The companys we buy from are not taking notice.

It's not hypocritical, but it's a bit of an ethical contradiction. Just because the event organisers show ethical impartiality and obviously don't hold themselves up as an ethical company by the time they also run an arms trade event, doesn't excuse the fact there are ethical issues involved nor that they let their space out for an arms fair. Their ethical impartiality doesn't make them above reproach either.

All drugs have to be tested on animals to even get to clinical trials. I don't really understand the comparison there except to say there are ethical issues involved also. It's also fairly easy to invest in ethical companies, but that doesn't stop me from also investing in pharmacological companies at the same time. Ethics aren't black and white or yes and no and what's acceptable to some ethically is unacceptable to others.

Ethics aren't black and white or yes and no....

Absolutely.

What I meant was, we can all be put into situations where what we might have once had control over, ie our choosing to have or not have, do or not do; within the boundaries of what we agree with or don't agree with, ethically, morally etc, sometimes those choices are not around to take, or we may choose the alternative that once we would never have dreamed of, out of shear desperation. Or, they are chosen for us.

Even the shareholders of an *ethical* company may not be wholly *ethical* themselves. Does that then make the company you thought shared certain views, ethical, really? When the money that pours into the company comes from unknown sources? When I commit my "click" to buy shares on sharescope, I have truly never thought of the ethics. All I think about is the curve. I do it solely out of selfishness, for my pension fund. I don't believe that any large company out there is 100% ethical, all of the time, as is it such a broad term, really, these days it could mean anything. Ethical on paper, does not mean a thing.

I think Ruth hits the nail on the head...

Where do you draw the line - so if you boycott Nestle do you boycott Tesco because they stock Nestle? There are more important things to get outraged about I would have thought.

Why would you boycott 100% of everything you can find on a company just because of a direct or indirect association with them? It would be more than time consuming. It would be life and mind consuming. What a waste!

There are more issues closer to home that I can actually be a part of, and help do something about, hands on. Thats what I prefer to spend my time reflecting on.

I thought your point about pharma companies in particular was an interesting one, Emma. They are bound by so many rules and regulations (especially in the US, where the FDA set such strict controls), but that doesn't equate to ethical. Having worked for a medical communications company and seen how the market is dictated and influenced by pharma, in ways that most consumers don't even begin to think about, I find your point especially interesting. Most medical studies are funded by pharma. The messages that come out of them are manipulated to enhance pharma's corporate goals - selling more product and turning higher profit. The people who apparently write the studies don't (most are ghost written and then a key opinion leader sticks his/her name on it, for a suitably large sum of money). I used to work on two accounts in the main -one for HIV/AIDS medication, where most of the trials for new products were run in Africa - they're not so strict in what you can and can't do to patients there, and one for antibiotics. Pretty much everyone here will have used the antibiotic at some point in their life. How many of us would abandon medicine? Particularly if we (or a loved one) had something seriously wrong?

I don't see the link between boycotting a company that has obviously dubious ethics and boycotting one that in some way has a link to an ethically dubious company. Which companies don't have those links? How many of us have investments in companies that support arms dealing? Perhaps through our pensions? Or our child/ren's trust funds? Or other investments? Or through our mortgage lender? And which companies do those companies support? Most companies will have links in some way to ethically dubious business - whether it be arms, child labour, animal testing. Or even less emotive topics - just decent terms and conditions - the right to breaks, leave, sick pay - for employees.

i have read this thread with interest. And without actually going into the topic of whether hosting an arms show is ethical or not, i am not entirely sure of the point being made? You seem to be outraged that people who are exhibiting at the babyshow have not responded to questions you have asked. I have no idea what you said to them but perhaps they didn't understand or didn't have time to respond. If you asked them 'did you know......' perhaps they didn't actually know you were expecting a response.

Regardless, it seems to me that there are limited options for them. I am guessing that they are all small businesses - they could respond to you saying thanks very much for bringing it to our attention, we will make a stand and not go. What would that achieve? Nothing but potentially loss of income for the business and as someone else has pointed out, yet less exposure for cloth while the disp companies continue to push their brands.
As you have said, some have responded to say they don't care - you are assuming that because they promote cloth they do so because of ethical reasons, the use of cloth because of a care for the environment or care for our wellbeing of our babies through the things we use on them is totally unrelated to the rights and wrong of the sale of arms IMO.

We are not talking about the babyshow itself being unethical and there will be lots of exhibitors there who sell things that are on a boycot list or produced under poor conditions as well as other suppliers, advertisers, caterers all of whom may have questionable ethics....... If you wanted to, you could find all sorts of reasons not to attend, even if it was organised by someone else. I too just find it too tenuous a link to expect someone to boycot the babyshow because the people who are behind the organising have also organised a legitimate and legal arms fair.

A prime example of boycotting a company because of their ethical association would be The Body Shop, again relating to animal testing but for cosmetics, which some would consider a different ethical issue to pharmaceuticals despite the fact it's still animal testing. There were various campaigns and boycotts of The Body Shop called by Naturewatch and Uncaged, due to Annita Rodick and shareholders selling out to L'Oreal, a company who have a bad track record and policy of testing on animals. That's where the issue of ethics and especially consumer ethics becomes even more relevant and the outrage associated is deemed all the more offensive, because of the associated companies' established ethical standpoint and how that places them in the marketplace in terms of their ethical consumerism, then how they use that ethical standpoint in their marketing position. It's all down to marketing in any event and as I said I'd be more likely not to go to a baby show because of the free pampers, huggies, formula, etc, which I find far more offensive and relevant to myself, than a generalised go at the privatised arms sectors, based on a minority of associated human rights offensives. To say though that you can simply maintain ethical or political impartiality is I think hiding your head in the sand though.

In terms of a venue or event management, it's unlikely I would support a venue that leased it space out to the BNP for example or the Orange Order, same as I wouldn't want to go to a venue or work with an events company that holds an arms fair personally. I wouldn't want to align myself with certain ethical or political stand points, that conflict with my own or who maintain ethical impartiality. As Emma says, you don't always have a choice though, especially when you consider consumerism and globalisation. Branding and marketing is a similar thing, with No Logo and the associated working conditions that Nichola noted as an issue or The Shock Doctrine, which would be another example in terms of the arms industry exploiting other countries and disaster capitalism.

I think the Body Shop is a great example of this. They're owned by L'Oreal who are part owned by Nestle. And we all know their methods when it comes to marketing. I thought that was why so many started to boycott them - less to do with the animal testing, more to do with formula sales.

It's all down to marketing in any event and as I said I'd be more likely not to go to a baby show because of the free pampers, huggies, formula, etc, which I find far more offensive and relevant to myself, than a generalised go at the privatised arms sectors, based on a minority of associated human rights offensives.

But how is cloth ever to get out there amongst the masses (remember it is still something that the vast majority of parents know little about) if the makers, distributors, sellers etc don't stand up and compete against them in such environments where the attendance is so great? Just because disp companies are there does not mean you shouldn't attend imo - if Mothercare or Babies R Us want to stock your products, will you say no because they also sell p*mpers? If Tots Bots had thought that then I think the exposure of cloth would be significantly less than it is now

That's not really relevant from my perspective as I don't, nor do I wish to mass produce. It's the marketing of disposables and formula I disagree with and baby shows or any trade shows are just a rather large marketing game trying to sell you things or market and convince you and others, that you want certain things. I just see through the marketing hype and a trade show is marketing and sales hype in it's very essence.

Fair enough but I won't criticise a business that wants to attend the babyshow in order to increase their profile, sell more products and make more money. Arguably, the benefits to the environment would be greater than anything achieved by boycotting it.