UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

https://news.sky.com/story/row-over-new-greggs-vegan-sausage-rolls-heats-up-11597679 (https://archive.ph/5Ba6o)

A heated row has broken out over a move by Britain's largest bakery chain to launch a vegan sausage roll.

The pastry, which is filled with a meat substitute and encased in 96 pastry layers, is available in 950 Greggs stores across the country.

It was promised after 20,000 people signed a petition calling for the snack to be launched to accommodate plant-based diet eaters.


But the vegan sausage roll's launch has been greeted by a mixed reaction: Some consumers welcomed it, while others voiced their objections.

View image on Twitter


spread happiness@p4leandp1nk
https://twitter.com/p4leandp1nk/status/1080767496569974785

#VEGANsausageroll thanks Greggs

7
10:07 AM - Jan 3, 2019
See spread happiness's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy


Cook and food poverty campaigner Jack Monroe declared she was "frantically googling to see what time my nearest opens tomorrow morning because I will be outside".

While TV writer Brydie Lee-Kennedy called herself "very pro the Greggs vegan sausage roll because anything that wrenches veganism back from the 'clean eating' wellness folk is a good thing".

One Twitter user wrote that finding vegan sausage rolls missing from a store in Corby had "ruined my morning".

Another said: "My son is allergic to dairy products which means I can't really go to Greggs when he's with me. Now I can. Thank you vegans."

View image on Twitter


pg often@pgofton
https://twitter.com/pgofton/status/1080772793774624768

The hype got me like #Greggs #Veganuary

42
10:28 AM - Jan 3, 2019
See pg often's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy


TV presenter Piers Morgan led the charge of those outraged by the new roll.

"Nobody was waiting for a vegan bloody sausage, you PC-ravaged clowns," he wrote on Twitter.

Mr Morgan later complained at receiving "howling abuse from vegans", adding: "I get it, you're all hangry. I would be too if I only ate plants and gruel."

Another Twitter user said: "I really struggle to believe that 20,000 vegans are that desperate to eat in a Greggs."

"You don't paint a mustach (sic) on the Mona Lisa and you don't mess with the perfect sausage roll," one quipped.

Journalist Nooruddean Choudry suggested Greggs introduce a halal steak bake to "crank the fume levels right up to 11".

The bakery chain told concerned customers that "change is good" and that there would "always be a classic sausage roll".

It comes on the same day McDonald's launched its first vegetarian "Happy Meal", designed for children.

The new dish comes with a "veggie wrap", instead of the usual chicken or beef option.

It should be noted that Piers Morgan and Greggs share the same PR firm, so I'm thinking this is some serious faux outrage and South Park KKK gambiting here.

 

[>IMPLYING]

Labour now in third place in the latest poll. Reform 7 points ahead of the Tories, who are ahead of Labour by 1 point.

 

[Kane Lives]

View attachment 7521742


Mutahar Laugh - Mutahar Anus (720p, h264).mp4

The only reason I dont trust this is because it places LibDem at 4th. Aren't they the goto protest party for those who dont want to be racist, but dont like either of the Big Two either? To have them fourth behind both seems absurd.

 

[Zoot]

I tell you what would be good. If Reform gets in. Tories second. The BAME woman gets fired from leading the tories. They bring in Lowe as leader of the opposition. Then Reform and Lowe get into a right wing purity spiral and every BAME is gone in ten years.

Aren't they the goto protest party

I guess it is possible that labour possible protest voters who aren't racist are too scared to protest vote with the rise of the right.

 

[A-Logato]

View attachment 7521742


Mutahar Laugh - Mutahar Anus (720p, h264).mp4

Place your bets on which party between labour or the tories are going to form a coalition with the lib dems

 

[Crunkle]

View attachment 7521742


Mutahar Laugh - Mutahar Anus (720p, h264).mp4

How this would look translated to seats:


Reform majority of two which is way less than the "sex pest buffer" of at least ten that every majority government needs.

 

[Made In Wales]

It's looking very good for Reform UK, despite the recent 'choppy' waters.

They've held the lead whilst others have opted for hari-kari.

I think that a LibLabCon coalition might have to come about, though that would end all three in the process - Wokes will never get into bed with Based Trads, and they'll opt for Greens, Communists or even The Mr. Blobby Alliance. Their 'Moral Purity' must remain in tact because reasons.

In the same way, Based Trads would go to Reform UK, even if they were Remainers or 'on the fence'.

