YFG/ Coca-Cola links exposed

by maynooth student Mon May 24, 2004 13:17

yes, it seems that Matt that fine upstanding paragon of virtue had his fingers in the greasy till all the time. Daddy's speaking fee should cover Matt's college expenses.

By the way Matt, you can use coke to get the grease off the till, that is if you have a problem with a bit of grease, you evidently have no problem with Colombian trade unionists blood.

by David Mon May 24, 2004 13:48

Can't find it on-line

by David Mon May 24, 2004 14:01

Matt Can not be held responsible for the actions of his Father. It is possible he never knew about the contribution or that his father had no impact on his decision to defend coca-cola.

The context of the original story would be important. When was John paid the money? Was it during, or before the campaign? What did John Bruton need to do in exchange for the money?

by Maynooth Student Mon May 24, 2004 14:03

The story was published in the business section of the Sunday Independent. It concerns declarations of interests made by T.Ds and Senators.

As they are obliged to do this, Daddy Bruton declared where Matt's upkeep was coming from.

I wonder will further stories break about Coke links with other "concerned" individuals.

by Peter Kavanagh Mon May 24, 2004 14:15

Matthew Bruton was the self-appointed leader of the anti-ban campaign. Whatever his personal motives I can tell you all firsthand that they were never revealed to either side and therefore only influenced Matt Bruton!

by David Mon May 24, 2004 14:21

_________________________________________
FORMER Taoiseach John Bruton commands as much as $20,000 a session for his public speaking engagements, as well as first-class travel tickets, it has emerged. In 2003, Bruton made eight paid speeches, according to his filings in the latest Oireachtas Register of TDs' Interests, revealed today in the Sunday Independent.

The former Rainbow Coalition Taoiseach spoke at a European study tours conference in Paris, a foreign affairs ministry meeting in Greece, a financial conference in Cap Ferrat on the Cote d'Azur, a US food seminar, a lecture to Moscow financiers, as well as speeches in Dublin, South Africa and Canada. Last week, Bruton's agency, AEI Speakers Bureau in Boston, quoted the Sunday Independent a fee of between $15,000 and $20,000 for Bruton to speak in New York on the subject of "International Finance". First-class travel was also to be included in the package.

Bruton's feet barely touched the ground in 2003 as he travelled extensively around the world, with some of his bills picked up by Coca-Cola Bottler, the Greek foreign ministry, the Tory Europe Network, the Law Society of Scotland, Rome's Aspen Institute, the Austrian ministry of the interior, the Memorial University of Newfoundland, American Enterprise Institute and the Mexican foreign ministry.
____________________________________________________


That story suggests that Matt Must have been aware of His Fathers connection with Coke. (If they ever communicate with each other in any meaningful way) Also at €15,000 a session, and more than one session paid for by Coke, it is at least €30,000 of income provided By coca-cola. (Incidentally, I am pretty sure that the Maynooth S.U. makes less than €30,000 profit for coca-cola each year so Irish Jobs that allegedly were be at risk could easily have been saved by cutting down on the junketts paid to ex taoiseachs

by Pax Mon May 24, 2004 15:17

How many other antiban campaigners were in the pay of Coke. Wasn't there something about a Binchy in UCD getting a load of dosh for his efforts?

by Ger Mon May 24, 2004 15:40

----------------yes, it seems that Matt that fine upstanding paragon of virtue had his fingers in the greasy till all the time. Daddy's speaking fee should cover Matt's college expenses.

By the way Matt, you can use coke to get the grease off the till, that is if you have a problem with a bit of grease, you evidently have no problem with Colombian trade unionists blood.-----------------------

God almighty, could you sensationalise your ideas any further?! I was just expecting to see a big picture of a pair of jazz-hands to follow..!

If there is indeed a link- which I'm not disputing there's a good chance of one- It does nothing to effect the outcome of the referendum as almost all if not all of the anti-ban campaigners here have no links to coca cola.

