nestle on campus?

Dontico

singingstranger wrote:

Right then...

Acknowledged. Next?

Clarification: you are not being told what you can't buy. You are being told what is unavailable to buy in certain outlets. You're not being stopped from buying the items in question.

One at a time:

Why not coke: Coca-Cola is boycotted by all Union outlets. Still doesn't make it unavailable, btw, nor are you being told what you want to buy.

didnt know the SU didnt sell coke products.

singingstranger wrote:

american products: unless you're going to be specific about the products themselves I don't think anyone's going to even attempt to humour you with that one. Why America, because of their War On Terror™? Then why not their accomplices Britain? Do you want to ban Cadbury's and all MasterFoods/Mars products because they're British owned too? Would you be happy if the shops only sold Ballygowan water and the Irish Times and Independent? (Provided of course that they're printed on paper cut from Irish trees?)

large companies that sell food products usually also own other companies as in, industrial chemical plants and construction companies. which profit from war.
i wasnt asking to ban american and british products. i was just pointing out that banning them would make more sense, but would still be rather pointless.

singingstranger wrote:

israeli products: same as the American one but the motives would be a little more obvious. Still, though, point me towards anything of Israeli origin on sale in the SU shops and I'll be the first to sign the petition.

the likelyhood that componants that make our computers, probably come from israel.

singingstranger wrote:

chinese products: Care to explain your logic here? Should we boycott them on the basis of being from a country where democracy isn't a feature? That's not the fault of any Chinese company exporting goods for sale in the SU shops (not that I know of any goods in the SU shops of Chinese origin either). Likewise with any American or Israeli goods. Should we ban goods that originate in the US just because their Government chooses to act in ways that others don't support?

china is pure evil. full stop.

singingstranger wrote:

You beat yourself there: Ireland is mostly a free market. And Ireland is a free market. That means that Ireland reserves the right to have all these products available. But the Union isn't banning the sale of these goods outright; it would never even consider doing so. And what's more, boycotting the products of two corporations isn't political, it's humanitarian. Because of the actions of Nestlé, hundreds of thousands of babies have died from malnourishment in Africa (read Grimes's posts earlier). Because of the actions of Coca-Cola, trade union activists in Columbia - looking for nothing more than a fair wage and decent working conditions - have been shot dead. It's not politics, it's humanitarian.

as i say over and over again. check what the term left-wing means. i'm not a political or economics lecturer, educate yourself.

ireland is a mixed market. not purely free but not completely controled. companies are allowed set up and do what the wilst while not breaking the law, and one is allowed buy thier products. however ireland does still have some slight control over markets that are seen as needed by society but arent being addressed by corporate interest. example; forestry.

singingstranger wrote:

It's not socialist control, it's democracy that you happen to personally feel is of a socialist persuasion. You might alternatively personally feel that the sale of pornography is offensive and immoral and shouldn't happen, but that's your personal opinion, and yours is the minority. There's only one way for it to be - either the stuff is sold or it isn't - and the last time we checked, the majority wanted it in. If you want to have opinion remeasured, feel free to petition for a referendum overturning the boycott mandate. Nobody will have objections is democracy shows the decision is no longer popular to the majority.

its already been pointed out that that the majority of UCD were unable to vote on it. me included.

singingstranger wrote:

If you disagree with any of these points, then fine. But please have the maturity to realise that you're vastly outnumbered - at least in terms of the previous posters on this thread - and acknowledge you're in the minority.

see poll.

Stepherunie

Dontico wrote:

as stated. the majority of students were not able to vote on the issue. me for one.
again. when was the vote?

pro-banners are not addressing the main points.

You strike me as being extremely juvenile on this whole issue.

Societies are based on what people at the time think is the best decision for the majority at the time. UCD students at the time decided that not selling Nestle products in there union shops was the right decision. UCC students decided that in order to keep there campus cleaner SU shops would not sell chewing gum. Where I'm from decided that in order to reduce needless waste and excess that election posters were not allowed for any elections in the town, they were the first town in Ireland to introduce this ban.

