This is in response to the numerous requests I get to pick up the phone, e-mail, write, send a pigeon or whatever to blacklisted schools. Well it's not exactly an even playing field out there and I've better things to do than fight some corporate monster, armed with a huge legal war chest to bully and threaten anyone who dares speak out against them.
The case below was described as David versus Goliath and was considered a PR disaster for the corporation concerned, as the judge decided that McDonald's had "pretended to a positive nutritional benefit which their food did not match"; had exploited children in its advertising, and paid low wages, "helping to depress wages in the catering trade".
McDonald's spent over £10 million for nothing in their petty battle against two penniless people. Yes that's right, £10 million just for the pleasure of shooting themselves in the foot!
Some of the people, who send The Inspector abusive messages would do well to listen to the wisdom of Voltaire who said:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
If anything written here can be shown, beyond reasonable doubt, to be false it will be removed, as has already been shown on a number of occasions.
_________________________________________________________________
McLibel: Longest case in English history
Steel and Morris on Tuesday - 15 years after being served a libel writ by McDonald'sThe European court ruling that two activists should have been allowed legal aid in their libel battle with McDonald's is just the latest of many twists in the longest case in English legal history.
The case goes back to the mid 1980s and a public campaign attacking aspects of the fast food industry.
In 1986 the London Greenpeace group - separate from the international Greenpeace movement and including Helen Steel and David Morris - produced leaflets attacking McDonald's.
The leaflet, called 'What's wrong with McDonalds - everything they don't want you to know', did not hold back.
Among other things, it accused the corporation of encouraging litter, mistreating animals and workers and destroying rain forests.
In 1990 McDonald's served libel writs on five volunteers in the group, beginning a battle often compared to that of David - and Helen - against Goliath.
It demanded that they retract the claims in it and apologise - or go to court and prove that all the allegations were true.
At the time, McDonald's economic power outstripped that of many small countries, with worldwide sales of about $30bn in 1995.
Three of the activists decided that, with no legal aid, they could not fight the massive corporation. They backed down and apologised.
But two - Ms Steel, 39, and Mr Morris, 50, both from Tottenham, north London - refused to do so.
Ms Steele was a part-time bar-worker earning a maximum of £65 a week, and Mr Morris was an unemployed postman who was responsible for the day-to-day care of his son, then aged four.
The inequality of arms, as the European court noted, "could not have been greater".
'£10m legal bill'As they had no legal aid and not much money of their own, Ms Steel and Mr Morris had to fight the case with only occasional unpaid help from lawyers - mounting their own defence and own representation.
McDonald's, on the other hand, was represented by leading and junior counsel, experienced in libel law, and by one or two solicitors and other assistants. The corporation's legal bills were estimated at £10m.
Steel and Morris raised an estimated £40,000 from public donations to pay for witness airfares, court costs, expenses and so on.
Transcripts of the trial ran to about 20,000 pages and about 130 witnesses gave oral evidence
In 1991 they made their first attempt to demand legal aid in the European Court of Human Rights. But the court ruled that, as the defendants had already put up a "tenacious defence", they could not say they were being denied access to justice.
Further legal wrangling took another three years, and on 28 June 1994 the full libel trial finally started in the High Court in London.
Transcripts of the trial ran to approximately 20,000 pages; there were about 40,000 pages of documentary evidence.
Some 130 witnesses gave oral evidence - 59 for the defendants, 71 for McDonald's. Ms Steel gave evidence in person but Mr Morris chose not to.
On 13 March 1995 McLibel became the longest ever British libel trial.
David Morris and Helen Steel outside court in 1997On 11 December 1995 it became the longest civil case (as opposed to criminal) in British history.
On 1 November 1996, it became the longest trial of any kind in English history.
Damages orderedAnd it wasn't until 19 June 1997 that the judge, Mr Justice Bell, delivered his 762 page judgment. The judge rejected claims that McDonald's was to blame for starvation in the Third World or had used lethal poisons to destroy vast areas of Central American rainforest.
But he also decided, in what was seen as a PR disaster for the corporation, that McDonald's had "pretended to a positive nutritional benefit which their food did not match"; had exploited children in its advertising, and paid low wages, "helping to depress wages in the catering trade".
McDonald's
McDonald's says both it and the world have moved on since the case
He ordered Mr Morris and Ms Steel to pay £60,000 damages, reduced later on appeal to £40,000.
McDonald's has not sought to collect this money, and the two have vowed not to pay.