Students voted with facts presented to them here in Maynooth and this further mudslinging just reeks of tannins as the sour grapes come out!

by Joe Mon May 24, 2004 15:57

H'mm I like the earthy feel of the wine making reference above.

Apart from that do you not thing if he wandered around with 'Sponsored by Coca Cola' stencelled on his forehead that this might have has some impact on willing to believe the 'facts' presented.

by Ger Mon May 24, 2004 16:17

Quite possibly.

But discussing this;

1/ First you have to prove that Matt is receiving an income from this deal- bearing in mind that when John Bruton agreed to speak for Coca Cola way before this referendum, I doubt he signed a clause stating that any of his dependants would become media whores for the corporation in event of any boycott attempts. And John Bruton has already been paid- why would he need to keep good relations?

2/ Secondly, you'd be hard pressed to find a Coca Cola stencil.

3/ If Matt had been campaigning in any manner which would have raised questions regarding a hidden agenda, rather than focussing on the facts and the hypocrasy of the pro-ban argument, he would have been asked to leave the campaign by the other members of the group. This was not the case.

by David Mon May 24, 2004 18:13

It would have have totally destroyed any credibility we might have had.

Without Matt Bruton there would have been no Campaign for coke in Maynooth (unless the S.U. decided to start one which they pretty much did anyway)
He did 90% of all campaigning for his side

And Ger, anybody who can use a scissors can make his/her own stencil

by Damo Mon May 24, 2004 19:44

I reckon Matt opposed the ban in maynooth because it was poorly planned,badly organised, misinforming and it wasn't going to do anything anyway. You'd still have been able to buy coke about 10 foot away from the su shop in the canteen or a vending machine.

The ban was defeated by a massive majority and matt or fine gael don't have that kind of support. This is a fine example of people trying to stir things up.

by I hate drugs but like coke - IADT Mon May 24, 2004 19:51

All this talk is still going on about banning coke and it's going nowhere. All these colleges that have banned coke haven't followed it up since.
"Oh we banned Coca-Cola aren't we great, that's cleared my conscience"
They haven't followed it up with anything since i'd say the columbian people think your great. When don't they try to ban something that is really damaging their students. I didn't see any student union in this country or even the national union USI run and anti-drugs campaigns. I suppose that might be a worthwhile but hard campaign, these people problem sell it and use it themselves.The hyocrisy of all this is sick.
And Coca-Cola still tastes great. Cheer up coke DLIADT still loves ya.

by random input Mon May 24, 2004 20:09

I have a feeling that 'Ger' is in fact none other than Matt Bruton himself. Why?

Well, I think the excessive (and I must add, highly annoying) method quoting is exactly the same as Matt Bruton's in the Other thread about Maynooth (Maynooth Referendum ban defeated of something, just search for YFG)

The excessive uses of hyphens. From the other maynooth thread:

-----------------Anyone who wants details about Colombia should go to the killer coke website given below. In particular, they should go to the news section, and read the lengthy refutation of Coke's lies from September 2003 I have mentioned quite a few of the allegations. As I said above, anyone who wants proof should start with the killer coke website, and move on to various human rights groups. The statement from September 2003 is an excellent starting point, though..--------------

Compare that to Ger's method of quoting in this thread, which is eactly the same. It may of course be coincidence that the exact same method of quotation appears only in the two thread relating to YFG/Coke/Maynooth.

by maynooth student Mon May 24, 2004 20:39

the president of the SU in NUI maynooth.
he was personally against the ban but not in an official capacity.

you are reaching a new low by trying to imply that everyone who posts for matt IS matt!

go away you smelly person you.

by obsever form maynooth Mon May 24, 2004 20:42

what about the jobs of coca cola workers?

perhaps that is a motivation?

matt has been involved in poltics for years. this is not his first time.

is he his fathers keeper?
no!

did coke pay him?
no!

your link is so far fetched its funny.

by trekkypj Mon May 24, 2004 23:00

Ger Healy is the President of the Students Union of NUI Maynooth.