I take issue with some of the motions passed over the years by the SU, some of them I don't agree with but it is my option to disagree. Personally I knew nothing of why Nestle wasn't sold in shops in UCD, I didn't even notice really. It all happened I think the year before I started in UCD. But I accept the decision made by those who went before.

If you have a problem with it fine, do something about it, don't start getting all cranky because people don't agree with your view that just because you or they didnt' get to vote it's a bad idea to continue the boycott.

singingstranger

Dontico wrote:

see poll.

Going to deal with this first: of course, by virtue of a poll here you're in the majority. But nobody who's posted has come out and vocally support you. And you can't take Boards polls to be truly representative: in the Sabbat elections last year Órla Ní Threasaigh was the post popular candidate on a poll here. She came third in the Presidential election, only getting one in six first preferences.

Dontico wrote:

didnt know the SU didnt sell coke products.

Don't you realise how much this points towards your own private bitching because you can't buy the stuff that you personally want to? It doesn't say much for how aware you are of the boycotts and their reasons tbh.

Dontico wrote:

large companies that sell food products usually also own other companies as in, industrial chemical plants and construction companies. which profit from war. i wasnt asking to ban american and british products. i was just pointing out that banning them would make more sense, but would still be rather pointless.

Give examples and if anyone cares enough they'll look for a referendum on that too. But that would be political; as I've already said the two current boycotts are only humanitarian.

Dontico wrote:

the likelyhood that componants that make our computers, probably come from israel.

This I didn't know, but if we boycotted all of them we'd have no computers. I think most people would rather have computers tbh. And even still, the companies that produce the components can't help their Government's policies.

china is pure evil. full stop.

If you don't give points you can't argue. China is a non-democracy. Does that make it evil? Perhaps it's non-democracy because that's how most of the population is happy to have it. Which in itself is democracy.

as i say over and over again. check what the term left-wing means. i'm not a political or economics lecturer, educate yourself

Nor am I a political or economics lecturer but I have been Secretary of UCDSU and had first-hand dealings with several dozen people, many of whom I now call friends, who would consider themselves 'left-wing'.

So let's go ridiculously off-topic (Sorry, Hulla and Sangre, but I'm being led into it...): Left-wing. Define? The general wing of politics who want current systems and set-ups to be changed, as opposed to right-wing politics which fights for their maintenance. Left-wing politics is associated with liberalism and social democracy. Left-wing politics is not about the clampdown of free-speech, which you seem to think the barrier towards buying certain products is. That's fascism, the opposite end of the spectrum altogether.

This is democracy, so yes, it might be 'left-wing'. But I hardly think that boycotting certain products is left-wing; surely if we wanted left-wing policy we wouldn't have a shop there to raise revenue in the first place. The point is that it's democracy: rule by the will of the people. The last time the people were comprehensively asked in an environment where their opinion was used to base policy, i.e. the referendum, they were in favour of a boycott. And besides, you're basing all of this on 'politics'. There's only so many times we can tell you that it's not politics but humanitarianism in the first place.

Your gripe is with the policy, which happens to be the one you oppose. Like I said, feel free to collect the signatures for another referendum.

Vainglory

singingstranger wrote:

if we wanted left-wing policy we wouldn't have a shop there to raise revenue in the first place.

Firstly a big "LOL" to this comment...Ah yes. As a leftie I am totally opposed to all shops and would prefer to barter for my goods and services. Jaysus.

Secondly, this thread provides a timely reminder for why I asked Hulla to ban me for the last two months and makes me question my sanity for why I came back. Although I have personally given up arguing with people who blindly refuse to engage in logical discussion I still commend you all for doing so.

Blah.

Sangre

Can we please stop calling the OP a troll.

singingstranger

Vainglory wrote:

Although I have personally given up arguing with people who blindly refuse to engage in logical discussion I still commend you all for doing so.

Don't commend us, we'll never learn... Here's me having just said not to feed the <self-snip>. I'm only just out of an exam and I have another in an hour, ffs...

**edit: just saw Sangre's post.

Sangre

Dajaffa and everyone else is on a warning. Next person to insult the OP(or anyone else) is going bye-bye.

