On the 21st June 08, as part of the anniversary of the now famous 1997 McLibel court case in which two campaigners were sued by the McDonalds Corporation for distributing a leaflet critical of the company, campaigners entered the McDonalds in Rose Crescent, Cambridge.
After being removed from the restaurant by police a campaigner was approached and his details requested. He gave his name and address but was told if he did not give his date of birth he would be arrested under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. He refused, as he believes that a person is only required to give their name and address for the purpose of a summons and no additional details. He was subsequently arrested under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. The arrest got public attention with people making use of their cameras and coming up to take leaflets.
He has been charged and bailed to attend Cambridge Magistrates – Narey – Court 613 – Magistrates Court at 43 Hauxton Road, Cambridge on the 3rd July at 9.30 a.m. – ANY SUPPORT APPRECIATED.
The protesters hoped to highlight the issues that originally comprised the leaflet that led to the court case ranging from animal farming to environmental degradation. According to a campaigner, “McDonalds hasn’t really changed. Whether it be the environmental impact of animal agriculture or the fact they continue to market junk food to children in the middle of an obesity problem, McDonalds still makes a lot of people very Mcangry.”
Many of the original leaflet’s criticisms of McDonalds were vindicated in court. According to the ruling of the High Court, Mcdonalds had ‘exploited children’, was ‘culpably responsible for animal cruelty’ and used marketing that had ‘pretended to a positive nutritional benefit which their food did not match’.
The campaigners are calling on the people of Cambridge to boycott the restaurant chain. We can all make a statement about our values by the way we spend our cash. We call on everyone to say no to this business in our city.
- You can learn more about the McLibel case at
http://www.mcspotlight.org/
- An additional video of the protest was taken by an independent camera man see http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/401610.html (thanks!)
- Protester’s video at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld3I4zVxc2A
COURT DATE:
Cambridge Magistrates – Narey – Court 613 – Magistrates Court at 43 Hauxton Road, Cambridge on the 3rd July at 9.30 a.m.
After being removed from the restaurant by police a campaigner was approached and his details requested. He gave his name and address but was told if he did not give his date of birth he would be arrested under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. He refused, as he believes that a person is only required to give their name and address for the purpose of a summons and no additional details. He was subsequently arrested under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. The arrest got public attention with people making use of their cameras and coming up to take leaflets.
He has been charged and bailed to attend Cambridge Magistrates – Narey – Court 613 – Magistrates Court at 43 Hauxton Road, Cambridge on the 3rd July at 9.30 a.m. – ANY SUPPORT APPRECIATED.
The protesters hoped to highlight the issues that originally comprised the leaflet that led to the court case ranging from animal farming to environmental degradation. According to a campaigner, “McDonalds hasn’t really changed. Whether it be the environmental impact of animal agriculture or the fact they continue to market junk food to children in the middle of an obesity problem, McDonalds still makes a lot of people very Mcangry.”
Many of the original leaflet’s criticisms of McDonalds were vindicated in court. According to the ruling of the High Court, Mcdonalds had ‘exploited children’, was ‘culpably responsible for animal cruelty’ and used marketing that had ‘pretended to a positive nutritional benefit which their food did not match’.
The campaigners are calling on the people of Cambridge to boycott the restaurant chain. We can all make a statement about our values by the way we spend our cash. We call on everyone to say no to this business in our city.
- You can learn more about the McLibel case at
http://www.mcspotlight.org/ - An additional video of the protest was taken by an independent camera man see
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/06/401610.html (thanks!) - Protester’s video at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ld3I4zVxc2A COURT DATE:
Cambridge Magistrates – Narey – Court 613 – Magistrates Court at 43 Hauxton Road, Cambridge on the 3rd July at 9.30 a.m.
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
Offense of not giving name and address?
10.07.2008 06:15
That's the final straw of any respect I had left for British law. This is overtly a tool for fascists - being able to stop people in the street and ask their name address and date of birth is the first step towards 'show me your papers' when the ID card is forced on us.
Q. Can a person simply walk away and say 'unless you are arresting me then I'm going about my business, stop obstructing me'
Alastair McGowan
Homepage:
http://www.ecovillage.co.uk
no they can't
16.08.2008 18:31
There's a more sinister version of this power which popped up in the NECTU handbook found at climate camp, which says that under a recent anti-social behaviour law they can demand name and address if they "suspect" someone has been or might be involved in "anti-social behaviour" (not necessarily illegal behaviour as such) - they might have been using this at Climate Camp to demand details on arrival.
So technically someone could still say "I'm not giving details" and walk away... police could then in principle arrest them "for not giving details under suspicion of anti-social behaviour" and it would be up to a court to decide whether they had such "suspicion" in good faith or not. Which of course would be rather touch-and-go
There was also talk of bringing in unlimited "stop and question" powers last year, which seem to have vanished - probably because police decided they could use what they already have in this way.
Incidentally, Washington DC has recently brought in police checkpoints on the roads where people (drivers only, not pedestrians) have to prove their identity (ID card) and a "valid reason" to be in the area (visiting friends or passing through are not "valid reasons") - these are introduced for a short period, supposedly "to curb crime", in African-American areas - basically it's the Palestine model of oppression being introduced a step at a time.
yeh police state