But the case did not end there. Two months after the verdict, Ms Steel and Mr Morris lodged an appeal.
This ran from January to March 1999 - and it didn't end there either. In July 1999 they pair asked the House of Lords for leave to appeal further - which was rejected.
So in September 2004 they launched an action against the UK Government at the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, this time saying the lack of access to legal aid breached their rights to a fair trial as guaranteed under article 6 of the Human Rights Convention.
Law already changedOn Tuesday, the court agreed. The British government has three months to appeal the decision.
But it is possible the UK libel laws may have to change.
The government says it is considering the judgment, but recent changes in the law mean that legal aid is now sometimes available in exceptional cases.
McDonald's made little comment, except to point out that the allegations made by Steel and Morris related to practices in the 1980s.
Source: The BBC
_______________________________________________________________Inspector McHammered of the Lard in Val Ferret, Switzerland
FOR THE MOST RECENT POSTING CLICK HEREFOR BLACKLIST NOMINATIONS CLICK HERE
The inequality of arms could not have been greater 
"I worked with IH affiliates (yes, they are affiliates not franchises) for 9 years. In total I was employed at 7 IH affiliates.
I came across a couple of good centres, a couple of mediocre ones and some utterly appalling ones.
The general feeling I got was that IH was in decline, moral and managerial decline. When I first started working at an IH affiliate there were structured points within the affiliation agreement which gave the teacher a fair deal. One such example was the minimum annual leave entitlement. However, with the now not so new director taking over (that's the affable Mr Carrier, of course), these points were either watered down or dropped all together. Thus you now have IH affiliates such as Kuala Lumpur offering only 18 days annual leave a year and making the teacher work 5 and a half days a week for a pathetic local salary which is laughed at even by local Malaysians.
The reasons for this were soon clear to anyone prepared to do the tiniest amount of research. Firstly, IH wants affiliation money. It is a business after all and a greedy one at that, so it has been encouraging expansion through taking on board centres with woefully poor and exploitative conditions. These centres were not keen on improving their conditions, especially when they had just started paying a rather sizeable affiliation fee (a huge fee for some economies), so the IH directorate gave the nod to allow them to establish whatever conditions and teaching contracts they liked.
Another important and often overlooked situation concerns the inner managerial decision makers. Who are they exactly? Well, we have the director of IH San Sebastian who just happens to preside over the most notorious IH affiliate in Spain with 6 day working weeks and low salaries for teachers living in one of the most expensive cities in Spain. Lovely chap though Mr Lcunza is, especially when he has just had dinner with his bank manager. Ah yes, there is also the director of IH Mexico City, the place where teachers are crying poverty. Yes, these and others like them are the people making all the affiliation decisions in the IH world.
So, from personal experience of certain IH centres I worked at what can I say? Of the good centres we can count in some of the affiliates in Southern Poland. These affiliates would be good places for the first time teacher to spend a year with. Their in-house training is very good indeed, although the salaries they offer, although adequate to live on, are below the market rate. So any teacher shouldn't bother with them for more than a year. Another very good IH affiliate I taught with for 2 years has now disaffiliated. It did this owing to the IH name losing credibility, the watering down of the agreement, and, more precisely because IH allowed the establishment of other new IH affiliates in the same city. These new affiliates were serious competition and offered both the teacher and the student a far inferior quality in terms of remuneration for the teacher and facilities for the student. This particular IH affiliate had worked very hard for years to build up the IH name to be well-recognised and highly thought of in its city. But with the arrival of the new affiliates the quality and reputation dropped rapidly and student numbers dropped owing to new competition and a reduced confidence, the only way forward was to disaffiliate and start again under its own name.
I won't mention the mediocre affiliates I worked at, but will merely mention the name of one which appears all over the net as being one of the worst schools in existence ( I mean anywhere, not just IH. It epitomises everything that is wrong with IH: International House Kuala Lumpur - just do a google search, and while you're at it, look out for a picture of the debonair Tan Sri Lim Kok Wing (Warning: do not do this while eating)
I could go on and give pages of details about my experience as a teacher and Director of Studies with the IH affiliates I have worked at, but I'd prefer to save them for the moment, in the belief that when I turn them into a bestseller, I'll recoup some of the cash that IH exploited me and countless others for.
So, Mr anonymous, with regards to your comments about IH, you are clearly posting some of the most nonsensical garbage I have ever seen, but I do thank you for providing an abundance of mirth and joviality to my day."