Please use the report post function as well, I'm only glancing through this thread.

Lets just carry on the discussion as if the OP was anyone else. I'll decide if the OP is a troll. If you disagree, report it.

panda100

dajaffa wrote:

O

Nestle were the ones causing the deaths of African babies,
.

Very Very wide sweeping statement there. I think we all know enough about the developing world and Africa in particular to realise that Nestle arent the main cause of death in African Children.

The main causes of death in children in the developing world are Neonatal causes (due to poor sanitation at birth), Malaria, Acute respiratory infections,Dirraheal diseases and HIV. So saying that nestle causes death of young babies in Africa is a complete myth. While I have no doubt that perhaps the baby formula used by nestle wasnt the most nutritious by our standards , It was something in a country of nothing and it definalty didnt contribute to widespread deaths throughout the African continent.

Our nestle ban shows complete ignorance of the the reason why millions of African Children will die today in Africa and throughout the African world.

Firstly,anyone that had any passing intrest in the epidemic that is Hiv/Aids will Know that breast feeding is one of the main routes of transmission of these killers. Even Mary Robinson said it at the rose Project talk that we must educate those in developing countries on how to reduce the risk of transimmion of HIV and this includes not breast feeding. Me and Byrno are told regulalry throughout our course that if someone comes in with HIV its imperative that you encourage them not to breast feed.

There is a huge stigma against breastfeeding in Africa. African women with HIV know the dangers of breastfeeding their children but they continue to do it as they know if they are seen bottle feeding then people will assume they have HIV. The stigma of having HIV in Africa is huge.People live in small communtines and want to be respected and so dont want anyone to know they have HIV. Therefore they will choose not to bootle feed even at the risk of their childrens health just so neighbours wont suspect that they have HIV. Therefore we really must encourage people to bottlefeed and nestle were the pioneers of this.


Secondly, Grimes is proably right in saying that perhaps there are many deaths due to bottle feeding in Africa . But do you really think this is due to the nestle forumula?Of couse not. Its due to the infected water that you mix up the forumla with. The deaths are due to the poor sanitation and not the powdered forula from nestle.

Therefore while I see that this ban came out of the best of intentions it was passed a long time ago when we were ignorant of the HIV epidemic and the African continent as a whole. Therefore I for reasons differnt to Dontco I agree that this ban has to be lifted.

Dontico

singingstranger wrote:

So let's go ridiculously off-topic (Sorry, Hulla and Sangre, but I'm being led into it...): Left-wing. Define? The general wing of politics who want current systems and set-ups to be changed, as opposed to right-wing politics which fights for their maintenance. Left-wing politics is associated with liberalism and social democracy. Left-wing politics is not about the clampdown of free-speech, which you seem to think the barrier towards buying certain products is. That's fascism, the opposite end of the spectrum altogether.

This is democracy, so yes, it might be 'left-wing'. But I hardly think that boycotting certain products is left-wing; surely if we wanted left-wing policy we wouldn't have a shop there to raise revenue in the first place. The point is that it's democracy: rule by the will of the people. The last time the people were comprehensively asked in an environment where their opinion was used to base policy, i.e. the referendum, they were in favour of a boycott. And besides, you're basing all of this on 'politics'. There's only so many times we can tell you that it's not politics but humanitarianism in the first place.

Your gripe is with the policy, which happens to be the one you oppose. Like I said, feel free to collect the signatures for another referendum.

this is really off topic, so i'm only going to address this once.

"Left-wing" used as a slang term is loosely associated with being liberal. When in a serious debate "Left-wing" is used in its proper context. meaning supporting views that believe in a controled market, i.e. socialism and communism. see china, soviet russia and hitler.

Facism is neither left nor right when used in its proper context. again educate yourself. advise look in italy in 1920's-30's, france 1890-1920, and portugal 1930's-70's(i think is about the right date).

