Ronald Mcdonald versus the clowns of 'public health'

The BMJ is upset that McDonald's has been winning legal battles against busybodies from local councils who want to stop it opening new restaurants. In an 'investigation' from the former health editor at the Daily Mail, we are told that...

 

The firm has used a playbook of arguments to win planning appeals against local authorities in some of England’s most deprived areas with the poorest public health outcomes. Its tactics include arguing that customers can order salad from its drive-through branches, that they could cycle or walk there, and that its sponsorship of local football teams promotes health and wellbeing.

McDonald’s has also deployed a specialist GP who claims that obesity is caused by “over 100” factors other than fast food and that its menu contains nutritious and low calorie options.

 

Put in less hysterical language, this can be rephrased as...  

McDonald's said that customers can order salad from its drive-through branches, that they could cycle or walk there, and that its sponsorship of local football teams promotes health and wellbeing. A GP who specialises in weight management pointed out that obesity is caused by “over 100” factors other than fast food and that its menu contains nutritious and low calorie options.

 

As Tim Worstall says, all these things are true, but simple truths sound so much more sinister when they are presented as "tactics" or as a "playbook of arguments" and medical expertise sounds more dodgy when it is "deployed". 

The real story is that political pygmies and overpaid 'public health' directors have been going beyond the law in their obsessive attempts to stop businesses making an honest living. We are told that: 

 

In some cases McDonald’s threatened to force councils to repay its costs, saying that they had behaved "unreasonably."

 

These people have behaved unreasonably and McDonald's is entitled to be compensated for its legal costs, although it turns out that it was the planning inspector who said that these jobsworths were being unreasonable and should pay McDonald's the costs - which the company hasn't claimed.

 

McDonald’s successfully overturned the rejection at appeal in May 2021, claiming that there was “no evidence” for an adverse health impact. The company pointed out that the schools were “around” a 10 minute walk away, beyond the council’s five minute walk takeaway exclusion zone. The planning inspector then ordered the council to pay part of McDonald’s appeal costs, saying that it had shown “unreasonable behaviour” in rejecting the application in the first place.

McDonald’s also won a case to claim back “unreasonable behaviour” costs from Folkestone and Hythe District Council in December 2021 over a decision not directly related to health. In this instance the council had rejected the initial planning application over noise and light pollution disturbance, and a councillor and local residents later raised health concerns.

A McDonald’s spokesperson tells The BMJ it did not recover these awarded costs in either of these cases. They say, “We will always carefully review the Planning Inspectorate’s decision and consider the impact this might have on the local authority. In both Coventry and Folkestone, despite having been awarded costs by the inspectorate, we determined it would have been the wrong decision to recover costs at that time.”

 

McDonald's should be tougher on these fanatics pour encourager les autres. Look at the pathetic excuses they use to prevent consumers having access to a hamburger. Noise and light, for God's sake. What a feeble "playbook of arguments".

Read the whole BMJ article if you want a depressing sense of how many people are being funded by the taxpayer to stop economic activity in Britain today. Afuera!

Share

Tweet