Some people are just paranoid.... pity really.

by indymedia cynic Mon May 24, 2004 23:09

if anyone is reading this post, i would suggest that you look up some of the other "latest news"

some of it seems a little less than credible.

by Ger Tue May 25, 2004 14:16

Hi,

Ger, not Matt, here! Well done for picking up on the whole method of posting quotes.

It was, in fact, a method I found quite suitable of distinguishing quotes from argument rather than using a solid wall of text as you do.

But the fact that you found a small, tenuous link and went running off on another tangent launching your pathetic tirade reeks of the same crap used to run the boycott camapign.

Come back to me when you understand the concept of "facts"

by jeff Tue May 25, 2004 15:10

Is the fact that neither FG or the anti coke ban campaigners have never actually bothered to comment on the alleged human rights abuses and murders that Coke is responsible for. They have just glibly spouted on about irish jobs and consumer choice.

This is a good thing, in the sense that, if the populace is actually any way humane, such antics on behalf of ALL right wingers will (eventually) go against them and their species.

However, I do not hold out much hope. Humanity is naturally cruel, and morality is something that needs to be enforced on the majorety for the sake of law and order. It is a virtue only to the few.

Latest examples will include the "outcry" over Abu Gharaib, while actual murders being perpetrated by coalition troops on Iraqi streets remain largely unreported. The exception to this might be the Independnt ( uk) and Guardian/Observer group.

However, these are " The Left", so don't worry about any pricklings of conscience, FF/PDS, FG, Sindo, Daily Mail, hacks hired by Rupert Murdoch, et al, say it is OK. May your minds be at peace.

a-fucking-men

by David Tue May 25, 2004 16:19

I don't want to get drawn into another debate on the Coke referendum, But I want to officially declare my offense at your insinuations about the way the Boycott Coke Campaign organised.
I am confident that any specific points you might be able to raise could be answered in a way as to demonstrate our integrity while campaigning.

by Ger Tue May 25, 2004 17:04

David,

There were so many instances over the course of the campaign where pro-boycott campaigners either spouted out what felt like it would get a response or refused to back up their points.

Union council was one. The refusal of the pro-boycott team to answer specific questions regarding signature verification, how this campaign would effect change in latin America and the EXACT sources of their information left the campaign smacking of rumours and uncertainty, just before the vote.

But previously, with the stands in the arts block as the main focus of this point, every campaigner had a different story to tell, a different accusation and a different claim as to how lives would be saved in colombia with Irish Universities symbolically banning coke. This was particularly evident in the second public debate- the first major one- at which Conan spoke.

Students here voted with the facts presented to them. That the anti boycott argument never waivered and found holes easy to pick in the pro-ban argument shot your campaign down before it got started

by yfg head Tue May 25, 2004 18:45

-------------------------------------Is the fact that neither FG or the anti coke ban campaigners have never actually bothered to comment on the alleged human rights abuses and murders that Coke is responsible for. They have just glibly spouted on about irish jobs and consumer choice.=========================


good grief man!

have you been in a hole for the last month?

read back over the thread on maynooths referndum vistory and you will see ENDLESS argument refuting the claims.

look up www.yfgmaynooth.com

Wake up will you!

by Yeneef Tue May 25, 2004 19:42

Second rate colleges really do produce second rate political discussion not to mention second or even third rate politicians.

That the elected president of the SU ‘ger’ enters into the fray with such ignorance and spite appals me. Obviously he is responding to idiocy but to say ‘Come back to me when you understand the concept of "facts"’ smacks of the worst kind of insecurity and bitterness.

If this is the man who represents the students of Maynooth I, for one, am happy to have steered clear.