I certainly think that Reform would get upwards of 40% of the National Vote, as Plaid today have more or less admitted that they'd be prepared to do a coalition deal with Labour to keep Reform out at the next Senedd election. That's led to some in Plaid joining Gwlad, who are more moderate pro-independents than Plaid who are desperate for the woke and migrant votes, and very well may in turn lead to Plaid's vote death spiraling before next summer.

Plaid will soon go through what the SNP went through - a brief peak of independence hubris followed by infighting and bickering resulting in calamity.

Pro-choice retard here. Where did this legislation come from? This is the sort of thing I follow and it seems to have came out of the blue? Did the press keep it quiet so there couldn’t be a public campaign against?

It came from Common Purpose and the Fabian Society.

Brian Gerrish has some very good intel on them, especially the founder Julia Middleton.

 

[EddyRooney]

I'm pro-choice but I thought that abortion legislation in England and Wales was generous and based on decades old diagnostic capability. When abortion was legalised in the UK, women were often 6-8 weeks pregnant before it was possible to confirm a pregnancy. Now HCG tests are so sensitive, we can know we're pregnant from even before we've missed a period. If a woman who really didn't want to be pregnant, thought she might be but hadn't take a morning after pill for some reason, she could test within about 12 days of the conception and in most cases know if she was pregnant.

Genetic testing of the baby's dna can be done through maternal blood testing from around the end of the first trimester now. So it's much more rare for parents to get horrific news at 20-22 weeks. There will still be the occasional time, an issue doesn't show up until later. And there is still the same rate of spontaneous, premature labour, where the woman's waters break much too early for the baby to survive, but the woman is at very real risk of sepsis. So there are medical reasons for later abortion, but overall, late term abortions should be extremely rare and I genuinely don't understand why there was any push for this legislation. It's genuinely weird.

I don't have an axe to grind in this argument, but it seems to me that you're suggesting common sense should be applied, possibly with the assistance / advice of a qualified professional ? The technology is available to detect pregnancies earlier, so terminations should only really need to happen later in the term if there is a ( fortunately ) unusual medical reason ?

 

[Crunkle]

Gwlad

I had to look them up. They've been established for six years and haven't even won 3,000 votes in a national election in that whole time. They're currently polling below 1% and have less than 300 members total.

I don't think they'll be any credible alternative to Plaid Cymru.

 

[>IMPLYING]

The only reason I dont trust this is because it places LibDem at 4th. Aren't they the goto protest party for those who dont want to be racist, but dont like either of the Big Two either? To have them fourth behind both seems absurd.

I think the LibDem protest vote is more true of Southerners than Northerners, based on how the local elections went; the Tory voters went a bit more LibDem in the South but more Reform in the North, same for Labour, which is a factor to consider. The Lib Dems came fourth in opinion polling prior to the 2024 GE as well (I just grabbed these from Wikipedia).

Their consistency is that they probably have the most bizarrely loyal voter base out of the four parties so the few areas that give them MPs will continue giving them MPs. I also think they have a large overlap with Conservatives, not Labour, at least in the South. If the Tories lose more seats in the South, then I'd probably write them off as Lib Dem gains and not Labour ones.

If you want a comparison of the pollsters, YouGov did one recently

This is their sample size.


The More In Common poll you replied to had a slightly larger sample size of 2032 people.
For additional reference, here is their poll regarding voting intentions from the 6-9th of June (table downloaded from their website), which is in line with what YouGov are positing right now.


One last comparison is their projections from before the 2024 GE (wikipedia).

They're about on par accuracy-wise, though they were overly generous to Labour and Conservatives both, undervaluing LibDems and Reform, which if you go off pure voting intentions, would lead you to that result since LibDems always lag behind.

Place your bets on which party between labour or the tories are going to form a coalition with the lib dems

Only way that happens is if nobody achieves a majority, it can't be decided before the election or used to overrule a party which does achieve a majority. Considering Conservatives are trying hard to reconcile with the social conservatives voters via a shift in rhetoric, Lib Dem/Labour are more likely. Reform-Tory is probably a more likely candidate for an incoming coalition.

 

[Made In Wales]

You just could not make it up...

I had to look them up. They've been established for six years and haven't even won 3,000 votes in a national election in that whole time. They're currently polling below 1% and have less than 300 members total.

I don't think they'll be any credible alternative to Plaid Cymru.

Probably not at the moment, but their numbers would swell if Plaid and Welsh Labour did the dirty and backed each other.

