I would imagine the reason that they had a three month rolling lease is because this, or something similar, has been planned for some time.
Campaigning against that would seem a bit pointless.
If you don't want a McDonalds, that's another matter.
(
MyFrontFellOff ; his mouth full of teddies, urinating defiantly, Mon 27 Oct 2014, 14:53,
Share,
Reply)
It's not campaigning against the plans
it's about a major corporation offering to financially assist a small charity to relocate.
(, Mon 27 Oct 2014, 14:56, Share, Reply)
My advice on it
is that obviously, McDonalds have no legal obligation to help and nor does the council. They might be persuaded to though if you can get plenty of coverage for the story. Focussing on the positives about what the charity does, which the petition page does well, will likely be more successful than emphasising the negatives - most people are ready enough to hate McDonalds anyway. The ideas above about putting more pressure on the council aren't bad.
Is anyone fund raising to help the charity cover relocation costs? Might be another practical step worth taking in case it doesn't work out.
(, Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:04, Share, Reply)
Thanks
Yes - it's not meant to be negative and ultimately, neither the council nor McDonalds have any legal obligations. It would be a good, positive bit of pr for McDonalds to be seen supporting a charity in such a way - and that's the slant I'm trying to take.
(, Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:21, Share, Reply)
That would be nice
but I don't see what responsibility they have.
What next. Blame them for people spilling hot coffee on themselves?
(
MyFrontFellOff ; his mouth full of teddies, urinating defiantly, Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:08,
Share,
Reply)
They have corporate social responsibility.
Not something legally enforcable, but something to play with.
www.mcdonalds.co.uk/ukhome/whatmakesmcdonalds/questions/running-the-business/csr/what-is-mcdonalds-corporate-social-responsibility-policy.html
They are mainly against litter and for kids and health. If any under 16 homeless people use the charity then that's an angle to use. You can also point to the health of homeless people and the consequences of them not having a place to go to (something to do with litter).
(, Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:19, Share, Reply)
I agree with all that and wish them well.
What I am suggesting is that this has been on the cards for a long time (run-down estate 3 month lease). I expect that the 3 month lease deal was openly sold as "we are trying to sell this place on to developers so we can only give you a short lease. You could have o leave at short notice.
The planning application was submitted in May but I can't imagine that it wasn't known about long before that.
(
MyFrontFellOff ; his mouth full of teddies, urinating defiantly, Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:40,
Share,
Reply)
Was that a veiled comment on the liebeck case? The documentary Hot Coffee certainly changed my mind about the whole affair.
(
Christian's Bolt and Ski, Mon 27 Oct 2014, 16:59,
Share,
Reply)
Yep. It was.
I seem to have understood that doc differently to most.
Rather than changing my mind to thinking McDonalds were to blame, it made me think that people making claims like these had given the big corporations the ammunition they needed to help get the law changed.
(
MyFrontFellOff ; his mouth full of teddies, urinating defiantly, Mon 27 Oct 2014, 17:16,
Share,
Reply)
you're upset that a business isn't being a charity?
I'm pissed off that my scooter isn't a Ducati, we should make a petition for that too
(, Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:37, Share, Reply)
If McDonalds is inevitable then you can campaign for the Council and McDonalds to make sure the charity continues
McDonalds could become a corporate partner of the charity or something (there are many possibilities). They could provide regular free food to the charity. Help towards rent of new property for first year. Etc etc.
Other businesses in the area could help. Target those who will financially benefit from the new McDonalds.
(, Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:05, Share, Reply)
Ah that takes me back :)
Early days of the internet, reading the Anarchists Cookbook whilst waiting for early 90's internet porn to load.
Apparently you can get prosecuted for owning that document now.
Scary times.
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:18,
Share,
Reply)
Berkeley tells you all
bnrg.cs.berkeley.edu/~randy/Courses/CS39K.S13/anarchistcookbook2000.pdf
also, original book seems to still be legal in UK and US.
www.amazon.co.uk/The-Anarchist-Cookbook-William-Powell/dp/1607964813
(, Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:26, Share, Reply)
It's legal in the UK except when it isn't.
A publication deemed "useful" for terrorism is illegal if the police decide you are thinking terroristy thoughts when you download it, but presumably is legal if you aren't.
Of course if you aren't bad then you wouldn't have it.
Terrorism act section 2 3(b)
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/11/section/2
(, Mon 27 Oct 2014, 15:43, Share, Reply)
when they've used this in court, they've usually failed to prove terroristy intent
unless you build a bomb or some other physical act, they can't touch yer
(, Mon 27 Oct 2014, 16:36, Share, Reply)
People have been prosicuted for owning the book
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7030096.stm
Seeing as a lot of the "material for terrorist purposes" could be half the stuff in your kitchen I wouldn't want to chance it.
Also Powell has asked for it to stop being sold.
Didn't know he was a teenager when he wrote it.
www.theguardian.com/world/shortcuts/2013/dec/18/why-anarchist-cookbook-author-william-powell-off-shelves
Besides i've heard a lot of the circuit diagrams and recipes are designed to "fail".
(
Cerebus Sticky! Sticky! Stick! Stick!, Mon 27 Oct 2014, 16:38,
Share,
Reply)
I would like to see that defense: "It isn't illegal because it isn't useful for terrorism".
But an undergrad level chemistry textbook is.
(, Mon 27 Oct 2014, 16:46, Share, Reply)
Scary!
The act is so loosely worded, I get the feeling just reading the act is an act of terrorism. Surely it cant be right to make it illegal to read a book and think about crime! Thoughtcrime!
(
twochopbob In denial since, Mon 27 Oct 2014, 18:31,
Share,
Reply)