Neve CunninghamEditor: Gregers SallAssistant Producer: San DaveyProducer/ Director: Franny Armstrong© One-Off Productions Ltd 1997