TCD students forced to vote on Coke and Nestle bans again

by Dan Thu Feb 03, 2005 18:07

Good luck to the Trinity left putting a stop to the bastards. The "Freedom Institute" and YFG got a bloody nose when they tried to overturn the Coke ban in UCD - hopefully yis can humiliate them again. Just have a look at the FI message boards if you want proof of what an utter clown McGurk is...no reason to be afraid

by Ucdleft - Ucdleft Thu Feb 03, 2005 18:07

The wingers will be organised, no doubt of that. Will we focus on Coke or Nestle?

by Election Watch Thu Feb 03, 2005 20:32

Elections taking place at the same time - who are the lefts? Will this mean things for the referendum?

President

John Mannion
Séamus McGoldrick
Ed Reilly

Deputy President

Tom Dillon
Séamus Murphy
Shane O'Brien
Andrew Payne

Education Officer

Lorna Jennings
Dónal McCormack
Denise O'Connell

Welfare Officer

Thomas Lowth
Stephanie O'Brien

Ents Officer

Mick Cullinan
Niall Hughes
Johanna Moran

by LOL Thu Feb 03, 2005 21:11

"we of YFG want to be free to buy coke".
"we of YFG want to be free to support a global corporation mired by famine scandals for selling artificial baby milk to mothers who could and would be better breast feeding."
why?
because we're tits.

by Paul Fri Feb 04, 2005 00:55

Come on leaids, register yourself with the TCDSU officer to help the NO campaign and we'll show the FG boys what solidarity is all about! I've just e-mailed him there, and I'm on board, so get on board and roll the union over coke/nestle

by Paul Fri Feb 04, 2005 00:56

above where it says TCDSU officer, it should say TCDSU education officer.

by Ray Hanrahan Fri Feb 04, 2005 16:56

I see this carry-on by the representatives of the political right in the respective colleges as entirely in keeping with the behaviour of their grown-up mentors, whom they hope to replace at the top of the dungheap some day. The tactic comes from the infamous Nice Referendum re-run, the tactic being to keep holding the referendum until the required result is obtained. The 'selflessness' displayed by the student YFGers et al. is quite remarkable: they're representing the multinational corporations' interests for no immediate gain of their own! They have shown incredible stamina on this issue as well - it makes me believe that these folks' concern for the welfare of big business is genuine. Such devotion to their duty! It would bring tears to the eyes of hardened cynics, and it will not pass unnoticed. Perhaps their sacrifices will earn their reward in Dáil Éireann, where the real jam is, to where they shall 'naturally' ascend when their transformation from student beer-monster ugly duckings to fully-fledged members of the republican aristocracy has been completed. Maybe the prize for sticking their necks out for Nestlé and Coca-Cola free of charge will come sooner, in the 'milk round', where fighting the fatcats' corner would look good on their CVs. Then again, they could be spoofing for a bit of notoriety and cheap publicity. Aaaah, the cream of the country - rich and thick. As a Jesuit or Holy Ghost Father would say: "The future of the country is in safe hands!"

by Paul Fri Feb 04, 2005 18:55

I heard that SIPTU had opossed the ban last year!

by toneore Sat Feb 05, 2005 00:06 toneore at eircom dot net

There are plenty of things that the Freidom Insitute and Jung Fine Gael could investigate in Trinity, but Nestle and Coke aren't any of them. This Nestle argument has been raging in Trinity since the 1980's, and if you bother to check, I think you'll find there's a whole range of products that the SU won't carry in its shop. Remember the uproar over the Sunday World and it's objectification of women that led to it being expunged from the Inventory? And the British tabloids?

Here's some things they could investigate investigate.

1) Why is Trinity adopting an affirmative action policy for entrants from schools who do A-levels (translation: Northern Ireland, Prods, and Brits)? Wouldn't they be better off with such a policy for say, recent immigrants or victims of IRA punishment beatings?

2) Why are children of staff members not paying their fare share of fees? The rest are carrying the spolied offspring of academia.

3) When are the CSC going to stop shovelling student's capitation money into rubbish like the Hist and the Phil and go about reclaiming the GMB for use by all societies?

4) Why does TCD tolerate staff members using their titles when speaking in their own capacity? Are the opinions of Ivana Bacik, Sean Barrett et al the official policy of TCD?

5) When are they going to get rid of the antedeluvian nonsense of the 3 Trinity seats in the Seanad (see translation of 1)?

6) Has Tommy Murtagh finished his book on Simone de Beuvoir yet? I lost track about 1989...

by R. Isible Sat Feb 05, 2005 01:32

I agree with Toneore.

Especially about the Seanad. The idea that there should be a special "regulatory" assembly whose members are not democratically elected by all the people that their decisions affect, but instead by the Church, State and "the educated" (read anyone that had enough money to go to TCD) is repulsive.

by random socialist Sat Feb 05, 2005 14:50

1) Why is Trinity adopting an affirmative action policy for entrants from schools who do A-levels (translation: Northern Ireland, Prods, and Brits)? Wouldn't they be better off with such a policy for say, recent immigrants or victims of IRA punishment beatings?