A Unionist Party and a pro-Independence from the Union party getting into bed with each other is a full-blown recipe for disaster.

Welsh Labour would tell Plaid very firmly 'no independence referendum, end of' and if Plaid agreed to that in exchange for a share of power then what's happening with UK/Westminster Labour would happen to Plaid - there'd be howls of derision and cries of treason levied against Rhun ap Iorwerth and the independence baton would have to be passed to Gwlad or another pro-nationalist group.

Whilst I favour the Union staying together, I understand the cries for independence and most non-Plaid voting pro-Wales people are already saying that Plaid are snakes who will betray the cause of independence and stab it in the back if it suits their new power agenda.

Reform UK winning Wales has to happen if we're to avoid Plaid-Labour chaos and a future 96 member strong Senedd which does nothing because 'that side bad and stupid.'

 

[Chunky Salsa]

View attachment 7521947

You just could not make it up...

Kier was heard saying "What? Oh fuck off, they all look the same."

 

[>IMPLYING]

Kier was heard saying "What? Oh fuck off, they all look the same."

Yougov voting intention changes 18th of June:
Labour: +0.00000001
Reform: -0.00000001

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

View attachment 7521947

You just could not make it up...

Both the interpreter and Starmer were mistaken for leaders.

 

[Crunkle]

Probably not at the moment, but their numbers would swell if Plaid and Welsh Labour did the dirty and backed each other.

I always find it a bit weird how the SNP are such insufferable lefties. Being naturally conservative and yet wanting independence at the same time must make each election so sad for anyone like that.

If they were centrist, I'd understand. But the SNP and PC are both so far left it's insane. Pro-independence parties are just survival mode at that point. Their main cause is relatively small, and then in that sub-section you only have a choice of left wing. There's not enough votes to sustain a choice of ideologies inside of that smaller pro-independence balloon.

 

[Otterly]

So did she get dodgy pills on the internet?

As far as I read the article, she used a (legal) pills by post service and told them she was six weeks along. She was actually 26 weeks along. And she knew it because she told the hospital she was 26 weeks.
So murder. And also this is extremely dangerous, she could have bled to death. The pills should never be given without a medical consultation. There have also been cases of men obtaining the pills and killing the baby or causing to be born with serious issues. These pills should never be given without the woman there in front of you and you having accurately dated the pregnancy.

When abortion was legalised in the UK, women were often 6-8 weeks pregnant before it was possible to confirm a pregnancy. Now HCG tests are so sensitive, we can know we're pregnant from even before we've missed a period.

Pregnancy is dated from your last period, so you can be dated as six weeks and actually be a couple if weeks either side of that. The tests are very sensitive now but each pregnancy varies in when the HCG is detectable, for most it’s a few days after a missed period sort of time but again it can vary a bit. Some women have irregular periods, so yet again, there needs to be a bit of grace built in to this part.

a woman who really didn't want to be pregnant, thought she might be but hadn't take a morning after pill for some reason, she could test within about 12 days of the conception and in most cases know if she was pregnant.

That’s the earliest - I knew before that and I’ve known women who took a couple of weeks to show a positive

Genetic testing of the baby's dna can be done through maternal blood testing from around the end of the first trimester now

Yeah it’s from about 10 weeks now you can do NIPT which is really cool stuff.

So there are medical reasons for later abortion, but overall, late term abortions should be extremely rare

Yes, and they ARE rare. It’s a couple of percent of them and they’re almost all serious medical complications. There was no need to change the system, it was working ok. Nobody was denied an abortion at 20 weeks for a baby that was so deformed it’d die in utero. There just wasn’t any NEED for this legislation at all.
I would like to know who was pushing this behind the MPs.

 

[Howslans]

-retardation-

Spoiler

I am very pregnant right now with a very very much wanted baby and the level of misinformation regarding abortion law/SIDS is making me mati

SIDS is usually caused by accidental suffocation, not murder. Not saying it doesn’t happen, of course it does, but vast majority is exhausted parent accidentally suffocating their baby while co-sleeping, or by having stuff in the crib like blankets, side protectors, hell half the stuff is recommended to new parents is a suffocation risk. Also see non optimal apparatus that keeps the baby’s head at the wrong angle causing them to not be able to cope with reduced oxygen, like a lot of car seats and rockers. Also see low iq blacks putting babies to sleep face down of course. SIDS as a diagnosis at least allows utterly destroyed bereaved parents to not end up topping themselves knowing they were responsible for their baby’s death.