Democracy isnt left-wing. again it is neither left nor right.

humbert

singingstranger wrote:

If you disagree with any of these points, then fine. But please have the maturity to realise that you're vastly outnumbered - at least in terms of the previous posters on this thread - and acknowledge you're in the minority.

singingstranger wrote:

of course, by virtue of a poll here you're in the majority. But nobody who's posted has come out and vocally support you. And you can't take Boards polls to be truly representative

Reminding an infrequent poster that nobody supports him and he's in the minority in a discussion like this isn't very fair/mature IMO. It's another thing to argue that he's not representative of the majority of students in UCD.

Vainglory

Dontico wrote:

"Left-wing" is used in its proper context. meaning supporting views that believe in a controled market, i.e. socialism and communism. see china, soviet russia and hitler.

Speechless.

Spectator#1

Dontico wrote:

Democracy isnt left-wing. again it is neither left nor right.

So why, pray, are you accusing people who support a democratically enacted mandate of having 'left-wing agendas'?

It's quite simple Dontico, the only way you could do that is by claiming that the referendum and/or the mandate weren't democratic in the first place. Since the vote was open to every student in UCD, your problem can't lie there and so we come down to the same old problem again, loads of people didn't vote. There's a problem with that point of objection.

1. Everyone could have voted.

2. Lots didn't vote.

CONCLUSIONS: Those people didn't vote. They weren't represented. No conclusion can be drawn either way pertaining to their views on the banning of Nestle and Coca Cola products, they just weren't represented, by their own choice.

Not voting is not the same as voting for inaction, voting against the ban is voting for inaction. Not voting is not voting. Spoiled votes would be a better indication of how many people cared enough to be represented but didn't think much of the cause the referendum concerned.

By claiming (as at least one person has done on this thread) that the small turnout indicates that nothing should have been done, this isn't true. By not voting, they willingly went unrepresented, nothing else may be said about their views on the matter.

And so, by claiming to represent a group of diverse and different people who quite clearly have demonstrated that they don't want representation, you are more liable to be accused of 'having your own agenda', whatever that might mean, than those who support the only properly conducted, official poll of student opinion to date. You're quite literally putting words in people's mouths that they didn't say by taking that line of approach.

I think there should, and probably will, be a new referendum on this issue to represent the new student populace. If that referendum lifts the ban, I'll support that too, that's the democratic thing to do.

I could perhaps understand or sympathise with your problem a bit more if the SU shops were the only outlets in the area, but they're not, and so I don't. It's not like we're in a monastery perched on the top of the Himalayas.

And, in reference to your last reply to me, I fully understand the meaning of the term 'left wing'. In addition to that, I also understand the meaning of the word 'agenda'. I don't think either apply in this case, separately or together, for the most part.

Your poll is horribly biased by the way, it's not representative of the issue it refers to and the question is loaded. Again, that looks more like an 'agenda' than supporting a mandate that was democratically elected.

What are these 'agendas' people are always accusing each other of having on Boards anyway? What exactly do you mean when you say it?

So there you go, it's the only rational way of looking at it.

beanyb

Did I really just see Dontico refer to Hitler as a socialist?

I think my head just exploded.

terry mac

Spectator#1 wrote:

There's a mandate in place, by all means petition for another referendum, there probably should be another one in the next year or two to account for the views of new students, but because it was put in place by a vote, which was put to the entire student body of UCD at the time, it's completely democratic.

You've mentioned it yourself above - "at the time", there is nothing democratic about a group of students being bound by a referendum that none of them had a chance to vote in. If you vote for something in a constitutional referendum (e.g. Divorce) in Ireland, chances are you'll be around for a few years and maybe 20 years down the line you might be affected by it. But transferring that system over to a SU doesn't work By next year in UCD I'd say there'll only be maybe 1000 out of 20000 who were here when these Referendum's were in place. You go on about mandate etc., well if this is the case the system is flawed.

The thing about a quorum isn't really applicable, I mean, it would be nigh on impossible to change anything if you had to get 30% of students or whatever!!