On the issue, and this is coming from a position of limited knowledge of the Maynooth specific campaign, I believe the ‘left’ who lost the vote are displaying their bitterness. However well they might as the ‘right’ ran a campaign of disempowerment that told people they could make no difference and should therefore shut up and accept everything that is shoved down their throats. Incremental advances are advances.

Anyway I thought it was just a seminary?

by trekkypj Tue May 25, 2004 19:51

Oh ffs...

NUI Maynooth has no ties to the seminary except that we share a couple of buildings on the south campus. St. Patricks College, Maynooth is a seperate entity from NUI Maynooth...

And you insult your own pro-ban supporters in Maynooth as well as the rest of the students of Maynooth with comments like that. That's smart, that is.

by Ger Tue May 25, 2004 20:28

Oh but of course....

Because you still lounge in the days when to venture outside the Pale was an amazing adventure.

Would you care to put some basis to your assertions or is this just another pathetic attempt at slander, some institutional ethnocentrism that gets you off?

You might be interested to know that the 1997 Universities act which governs the institution you attend(ed) was drawn up largely by the influence of our outgoing President (pro vice-chancellor of the NUI) and was signed in his office. What aspect of this college is it that seems to make it second string in your opinion.

Your obviously infallible argument which tarnishes the anti-ban campaign and particularly myself for ignorance also made reference to your belief that NUI Maynooth is still a seminary. This further highlights your loss in anything which may be considered "Current Affairs".

by amused Tue May 25, 2004 20:31

Trekkpj why would you even bother to respond to the ignorant pig who posted before you. He/she is a typical far left wing individual who is anti-capitalism and everything else that actually makes the world work!

My guess is that this person is in their late 20's and is still borrowing money from mammy and daddy so he/she can continue going to TCD/UCD and not have to get a real job. I wonder which large corporation daddy works for???

Bet Daddy's money aka your pocket money comes from some big corporation "Yeneef"

by Peter Gaughran Tue May 25, 2004 20:36

This really makes me laugh. Not content with losing, the mud slinging by the anti-coke hippies begins. By banning coke, but NOT actually really doing anything to aid people in Columbia, you anti-coke people think that you're helping? You're not. Plain and simple. And just by bundling half-assedly onto this band wagon doesn't mean you're "political", "insightful" or "involved". Truth be told, it probably means that you're also a 'fan' of anti-globalisation (as you write on your INTEL based PC) and want to "reclaim the streets". Look out a window, they're still there.

Coke is effectively a franchise. Irish jobs will probably be hurt if this nonsense continues. Don't agree with Coke? DON'T DRINK IT. Don't force others not to. Typically, for "revolutionaries", you can't see that you'd turn us all into a Big Brother society too.

"Human rights abuses and murders that Coke is responsible for..."

Absolutely unprovable. Where is your evidence?!? Besides, it'll all blow over in a couple of months when the next rent-a-cause comes around...

by David Tue May 25, 2004 21:47

You have made this assertion before


"But previously, with the stands in the arts block as the main focus of this point, every campaigner had a different story to tell, a different accusation and a different claim as to how lives would be saved in colombia with Irish Universities symbolically banning coke. This was particularly evident in the second public debate- the first major one- at which Conan spoke"

But you have never mentioned any of the inconsistancies that appeared to be so obvious to you.

Our literature has been absolutely consistant except for when circumstances in Colombia actually changed. The only difference that might have existed was the opinion of what effects the Coke Boycott would have. Some members of the campaign thought it would have a symbolic effect. I thought it would have a real effect through harming Coca-Cola's marketing image. That is the only inconsistancy and it by no means reflects badly on our ethics or integrity.

On the verification of our signatures, this was supposed to be in the hands of the Students Union who did a poor job. It was clear that we needed an independent verification after we noticed that even one of the Most active campaigners had her own signiture disallowed for no apparent reason.

