nestle on campus?

Dontico

as many of us know, one cannot buy nestle products in the SU shops.

is annyone else annoyed as adults we are being told what we can or cannot buy?
i know the arguements for banning nestle products, but why only the one? why not coke, american products, israeli products, chinnese producs, and the use of shell oil for services cars?

ireland is mostly a free market. none of this socialist controling non-sense. stalin and hitler believed in controled markets.

i think its time to remove the socialist control over campus. anyone else infavour of bringing back from the chose what we eat?

EDIT: pole ment to say "want" not "what". sorry for typing error.

singingstranger

We've been through this. http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054998470

It's not socialist control, it's democracy. It might be outdated democracy but it was valid democracy nonetheless.

Dontico

i never got to vote on it. i dont even know when it was banned. i've been around for some referendums. but i had no idea what they ere about nor did anyone i know knew what they were about.

what i'm asking for is there enough people that to bring nestle back. i need 900 people, i think, to try get voted on to bring it back. using democracy to bring it back. there are knew people in UCD now.
also the poll on the link provided shows that most people on this forum would like it back.

Garret

cadburys is nicer

arbeitsscheuer

It's an unforgiveably leading question.

You're free to buy and eat what you want - but the SU will not stock nestle products in its shops. You can't force the SU to sell products which, in its opinion, are made buy unethical and disreputable sources.

Incidentally, it's not like we're the only university that does this. Most universities ban the sale of nestle products - it's not like we're just hopped up rabid left-wing crazies or anything.

Although obviously that helps...

singingstranger

I agree completely. There's plenty of vending machines around campus that sell Nestlé products, just as there are plenty that sell Coca-Cola stuff. You're free to buy it; the Union, though, chose through its members in a referendum (admittedly outdatedly, I think it was about 1993 or something?) not to contribute any of their €1m+ annual turnover to either company.

hullaballoo

arbeitsscheuer wrote:

It's an unforgiveably leading question.

That really is all there is to this.

The poll question is completely different from what you're getting at in your post, OP.

You're asking if we should be free to decide what we buy: no one is going to say, "no, I want other people to decide what I buy."

What your point would appear to be is that you are annoyed that we don't have a referendum every year to decide SU mandates. Unfortunately, that is the way democracy works. The conscience of the people isn't a constant, but we do our best with what our forbears give us.

If you want to change it, propose a motion in council for a referendum to reverse the ban. As far as I remember, something similar was attempted with the coke ban, but it was unsuccessful. The catch-22 of the situation is that the only people who care enough to get out and vote are the extremist fanatics.

Riamfada

its that **** the Milky Bar Kid.

Dontico

singingstranger wrote:

I agree completely. There's plenty of vending machines around campus that sell Nestlé products, just as there are plenty that sell Coca-Cola stuff. You're free to buy it; the Union, though, chose through its members in a referendum (admittedly outdatedly, I think it was about 1993 or something?) not to contribute any of their €1m+ annual turnover to either company.

vending machines are more expensive than shops.

if there is a referendum, and the ban is lifted. then doesnt that mean students have then decided to allow nestle back in?

Riamfada

Dontico wrote:

vending machines are more expensive than shops.

if there is a referendum, and the ban is lifted. then doesnt that mean students have then decided to allow nestle back in?

Yeah it does. But as third level students you think most would care about an injustice rather than their sweeites

Dontico

if anyone wants to boycott nestle than they can chose not but it.

but its not about only caring about my "sweeties". i rarely buy sweets. i probably only one chocolate bar a month. but when i do i should be able to buy what i want. i usually buy yorkie.

the issue is really about freedom from being forced on by someones left-wing agenda. the SU should be non-political.

hullaballoo

Dontico wrote:

vending machines are more expensive than shops.

You sure about that?

Is it because of all the extra overheads?

Riamfada

Dontico wrote:

if anyone wants to boycott nestle than they can chose not but it.

but its not about only caring about my "sweeties". i rarely buy sweets. i probably only one chocolate bar a month. but when i do i should be able to buy what i want. i usually buy yorkie.

the issue is really about freedom from being forced on by someones left-wing agenda. the SU should be non-political.

