The Coca Cola Boycott Committee

PaddyofNine

Just read about it in the paper.

What a pile of cock.

Discuss.

Tom65

Do not have access to said paper. Do tell.

Blush_01

This again?

Redpunto

I was in UCD from 1995 and they were on about this and no-one gave a rats arse,,, seriously these people need to find a new hobby.

rainbow kirby

Not this **** again.

panda100

Redpunto wrote: »

I was in UCD from 1995 and they were on about this and no-one gave a rats arse

Thats odd becuase the coca Cola boycott was only voted on in 2003??

ianthefox

I guess that's because they didn't give a rat's arse until 2003??

Stupid boycott.

Riamfada

While I dont agree with the OP's tactic at starting a discussion I dont think we should be wasting any time or money with talking about this on campus. You can get coke in 911 and the Arts Cafe. So its not really a boycott.

rainbow kirby

Yes, but it's more expensive there (€1.50 vs €1.20) - which is annoying.

Stabshauptmann

True, and thats what all the anti-boycott sentiment boils down to. But its not a logical arguement and Ive never heard it expressed as one.

The SU shops dont sell porn, alcohol, and plenty of other ****. Its a business decision made by the owners of the shop. If you dont like it, organise another referendum.

RossFixxxed

Congratulations on your infraction, kthxbai.

Edit: And your ban. lucky, lucky you.

Shazbot

Grimes wrote: »

While I dont agree with the OP's tactic at starting a discussion I dont think we should be wasting any time or money with talking about this on campus. You can get coke in 911 and the Arts Cafe. So its not really a boycott.

Well it's a boycott by the student's union. Not by the entire campus. None of the SU shops sell any coca-cola products (or nestle). But as you said, other buisnesses still sell them, O'briens, Insomnia, 911, Arts Cafe, The Grind and all the vending machines around campus. More than enough options to get your fix.

Don't know why people always kick up a fuss about this. Simply walk to another part of campus and buy what you want.

Stabshauptmann

But I have a right to force the student union to do what I say, Im a student. Im entitled to free stuff and those that arent free should be subsidised. I mean, life is hard for students. It cost 5eur for your dinner on campus, what a rip-off!

Shazbot

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

But I have a right to force the student union to do what I say, Im a student. Im entitled to free stuff and those that arent free should be subsidised. I mean, life is hard for students. It cost 5eur for your dinner on campus, what a rip-off!

My God I hope that's sarcasim.

simonrooneyzaga

Its an absolute joke - who gives a rashers!

I agree with the poster who told these people to find a new hobby.

Bloody skunks.

Stabshauptmann

Shazbot wrote: »

My God I hope that's sarcasim.

Compare and contrast posts 10 and 13.

Shazbot

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Compare and contrast posts 10 and 13.

Ah ok, i see now. It took you 2 hours to come up with a joke.

Stabshauptmann

Actually I write posts in response to other peoples posts. There were no moronic posters to poke fun at before...

Shazbot

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Actually I write posts in response to other peoples posts. There were no moronic posters to poke fun at before...

My comment about the joke was based on your two posts, post 10 and 13.
The only posters to post between there were Rossfixxxed and myself. Seeing as though Rossfixxed post was just a picture then I assume your "moronic poster" remark was about me. You realize personal insult is against the charter right? (Not trying to backseat mod).

I fail to see how my post (no. 12) was not moronic and simply stated that coca-cola products can still be purchased on campus. Care to enlighten me or are you just gonna talk crap?

Stabshauptmann

Shazbot wrote: »

The only posters to post between there were Rossfixxxed and myself.
... I assume your "moronic poster" remark was about me.

O_o

33% God

Domo230 wrote: »

Why is coke banned on campus in the first place?

I assume because of some of these

• Overexploitation and pollution of water sources in India (www.IndiaResource.org),
Mexico (www.Ciepac.org), Ghana and elsewhere (www.PolarisInstitute.org)
• Continuing to operate in the Sudan, ignoring genocide in Darfur and paying fines for
violating U.S. sanctions
• Benefiting from hazardous child labor in sugar cane fields in El Salvador as
documented by Human Rights Watch (www.hrw.org)
• Aggressive marketing to children of nutritionally worthless and damaging
products (www.CommercialExploitation.org and www.SchoolPouringRights.com)
• Anti-worker and anti-environmental practices worldwide
(www.StudentsAgainstSweatshops.org and www.WarOnWant.org)
• Giving executives hundreds of millions of dollars in stock options
and bonuses while laying off thousands of employees
• History of racial discrimination, fraudulent business practices, tax avoidance and
corporate welfare schemes

