Nestle Being Sold in the Shop

demolitionman

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.

Jester252

It has been going on for a while now and tbh I couldn't care less

PROGRAM_IX

It was ages ago. I believe that SU Exec and CRC voted on it, although I'm not sure.

Kiyomumizu

Jester252 wrote: »

It has been going on for a while now and tbh I couldn't care less

Same here. Who cares? Its sold in every supermarket in the country. They are not forcing you to buy their products.

cson

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.

Disgusting?

Get a grip.

demolitionman

It's disgusting on many levels.

Firstly, more deceit and clouded shadows of the ULSU voting in something (i'll take your word for this) at a CRC meeting which isn't representative of the entire student body. (NB: The original boycott was put in place after an ENTIRE student body referenda, not after fifty people decided they didn't like it at a CRC meeting)

To me this is cloak and daggers stuff, why not put the motion back to the populus again if they wanted to reinstate sales of nestle goods.

Secondly, it's deplorable in regards the reputation Nestle has globally as a company. Do you want our University to condone the behaviour of such a firm. Do I need to provide you with links cson or will you be able to google that for yourself? I suppose you don't give two shites, you get to eat your kit kats for lunch and sure who cares once you're happy.

Jester252

demolitionman wrote: »

It's disgusting on many levels.

Firstly, more deceit and clouded shadows of the ULSU voting in something (i'll take your word for this) at a CRC meeting which isn't representative of the entire student body. (NB: The original boycott was put in place after an ENTIRE student body referenda, not after fifty people decided they didn't like it at a CRC meeting)

To me this is cloak and daggers stuff, why not put the motion back to the populus again if they wanted to reinstate sales of nestle goods.

Secondly, it's deplorable in regards the reputation Nestle has globally as a company. Do you want our University to condone the behaviour of such a firm. Do I need to provide you with links cson or will you be able to google that for yourself? I suppose you don't give two shites, you get to eat your kit kats for lunch and sure who cares once you're happy.

yes because the action an Irish university will change the world. This is what I hate about student

Chris Martin

demolitionman wrote: »

It's disgusting on many levels.

Firstly, more deceit and clouded shadows of the ULSU voting in something (i'll take your word for this) at a CRC meeting which isn't representative of the entire student body. (NB: The original boycott was put in place after an ENTIRE student body referenda, not after fifty people decided they didn't like it at a CRC meeting)

To me this is cloak and daggers stuff, why not put the motion back to the populus again if they wanted to reinstate sales of nestle goods.

Secondly, it's deplorable in regards the reputation Nestle has globally as a company. Do you want our University to condone the behaviour of such a firm. Do I need to provide you with links cson or will you be able to google that for yourself? I suppose you don't give two shites, you get to eat your kit kats for lunch and sure who cares once you're happy.

I like Kit Kats, I ate one today, it was nice.
Took a break and had a Kit Kat and coffee.
I havent a notion of what this boycott thing is about and am extremely curious to what caused it in the first place...
Granted if there were no Kit Kats Id have got a Twirl or a Yellow Snack (but I couldnt see them) but back to the point...
Why the hatred towards Nestle?
Granted I prefer Dairymilk but seems to be trivial info in relation to the question at hand...
Was it voted out?!

Squarewave

When was the boycott originally put in place anyway?

frag420

Jester252 wrote: »

This is why I what I hate about student

You not studying English per chance??

aN.Droid

So what if it is on sale? If you don't agree with Nestle's business practices then don't support them but at the same time don't try and force your view on anyone else. A bit draconian if you ask me.

NTMK

Squarewave wrote: »

When was the boycott originally put in place anyway?

This should explain it
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestl%C3%A9_boycott

JimmyMoose

So this is all because of............breastmilk?

Jester252

frag420 wrote: »

You not studying English per chance??

:P

MyKeyG

Some people just aren't happy enough maintaining their own principles. They have to force them down every body else's throat.

freyners

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

number10a

In all honesty, if you had to boycott every mean company and corrupt country, there wouldn't be very much left to buy. Except perhaps some organic bread made by armless, lesbian, rehabilitating prostitutes from Switzerland. I'd been boycotting Israeli stuff for years and bought two Israeli avocados in Aldi yesterday by mistake and just decided fùck it, what difference am I making?

Besides all that anyway, shouldn't everyone have the freedom to buy a bloody Kit Kat if they want to?

YFlyer

Been Ireland, referenda means nothing.

J_E

Wait...what is this all actually about?