No Don

• deaths of about 1.5 million babies each year as a result of formula being mixed with contaminated water
• Nestlé was demanding millions of dollars in compensation from Ethiopia
• In early 2005, Nestlé Purina sold thousands of tons of contaminated animal feed in Venezuela.
• Operating requirements of the factory meant pumping half a million gallons of water a day from an aquifer beneath a hunting reserve
• In August 2004 a Greenpeace test found genetically modified organisms in Chinese Nesquik
• 284,000 child labourers work on cocoa farms in West Africa, mainly in the Ivory Coast

Actually I want another Vote for people like Don's open market and freedom to eat chocolate in the Student Shops. Typical attitude of those who mention the "left" in every post. Well then I suppose that makes Dontico right and not too concerned with the deaths of millions and injustices by this company.

singingstranger

All of what Grimes said, plus http://whale.to/w/baby_milk2.html.

Dontico

i may suddenly change my mind and say "hey i dont agree what nestle are doing so wont buy there products anymore". but thats my dicision to make and mine alone. UCD should be A-political. there are other issues that campus is very slanted on that should not be a college issue.
example: supporting Rossport. my understanding is that a letter was sent out showing them our support. this is not fair. not everyone on campus supports the shell to sea campaign. i may support shell to sea, but ucd should not be involved in non-college issues or state issues. but i dont have a problem with a shell to sea society with in the college.

dajaffa

If anyone wants to go and collect signatures to run a referendum again then work away. Personally I support the ban, but wouldn't mind if a referendum was held, it'd raise awareness of the reasons behind the ban.

The thing is, if there wasn't a ban on nestle products, but nobody bought them and hence they weren't stoked by the shop, it would have much less of an impact to nestle (cause money wise it wouldn't exactly be a big financial hit to them) compared to the students saying, "no, we don't want our shops to stock your products because of A B C etc."

Incidentally, apparently Starbucks has sort of opened up in the Elements Restaurant. I predict a protest...

dajaffa

Dontico wrote:

i may suddenly change my mind and say "hey i dont agree what nestle are doing so wont buy there products anymore". but thats my dicision to make and mine alone. UCD should be A-political. there are other issues that campus is very slanted on that should not be a college issue.
example: supporting Rossport. my understanding is that a letter was sent out showing them our support. this is not fair. not everyone on campus supports the shell to sea campaign. i may support shell to sea, but ucd should not be involved in non-college issues or state issues. but i dont have a problem with a shell to sea society with in the college.

The SU does not support the Shell to Sea campaign, a lot of the people involved do but the SU itself doesn't.

Dontico

as a member of UCD. i dont other peoples views representing me. again no one has answered my above questions.

why nestle and not all american/israeli/chinnese products?

those three organisations do far worse than nestle.

Dontico

dajaffa wrote:

The SU does not support the Shell to Sea campaign, a lot of the people involved do but the SU itself doesn't.

i was told by people on the SU that they sent a letter. i'll look into it.

Sangre

Subject apathy with the average students means referendums rarely reflect the 'average' students' views. It boils down to which side has more fanatics.

Dontico

that is true Sangre. hence UCD should not be apart of a political agenda.

Sangre

I agree that the SU should be apolitical but unfortunately most students with any common sense stay away from it. Its just full of students filling their CV or those who want to 'save the planet' because of their middle-class induced guilty consciences.

Dontico

Sangre wrote:

I agree that the SU should be apolitical but unfortunately most students with any common sense stay away from it. Its just full of students filling their CV or those who want to 'save the planet' because of their middle-class induced guilty consciences.

thats now going to be my sig.

humbert

Sangre wrote:

Subject apathy with the average students means referendums rarely reflect the 'average' students' views. It boils down to which side has more fanatics.

Agreed, I've moaned about this before. The "quorum" is too low IMO but if what grimes says about Nestlé is true I'd probably have voted in favour of the ban anyway.

Pythia

dajaffa wrote:

Incidentally, apparently Starbucks has sort of opened up in the Elements Restaurant.

Really?
That's excellent! More choice for the UCD student.