There is no way we would reveal the person who helped us on this matter as it would amount to a betrayal of trust and there was no harm done to any individuals as a result of the verification.
Ger what you are doing is attempting to prosecute the whistle blower under some kind of official secrets act instead of recognising that there was a valid whistle to blow.

Talk of Sour Grapes is typical right wing rhetoric, I would expect nothing more.

by iosaf Tue May 25, 2004 21:47

that we will read here, and then as a result of proper horizontal channeling in the mainstream Irish media the next day
about the Link between YFG and Coke being proven.
That is "coke" coke. Cocaine coke.
illegal white powdery up your effin nosey coke. And I'm sure that the Gardaí would love to assist. Come on lads and ladettes, can't you bust a YFG member?
please.
pretty please
with sugar on top.

by Yeneef Wed May 26, 2004 15:04

First things first that seminary gag really gets to you guys? I detect a slight complex, however it was an unimportant and glib part of my problem. Sorry for the offence. I know well that NUI Maynooth is not a seminary as I have attended a lecture in the small, drab campus. However I think the cut and thrust of my point has been validated by the response I received, poor political discourse fed by poor politicians.

Let me deal with the criticisms one by one. ‘Ger’ you may be surprised to learn that I wouldn’t have to leave the pale to visit Maynooth as it falls inside. You may also be surprised to learn that I don’t come from or live in Dublin. However this use of ‘slander’ and bigotry is what we would expect of you from your earlier postings. Next let us review your justification of the exalted status of Maynooth. You claim that because your outgoing president was involved in an important act of parliament this somehow gives the college credibility, how does it? Of the nine Universities represented by the Conference of University Rectors in Ireland I would say that Maynooth, with the possible exception of the University of Ulster, is the weakest. This isn’t ‘slander’ or me trying to ‘get one over on you’ it’s just calling a spade a spade.

Secondly I am not a pro-ban supporter I just believe that the anti-ban campaign was entirely negative and disempowering and therefore did serious damage to the political life of the college.

‘Amused’ you display your ignorance, your prejudice, and your level of education. My guess is that you are in your mid 20’s have never had a girlfriend /boyfriend and sit masturbating in front of an open fridge all day while your father/mother applies lube. However I don’t know so I wouldn't like to presume, my father is not employed by a corporation nor do I receive any money from him. This is a shame as I would like some money. Just as you may want some lube.

And finally to the prize Muppet ‘Peter Gaughran’ somebody out there must know him please point and laugh at him. You would help the people of Columbia by keeping your ill developed ideas to yourself. My PC was made by crusties in Stonehenge and runs 100% organic software so I’m right on. I ‘reclaimed the streets’ well not all of them just a few I store them in my garden, they are mine now so when I look out my window they’re not there.

by Ger Wed May 26, 2004 18:06

David, the inconsistencies I refer to deal with the stories that were thrust at students by pro-ban lobbyists.

It was well into the campaign- after corrections and challenges by YFG (of whom I am not a supporter for the record)- before there was any coherence in the stories regarding how many people had been killed in coca cola plants or the alleged collusion of management was decided upon.

I can understand that the sensationalism of the story whipped people into exaggerations which were carried out of hand and in fairness the story did become coherant as the campaign went on. But not until after it had lost the campaign much of it's credibility. The later problems of being unable to reference points and allegations by any other means than "killer-coke" and "indymedia" further fuelled this distrust.


Yeneef,

What is your basis for second string status? I've asked you before and it went from simple assertion to simple assertion related briefly to an organisation. Will I have to keep pushing to get the following; Criteria? References? Argument..?

by Ger Wed May 26, 2004 18:18

And just to point out, it is not the students' Union who made errors while verifying signatures, it was an independant group at the nomination of the returning officer.

When the SU verified signatures, the right amount was returned.

We also know exactly who it was who verified your signatures. And it's not some ultra-secret clause that prevents you from accessing the student database, the "Official Secrets Act" as you referred to it. It is, in fact, the Data Protection Act. The person was actually spotted by a member of the returning officer team verifying the list. The reason we didn't blow the whistle as you put it was that the person is a student and we wouldn't wish them to lose their job...

