Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Can someone explain what this is about? Having trawled through tweets I'm none the wiser and can't be bothered to waste any more time trying to unpack it.


Note to campaign: the point of this kind of communication is to make it easy for people to understand the issue and convince them to support you.


(CC rage thread.)

Seemed reasonably obvious to me (unless I've totally missed the point which is more than possible) - asking big retailers to stop taking out adverts promoting peace and goodwill at Christmas when the money they're paying for them is funding rags like the Daily Mail etc which promote hatred. Quite a good conceit I thought, though I very much doubt it'll have any effect...

They're saying you shouldn't shop in places that use their revenue to buy advertising space in publications that are headlining immigration.


consumer buying power is real power and we as consumers can make world changing impacts by putting money into ethical corporations.


It's a very valid point to get across.....


but they're being very specific in who they are targeting - I think it's misdirected.

Thanks for explaining. JLP/Waitrose remains one of the most ethical employers in this country and did fair trade a century ago before there was a name for it, which is a big part of why people like spending money with them. Surely it would be more effective to target someone with a less ethical reputation. Seems unfair and a bit dishonest to focus only on one aspect of what they do.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Thanks for explaining. JLP/Waitrose remains one of

> the most ethical employers in this country and did

> fair trade a century ago before there was a name

> for it, which is a big part of why people like

> spending money with them. Surely it would be more

> effective to target someone with a less ethical

> reputation. Seems unfair and a bit dishonest to

> focus only on one aspect of what they do.


Indeed, I too regard them as something of a shining example of workplace practices. I suppose the campaigners think that precisely because they're more ethical than the rest they're most likely to take note.

I think this is a massive over-reaction. Sure some media outlets (like the DM) publish complete rubbish, which can be inflammatory. Those smart enough to see it for what it is just choose not to read it it, or read it in the context of it being a one-sided, over the top view. Those that take it at face value are unlikely to be influenced or swayed by a campaign such as this.
I popped into a Sainsburys store near to Wokingham once. I of course noticed that the DMs were piled high, but they had a single copy of the Morning Star, which I just had to buy. I told the assistant that they needed to order more (it was a few years ago, so you still had people on tills). She didn't know what the Morning Star was. Hope you lot do. Up the workers.

from DaveR: "Take a step back from this i.e. stop thinking specifically about the Daily Mail. This campaign is urging consumers to say to businesses, "use your commercial clout as major advertisers to exercise editorial control over the press" Really??


Why not? Why should we be lied to by Rupert Murdoch et al, and of course the owners of the Mail don't pay any tax in the UK according to Private Eye?


We don't have much press left that isn't owned by these clowns. I think it's great to fight back against them, especially if they're inciting hatred.


Some of you ED-ers might not be fooled, but plenty seem to believe this invidious nonsense sadly.

"from DaveR: "Take a step back from this i.e. stop thinking specifically about the Daily Mail. This campaign is urging consumers to say to businesses, "use your commercial clout as major advertisers to exercise editorial control over the press" Really??


Why not? Why should we be lied to by Rupert Murdoch et al, and of course the owners of the Mail don't pay any tax in the UK according to Private Eye?"


What if a religious leader urged his congregation to stop buying a particular newspaper unless it stopped supporting gay marriage? Or a gay rights campaigner led a boycott of a publisher who printed Bibles? Either you support censorship or you don't. I don't. It appears you do when you disagree with the message. Book burning anyone?

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> What if a religious leader urged his congregation

> to stop buying a particular newspaper unless it

> stopped supporting gay marriage? Or a gay rights

> campaigner led a boycott of a publisher who

> printed Bibles? Either you support censorship or

> you don't. I don't. It appears you do when you

> disagree with the message. Book burning anyone?


Neither of those examples you quote are anything to do with censorship, they would just be boycotting content, not censoring it. Two different things. The press have the freedom to print what they want, within reason, the public have the right to boycott it. Is the boycott of the Sun in Liverpool censorship? No, it's protest.


Kudos on the book burning reference though, yes that's exactly what everyone who disagrees with buying/funding a particular newspaper is really doing.

A boycott aimed at removing editorial content from a newspaper using economic coercion is no different from censorship using legal coercion. Weasel words don't change that. I'm against it, whether I agree with the content or not. Anybody who genuinely believes in freedom of the press should also be against it

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A boycott aimed at removing editorial content from

> a newspaper using economic coercion is no

> different from censorship using legal coercion.

> Weasel words don't change that. I'm against it,

> whether I agree with the content or not. Anybody

> who genuinely believes in freedom of the press

> should also be against it


Except, as mentioned above, that's not what's being asked. The campaign is not saying tell the Daily Mail to change its content, it's saying given the content of the Daily Mail, please stop giving them money. Two different things. You will of course call these "weasel words" but never mind.


I wonder if John Lewis advertised in a publication which regularly called, quite legally, for the establishment of an Islamic caliphate in the UK, and people said they might withdraw their business from John Lewis if they didn't stop advertising in such a publication, if you'd call that censorship as well?

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think this is a massive over-reaction. Sure some

> media outlets (like the DM) publish complete

> rubbish, which can be inflammatory. Those smart

> enough to see it for what it is just choose not to

> read it ...


so you think it is ok to publish "inflammatory" material that will ignite those who are not "smart enough to see it"?


what a truly strange post.


as if there was no history of newspapers and auto-da-fe. Suggest look at Berlin 1900, a great book on the subject.

In answer to the question from rh above, yes - any act of power where the intention is to silence or restrict free speech should be opposed, and freedom of the press is well recognised as having a special quality in an open democracy. And coordinated economic activity is absolutely an act of power.


Btw, wtf has auto da fe got to do with anything?

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In answer to the question from rh above, yes -

> any act of power where the intention is to silence

> or restrict free speech should be opposed, and

> freedom of the press is well recognised as having

> a special quality in an open democracy. And

> coordinated economic activity is absolutely an act

> of power.


Yet again, it's in no way attempting to restrict free speech, it's an attempt to ask certain entities to stop funding speech which should be antithetical to their ethos.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Does anyone know when the next SNT meeting is? I am fed up with my son being mugged on East Dulwich Grove! 
    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...