What's really ironic is the elections on at the moment you have all these SU people talking about communication and inclusion for all students, but when it comes to what chocolate bars and fizzy drinks students are allowed to buy in the college, Students aren't included at all, they're dictated to. Why don't the lefties who are so worried about "Killer Coke" go and get a campaign going to ban cigarettes from SU shops, they're doing a lot more damage to the welfare of students I suspect?

singingstranger

humbert wrote:

Reminding an infrequent poster that nobody supports him and he's in the minority in a discussion like this isn't very fair/mature IMO. It's another thing to argue that he's not representative of the majority of students in UCD.

I didn't mean to make it appear as if I was basing my statements on the fact that Dontico is a relative noob - and if I did, I apologise completely for how it came across. What I was getting at was that before panda100 and Terry Mac made their points, Dontico was the only person (perhaps Sangre aside) who had tried to argue against the boycott. Again, if I'm wrong on that, I'm sorry, but you can't argue that the bulk of the posts on the thread so far have been supportive of the boycott's motives.

Spectator#1

terry mac wrote:

You've mentioned it yourself above - "at the time", there is nothing democratic about a group of students being bound by a referendum that none of them had a chance to vote in. If you vote for something in a constitutional referendum (e.g. Divorce) in Ireland, chances are you'll be around for a few years and maybe 20 years down the line you might be affected by it. But transferring that system over to a SU doesn't work By next year in UCD I'd say there'll only be maybe 1000 out of 20000 who were here when these Referendum's were in place. You go on about mandate etc., well if this is the case the system is flawed.

I'd agree with the problem you raised there wholeheartedly, I did actually say in the post you're replying to that I think there should be another referendum held in the next year or so to properly account for the student turnover in the interim since the last one.

Even though there might be a problem with the system, such as you mentioned above, to be honest I don't see how it might be avoided. The only thing you can do is to put these kinds of issues - being more specific, case-sensitive ones - to a vote every five to six years to keep them up to date.

It is a problem, you're right, but it's one that can be addressed and dealt with. It doesn't call into question the democratic nature of the whole thing and neither does it prove that anybody who supports it is some kind of Stalinesque figure, who wants to dictate to us such irrelevant things such as our consumption of sweet foods. "The Confectionists".

I don't think anybody would oppose putting it to another vote, it's only fair.

The thing about a quorum isn't really applicable, I mean, it would be nigh on impossible to change anything if you had to get 30% of students or whatever!!

And why is that? I'd say it's applicable, I'd even say it's fair.

What's really ironic is the elections on at the moment you have all these SU people talking about communication and inclusion for all students, but when it comes to what chocolate bars and fizzy drinks students are allowed to buy in the college, Students aren't included at all, they're dictated to.

They were included, and we've established that we both agree that they should be included again in that decision. I don't think you could fairly use the term 'dictated to' in this situation.

Why don't the lefties who are so worried about "Killer Coke" go and get a campaign going to ban cigarettes from SU shops, they're doing a lot more damage to the welfare of students I suspect?

The point of the referendum wasn't about protecting the interests of the students in the first place. As far as I can see it's first and foremost an act of support for other human beings whose lives aren't being respected.

It may be a bit far away and all that, and I can understand why people might object to it on the basis that it's irrelevant to students here, but the point never was that it be relevant to students here, as far as I can see. I've never had anything to do with the ban.

I don't think you need to be a 'lefty' to support it, I'm certainly not. If you just think of it as an act of support for some unfortunate people in another country, it's a surprisingly small inconvenience on our part for such a big gesture.

You might not agree with it, or like it, and that's fine, I'm open to hearing other people's opinions on it, mine isn't absolute and it's open to persuasion, but as far as I can see there's nothing wrong with boycotting Nestle or Coca Cola in colleges, especially when those boycotts are put in place democratically and maintained as such.

By the way, I'd be very surprised if you meant that when you said the SU should move to ban cigarettes, having just complained that they dictate student's choice of sweets the paragraph before! There'd be a civil war if they tried to do that!

Villaricos

panda100 wrote:

The main causes of death in children in the developing world are Neonatal causes (due to poor sanitation at birth), Malaria, Acute respiratory infections,Dirraheal diseases and HIV. So saying that nestle causes death of young babies in Africa is a complete myth. While I have no doubt that perhaps the baby formula used by nestle wasnt the most nutritious by our standards , It was something in a country of nothing and it definalty didnt contribute to widespread deaths throughout the African continent.

