Nestle Being Sold in the Shop

Jester252

demolitionman wrote: »

it isn't a small number over a thousand people voted to veto the sale of their products, and a few hundred signed the petition in the first place.

Now if your point was ''well that was ages ago those students have invariably left sod what they think'' i'd say ''maybe you're right.but then proper channels should be fulfilled for the referendum to be done again, not the boys in the su deciding oh sh*t we're stuck for cash better start selling those kit kats again, derek any stroke you could pull to work our way around that little veto you've got.

Obviously the new accountant came in and made the call. Just a bit ridiculous really, no respect for the history of the UL or the ULSU, or the students who passed through the college before you.

Over 1000 you say that around 10% of overall student body that said no to kitkats because they didn't like what the big MNC did. T.T . Did other people like lecture/staff or general people that use the shop get a say? I don't know but if no, was the vote in the first place a group of people making a decision that effect other without a voice. In this case the removal of nestle for the shop is worse as you are not allow people to buy the product compare to giving them the choice to buy it or not

Also you can't use the shop too much because it has been in the shop since the summer.

I bet you do based on that little paunch I saw you sporting recently. It'd be no harm if they stopped selling sweeted goods in general in the shop, someone like you would really benefit from a bit of fruit and veg!

How to argue lesson 1
When your argument fails start with the personal attacks

aN.Droid

demolitionman wrote: »

I bet you do based on that little paunch I saw you sporting recently. It'd be no harm if they stopped selling sweeted goods in general in the shop, someone like you would really benefit from a bit of fruit and veg!

Personal attacks? Really? Any credibility you had is now gone. I'm going to go to the shop now and buy a multipack of kitkat.

Jester252

Limericks wrote: »

Personal attacks? Really? Any credibility you had is now gone. I'm going to go to the shop now and buy a multipack of kitkat.

Too bad its closed for the night just have to wait until tomorrow to give all your money to nestle

Gumbi

demolitionman wrote: »

I bet you do based on that little paunch I saw you sporting recently. It'd be no harm if they stopped selling sweeted goods in general in the shop, someone like you would really benefit from a bit of fruit and veg!

Does this kind of behaviour not merit a temporary ban, or at least a warning, from a moderator?

mayo_lad

Derek Daly ULSU President wrote:

they were never banned. The wording of the referendum was found this year and it referred to nescafe, not nestle

As you can see they were never banned only Nescafe coffee is banned,now can you please go back to your study safe in the Knowledge that you were wrong

reunion

Look can people calm down and think about this for a second. Personal attacks are stupid and can get you banned or can get you a warning.

People followed demogratic procedures and removed the sale of nestle products in SU shops. The sale of nestle products should no longer be allowed unless changed by a referendum.

By selling these products it is another case of the su avoiding correct procedure (much like the money being taken from the clubs and socs). I imagine the bulk of the students would like nestle products back or don't care anymore about this issue, however proper procedure still should have been followed.

The case is procedure wasn't followed and I have lost faith in the SU's ability to actually listen to students.

P.S I also hope some people were taking the piss saying that this should be revoted on to ban them again or that voices weren't heard (voices were heard and this was voted on and it was voted to remove it).


Edit: Can we see the wording of that referendum? It seems strange to have been missing for so long and only turn up now...

reunion

mayo_lad wrote: »

As you can see they were never banned only Nescafe coffee is banned,now can you please go back to your study safe in the Knowledge that you were wrong

Actually care to link to that or even find us the referendum?

Can't see it on the ULSU website or on derek's blog...

Edit: FYI from Schedule 5 – Referenda and Results

2001 Banning of Nescafe 2,300 YES

I know quite the number of people who would be pissed if this had been passed...

2005 Ban CocaCola Products 1100 NO

aN.Droid

I like to do what I say I am going to do.




Excuse the handwriting

cson

demolitionman wrote: »

I bet you do based on that little paunch I saw you sporting recently. It'd be no harm if they stopped selling sweeted goods in general in the shop, someone like you would really benefit from a bit of fruit and veg!

Can't say I'm surprised at this departure; playing the man and not ball isn't clever my little rainbow warrior.

Anyway, I'll be off to make some further inroads into those 2 crates of kitkats I just bought. They go very nicely with a mug of scald. :pac:

J_E

I think if anything, this thread has ended up promoting Nestle!

Jester252

Cydoniac wrote: »

I think if anything, this thread has ended up promoting Nestle!

I know right I really what a kitkat curse you limericks

Jester252

reunion wrote: »

Look can people calm down and think about this for a second. Personal attacks are stupid and can get you banned or can get you a warning.

People followed demogratic procedures and removed the sale of nestle products in SU shops. The sale of nestle products should no longer be allowed unless changed by a referendum.

By selling these products it is another case of the su avoiding correct procedure (much like the money being taken from the clubs and socs). I imagine the bulk of the students would like nestle products back or don't care anymore about this issue, however proper procedure still should have been followed.

The case is procedure wasn't followed and I have lost faith in the SU's ability to actually listen to students.

P.S I also hope some people were taking the piss saying that this should be revoted on to ban them again or that voices weren't heard (voices were heard and this was voted on and it was voted to remove it).


Edit: Can we see the wording of that referendum? It seems strange to have been missing for so long and only turn up now...

reunion wrote: »

Actually care to link to that or even find us the referendum?

Can't see it on the ULSU website or on derek's blog...

Edit: FYI from Schedule 5 – Referenda and Results

2001 Banning of Nescafe 2,300 YES

It says to ban Nescafe not Nestle
Nescafe i think is not sold in the shop so it is not braking the referendum

Jester252

As I was not around at the time was it the baby formula that was the problem I just what to make sure. Also what was the coke ban over?