As far as I know, there isn't an affirmative action plan for Northern students. The value of an A-level is being changed, and in order to avoid throwing A-level students into trouble (what if you're doing three A-levels and you want to do Bess? It's a bit hard to suddenly add an entire subject to your workload halfway through your studies) they decided that places for A-level students would be allocated as a percentage of applicants, equal to the same percentage for CAO students. So if 15% of Leaving Cert applicants for a certain course get it, then 15% of A-level courses get it. It's probably going to result in fewer A-level students, and at any rate, it's only for one year, so as to give a fair chance to those already studying for their A-levels.

Aside from that, I find your reference to Prods and Brits offensive. If you hate Brits, take it out somewhere else. Xenophobe.

2) Why are children of staff members not paying their fare share of fees? The rest are carrying the spolied offspring of academia.

What fees, exactly? The government are paying the fees.

3) When are the CSC going to stop shovelling student's capitation money into rubbish like the Hist and the Phil and go about reclaiming the GMB for use by all societies?

The Hist and Phil have about three and a half thousand members between them and usually command weekly audiences of well over a hundred at a time. Secondly, the legal status of the GMB is, generally speaking, weird. The rooms are all legally owned by the societies, and any attempt to seize control of them usually goes badly. About six or seven years ago the College tried to take over the top floor and were hit with a High Court injunction. The building is never going to be "reclaimed", and at any rate, plenty of societies use the building at no cost. And finally, the Hist and Phil finance themselves to a far greater degree than the majority of societies. They get less as a proportion of their total budget than almost anyone else.

4) Why does TCD tolerate staff members using their titles when speaking in their own capacity? Are the opinions of Ivana Bacik, Sean Barrett et al the official policy of TCD?

If they're speaking on issues related to Trinity, then why not? If Barrett is talking about restructuring, then why wouldn't he divulge his status as a Fellow? If he didn't, people would be loudly claiming that he was being untruthful about his interest in the college. Aside from that, the Fellows are listed as the owners of the college, so it's hardly a bizarre idea for them to mention that they're fellows.

5) When are they going to get rid of the antedeluvian nonsense of the 3 Trinity seats in the Seanad (see translation of 1)?

I honestly don't see this as a problem. It's undemocratic, but surely a far more important target is the Taoiseach's 11 personal nominations. The Trinity senators aren't elected in a wholly democratic way, but they have more of a mandate than the vast majority of the Senate.

by Daithi Sat Feb 05, 2005 16:12

Just for the record, there is no affirmative-action-for-Northern-Ireland in Trinity. (And by the way, you sectarian idiot tonoroe, Catholic students in Belfast schools take A-levels too).

The major recent change to admissions is to aim for 15% admission from non-traditional backgrounds (access/socio-economic, mature, disabilities) - much of it by way of foundation course or interview, rather than through the points system.

The recent change to the points value of A-levels brings them more accurately into the system (and is if anything favouring Leaving Cert students). A proportionate system's in place for this year to make sure that no-one's screwed during the changeover.

The idiocy of the national papers on this matter is astounding. You'd never get a front page story about the cost of third level education, or the socio-economic factors that stop a student even getting to Leaving Cert, or the barriers faced by students with disabilities (hidden or otherwise), but a chance for a cheap and inaccurate allegation about the North somehow becomes newsworthy.

by irish cultural attache in san francisco Sun Feb 06, 2005 18:37 irishculturalattache at gmail dot com

Reserving any places for any sector of the community where there is no evidence of disrimincation and not allocating the places by competition IS Affirmative Action. The only justifiable case for affirmative action is where there has been invidious discrimination against a sector of the community to date. In the case of A-Level Students in TCD that is clearly NOT the case. What is going on here is little better than academic apartheid - an attempt to preserve a Protestant, Anglophile Ascendacy Ethos (read: contributors to the college funds and opposition to the various university bills promoted by An Oireachtais). Furhter more, any counterargument about Catholics in Belfast taking A-levels is pure hogwash. The issue of access to education isn't about religion - it's about resources and financial security. Are you seriously telling is the Catholics in Belfast compete on equal grounds in that respect with Protestants? Complete BS. Wake Up.

by limerick lady Sun Feb 06, 2005 20:57

The good people from Babymilkaction in Cambridge can send you as many posters, flyers, aluminium badges, videos and other matierial you need to help the campaign.

They might even send somone over for debates. They regularily debate people from Nestlé in the UK. There is an Irish Babymilkaction called Lionra - try emailing

babymilkaction@eircom.net

though I am not sure if they active. Also, Peter Brabeck CEO of Nestlé, when profiled in Time magazine about two years ago, admitted that there were differences of opinion with the Nestlé boycott organisers. In other words he did not deny their claims...

by Ed Tue Mar 01, 2005 19:01

This is puerile idiotic stuff indeed, I can't believe I've actually found some fool seeking to justify his leftist postions by slandering Germans, British, protestants and students....

by Anti-Commie-Anti-Fascist Sun Apr 24, 2005 00:27

. . . this is just more of the idealistic left wingnut student body who ironically enough feel that they're "up for a go" at anything which can be tenuously blamed on "big business" - especially when most of these student types are the very ones who benefitted from a labour coalition government decision to drop fees.

Wait until they go out into the working world, add a spouse, a couple of chislers and a mortgage, and then reality will begin to settle in fairly lively ..