The change to the abortion law does not change the legal access women have to abortion in any way. It’s still 24 weeks, (too late in my view but there it is), requires 2 drs to sign off, must be performed under medical supervision. It doesn’t allow for drs to perform full term abortions. It decriminalises the act of accessing abortions at any gestation for the pregnant woman only - which almost entirely affects extremely unwell women who access non state sanctioned abortions, so they don’t face criminal charges if they even survive. It is a very rare situation and there to protect women in extremely vulnerable situations. Women in desperate situations will always find ways to end their pregnancies, we should deal with this with nuance, not blanket criminalisation.

 

[Tom Nook's Gloryhole]

I think that a LibLabCon coalition might have to come about, though that would end all three in the process - Wokes will never get into bed with Based Trads, and they'll opt for Greens, Communists or even The Mr. Blobby Alliance. Their 'Moral Purity' must remain in tact because reasons.

Nothing I want more than a Lib-Lab-Con coalition. It'll be the complete death of them, allow Reform to get even stronger for 5 years and result in every fucking voter in the UK being pissed off to the point of full blown non-compliance.

 

[Chunky Salsa]

Nothing I want more than a Lib-Lab-Con coalition. It'll be the complete death of them, allow Reform to get even stronger for 5 years and result in every fucking voter in the UK being pissed off to the point of full blown non-compliance.

I'd rather it not carry on for much longer. Defeat has consequences, and we're being firmly, but surely ground down. Another 5 years of that, is not good.

 

[>IMPLYING]

I always find it a bit weird how the SNP are such insufferable lefties. Being naturally conservative and yet wanting independence at the same time must make each election so sad for anyone like that.

If they were centrist, I'd understand. But the SNP and PC are both so far left it's insane. Pro-independence parties are just survival mode at that point. Their main cause is relatively small, and then in that sub-section you only have a choice of left wing. There's not enough votes to sustain a choice of ideologies inside of that smaller pro-independence balloon.

They have the same issue that Labour and the Conservatives have in that they decide their policies and social rhetoric based on what they hear in the capital and other city centres whilst applying broad stroke generalisations to the rest of the country based on stereotypes essentially, and in the age of the internet no less.

The SNP are the same, adopting the lefty social politics popular in Edinburgh and Glasgow (though I think the latter is more vehemently anti-British compared to the former, considering they were one of only 1 of 4 council districts in favour of independence), which is in conflict with their "Pro-Scottish, Anti-British"-chest beating that's meant to bring in everyone else. I think it's very easy to assess why the SNP are so insufferably Left-wing just by looking at how far their parliament building is from the nearest university.

(Yes, the University of Edinburgh is right over the road from the nearest Mosque.)

Their popularity in spite of their rhetoric likely lead to them being overconfidence in what was popular with their base, and I still cling to my theory that the proliferation of WFH during the lockdowns and other restrictions at the time forced more people to use the internet in a non-recreational way, allowing SNP voters to see what their party was like outside the snippets shown on the TV.

Similar to the tone-deafness of the Conservatives highlighting the colossal immigration figures in 2023 (showing their uselessness on the issue)) killing their party, the SNP putting a Paki in charge who espoused anti-white and thereby anti-Scottish platitudes probably did something similar to the SNP.

They went from 57 seats to 9 in the '24 GE, with SNP seats mostly confined to the less populated areas to the North.

It's a bit difficult to draw conclusions about future voting intentions based on how they voted in the 2024 GE but their Conservative voters may flock to Reform in the future.

Trend-wise, their polls aren't looking too dissimilar to ours. It'd be interesting to see how well Reform do up there since they look on track to overtake Labour in terms of popularity (though the SNP are remaining steady). I'm not very convinced independence is the desire of the Scottish people. Maybe Glaswegians and students.

 

[Otterly]

It decriminalises the act of accessing abortions at any gestation for the pregnant woman only - which almost entirely affects extremely unwell women who access non state sanctioned abortions,

Yes i understand what the law is. ‘The act of accessing abortions’ outside of the current (previous, very sensible) rules is murder. Or means a woman can murder a baby at a late stage and not be prosecuted. Being mentally unwell is not a factor to allow this behaviour differently to before. Non state sanctioned abortions are illegal ones. The legal ones were allowed very late for anyone who truly needed them. What this does is allow someone to kill a late stage foetus with no consequences.
It’s like taking a case where someone’s stabbed their other half to death and saying it allows women to access non state sanctioned partner removal but they’re very unwell women so no consequences.
There was NO reason for this legislation