OhMSGlive

Oh cheers lads, thanks to this thread I've actually picked up the urge to get a KitKat right now. :pac:

Seriously, why does it even matter? If you seriously disagree with the principles of a company, don't buy their product. It's that simple. Like MyKeyG said, there's no need to go ramming it down people's throats.

Not to act like a broken record or anything, but it's a point that needs to be re-emphasized.

garv123

OP turns to personal abuse = thread fail.


I want a kitkat now too:(

hefferboi

Kitkat and a bag of Tayto's. Couldn't see a problem.

ninty9er

freyners wrote: »

demolitionman wrote: »

When did they decide to start selling Nestle products in the shop again?
Did I miss the part where the students voted again to allow it to be sold again??
Disgusting stuff I must say, the ULSU really has no shame anymore.

there was a notice in an focal about it, IIRC the motion was defective and actually didnt prevent it being sold, or it was never on the rule book or something..my memory is poor.

also i dont think the ul boycott was over breast milk

If you feel strongly about it, try and get a new motion passed

This.

I suppose there's no chance of an apology from the keyboard warrior in chief?

Not that what you think of me means a great deal to me or anything OP, but if I was ever stuck for a few quid a trace on your IP address and a historical server store of this thread could net someone branded Il Fuhrer a few quid in front of a sympathetic judge.

Just because you have an alias doesn't mean you can say anything you like without consequence. Just be happy that I'm happy that I've better things to be concerning myself with, and next time maybe walk through the front door, knock on my door and ask a question before you go shooting your load all over the place prematurely.

OhMSGlive

demolitionman wrote: »

I bet you do based on that little paunch I saw you sporting recently. It'd be no harm if they stopped selling sweeted goods in general in the shop, someone like you would really benefit from a bit of fruit and veg!

Post reported for personal abuse.

CiaranMT

These threads on the UL board over the last while really are something...

OhMSGlive

CiaranMT wrote: »

These threads on the UL board over the last while really are something...

Ah come on, we're not all that bad! :pac:

Nockz

Reading this thread made me spit a combination of Nescafe and Nestle products from my mouth all over my screen. Better wash it off with some breastmilk.

yuppy700

ninty9er wrote: »

Not that what you think of me means a great deal to me or anything OP, but if I was ever stuck for a few quid a trace on your IP address and a historical server store of this thread could net someone branded Il Fuhrer a few quid in front of a sympathetic judge.

Just because you have an alias doesn't mean you can say anything you like without consequence. Just be happy that I'm happy that I've better things to be concerning myself with, and next time maybe walk through the front door, knock on my door and ask a question before you go shooting your load all over the place prematurely.

Jester252

Am I the only one that finds it odd that Nescafe is banned but not Nestle

2001 Banning of Nescafe 2,300 YES

When the infant formula is made by Nestle and its only connection with Nescafe is Nestle

spurious

demolitionman can take a little break til 2012 for personal abuse.

wnolan1992

ninty9er wrote: »

next time maybe walk through the front door, knock on my door and ask a question before you go shooting your load all over the place prematurely.

Ah but sure that might actually get matters cleared up quickly without all the overreaction and personal abuse that's oh so common on this foru...... And who wants that?

CiaranMT wrote: »

These threads on the UL board over the last while really are something...

Ah come on! We've sorted out some serious issues. Have you seen the TP thread? :pac: :pac:


Personally, any boycotts of products like this (don't care if it's Nescafe or Nestle tbh) irritate me. To re-iterate the point, how about you enforce your own principles rather than force them on others.

reunion

wnolan1992 wrote: »

To re-iterate the point, how about you enforce your own principles rather than force them on others.

I'm not sure people in this thread understand how democracy works...

This was voted on by students (For the student union shop) and it was passed to ban nescafe. Much like the constitution of Ireland, it was passed by the people. If you want to change something to it, it needs a referendum.


There is a nescafe product on the shelves of the SU shop.
Please either remove the product OR hold a referendum unbanning the sale of nescafe.

Chimaera

I think part of the issue is whether the original referendum is even valid. There were questions raised at the time about whether the SU had any right to block the stocking of Nestlé/Nescafé products in the shop, and that may be the reason that they are back on sale.

wnolan1992

Chimaera wrote: »

I think part of the issue is whether the original referendum is even valid. There were questions raised at the time about whether the SU had any right to block the stocking of Nestlé/Nescafé products in the shop, and that may be the reason that they are back on sale.

Isn't the shop run by ULSU though? So wouldn't they be fully in their rights to boycott anything they wanted?

reunion

Chimaera wrote: »

I think part of the issue is whether the original referendum is even valid. There were questions raised at the time about whether the SU had any right to block the stocking of Nestlé/Nescafé products in the shop, and that may be the reason that they are back on sale.

I believe the shop is apart of the SU (or the SU is the shareholder in the shop). Previous years students from class rep council would be apart of the board of trustees (or board of directors or something) and the SU would pay the wages of staff in the shop. The shop was bailed out this year via the SU (won't bring up from what parts of the SU) so we clearly have some hierarchy.

Jester252

reunion wrote: »

I'm not sure people in this thread understand how democracy works...

This was voted on by students (For the student union shop) and it was passed to ban nescafe. Much like the constitution of Ireland, it was passed by the people. If you want to change something to it, it needs a referendum.


There is a nescafe product on the shelves of the SU shop.
Please either remove the product OR hold a referendum unbanning the sale of nescafe.

I saw that today and I agree with you that product should be remove from the shop until a life on the ban is voted in by the student. I do not agree with the bad in the first place from many reason that I stated in the thread but that what happen when students and hot topic issues meet.