Our nestle ban shows complete ignorance of the the reason why millions of African Children will die today in Africa and throughout the African world.

Firstly,anyone that had any passing intrest in the epidemic that is Hiv/Aids will Know that breast feeding is one of the main routes of transmission of these killers. Even Mary Robinson said it at the rose Project talk that we must educate those in developing countries on how to reduce the risk of transimmion of HIV and this includes not breast feeding. Me and Byrno are told regulalry throughout our course that if someone comes in with HIV its imperative that you encourage them not to breast feed.

There is a huge stigma against breastfeeding in Africa. African women with HIV know the dangers of breastfeeding their children but they continue to do it as they know if they are seen bottle feeding then people will assume they have HIV. The stigma of having HIV in Africa is huge.People live in small communtines and want to be respected and so dont want anyone to know they have HIV. Therefore they will choose not to bootle feed even at the risk of their childrens health just so neighbours wont suspect that they have HIV. Therefore we really must encourage people to bottlefeed and nestle were the pioneers of this.


Secondly, Grimes is proably right in saying that perhaps there are many deaths due to bottle feeding in Africa . But do you really think this is due to the nestle forumula?Of couse not. Its due to the infected water that you mix up the forumla with. The deaths are due to the poor sanitation and not the powdered forula from nestle.

.

While I understand what your saying here makes sense Panda, wasnt the issue with Nestle the fact that they were encouraging African women to bottle feed because thats what rich westerner types did, and they encouraged it despite the issue of contaminated water? That they didnt teach the African women anything about clean water just pushed their product on them?

I dont think there was anything political about the ban, it was as has been said earlier a humanitarian move, it makes no impact on Nestle and its not like people cant get Nestle bars anywhere on campus. This isnt about telling students what to eat

but your right in what you say about aids in Africa, and whilst we're on the subject the UCD Mountaineering Club are holding a table quiz tomorrow night(20th Feb) in conjunction with AidAfrica, a charity set up to help children in South Africa with AIDS. So maybe if people want to show a bit of support to the issue its only 5euro 7.30 in the Astra Hall.

panda100

Villaricos wrote:

While I understand what your saying here makes sense Panda, wasnt the issue with Nestle the fact that they were encouraging African women to bottle feed because thats what rich westerner types did, and they encouraged it despite the issue of contaminated water? That they didnt teach the African women anything about clean water just pushed their product on them?.

Yes your right.The nestle ban was a protest to boycott nestle products because they had violated the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes which was a set of guidlines set up by the WHO. This was way back in the 1970's. Nestle learnt their lesson and realised they were in violation with these codes. It is now 40 years later and Nestle are one of top compaines in the world to promote healthy use of their products in developing countries. Should we keep on punishing nestle for actions commited 40 years ago?

As I said before Nestle was giving something in a world of Nothing. Yes Children die from contaminated water. This is going to go on regardless of wether nestle is there or not.In my honest opinion I think its right to be pushing bottle feeding as if breastfeeding keeps on increasing in Africa as it is then the numbers of those dying from aids every day is going to reach catastrophic proportions.

The Nestle ban was relevant at the time and UCD did make their stand and it was heared by nestle. Nestle no longer need to be punished for bad advertising they did half a century ago. They should be applauded now for all the great work they have done in trying to quash the HIV epidemic,employing 50,000 Africans and helping turn Africa into the continent it deserves to be.

Villaricos wrote:

I dont think there was anything political about the ban, it was as has been said earlier a humanitarian move, it makes no impact on Nestle and its not like people cant get Nestle bars anywhere on campus.