The reason we asked who it was was simply to query the transparency of your campaign, so it was not the student who lost trust in your campaign- it was the Union council...

by David Wed May 26, 2004 22:57

So you thought that if you revealed this person's identity it would result in the loss of that persons job, but you thought it would be ok for us to betray the person who had helped us?

You still haven't said what lies we told or what YFG corrected us on. There is nothing that YFG said that changed any of our literature because they didn't say anything other than rhetoric about jobs and 'innocent until proven guilty'

From the beginning it was always 8 Sinaltrainal workers killed but the court cases centred around Isidro Gil.

These workers were:

1989, Avelino Chicanoy, Pasto
4/8/94, Jose Elaseasar MancoDavid, Carepa
4/20/94, Luis Enrique Giraldo Arango, Carepa
4/23/95, Luis Enrique Gomez Garado, Carepa
12/5/96, Isidro Segundo Gil, Carepa
12/26/96, Jose Librado Herrera Osorio, Carepa
6/21/2001, Oscar Dario Soto Polo, Monteria
8/31/2002, Adolfo de Jesus Munera Lopez, Baranquilla

Our sources were KillerCoke.org because it was set up by the people who launched the campaign, Sinaltrainal the trade Union involved.
We also used information from the International Labor Rights Fund, Amnesty International, Human rights Watch, the LASC in ireland whcih has members who have visited Colombia and brought over people who are actually involved in the struggle and various other news sites where relevant.

Many of the stories on the 'biased' websites are reposted stories from newspapers and independent NGO reports.

Our sources were infinitely more reliable than the Pro Coke Campaign who when i talked to hadn't een heard of Isidro Segundo Gill, The plant where he was killed or the names of the bottling companies involved. They got all their information directly off Michael Binchy from UCD and much of it was blatantly untrue. Michael Binchy had got all his information from Coca-Cola's own public relations officers.

by trekkypj Wed May 26, 2004 23:03

Firstly, how long has it been since you've been in NUI Maynooth? If you've been there anytime recently, you'll have noticed the massive new John Hume building....

There have been huge changes to the college in the last couple of years... not least the fact that the Aula Maxima is now disused.... because of the seven shiny new theatres we now have in John Hume!

Yes the campus coulb be prettier, but it's the students who make or break a college, and we have the best Atmosphere IMHO. (Feel free to disagree, but I've visited most of the other universities and I just felt isolated)

Anyway, we're wandering off topic .....

by Ger Wed May 26, 2004 23:28

Ok David.

That's fair enought that the information is posted up on these sites- but where is the evidence to back it up?

Where are the convictions or even likely convictions? The death toll that was quoted was in constant fluctuation at the beginning of the campaign- I heard 15 at one stage from one campaigner, but then shifting the argument onto one case seems as though it's an admission that the rest were hasty and oversensationalised.

Evidence needed to be presented and was lacking throughout. Anyone can check out a website but if you are to believe everything thats written I'd tell you I'm shit scared about this "dihydrogen monoxide stuff.

check out http://www.dhmo.org/

by Peter Gaughran Wed May 26, 2004 23:36

I'd help the people of Columbia by keeping my ideas to myself? And tell me, what are you doing to help the people of Columbia? BANNING COKE? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ! Come off it, while a life is a life, there are FAR worse issues at stake in Columbia such as a corrupt government and an endemic drug problem. But, no, maybe you're right. Maybe, by banning coke, you're doing good, and all of that will change! Cop on, will you? Be an aid worker, talk to your TDs or write letters, don't "band wagon" the current "I hate multinationals" cause because hey, that's what your stoner mates are doing.