Riamfada

Perhaps we will get real coffee for a change rather than that slop from 911 / Hilpers

dajaffa

Dontico wrote:

i was told by people on the SU that they sent a letter. i'll look into it.

Well people in the SU are perfectly entitled to send a letter, but not acting on behalf of the SU, unless it was send around a year ago when a motion that the SU would give them moral support (if I remember correctly). This year a motion was passed to revoke that motion so the SU does not support the Shell to Sea campaign.

Sangre wrote:

I agree that the SU should be apolitical but unfortunately most students with any common sense stay away from it. Its just full of students filling their CV or those who want to 'save the planet' because of their middle-class induced guilty consciences.

Well now Sangre where will I begin with that one?

I would not agree that the SU should be completely apolitical, I honestly can't see how it could be, and there are some issues we should take a stance on While I would agree that the main focus should always be the students, I don't think we should completely remove ourselves from other matters. I'm talking about human rights abuses, climate change, fairtrade etc, they shouldn't be our main focus, but they should be "on our radar" so to speak.

As for the rest of your comment, I have little respect for it given how flippantly you make it especially for someone who isn't even in UCD. In recent years the make-up of council has changed from a position where EVERYONE was a member of a political party to where today well over half aren't and are become reps just to help their students, and not future Dáil aspirations.

I am a class rep, a very involved one, and I'm not in any party. My "middle-class induced guilty conscience" has not left me with some sort of burning desire to "save the world", my main motivations for being a class rep was to help out my class, be it having parties, sorting out problems with lecturers or whatever. It's not an easy job, it can take up quite a bit of my time, and if I was a careerist I'd be far better off ditching those extra responsibilities and spending that time studying. Saying I was a class rep isn't exactly going to get me a job as a physio in a few years time. I do plenty of other things outside of my academic stuff that is far more likely to help in that regard.

Finally, is there something wrong with people who want to save the planet? I mean really, do you give out about Al Gore for making a documentary to make people more aware of climate change? I know enough to know that there are countless injustices in the world. I'm not going to go into specifics as I could be here forever, but I commend all those who have the guts to do something about it.

Stabshauptmann

Real coffee in insomnia, and its free trade

Stabshauptmann

I fail to see the difference between having the right to buy something as a consumer and a shops right to buy (stock) something.

My favourite bar is a yorke, its nestle, Im annoyed I cant get it in SU shops, but I deal with it - because what I want is not more important than the right of the shops as a legal entity to chose what they stock.

Next time a bouncer refuses you from a nightclub tell him about your right to go where you want.

gubbie

Dontico wrote:

vending machines are more expensive than shops.

if there is a referendum, and the ban is lifted. then doesnt that mean students have then decided to allow nestle back in?

Well you're free yourself to go out, collect the signatures, get the referendum going and then campaign against the ban

the SU should be non-political

But unions are all about politics.

And machines are only about 5c more expensive

as a member of UCD. i dont other peoples views representing me. again no one has answered my above questions.

If this is your belief then you are completely free to come along and express your opinion at council by getting speaking rights. Stop blaming others for things you are too lazy to do yourself

dajaffa wrote:

Incidentally, apparently Starbucks has sort of opened up in the Elements Restaurant. I predict a protest...

Yup completely true

humbert

gubbie wrote:

But unions are all about politics.

Emm, what now?

dajaffa

humbert wrote:

Emm, what now?

Well lobbying government, grants, access to education, there's a hell of a lot of politics involved

humbert

the function of a union is to look after it's members. to give them a louder voice by joining together. though it often happens that the senior members/leaders intentions become corrupt and they put their own goals before those of the majority of the members. we're lucky that that would never happen here in UCDD though.

Red Alert

So if superquinn don't stock porn videos I can go to court and make them?

FionnMatthew

Dontico wrote:

the SU should be non-political.

A union is, by definition, a political body.

Decisions affecting large numbers of people happen at the political level.

A union is a body to represent a large group of people at the political level.

A union can never be apolitical.

Dontico

gubbie wrote:

Well you're free yourself to go out, collect the signatures, get the referendum going and then campaign against the ban

But unions are all about politics.