In 2001 and 2006, lawsuits were filed in the United States against Coca-Cola
by the International Labor Rights Fund (www.LaborRights.org) and the United
Steelworkers union on behalf of SINALTRAINAL — the major union representing
Coca-Cola workers in Colombia — several of its members and the survivors of Isidro
Gil and Adolfo de Jesus Munera, two of its murdered officers. (www.Sinaltrainal.org)
The lawsuits charge that Coca-Cola’s bottlers in Colombia “contracted with or
otherwise directed paramilitary security forces that utilized extreme violence and
murdered, tortured, unlawfully detained or otherwise silenced trade union leaders.”
The seriousness of the situation is best summed up by a SINALTRAINAL officer,
who stated: “If we lose the fight against Coca-Cola, we will first lose our union,
next our jobs and then our lives.”

bnt

33% God wrote: »

I assume because of some of these
... (lots)

Well, I didn't think it was related to caffeine, aspartame or high fructose corn syrup - or else they would have banned Pepsi as well, right? :cool:

PaddyofNine

It is banned because of some of those things you listed. But only partly - it's mainly because this is (was?) a 'fashionable' cause - one that's attractive for 'activist' university students.

Stabshauptmann

PaddyofNine wrote: »

It is banned because of some of those things you listed. But only partly - it's mainly because this is (was?) a 'fashionable' cause - one that's attractive for 'activist' university students.

And there was me thinking we were one of the first to ban it

Breezer

PaddyofNine wrote: »

It is banned because of some of those things you listed. But only partly - it's mainly because this is (was?) a 'fashionable' cause - one that's attractive for 'activist' university students.

Is the union only allowed take a stand on issues that no other groups take a stand on?

You haven't said what you read in "the paper" nor why you feel it is "a pile of cock." Perhaps you could enlighten us and then we'll be able to have a more mature discussion.

33% God

Breezer wrote: »

Is the union only allowed take a stand on issues that no other groups take a stand on?

You haven't said what you read in "the paper" nor why you feel it is "a pile of cock." Perhaps you could enlighten us and then we'll be able to have a more mature discussion.

I love you.

bnt

Ah, the Naiveté of Yoof... ever heard of "follow the money"? If the sales volume in the SU shops was high enough, the Coca Cola Company would come along with a better offer for exclusive rights, and you'd be asking "Boycott? he played Cricket, right?" :rolleyes:

Stabshauptmann

bnt wrote: »

Ah, the Naiveté of Yoof... ever heard of "follow the money"? If the sales volume in the SU shops was high enough, the Coca Cola Company would come along with a better offer for exclusive rights, and you'd be asking "Boycott? he played Cricket, right?" :rolleyes:

No, theres a fatal flaw in your logic. The SU shops arent run for profit, and even if they were its not distributed to the owners directly.

PaddyofNine

I read this article in the latest issue of the Observer.

And I disagree with the ban for the reasons I've stated above - I think it was a fashionable cause. With the hundreds of thousands of different companies represented on campus you can be damn sure that some of them are involved in dodgy dealings somewhere in the world, but there'll never be a move to boycott them on campus. Why? Because nobody would give a ****.

This ban was implemented because it was fashinable with the Indymedia crowd. I would personally like to be able to make my own decision over whether to purchase a company's product or not, based on my own feelings toward said company, and not have that choice taken away from me because some SU hacks wanted to massage their ego and feel good about themselves five years ago.

Het-Field

I am aquainted with a number of Colombians, who question the validity of the claims of the groups who are rabidly against Coca Cola.

Many have never heard of the incidents which have purportedly taken place, and they also claim that Coca Cola is a very useful source of work, within a fairly shabby economy. Are Irish people in a better place to understand the internal workings of a Colombian Coca Cola plant ?

I always felt it was a disgrace that the No Coca Cola side would use that image of the unfortunate Vietnamese man with a gun to his head. If you didnt know any better, it could be a Colombian....see my point ?

It is very easy to use examples of Countries which are thousands of miles away. It is far more difficult to question and rebut the argument.

While the ban is ineffective, I also think another referendum should be put to the students. How many of todays students actually voted on this ? Its likely that a small quantity of masters and PHD students are the only ones who would remember th campaign.

rainbow kirby

Het-Field wrote: »

How many of todays students actually voted on this ? Its likely that a small quantity of masters and PHD students are the only ones who would remember th campaign.

<--

Voted against the ban twice.