And I like your writing style. Wit, but absolutely NO content of merit whatsoever. Prize muppet, am I? Christ, Oscar Wilde will never be dead. Now go run home to 'doddy' who no doubt supports his little hippy son and his 'fads'. Come back when you've grown up and read a few books, kid, yeah?

by Peter Gaughran Wed May 26, 2004 23:45

David, firstly I'd like to thank you for not resorting to ridiculous mud-slinging. Seriously, yours has been one of the few pro-campaigners that I've actually been interested in reading.

That said, I've done some searching regarding the names you've posted. Bar KillerCoke.org, and a few forums, none of them show up on any news websites, apparently reputable or otherwise.

Despite fears of propoganda, we seem to be living in an age where we *do* get to hear about atrocities on a multinational or governmental scale (look at US soldiers in Iraq). So, isn't it odd that not one of these names show up anywhere than the sites that are anti-coke?!? Or is that all a part of the conspiracy?

Occam's razor, folks.

by David Thu May 27, 2004 13:04

You seem to have misunderstood. I said that KillerCoke and other websites sourced some of their information from 'reputable' media and NGO sources.

Go to www.laborrights.org, Click on the current projects button and then the 'related articles and press' section.

There are links to stories by Amnesty international, the Financial times, the Washington Post, Associated Press, LA Times, The Guardian, Human Rights Dialogue amongst others.

on Cokewatch.org this page has links to independent press stories http://www.cokewatch.org/news.asp



People keep saying that a Coke Boycott wouldn't achieve enough to make a real difference. People claim that there is a war going on and that the Government is to blame and us targetting Coke has no effect.

Part of the reason for the boycott is Coca-Cola (and other multi nationals) policy of financially supporting the paramilitaries in their war against the left wing geurillas. targetting Coke to pressurise them into stopping this support for the AUC and other terrorist groups would do a lot to reduce the violence in Colombia.

We are only responsible for the part we play and for what we can change. I have written many letters to TDs and to the Coke board of directors but i'm not naive enough to think that they'll make any difference. We have absolutely no influence over the Colombian government, but as Consumers we can act collectively to influence Corporations and that is what we tried to do.
Those who laugh at our efforts, please tell me, what have you done today to try and make the world a better place?

And Ger, I honestly think you're clutching at straws. If there might have been some confusion at the beginning (i have to take your word for that), It takes a little while for people to get their head around any issue. If someone made a mistake it doesn't mean the campaign was based on lies.

And the reasons for focusing on Isidro's case are down to the court cases in America. It is not unusual to prosecute criminals based on sample cases instead of every individual charge being proven which would inevitably complicate and draw out the procedures. The facts relating to Isidro Segundo Gil's are very clear and by and large, uncontested.

by Yeneef Thu May 27, 2004 15:00

Peter you are right I am converted to your word. I shall no longer follow my ‘stoner’ mates on the band wagon and shall cut my hair and stop complaining. I’ll finish up my degree in Maynooth and who knows in 5 to 7 years I could be an area manager for an oil distribution firm. No maybe that’s not for me I know, marketing all the lads are getting into that sounds like a laugh. Get myself a Ford Focus and settle down with Sheila in Lucan (Jaysus how could you live in the big smoke with these property prices) two hour commute in the morning and sex on Wednesdays.

However if you could read which you quite clearly can’t you would have seen that I stated ‘I am not a pro-ban supporter’. I offered some criticism of your side in saying that you ran a campaign of disempowerment which, I believe, has grave consequences for the body politic of NUI Maynooth. You backed this stance up in all your ignorant postings saying there are far more important things in this world that the lives of the people who work in Coke Columbia and the people who fight for these people. This is exactly the disempowerment I speak of. Anyway I believe you are terribly ill-informed on the issue and are not willing to consider anything but your small, small world. Enjoy.

