Nestle
When I was at university in 1992, the students were up in arms about Nestle selling powdered arsenic to African villagers (something like that). They demanded that everyone boycott all Nestle products so that the reduction in profit - amounting to about £12 per annum, I guess - would bring the giant corporation to its knees.

Last year, I had cause to visit the campus again and was amazed to see the boycott still in place: dreadlocked and tie-dyed students waving banners about bringing Nestle to its knees by banning Kit Kats from the Union tuck shop.

I can't imagine the how Nestle has weathered this storm and remained solvent all these years. How do they sleep knowing that two-dozen people at a British redbrick university forego their products for three years (before leaving to become middle managers at similar companies)?
(Brand name, Thu 11 Nov 2010, 20:04, 20 replies)

The ones who call themselves "socialists" are the best.
Mainly the deluded children of teachers, lawyers, estate agents etc. I'd like to see them go back to the 1930s, go into the average working men's club, say they're socialists and get laughed out of the place.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Thu 11 Nov 2010, 20:11, closed)

Having received a good kicking prior to their exit

( Light In Chains maker of the ikea sofa, Thu 11 Nov 2010, 20:40, closed)

This I have to agree with...

(Bicycle Repairman "you're also a bit of a wanker", Thu 11 Nov 2010, 21:26, closed)

Hmmmmm
"Lenin's parents were Maria Alexandrovna Ulyanova, a schoolteacher, and Ilya Nikolayevich Ulyanov, a government education official."
It's a shame he didn't get laughed out of Russia, but there you go.
( wotofco pissing in your swimming pool, Sun 14 Nov 2010, 9:10, closed)

I also used to think this was an exercise in futility,
but according to the small business course I was on recently, Nike nearly went broke because of the boycott, and had to change a lot of its practices.
(apeloverage committed the vile act of onanism on, Thu 11 Nov 2010, 20:58, closed)

A friend of mine used to do the same back in the early 90's,
with the exception of Nescafe and giant KitKats, as she couldn't live without them.

I hadn't spoken to her for years, but it seems that she has the same phone number and she was able to confirm that she still boycotts Nestle products with the exception of orange Kitkats and Nescafe.
(Unit, Thu 11 Nov 2010, 21:59, closed)

ALL Nestle products?
Even their off-brand stuff and cosmetics like L'Oreal (Nestle own about 30%)?
(Captain Skippy pooed in a bag and left it on your doorstep, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 5:09, closed)

Actually
Nestle owns everything. They bought it all with Jewish gold they got from the nasties in WW2.
( Sextant goes to him is emotionally erect, on this day, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 6:48, closed)

I can understand giant KitKats,
but Nescafe? It's shit even compared to other instant coffees, and identical to any supermarket's own-brand discount crap.
People are weird.
( Zuowan, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 9:15, closed)

Yeah, what idiots, how dare they care about the deaths of millions of babies due to corporate malpractice?
Don't they know that all the smart people these days are laughing at their, uh, haircuts?
If you're interested in opposing the boycott then try to find out what it's about first, eh? - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestlé_boycott
( Zuowan, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 8:54, closed)

@zuowan
You're absolutely right.

I should have posted a sober denunciation of Nestle's practices in a well researched and cogent argument. That would have been hilarious and really in the spirit of b3ta. Got dreads, have you?
(Brand name, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 10:28, closed)

Are you implying here that your post was "hilarious"? It wasn't.
This "spirit of b3ta" nonsense is always used to justify all kinds of crapness.
Post a joke = expect people to either enjoy it or not.
post your opinion = expect people to challenge you on it.
It's really as simple as that.
( Zuowan, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 12:27, closed)

@zuowan
Actually, it's not my opinion. If I wanted to post my opinions and be challenged by po-faced cause-mongers, I'd go to the Guardian website (and I do).

If I want to talk bollocks in a flippant and potentially amusing manner, I'll come to b3ta.

And let's say, for the sake of argument, that I actually had boycotted Nestle products for last 20 years, it would have made not the slightest bit of difference - which is rather my point. Indeed, if everyone in the whole UK did, Nestle has still got emerging markets in Africa and China etc. BECAUSE they've been engaging in outrageous criminality there for decades.

As for the 'spirit of b3ta', I see it as this: if you make a joke about old people or women or any group that relies on a degree of stereotyping, you can't get uppity when someone makes a joke about something you care personally about. That's hypocrisy.

It's really as simple as that.
(Brand name, Sat 13 Nov 2010, 22:44, closed)

Did you just deny expressing your opinion while at the same time expressing it?
You absolutely did, didn't you?
Neither you nor I make the rules for what is or is not on b3ta, but I'm fairly sure the site's aims don't include "nobody is allowed to disagree with Brand name."
( Zuowan, Sun 14 Nov 2010, 8:30, closed)

well now . . .
Arguably we're into different territory in the 'replies', where main posts are discussed. The "opinion" I expressed in the main post isn't the same opinion I made in my reply to you. If you want to go off-board and get into a discussion, then the 'rules' change. Not my rules, but the rules of common sense.

Of course you can disagree, but disagreement only makes sense if both parties are basing their comments on mutually agreed parameters of discussion (and in a context of seriousness rather than broadly comedic site). If there is any 'rule', it's surely that posts are taken in the spirit in which they're offered. If someone posted about big tits and I replied that, actually, large breasts can be a great inconvenience to women, I'd be missing the point of the site.

Ultimately, the point is that this kind of extended discussion is of very little interest to anyone else. Which is why the Reply function was created in the the first place (to clear the main board of the tedious wankery you responded with and which I have foolishly extended through a combination of ego and boredom.)
(Brand name, Sun 14 Nov 2010, 12:45, closed)

Hey - fuck you
Nestle literally kill babies with their advertising practices.
Lots of universities have banned Nestle on campus, and the boycott is supported by the NUS.
Just because students are often fickle idiots, doesn't mean the cause isn't a good one.
(leviticus no longer likes the cut of your gib on, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 16:31, closed)

Oh shush.

( Michael Ellis contributes nothing, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 18:45, closed)

"supported by the NUS"
Oh, the big guns eh?
(kitescreech still here, Sat 13 Nov 2010, 18:12, closed)

Nestle don't literally kill babies
just saying, like.
( wotofco pissing in your swimming pool, Sun 14 Nov 2010, 9:18, closed)

This wasn't Sussex
by any chance?
(Petite chien is going to do science to it, Wed 17 Nov 2010, 14:07, closed)