The ban did make a huge impact on Nestle. However the ban just isnt relevant anymore so in 2007 yes it will have no impact on nestle. Your correct in saying that there was nothing political about the ban when it was introduced. It served only a humanitarian purpose. However,It no longer serves a humanitarian purpose at all and this leads me to believe that those wanting to keep the ban are either 1)believing blindly some inaccurate outdated facts they are reading on babymilk.org or 2)there is some sort of political left-leaning agenda

Villaricos wrote:

, and whilst we're on the subject the UCD Mountaineering Club are holding a table quiz tomorrow night(20th Feb) in conjunction with AidAfrica, a charity set up to help children in South Africa with AIDS. So maybe if people want to show a bit of support to the issue its only 5euro 7.30 in the Astra Hall.

Does anyone wanna make up a boards table for this?

Dontico

Spectator#1 wrote:

So why, pray, are you accusing people who support a democratically enacted mandate of having 'left-wing agendas'?

not what i said at all.

the agenda it self is left-wing, or at least the result is.

the "democratic" method it was carried out by was deeply flawed.

Chakar

I wish Dontico the best in his exams.

Dontico

Chakar wrote:

I wish Dontico the best in his exams.

alas i dont do politics or economics. i do physics.

Spectator#1

Dontico wrote:

not what i said at all.

the agenda it self is left-wing, or at least the result is.

the "democratic" method it was carried out by was deeply flawed.

Go on, I'd LOVE to hear your explanation for that.

Do you not accept that, at its most basic, the ban is merely an act of support for people in a less favourable situation than ours and a demonstration to their employers that their actions are being monitored?

There is nothing "left wing" about that, it's more a humanitarian issue if you ask me. Fair enough, people might bring more political concerns into it and everything, but first and foremost it has nothing to do with left or right as far as I can see.

Do you disagree?

How was the method of the vote deeply flawed?

HappyCrackHead

I figured i might chime in on this debate sooner or later.

I'd love to know how Dontico thinks that the democratic method used in the Nestle referendum was flawed? was he in ucd in the mid 90s when the referendum took place? has he trawled through the UCDSU archive and found evidence of these flaws.

I think not.

I think he's full of sh*t. Sooner everyone else just comes out and says it (coz face it ur thinking it) the better.

Pythia

Although I agree a shop does have a right to stock what it wants, I think the reasons why it's not stocking Nestle and also Coke are flawed.
Other posters have talked about Nestle's reformation and the referendum being outdated so I won't just repeat them but I'll just say that I agree with panda and terry mac and basically with the jist of the OP.
Dontico is quite passionate and people seem to have jumped on him because of that. Most of the people involved in this thread do seem to be SU types, generally of a particular leaning which does skew the argument on this thread.
I'm sure the majority of UCD students would like Nestle and Coke back, and don't care about the tentative reasons scaremongered by ban supporters.

Sangre

But haven't your read KILLERCOKE.ORG?

Its neutral, non-biased stance really swayed me!

Chakar

I would be opposed to the ban on Nestle and Coke on the basis that the reasons for doing so are not factual.The sources available on Nestle and Coke are clearly biased.While the SU shops can refuse to sell Nestle and Coke in reality the ban is not being enforced as you can buy Coke in the Grind and the SU bars.Which is typical of the attitude towards the ban.

While I understand the reasons for the ban are of good intentions that shouldn't mean I can't disagree with the ban.

But its doesn't really bother me keep whatever is left of the ban..

Byrno

Ah Panda, you've forced me to haul myself out of my self enforced hibernation from posting on the internet at this time!

panda100 wrote:

Firstly,anyone that had any passing intrest in the epidemic that is Hiv/Aids will Know that breast feeding is one of the main routes of transmission of these killers. Even Mary Robinson said it at the rose Project talk that we must educate those in developing countries on how to reduce the risk of transimmion of HIV and this includes not breast feeding. Me and Byrno are told regulalry throughout our course that if someone comes in with HIV its imperative that you encourage them not to breast feed.

If I recall correctly Mary Robinson also said that we have to ensure that the drinking water that these women use has to be safe to drink before doing this. I know we are told in class that breastfeeding by HIV+ mothers is a route of transmission but the risk of water-bourne infection far outweighs the risk of HIV transmission.

panda100 wrote:

The Nestle ban was relevant at the time and UCD did make their stand and it was heared by nestle. Nestle no longer need to be punished for bad advertising they did half a century ago. They should be applauded now for all the great work they have done in trying to quash the HIV epidemic,employing 50,000 Africans and helping turn Africa into the continent it deserves to be.

