Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

MNHQ have commented on this thread

1 2

MNHQ have commented on this thread

Site stuff

MN towers people, PLEASE don't advertise Bernard Matthews!

34 replies

TooTicky · 12/09/2007 22:02

They are uncaring and unhygienic. Shocking lack of animal welfare. I was shocked to see it at the top of the page.

OP posts:

Thanks

Report

Rhubarb · 12/09/2007 22:03

And he looking scarily like one of his own turkeys.

Thanks

Report

TooTicky · 12/09/2007 22:08

They should treat him as he treats them. Let him be artificially fattened so that his legs no longer take his weight and he has to pull his naked, featherless arse through the piss and shit and corpses using only his wings. And let it burn his skin off.

OP posts:

Thanks

Report

OliviaMumsnet · 13/09/2007 10:14

Thanks for the heads up on this TT, we'll look into this and discuss.
MNHQ

Thanks

Report

expatinscotland · 13/09/2007 10:20

And have employees who have been convicted of cruelty after they were caught on camera beating turkeys with cricket bats.

Gits.

Thanks

Report

laundrylover · 13/09/2007 10:26

Just to add my support to Bernard Matthews' removal - from MN but from RL would be good too (not the man himself but the company.

Thanks

Report

WorkersforfreEdam · 13/09/2007 10:27

Agree with all of this but also it was BM's practices that brought bird flu into the country.

Thanks

Report

Kewcumber · 13/09/2007 10:31

I don;t have a problem with it personally. Don;t buy it but don't have a problme with them being allowed to advertise.

Is there a clear Mumsnet philosphy which states which type of companies are "banned" from advertising? Being "uncaring" would rule out just about every major multinational company. Fair enough if there is a policy not to advertise companies who have been convicted of animal cruelty on those grounds alone.

Thanks

Report

TooTicky · 14/09/2007 12:39

Please make them go away!

OP posts:

Thanks

Report

UnquietDad · 14/09/2007 12:40

Will Bernard get the BOOT?

Thanks

Report

MarinaLaPasionaria · 14/09/2007 12:41

Oh yes, please get rid of this ad

Thanks

Report

Pamina · 14/09/2007 12:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Tottie32 · 14/09/2007 12:45

i have never bought the stuff and never will...

but i dont mind seeing an advert......

Thanks

Report

Aitch · 14/09/2007 12:54

i'm with tottie and kewcumber. i think it's very decent of MNHQ to try to keep a lid on Nestle but it is a token effort in the face of global capitalism. it's too much to ask them to avoid big companies that are cruel because let's face it, they all are. Wouldn't buy BM products, though, because they look like shit.

Thanks

Report

JustineMumsnet · 14/09/2007 13:59

Hello folks,
Bernard Matthews isn't on our banned list right now because we weren't aware that they were particularly evil re lack of animal welfare relative to other food suppliers. Obviously you can argue that battery/ intensive farming methods are cruel per se but if we go down that route then does that mean we shouldn't have anyone who sells this stuff either - ie all the Supermarkets etc? Whilst it would be nice, it wouldn't be viable if we want to keep the site free to use.

So I guess what Aitch says is right - we make a gesture as a protest against things we feel strongly about - like formula milk advertising, plastic surgery etc - but to be completely consistent would be impossible. If you feel that Bernard Matthews is one of those companies that we ought to add to the list because their practices are particularly evil let us know. We don't tend though to include companies just because the products they supply are unhealthy - or we really would have very few left to advertise and we don't really see it as our job to tell people what they should and shouldn't consume.

In an ideal world, of course, we'd like only to take advertising from small, green, wholly ethical businesses or indeed none at all but in reality we have costs to meet and this is kind of the best we can manage.

It's not perfect we know - it's a bit like being a veggie and still eating fish or wearing leather shoes I guess, but you do what you can.

One idea we've thought of is to supply an ad-free MN to folks willing to pay an annual fee for that...

Do let us know your thoughts.

MNHQ

Thanks

Report

TooTicky · 14/09/2007 14:03

It's not so much that I want it ad-free for me, rather that I don't like seeing these horrid companies seeming all squeaky clean because they are on a parenting site.
I do appreciate the difficulty of your situation.

OP posts:

Thanks

Report

Piggy · 14/09/2007 14:05

If you use kaspersky for your anti virus software all the adverts disappear. It's bliss!

Thanks

Report

VeniVidiVickiQV · 14/09/2007 14:09

Justine - did you see my thread in Site Stuff about the Davina ad?

Thanks

Report

JustineMumsnet · 14/09/2007 14:30

Hi VVV,

Sorry - we hadn't see that but we have now and have realised that Davina is on Garnier ads which is L'Oreal which is part owned by Nestle. This is another of those tricky ones... As we see it right now, the Nestle protest is about them supplying formula milk to the developing world - we make the protest by boycotting advertising from the nestle brand and all the products that Nestle plc produces.

Nestle also has investments in lots of other companies which we don't at the moment disallow ads from - quite a big list of pretty harmless companies, many of which are operating out of Nestle's control - they are just one of a group of large shareholders like any pension fund might be.
Right now we don't include them on our banned list.

The analogy about the veggie who eats fish probably holds here too tbh - but again, as Aitch says - it's a gesture and it's not perfect but we're doing what we can whilst trying to keep the site free to use. That said as always it's up for discussion and we'd be keen to know your thoughts...

Thanks

Report

hunkermunker · 15/09/2007 00:15

I'd like you not to take ads from any company I boycott, which includes these.

But it's not my site.

I think Davina's disingenuous for advertising for Garnier and fronting the NCT campaign as well.

Thanks

Report

Aitch · 15/09/2007 00:25

how has the NCT explained that away, though, hunks? did they issue a statement?

Thanks

Report

hunkermunker · 15/09/2007 00:26

They muttered, shuffled their feet and hoped I went away, Aitch. Very Impressive...

Thanks

Report

Aitch · 15/09/2007 00:30

LOL. i'd kinda be impressed if they said 'look, she's bollock-famous and she's doing us a favour so we can't push our luck and tell her who to work for, m'kay?'

Thanks

Report

hunkermunker · 15/09/2007 00:33

Reading between the lines, that WAS what they said, Aitch!

My point was that it undermined their campaign if a Nestle face advertised the NCT, who are v pro Nestle-ban and, in fact, Nestle must be laughing their ARSES off at them. Which is sad, I think.

Thanks

Report

Aitch · 15/09/2007 00:34

totally. but she's bollock-famous. she's always banging on about being a midwife etc, you'd think she'd just advertise something else.

Thanks

Report

hunkermunker · 15/09/2007 00:38

God, can you imagine much worse than Davina pulling faces at you in mock something or other while you were in labour?!

Big Mother vagina, this is Davina, you are LIVE on Channel 4, please do not...omg there's a BABY coming out!

Thanks

Report

Flip

1 2

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.