And machines are only about 5c more expensive


If this is your belief then you are completely free to come along and express your opinion at council by getting speaking rights. Stop blaming others for things you are too lazy to do yourself

what am i too lazy to do?
i put up this thread to see agruements against the lifting of the ban before i try to campaign. i need a group of people to help. which i've found. a posible 400, maybe 70 more soon. but i need 900.


again nobody has addressed my main point. why not all american products? israeli or chinnese? why only nestle?

humbert

Well directly associating the company with the country I would see as being flawed.

Riamfada

Dontico wrote:

what am i too lazy to do?
i put up this thread to see agruements against the lifting of the ban before i try to campaign. i need a group of people to help. which i've found. a posible 400, maybe 70 more soon. but i need 900.


again nobody has addressed my main point. why not all american products? israeli or chinnese? why only nestle?

I look forward to asking you do you condone corperate negligence and direct exploitation of 3rd world countries in the public forum. Dont be stupid Donico . There is no way you will come off clean if your only arguement is "we want to eat yorkies and damn the dead children"

Riamfada

Dontico wrote:

why only nestle?

and Coke. You should brush up on that one aswell

AND THE REASONS THEY ARE BANNED which I stated above. Thats why we ban then.

Dontico

Grimes wrote:

I look forward to asking you do you condone corperate negligence and direct exploitation of 3rd world countries in the public forum. Dont be stupid Donico . There is no way you will come off clean if your only arguement is "we want to eat yorkies and damn the dead children"

again missing the point completely.

why only nestle? why not other companies that have simular records? or american/israeli/chinese products?

ucd isnt a country. its an organisation with in a country. ucd shouldnt be involved in issues not involving ucd.

Dontico

Grimes wrote:

and Coke. You should brush up on that one aswell

AND THE REASONS THEY ARE BANNED which I stated above. Thats why we ban then.

if they were going to ban coke, i would prefere that they ban all soft drinks. too much sugar. i usually only drink juice.

Riamfada

Currently regions of Africa are in the grips of what is likely history’s greatest health crisis. HIV/AIDS is decimating communities throughout the continent, and indeed in many other areas of the world. Millions of people are infected, among them thousands of new and expectant mothers. HIV/AIDS can be, but is not always, transmitted through breastmilk (the rate of transmission is about 15%), and as such, many people have advocated that any mothers in areas of high prevalence should resort to artificial feeding. In many parts of the world, this is sensible, but in many areas of Africa, IT IS HIGHLY DANGEROUS. As outlined in the British Medical Journal (link below), for many African children the risk of bottle feeding is higher than the risk of HIV mother to child transmission (MTCT). Artificial feeding should only be implemented if it is completely feasible, safe, sustainable, and affordable. In areas of high poverty, poor healthcare, and inadequate sanitation, bottle-feeding does not meet any of these criteria, and as such the decision to breastfeed must be made on a case-by-case basis. Despite this fact, Nestle can now capitalize on the anxiety surrounding breastfeeding to promote their product successfully, putting more children at risk. To this end, Nestle has recently set up the Nestle Nutrition Institute for Africa, which is nothing short of an abomination that disguises brand promotion for medical advice.

The Institute is made up of supposedly impartial doctors who, according to Nestle officials, will not promote Nestle products to Africans. But there is a list of Nestle products on the NNIA website and the doctors are paid by Nestle! Who would believe they are impartial? Nestle has been losing ground to breastfeeding mothers in most areas of the world, but is looking to gain a foothold once more through exploitation of the HIV/AIDS crisis. The time is ripe for the company to open up a new market: communities battling AIDS. Promotion of artificial feeding in these areas is dangerous not only to HIV/AIDS infected families, but to other families if the community becomes flooded with formula products. Are not these communities in enough danger already, without having to experience the tragedy of Baby-Bottle Death as well? Only a company such as Nestle would see a profit among such human catastrophe.



Im no leftie but I will oppose such a move Don and Im sure the Students Union will back a No campaign if you get your referendum.

