Forum bar & coke....?

Alana

Eh...had a bit of a debate with my friends about this today-is the forum bar a student bar-like the one near commerce...? i assumed that as it is attached to the student building it's a student bar....correct me if i'm wrong though...

The reason being is that I was in there today having me some tasty lunch and I went up to get a pepsi-only thing was that there was no pepsi-only coke.....correct me if I'm wrong but i thought that we voted last year to ban coke from the s.u shops and the student bars...? If so, if it is a student union related bar...what the hell is it doing serving it....?

Jonny Arson

Student Bar - To the left of the Commerce building
Forum Bar - At the student centre
Sports Bar - Sports Hall

Red Alert

good question. are you sure it was coke? and the lads weren't just calling it that - they'll get a lot of people asking for "vodka and coke" which is lot easier to say when hammered than "vodka and.... co... pepsi!"

Jonny Arson

I hate this whole controversey over Coke in UCD. I think they should sell it. If you have your reasons for not buying it then don't buy it instead of getting it banned. Totally ridiculous.

themole

afaik, the bars were exempt from the ban.

just some of them stopped selling it anyway, even though they didn't have to.

Syth

Zane from MTV2 wrote:

I hate this whole controversey over Coke in UCD. I think they should sell it. If you have your reasons for not buying it then don't buy it instead of getting it banned. Totally ridiculous.

It's in the constitution now, can;t be changed without a referendum.

To hijack this thread, how long has the Nestle ban been in, and has it actually made a difference.?

gsand

too long and no

Stabshauptmann

what nestle ban?
Forum bar is owned by the SU

Alana

no it actually was coke-contour shaped bottle with coke written on it-(and it wouldn't be vodka i'd be ordering it'd be some good ol whiskey )well whats the point of banning it from the shops but keeping it in the bars, ppl could just say f*ck this i'l buy it in the bar instead...as for the nestle ban-i agree.

Bottle_of_Smoke

the grind were selling sprite the other day, are they still owned by coke?

Slash/ED

Alana wrote:

ppl could just say f*ck this i'l buy it in the bar instead.

And that's a good thing, they should have that choice, the ban is a joke.

Alana

yea but go to o'briens, or go to the spar or 911-you do have a choice, but when u've voted for it to not be in student union places...why is it there...?Hey Dunnes not selling south african bananas in the 1990s affected that countries profile and perhaps it was only a tiny thing on the global scale but it attracted attention to the issue, as has UCD's & TCD's ban on coke-ok it won't bring down the big bad monster but who knows....plus its bad for you teeth

Slash/ED

Yeah but if I'm in the grind it's annoying to have to go off somewhere else to get Coke. Just because some other people don't want to drink it doesn't mean it should be banned, if they want to boycott it that's their business. They should then not buy it and maybe even put some posters up to try and gain support and get others to boycott it, they shouldn't enforce their ideals onto others.

Jonny Arson

Slash/ED wrote:

Just because some other people don't want to drink it doesn't mean it should be banned, if they want to boycott it that's their business. They should then not buy it and maybe even put some posters up to try and gain support and get others to boycott it, they shouldn't enforce their ideals onto others.

Exactly.

Stabshauptmann

Thats what has happened! The SU has not forced others to stop seeling coke, the SU acting as a single entity made up its "mind" to boycott it. It was a fair and democratic process, if you have no problem with coke buy it and drink it-there are lots of places, and feel free to call for a third referendum.

Btw just say Jimmy like Heroin and doesnt believe it is evil or wrong or dangerous or whatever and he is sick and tired of the government preventing ppl from selling it to him

themole

Zane from MTV2 wrote:

Exactly.

ya. i agree with that.

there should have been some requirement for large majority, say 60% of voters. as the ban has a negative affect on the right of the no to ban cokje people, but won't affect the yes voters because they won't drink it if they are opposed to coke.

Slash/ED

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

Thats what has happened! The SU has not forced others to stop seeling coke, the SU acting as a single entity made up its "mind" to boycott it. It was a fair and democratic process, if you have no problem with coke buy it and drink it-there are lots of places, and feel free to call for a third referendum.

Btw just say Jimmy like Heroin and doesnt believe it is evil or wrong or dangerous or whatever and he is sick and tired of the government preventing ppl from selling it to him

The point is I don't see why I have to go off on a walk to some other place out of my way while having lunch in the grind to get some coke just because a few people decided they wanted to boycott. If you want to boycott, fine, but don't force that on me, just don't buy the feckin thing, why feel the need to force others to do the same thing?

Jonny Arson

Slash/ED wrote:

The point is I don't see why I have to go off on a walk to some other place out of my way while having lunch in the grind to get some coke just because a few people decided they wanted to boycott. If you want to boycott, fine, but don't force that on me, just don't buy the feckin thing, why feel the need to force others to do the same thing?