Chakar wrote:

I would be opposed to the ban on Nestle and Coke on the basis that the reasons for doing so are not factual.The sources available on Nestle and Coke are clearly biased.

Unbiased information on the ban is hard to come by, especially from Nestlé. And no offence panda but your information sounds as if it is straight from a Nestlé statement.

terry mac

Spectator#1 wrote:

And why is that? I'd say it's applicable, I'd even say it's fair.

I didn't really word it well, but what I was trying to get at was that any quorom of say around 30% couldn't be introduced, that would just be unattainable, thus preventing any possible change, it wouldn't be very democratic if you were stuck with the same thing forever cause no election can reach the quorum. And having a quorum of 10% is just promoting apathy.

They were included, and we've established that we both agree that they should be included again in that decision. I don't think you could fairly use the term 'dictated to' in this situation.

The point of the referendum wasn't about protecting the interests of the students in the first place. As far as I can see it's first and foremost an act of support for other human beings whose lives aren't being respected.

I do think dictated to is the term to use. The SU is basically saying "We're not letting you drink Coke due to ........... , and we don't think you can make that decision for yourself"

By the way, I'd be very surprised if you meant that when you said the SU should move to ban cigarettes, having just complained that they dictate student's choice of sweets the paragraph before! There'd be a civil war if they tried to do that!

I know, and I'm not advocating that, but if the SU has taken it upon itself to ban products from its shops why stop at Coke, would you not agree that cigarettes are a more dangerous product. Anyway, no doubt the loss in revenue and the lack of an alternative Pepsi style product will prevent this from ever happening, and a bit of sense too!!! Although I'd say that referendum would see a boost in voter turnout particularly from the smoking population.

Dontico

Pythia wrote:

Although I agree a shop does have a right to stock what it wants, I think the reasons why it's not stocking Nestle and also Coke are flawed.
Other posters have talked about Nestle's reformation and the referendum being outdated so I won't just repeat them but I'll just say that I agree with panda and terry mac and basically with the jist of the OP.
Dontico is quite passionate and people seem to have jumped on him because of that. Most of the people involved in this thread do seem to be SU types, generally of a particular leaning which does skew the argument on this thread.
I'm sure the majority of UCD students would like Nestle and Coke back, and don't care about the tentative reasons scaremongered by ban supporters.

thanks.

talking about the referendum being out dated is really annoying. it just wont go through with some people.

to happycrackhead.
read previous posts. dont be trolling.

Blush_01

Urgh.

I don't know if I'm alone in this (I think UCD has just made me cynical) but I don't believe that any multi-national company treats EVERY employee in the way they should be treated. Right, we've heard what happened in Columbia and India with Coke, but the chances are that their competitors are doing the exact same thing, it just hasn't come out. You'll have to excuse me if I think that we're not hearing the full story from either side and that each story teller has their own agenda. It's relatively recent though, so many of the people who were here at the time of the referenda and had an opportunity to vote are potentially still here.

The Nestle Ban was implemented when most of us were still in primary school. It's virtually irrelevant at this stage, as so few people can tell why the ban was put in place in the first instance. That, to my mind, is woeful negligence on behalf of the people enforcing the ban. If you're removing a plethora of products from a shop that is supposedly the SU shop, then the SU members (that would be each and every student who has paid their membership - whether they want to or not, remember) as shoppers should be aware that a political/humanitarian/whatever stance is being taken on their behalf by the removal of access to x product(s) otherwise it's POINTLESS. If virtually nobody is aware of the motivation behind the action, the action immediately becomes mute in my eyes. How can anyone support something they don't know is happening? Where is the awareness of the situation in that, and the subsequent drive towards support? THAT is why dictating an outdated ban is stupid - because almost nobody knows (and therefore cares) about the bloody thing. Once people step outside the shop they'll head to a machine and buy a Nestle bar - because they can't get it in the shop, don't know why and therefore don't care.

Am I making any sense to anyone else?