I'm reading it up, but seriously, how can somebody feel so strongly about something like that? It's not like they're murdering people or working giant sweatshops to make their product.

Chris Martin

Cydoniac wrote: »

Wait...what is this all actually about?

I'm reading it up, but seriously, how can somebody feel so strongly about something like that? It's not like they're murdering people or working giant sweatshops to make their product.

I was going to say yeah,
Do you, by chance, own any branded clothing?
Nike, Adidas and the likes?

J_E

Chris Martin wrote: »

I was going to say yeah,
Do you, by chance, own any branded clothing?
Nike, Adidas and the likes?

Nope, humble jeans/t-shirt wearer here. Don't know about my shoes.

I mean, I could say I really feel strongly about it, but at the end of the day, how hypocritical would it be of me to boycott one thing and not every other bad thing?

Chris Martin

Sorry I phrased by last comment horribly. :P
Question was posed towards OP,
My bad :P
To be fair I don't care about much at all,
Pretty oblivious to what's going on around me...
Blissfully ignorant to it all

wnolan1992

Eh....did I miss the meeting where we were told we had to buy Nestle products? Just because they're on sale doesn't mean you have to buy it like.... christ.... if you don't agree with it, don't buy it, if enough people feel the same, the products will be pulled from the shelves. If not, they'll continue to be sold. It's called democracy. Live with it.

demolitionman

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Eh....did I miss the meeting where we were told we had to buy Nestle products? Just because they're on sale doesn't mean you have to buy it like.... christ.... if you don't agree with it, don't buy it, if enough people feel the same, the products will be pulled from the shelves. If not, they'll continue to be sold. It's called democracy. Live with it.

you didn't miss the meeting but you did miss the part where a democratic decision was already made a number of years back but has since been overruled by Il Fuhrer in the SUSSR and his CRC subordinates because they deem the original veto to be worded incorrectly....did you not read my original post?

Jesus....talk about pissing on the past. Shameful shameful stuff.

Chris Martin

This thread should be in the Religion forum I reckon,
Deals with all this
Or debating,
Either or...
I reckon if you buy it buy it,
If you don't want to, don't...
I never did like democracy,
We shouldn't be given a decision,
Much easier that way

cson

demolitionman wrote: »

Secondly, it's deplorable in regards the reputation Nestle has globally as a company. Do you want our University to condone the behaviour of such a firm. Do I need to provide you with links cson or will you be able to google that for yourself? I suppose you don't give two shites, you get to eat your kit kats for lunch and sure who cares once you're happy.

Here's your answer below buddy;

MyKeyG wrote: »

Some people just aren't happy enough maintaining their own principles. They have to force them down every body else's throat.

Everyone has free will to decide what they want to buy and what they don't. Banning Nestle products is censorship of sorts and I'd hope every student is mature enough to make a decision on whether they want to buy Nestle products or not.

By the way; I fucking love my kitkats :cool:

Gumbi

demolitionman wrote: »

It's disgusting on many levels.

Firstly, more deceit and clouded shadows of the ULSU voting in something (i'll take your word for this) at a CRC meeting which isn't representative of the entire student body. (NB: The original boycott was put in place after an ENTIRE student body referenda, not after fifty people decided they didn't like it at a CRC meeting)

To me this is cloak and daggers stuff, why not put the motion back to the populus again if they wanted to reinstate sales of nestle goods.

Secondly, it's deplorable in regards the reputation Nestle has globally as a company. Do you want our University to condone the behaviour of such a firm. Do I need to provide you with links cson or will you be able to google that for yourself? I suppose you don't give two shites, you get to eat your kit kats for lunch and sure who cares once you're happy.

I'd venture to say that you likely wear sweatshop manufactured clothes on a regular basis.

Why should a small group of people decide what is and isn't available in the shop?

demolitionman

Gumbi wrote: »

I'd venture to say that you likely wear sweatshop manufactured clothes on a regular basis.

Why should a small group of people decide what is and isn't available in the shop?

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.

Chris Martin

cson wrote: »

By the way; I fucking love my kitkats :cool:

Thumbs up
Four portions for a lengthy snack...
Have to admire their creativity

demolitionman

cson wrote: »

Here's your answer below buddy;



Everyone has free will to decide what they want to buy and what they don't. Banning Nestle products is censorship of sorts and I'd hope every student is mature enough to make a decision on whether they want to buy Nestle products or not.

By the way; I fucking love my kitkats :cool:

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!

Gumbi

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.

Apologies on not knowing the full details. In any case, no, I don't think it should have happened in the first place.

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: