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.

Stabshauptmann

PaddyofNine wrote: »

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

And this is where the tread just loops around, over and over, like a broken record, as it has umpteen times before.

People who reply to threads with points that have been answered before (with no reference to or retort to that answer) are either:

• ego stroking twats
• too lazy
• or too stupid to understand the other post

Either way, like the charter says, is your post adding anything to the thread?


The facts that no one can dispute.
The ban was a commercial decision by a commercial entity in lines with its decision making process, and is reversible by the same means. It is no different to any other commercial decision

The owners of the entity made the decision and it only effects their entities.
Coke and Nestle are freely available on campus, the only difference is that they are not subsidised by the union.

Het-Field

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

And this is where the tread just loops around, over and over, like a broken record, as it has umpteen times before.

People who reply to threads with points that have been answered before (with no reference to or retort to that answer) are either:

• ego stroking twats
• too lazy
• or too stupid to understand the other post

Either way, like the charter says, is your post adding anything to the thread?


The facts that no one can dispute.
The ban was a commercial decision by a commercial entity in lines with its decision making process, and is reversible by the same means. It is no different to any other commercial decision

The owners of the entity made the decision and it only effects their entities.
Coke and Nestle are freely available on campus, the only difference is that they are not subsidised by the union.

In fairness, I think you could classify the majority of the 2003/2004 electorate as "former owners". Furthermore, it was the owners from 1994/1995 which rendered the Union unable to sell Nestle products. When I was part of the "ownership", I was not in a position to have that commercial decision overturned. Yes, I could call another referendum, however, that takes time and effort, and I had other things on the agenda. There also needs to be an appetite for such a referendum.

PaddyofNine

I was about to reply what my post added and realised I'd forgotten to add the link to the article I first saw this in! :rolleyes:

So is this ban a lifetime thing or does it have some kind of time limit attached, i.e. is it up for review in ten years or something? Because I'd wager it's much easier to get Coke banned than to get it reinstated...

Tom65

Het-Field wrote: »

In fairness, I think you could classify the majority of the 2003/2004 electorate as "former owners". Furthermore, it was the owners from 1994/1995 which rendered the Union unable to sell Nestle products. When I was part of the "ownership", I was not in a position to have that commercial decision overturned. Yes, I could call another referendum, however, that takes time and effort, and I had other things on the agenda. There also needs to be an appetite for such a referendum.

You could say that about all constitutional referendums at a state level though - the electorate that took part in referendums in the 1970s would be completely different today's.
If the ban completely removed it from campus, then I'd have more of an issue with it. Assuming the grievances are valid, the fact there's no coke or nestle at certain shops doesn't bother me at all.

Stabshauptmann

Het-Field wrote: »

In fairness, I think you could classify the majority of the 2003/2004 electorate as "former owners".

Thats not how a business or a government works, there are principals of continuity.

Though my post wasnt aimed at you, I do have some reply Id like to make, but busy-busy today

Tayto2000

PaddyofNine wrote: »

I was about to reply what my post added and realised I'd forgotten to add the link to the article I first saw this in! :rolleyes:

So is this ban a lifetime thing or does it have some kind of time limit attached, i.e. is it up for review in ten years or something? Because I'd wager it's much easier to get Coke banned than to get it reinstated...

One of the the things the coca cola committee is supposed to do is examine the relevance of the ban. I wouldn't hold my breath on getting it overturned though, the current situation suits everyone just fine. Coke is readily available across campus for those who can't go without and the SU gets to keep the moral high ground by retaining the ban.

Tayto2000

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

Thats not how a business or a government works, there are principals of continuity.

True. How many students paid for the student centre that they never got to use? How many are paying for the extension that they won't be here to use when it's finished? All decisions taken by that will be affecting students long after the administration that took them is gone.

rainbow kirby

Tayto2000 wrote: »

One of the the things the coca cola committee is supposed to do is examine the relevance of the ban. I wouldn't hold my breath on getting it overturned though, the current situation suits everyone just fine. Coke is readily available across campus for those who can't go without and the SU gets to keep the moral high ground by retaining the ban.

An Irish solution to an Irish problem tbh. >.>

Stabshauptmann

Tayto2000 wrote: »

True. How many students paid for the student centre that they never got to use? How many are paying for the extension that they won't be here to use when it's finished? All decisions taken by that will be affecting students long after the administration that took them is gone.

I think I know the point your getting at, but for the sake of clarity can you articulate it please?

Tayto2000

Apologies, mistyped towards the end there.

I was agreeing with you regarding the fact that there are principles of continuity involved regarding the decisions taken by governments and administrations. Those affected by these decisions long after the fact have no say in the matter save lobbying to persuade the current administration to change things.

I was pointing at the student centre(s) as an example of this. The intake of freshers for the next couple of years will have no say in whether or not they want to pay for a student centre, that decision has been taken for them.

33% God

Tayto2000 wrote: »

Apologies, mistyped towards the end there.

I was agreeing with you regarding the fact that there are principles of continuity involved regarding the decisions taken by governments and administrations. Those affected by these decisions long after the fact have no say in the matter save lobbying to persuade the current administration to change things.

I was pointing at the student centre(s) as an example of this. The intake of freshers for the next couple of years will have no say in whether or not they want to pay for a student centre, that decision has been taken for them.

Kind of like how I have no say in matters like whether or not Ireland should be in the EU or divorce.

Tayto2000

33% God wrote: »

Kind of like how I have no say in matters like whether or not Ireland should be in the EU or divorce.

Exactly. These issues were decided by your fellow citizens before you were enfranchised. To change the status quo, your options are to throw your efforts behind one of the groups seeking to change the situation in relation to either of these issues or perhaps start something yourself.