Trekkypj it is a long time since I was in Maynooth (when they built the bypass I no longer had to drive through) so maybe a lot has changed. However if we are talking entrance requirements, research funding, academic salaries, ability to attract top teachers, and quantity/quality of publications there is no doubt that Maynooth is not top drawer. I am not insulting anyone I am stating a generally accepted opinion that has empirical backing. This does not take away from the fact that Maynooth could be a fun university with a good atmosphere IMHO.

by student who voted for ger Thu May 27, 2004 18:34

I would just like to point out that if the person who posted comments on this page under the author name 'ger', is in fact Ger Healy, then should he have not being doing some union work, as I voted for him to do. He posted comments at 2.40pm and 3.17pm on monday. These time's would coincide with regular office hours, which is how the union sabatical officers normally work. While it is possible that Mr Healy was on breaks at the time that, the question is stilll begged as to whether or not he was. And if he wasn't, he was hence wasteing union time. Time that my membership fee helped to pay for. However if he was on official breaks, thus not wasteing union time and money, I offer my apologies for any offence made.

by Chekov Thu May 27, 2004 19:00

I assume that the mandate of the elected officers extends to defending and promoting their actions in public. It's not as if Ger is using his elected time to disrupt the site or spread malicious stories about his political opponents. What he has written here is surely within his mandate.

I think his stance on the Coke ban is utterly wrong, but at least he has the courtesy to defend it in public.

by student who voted for ger Thu May 27, 2004 19:22

Yes Ger is defending his point and he should be commended for such. However I am unsure as to whether or not he has mandate to do so during his work hours. It should be noted that as far as I know, the NUI Maynooth SU maintained a policy of nuetrality during the referendum, and that Ger while opposeing the ban did so in an unoffical manner.
Thus any use of SU resources by Ger to defend his personal viewpoint is questionable.

by David Thu May 27, 2004 19:29

I don't think the time Ger is spending here affects his performance at the job he was elected to do.

Anyway, wage slavery is bad enough without adding to it here.

by student who voted for ger Thu May 27, 2004 19:44

Yes the concerns that I have raised are very trivial and I doubt very much that the time Ger spends here affects the job he was elected to do. However would the time that Ger spends here also not suggest that he may spend time on other non union releated matters during his working day. This is not an aqqusation against Ger, I am simply makeing a point that perhaps Ger should devote more of the time that he is supposed to into official union bussines if he is doing other wise. He is after all a proffesional and that is his job.

by Ger Thu May 27, 2004 20:11

In reply to the Student who voted to me- (cheers by the way!)

It is indeed true that time on this website has been during the official working hours on several occasions. Whilst the Union Council mandated a policy of neutrality to the referendum, after the referendum was passed it has become official Union policy and as such I am bound to defend the opinions of the students who turned out to vote. The reason I am aware of this site and took part is that a student brought it into discussion on the local maynooth boards, showing that it is an area for concern for our students.

Also, much of the work of the Students' Union sabbaticals does not operate on a nine to five basis. We have most student meetings outside of office hours and we also try to make ourselves available to clubs and societies. If you would care to notice the time of this post and the post made after 10 PM last night, I feel you would agree this is true.

I can assure you that the time spent here does not infringe on the Union and we are still quite active as the year winds down. For example, pending a governing authority decision on Monday the medical centre will be in receipt of an extra staff member and a third more GP hours.

However, if you do feel that there is an issue that has been neglected, please do not hesitate to bring it to us. You may find me in my office or are welcome to phone the number on page 3 of the spoke.

Regards

by student who voted for ger Thu May 27, 2004 20:24

Thank you for your reply, the issue over your mandate to defend the ban is now clarified for me and I accept your responsibility to defend it. I was aware that you often work out of normal office hours haveing seen you working at bar extensions. Also I would like it noted that i was not criticesing you, I was simply wondering why you were logged onto the site during times that you may have been working.
Regards.

by Ger Fri May 28, 2004 14:06

You have every right to enquire as to my time delegation- you are my boss.

I hope that the reply clarified your queries. Again if you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call to my office