Who should we be boycotting?

[Cunobelin]

Several threads recently have been about avidin the use of companies.

We have the current thread with (unsubstantiated at present) claims of anti-cycling police by Wetherspoons, the recent call to boycott Amazon because of low wages in third world countries

Then we have the established manufacture of guns and ammunition, with a proven £500,000 pro gun lobby support of Vista Outdoor (Bell, Giro, Camelbak, Blackburn)


Should we refuse to drink in Wetherspoons, order through Amazon or buy products by Bell, Giro, Camelbak, Blackburn?

How far should we take this?

Should it only be where there is established proof- compare the "evidence" for Wetherspoons compared with Amazon or Vista?

[[XAP]Bob]

It depends on when you evidence that the alternative companies aren’t doing the same...

[firedfromthecircus]

You can boycott whoever you like for whatever reason you like. That is at least one positive of a free market economy. You don't need proof. Hearsay is enough.
Now trying to persuade others to boycott the same firms/institutions is another matter. I think the best way to approach that is just to say 'I am boycotting xxxx because they xxxxx.' Then anyone else can decide for themselves if that works for them.

I boycott Israel because of their treatment of Palestinians.

I boycott the Daily Mail and The Sun because they are nasty papers.

I boycott Maserati because David Millar.

[Paulatic]

The "Spoons cyclists" thread is interesting. Let me say I’ve never been into a Spoons and I distinctly recall Tim Martin telling remain voters not to cross his threshold. I wouldn’t like to upset him.
Mr Martin is boycotting eu produce stating the eu tariff bumping up the cost of imported wine from Australia and New Zealand
He reminds me of Farage in his outstanding commitment not to want to know the truth about things. EU tariff is upto 8pence on each bottle U.K. Gov put on incl vat £2.60. Yet in 15 EU countries they pay less than 4 pence. Let’s blame Europe Mr Martin.
Scanning Twitter there are mixed views on Spoons. The good side seems that they show live cycle racing. The down side seems to be the clientele.
On reading the cyclists Spoons thread another downside appears to be at some point of using a Spoons blinkers are surreptitiously fitted. As when looking for

beer, pubs, charging, relaxing etc

it would appear that there can be no substitute.

I would boycott Wetherspoons because it is rumoured TM is funding the EDL I’ve no facts just an opinion.
Wetherspoons will boycott EU produce using facts and opinion.
In both of those instances when it comes to boycotting you’ll see opinion always appears to overrule the facts.

EDIT:
I’ve just seen my boycott is invalid...damn! 661-Pete says

But you can't "boycott" an establishment which you've never patronised in the first place, can you?

[661-Pete]

This is a difficult one.

Throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s, my family boycotted produce from South Africa during the reign of the apartheid regime. Did our action, and those of millions of other like-minded people, bring the end of apartheid one month closer? With hindsight, I think not. What brought about the end of apartheid, as I see it (correct me if you think I'm wrong here) was the election of a more enlightened president in the form of de Klerk. He it was who finally realised that enough is enough as regards white supremacy, and that Mandela's continued imprisonment was a farce. So he did what he could, Mandela was released, and the rest - as we say - is history.

Today we have the even more contentious BDS movement, which advocates boycott of all Israeli organisations, companies and produce. Whilst I agree that its aims are laudable - an effort to secure basic rights for Palestinians - I doubt if this action will make the Israeli regime budge one inch. Nor their keenest supporters. It is all too easy to label such movements as 'anti-semitic' (I don't agree with this labelling, but I understand how it comes about).

Back from high politics to the more down-to-earth proposal to boycott Whitherspoons? I already said in the other thread, I can't boycott somewhere I never go to anyway! But I do think the remarks by the CEO of this organisation reprehensible, particularly that one which allegedly directs those of a certain political persuasion "not to set foot in his establishment"? Is there any gesture one can make which isn't utterly futile?

[bovlomov]

You can boycott whoever you like for whatever reason you like. That is at least one positive of a free market economy. You don't need proof. Hearsay is enough.
Now trying to persuade others to boycott the same firms/institutions is another matter. I think the best way to approach that is just to say 'I am boycotting xxxx because they xxxxx.' Then anyone else can decide for themselves if that works for them.

Yes. In any case, leading by example is probably more effective than smug lecturing.

[thirdcrank]

Who should we be boycotting?

This implies a united forum membership, which obviously does not exist.

[pwa]

It has to be a personal list. my own list, at the moment:

Anything from Israel (due to the West Bank / Gaza issues)
Virgin (RB makes my skin crawl, and the hypocrisy of someone hoping to create rocket powered tourism while telling us we need to care for the environment.....)
Amazon (treating staff like s..t)

[firedfromthecircus]

This is a difficult one.

Throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s, my family boycotted produce from South Africa during the reign of the apartheid regime. Did our action, and those of millions of other like-minded people, bring the end of apartheid one month closer? With hindsight, I think not. What brought about the end of apartheid, as I see it (correct me if you think I'm wrong here) was the election of a more enlightened president in the form of de Klerk. He it was who finally realised that enough is enough as regards white supremacy, and that Mandela's continued imprisonment was a farce. So he did what he could, Mandela was released, and the rest - as we say - is history.

Today we have the even more contentious BDS movement, which advocates boycott of all Israeli organisations, companies and produce. Whilst I agree that its aims are laudable - an effort to secure basic rights for Palestinians - I doubt if this action will make the Israeli regime budge one inch. Nor their keenest supporters. It is all too easy to label such movements as 'anti-semitic' (I don't agree with this labelling, but I understand how it comes about).

Back from high politics to the more down-to-earth proposal to boycott Whitherspoons? I already said in the other thread, I can't boycott somewhere I never go to anyway! But I do think the remarks by the CEO of this organisation reprehensible, particularly that one which allegedly directs those of a certain political persuasion "not to set foot in his establishment"? Is there any gesture one can make which isn't utterly futile?

I think there is a question over what boycotting achieves or what someone might expect it to achieve.

At an individual level any boycott of a large company or state will have no effect. However for me, as someone who does use my purchasing power politically, it at least gives me a small satisfaction that I'm not actively supporting the problem organisation.

If a boycott movement gains momentum and becomes big enough then it will start to have an effect. It depends on the relative size of the boycott movement compared to the organisation being targetted. But it is not only the financial implications of a boycott that count. I do think that the South Africa situation was helped by the boycotts. The sporting and cultural boycotts raised the profile of the opposition to apartheid such that it became harder to ignore amongst those who had the ability to influence the SA government.

I think apartheid South Africa and modern day Israel are very different, and some of those differences mean that the BDS movement is probably likely to have less of an effect, but I will still support it however I can because I think it is important enough to do so. Even if it is a very small statement it is still a statement and I view it as the least I can do.

[mjr]

Nestle, due to baby milk marketing. Some of the above.

The main cycling one I remember is Specialized due to overzealous assertion that Roubaix is their trademark and use of naked women to launch stores. Doesn't hurt that their Armadillo tyres are awful and other bar tapes have caught up.

http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/boycotts is an explanation of how I think they work that I wrote years ago.

[bovlomov]

I'm still boycotting shops even though the offending owners and/or staff are long gone. However many times the shop changes hands, it is connected to the original by a psychic chain of representation, that can never be broken.

[Psamathe]

......
Throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s, my family boycotted produce from South Africa during the reign of the apartheid regime. Did our action, and those of millions of other like-minded people, bring the end of apartheid one month closer? With hindsight, I think not. What brought about the end of apartheid, as I see it (correct me if you think I'm wrong here) was the election of a more enlightened president in the form of de Klerk. He it was who finally realised that enough is enough as regards white supremacy, and that Mandela's continued imprisonment was a farce. So he did what he could, Mandela was released, and the rest - as we say - is history.......

But did worldwide public opinion (as expressed through e.g. boycotts) and economic impacts of boycotts contribute to his opinions or help his election (i.e. the electorate were fed-up with the economic impacts, etc.). I assume there is no answer to this question but I thing personal boycotts do help.

Ian

[pwa]

......
Throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s, my family boycotted produce from South Africa during the reign of the apartheid regime. Did our action, and those of millions of other like-minded people, bring the end of apartheid one month closer? With hindsight, I think not. What brought about the end of apartheid, as I see it (correct me if you think I'm wrong here) was the election of a more enlightened president in the form of de Klerk. He it was who finally realised that enough is enough as regards white supremacy, and that Mandela's continued imprisonment was a farce. So he did what he could, Mandela was released, and the rest - as we say - is history.......

But did worldwide public opinion (as expressed through e.g. boycotts) and economic impacts of boycotts contribute to his opinions or help his election (i.e. the electorate were fed-up with the economic impacts, etc.). I assume there is no answer to this question but I thing personal boycotts do help.

Ian

Apartheid did end because of the international campaign against it. Companies such as Barclays, big in SA but with most of their trade elsewhere, had reached a point where their overall profits and reputation were being dragged down by their business in SA and they were showing signs of withdrawing from what was already a failing economy. That is why Mandela was freed and the white regime gave in. It took a long time but it was naming and shaming Barclays, BMW and others, together with boycotts, that forced the issue.

[thirdcrank]

In a complicated modern world, where do you start?

[mjr]

In a complicated modern world, where do you start?

Anywhere.

You eat an elephant one bite at a time, not by wondering.