It takes a real effort and a popular desire for change to alter the staus quo in any situation. That is present in relation to the the issues you mention, witness the ongoing drama with the Lisbon Treaty and marriage is still very contentious here with the church hinting at a challenge to same sex rights etc etc.

In relation to the Coke boycott, I personally think it's a waste of everyone's time but I don't think that there's anyone in UCD who cares enough about it to make the effort to try to get it reversed.

Red Alert

The coke boycott should go, people are big enough to decide to what they wish to purchase or boycott.

Stabshauptmann

Which of the three is Red Alert I wonder...

Blush_01

I still maintain that if it was an effective boycott there would be no need for the shops to stop stocking the product. To gauge how many people are aware/actually care the products should all be readily available everywhere and the boycott should be an active one, not a bloody passive hand-holding exercise that achieves nothing more than increased prices for students and increased profits for Hilpers and 911, because the majority of people don't even know about the ban, nevermind care.

I'm still baffled. Has it really done more than stop the socialists and the hacks from drinking Coca Cola products when in the presence of other socialists or hacks?

Besides, whiskey tasted crap with Pepsi. I couldn't understand that at all.

33% God

Blush_01 wrote: »

I still maintain that if it was an effective boycott there would be no need for the shops to stop stocking the product. To gauge how many people are aware/actually care the products should all be readily available everywhere and the boycott should be an active one, not a bloody passive hand-holding exercise that achieves nothing more than increased prices for students and increased profits for Hilpers and 911, because the majority of people don't even know about the ban, nevermind care.

I'm still baffled. Has it really done more than stop the socialists and the hacks from drinking Coca Cola products when in the presence of other socialists or hacks?

Besides, whiskey tasted crap with Pepsi. I couldn't understand that at all.

You could always drink it like a man instead of diluted with coke like a wee girl

Stabshauptmann

Blush_01 wrote: »

I still maintain that if it was an effective boycott there would be no need for the shops to stop stocking the product.

If the SU were organising an effective boycott then they would be buying coca-cola for their shops.

What retarded dribble.

To gauge how many people are aware/actually care the products should all be readily available everywhere and the boycott should be an active one, not a bloody passive hand-holding exercise that achieves nothing

Why all the song and dance, your argument is very transparent.

[The ban does nothing] more than increased prices for students and increased profits for Hilpers and 911, because the majority of people don't even know about the ban, nevermind care.

increase prices :rolleyes:

Besides, whiskey tasted crap with Pepsi. I couldn't understand that at all.

For the record, whiskey should be drank with TK red, that is if you're not drinking it straight.;)


Your entire post reeks of BS. Just tell the truth and stop all this pussy footing around.

You say the ban hasnt effected anyone, yet you had to drink Pepsi with your whiskey. You say nobody knows theres a ban, but yet its a constant point of conversation. And you say you have a right to choose what to buy, but ignore that so too do the owners of the SU shops.

What this boils down to, plain and simple, is that you believe you are some how entitled to have your choice of drink subsidised for you. That you'd have to pay the market price for something is a grave injustice.

Blush_01

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

If the SU were organising an effective boycott then they would be buying coca-cola for their shops.

Does Coca Cola sell on campus? If it sells anywhere then the boycott fails. How is that so hard for you to understand? The revenue the SU shop could be making from selling Coca Cola is instead going to 911, Hilpers and Centra. Why? Well... a group of students decided that an Irish produced product HAD to be causing issues for people in Columbia (and subsequently India) so, with all that extra time they had on their hands they decided to fight the good fight, and attempt to ban the stuff on campus, incase Ireland got magically transported to Columbia or India, 'cos that sh!t happens ALL the time.

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

What retarded dribble.

I assume you mean drivel. If you're going to use a stock phrase you may as well use the correct one, before you start throwing the word retarded around.

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

For the record, whiskey should be drank with TK red, that is if you're not drinking it straight.;)

For the record, whiskey should be taken whatever way the drinker wants it. Your arrogance can't taint my penchant for Jameson and Red Bull.

Kaptain Redeye wrote: »

What this boils down to, plain and simple, is that you believe you are some how entitled to have your choice of drink subsidised for you. That you'd have to pay the market price for something is a grave injustice.

No Kaptain, that is not what I said. What I did say is that the boycott achieves nothing. It had a limited impact at the time of the initial boycott. The reason this is still a topic of conversation is because the hacks in the Union (like yourself - former hack, current hack, what's the difference ) are trotting it out to cause a stir, a little storm in a teacup to distract people looking for some entertainment that allows them to massage their own egos while "defending other people's human rights". That BS sickens me. There are plenty of items not stocked in the SU shop, I don't believe that they should stock every item under the sun. However the issue I have is that the student body at large is either misinformed or uninformed about the boycott. If the boycott is to exist as something more than a hand-holding exercise to make a small group of people feel better about themselves then INFORMATION is what's needed. Be as obtuse about it as you like, but you know that that's what I'm getting at. A boycott by default is stupidity. People need to know that they're boycotting something and understand why, not just be fed one article and a healthy dollop of bias to be regurgitated ad infinitum.

Red Alert

Simple fact of all that is that if the boycott actually worked, then nobody would be buying it, so the other non-SU shops wouldn't stock it. It's quite ridiculous when you think about it that the SU isn't getting the profit off the vending machines beside their shops every time someone buys a coke from them.

rainbow kirby

Red Alert wrote: »

Simple fact of all that is that if the boycott actually worked, then nobody would be buying it, so the other non-SU shops wouldn't stock it. It's quite ridiculous when you think about it that the SU isn't getting the profit off the vending machines beside their shops every time someone buys a coke from them.

Nobody ever said UCDSU was logical though.