You do exactly what one of my friends does. Always buys food in students centre and then makes a trip to the vending machine for coke in the sports centre so he wont have to buy Pepsi. How sad!

Are you going to launch a campaign to ban Pepsi? Pepsi is not all that bad but its no Coke.

Slash/ED

I might launch a campaign to ban fake tan from the campus, the local economy would enter into a crisis.

ghostchant

If the SU hate coke so much then why is the SU shop in the science building still emblazoned with coke logos?

Stabshauptmann

What Im saying is that the SU decided it wouldnt do something, its not forcing you to do anything, just that the SU wont be a part of it. You say let those who want to boycott boycott. Fine, the SU wants to boycott, not a few wackos, the SU as a single entity.
The decision was arrived at in the most democratic way possible.

You could choose to go to O Briens and have your entire lunch there, but its not as good as the grind perhaps, part of that better job is the abscence of coke in most ppls opinions as democratically expressed. More ppl feel better about eating there knowing they arent supporting coke than are inconvienienced.

If you viewed the SU as a single entity and acknowledged that it is the SU who are boycotting coke, then you would see that " [The SU] want to boycott, fine, but don't force that on me, just don't [sell] the feckin thing [in SU shops], why feel the need to force others to do the same thing?[by banning it all over campus]"

Your problem is that you want to benifit from the SU prices and location without paying anything in return. Does that seem reasonable?

uberwolf

if you're interested, The SU constitution says

Such Referendums may be called by the Returning Officers on petition in writing of not less than 3.5% of the total registered membership of the Union at the time of submission or on the direction of the Union Council.

so get the requisite number of signatures and lets have us a referendum on coke

Stabshauptmann

Nobody complained about the logos. The SU officers didnt decide, God I hate coke and Im going to use my position in the SU to ban it. Someone launched a campaign to ban the sale of coke or something to that effect, it was put to a vote and most ppl are happy (judging by both results).

Slash/ED

Kaptain Redeye wrote:

What Im saying is that the SU decided it wouldnt do something, its not forcing you to do anything, just that the SU wont be a part of it. You say let those who want to boycott boycott. Fine, the SU wants to boycott, not a few wackos, the SU as a single entity.
The decision was arrived at in the most democratic way possible.

You could choose to go to O Briens and have your entire lunch there, but its not as good as the grind perhaps, part of that better job is the abscence of coke in most ppls opinions as democratically expressed. More ppl feel better about eating there knowing they arent supporting coke than are inconvienienced.

If you viewed the SU as a single entity and acknowledged that it is the SU who are boycotting coke, then you would see that " [The SU] want to boycott, fine, but don't force that on me, just don't [sell] the feckin thing [in SU shops], why feel the need to force others to do the same thing?[by banning it all over campus]"

Your problem is that you want to benifit from the SU prices and location without paying anything in return. Does that seem reasonable?

Why the hell should I hve to "pay" by not having access to a drink just because a few people (in the SU) decided to boycott? It may seem a trivial thing but it's the principal of it all that a few people can decide what ideals everyone has to follow.

Does anyone really actually think the grind is better than O'Briens soley because O'Briens gives you the choice of buying Coke?

Stabshauptmann

You are being unreasonable, you keep saying those within the SU banned coke or a few ppl. The SU banned coke. The SU as a whole and single entity has choosen to boycott coke. You said its fair enough for an individual, why not for a seperate legal entity. Its doing exactly what you deem fair, its not imposing its boycott on you, you can go elsewhere

ghostchant

i just think its strange that a shop thats covered in logos for a product doesn't sell that product. i don't know if its legal to do that but its not too much of a problem cos i can just go to the science canteen for coke

Slash/ED

Why should I have to go elsewhere, are the SU not there to service the bloody students? If not than what's the point of a Students Union?

Stabshauptmann

Slash/ED wrote:

Why the hell should I hve to "pay" by not having access to a drink just because a few people (in the SU) decided to boycott? It may seem a trivial thing but it's the principal of it all that a few people can decide what ideals everyone has to follow.

Does anyone really actually think the grind is better than O'Briens soley because O'Briens gives you the choice of buying Coke?

I said "part" of the reason, you replied "soley". You are distorting things.
The SU is a seperate entity.
Part does not equally the whole

Slash/ED

I would be suprised if anyone even partly prefered one shop over another because it offered less choice.

Stabshauptmann

Slash/ED wrote:

Why should I have to go elsewhere, are the SU not there to service the bloody students? If not than what's the point of a Students Union?

To represent the will of the majority of its members

Stabshauptmann

You'd be surprised
Ethical issues have been statistically proven to influence sales