Riamfada

Dontico wrote:

if they were going to ban coke.

they have banned coke

The Aim of the ban is to highlight the issues surrounding Nestle and Coke. Yes you have the right to buy what you want , the shop also has the right to stock what it wants. However with the Ban people are becoming aware of these humanitarian crisis which is more important in the grand scheme of things than wether we can get Nestle / Coke in the SU shops.

And re:sangre. Hes a Law student . He dosnt care about the world outside himself

Dontico

Grimes wrote:

they have banned coke

The Aim of the ban is to highlight the issues surrounding Nestle and Coke. Yes you have the right to buy what you want , the shop also has the right to stock what it wants. However with the Ban people are becoming aware of these humanitarian crisis which is more important in the grand scheme of things than wether we can get Nestle / Coke in the SU shops.

And re:sangre. Hes a Law student . He dosnt care about the world outside himself

again ignoring points being made.

how is the shop being run? isnt it suppose to be run by the students? dont we get to decide what is/isnt being sold?
look at my sig, or the point Sangre made earlier.

humbert

Dontico wrote:

again ignoring points being made.

how is the shop being run? isnt it suppose to be run by the students? dont we get to decide what is/isnt being sold?
look at my sig, or the point Sangre made earlier.

I'm not really taking sides on this one but there was a referendum, I think the required turnout for a decision to be made should be higher but none the less it wasn't the SU acting without some consent.

Riamfada

No offence to sangre but I usually skip over his posts

And with regards your sig. The SU is political. It has been controlled by the Righties for a long time. You dont get voted in or in with the SU gang unless you know the right people. Its just the way it is. However on this point the SU are making a stance, not a political stance but a humanitarian stance.

pretty*monster

Dontico wrote:

how is the shop being run? isnt it suppose to be run by the students? dont we get to decide what is/isnt being sold?
look at my sig, or the point Sangre made earlier.

The shops are owned by the union and it's membership in their entirity.
They are run by managers with the union president (I think) having a (rarely used)final say over the running.
Students do get to decide what is/isn't being sold. There was a referendum passed to the effect that we would not sell nestle products in our union owned shops. Thus out SU shops do not sell Nestle products.
So far so simple.

Yes the referendum was voted on befor most of us were students. But that's the way these things happen. It's simply not practicle to re run elections every year.

If you think it is a reasonable measure to collect 900 signatures, to spend students money (I think an election campaign costs the union well over €1000) just so that they can buy a certain brand of chocolate in a certain shop then be my guest. But I think it's a gratuitous waste.

Dontico

Grimes wrote:

No offence to sangre but I usually skip over his posts

And with regards your sig. The SU is political. It has been controlled by the Righties for a long time. You dont get voted in or in with the SU gang unless you know the right people. Its just the way it is. However on this point the SU are making a stance, not a political stance but a humanitarian stance.

its still swaying to left-wing idealology. some us/more than there is socialists, consider socialism to be destructive to ireland.

still you're missing the point.
ban one than ban them all.

hullaballoo

You would choose to ban all American/French/British/Isreali produce from UCD? You're crazy.

Dontico

pretty*monster wrote:

The shops are owned by the union and it's membership in their entirity.
They are run by managers with the union president (I think) having a (rarely used)final say over the running.
Students do get to decide what is/isn't being sold. There was a referendum passed to the effect that we would not sell nestle products in our union owned shops. Thus out SU shops do not sell Nestle products.
So far so simple.

Yes the referendum was voted on befor most of us were students. But that's the way these things happen. It's simply not practicle to re run elections every year.

If you think it is a reasonable measure to collect 900 signatures, to spend students money (I think an election campaign costs the union well over €1000) just so that they can buy a certain brand of chocolate in a certain shop then be my guest. But I think it's a gratuitous waste.

i didnt get to vote on it, neither did thousands of UCD students.

yes it is impratical to re-run campaigns ove rand over again. hence the SU shouldnt be involved in non-UCD matters.

again people missing valuable points being made. check my sig/check what Sangre posted.

Dontico

hullaballoo wrote:

You would choose to ban all American/French/British/Isreali produce from UCD? You're crazy.

it would be very difficult. hence i'm against the idea of such way of thinking. i believe in a mostly free market.

what war is france currently involved in?