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.

 

[Chunky Salsa]

Christ, and you people accused me of boring, retarded, autistic derailing.

No one here every said they weren't those things! One of us, one of us!

@Chunky Salsa Horrific miscarriage of justice, I would not be surprised if that was in the UK. Extremely similar to what happened to my cousin. Probably had some messages of her being pushed to her limit and having a go at her and that was enough for the police to reject her case entirely. So women have to be calm all the time and walk on eggshells around men who make their lives a living Hell and make them live in fear, or they have no chance at justice? Right.

It was the UK, yeah. In the court room and with the police, yes unfortunately. It's insane and absurd; you only ever interact with them as a victim of DV when you have a crash out; and the mere act of having a crash out is evidence of being unreliable and thus casts doubt on your accusation. I have zero faith in the police, the courts and the justice system. I think it's too big, too distant; and too biased with ideology that isn't my own. I think if your husband abuses you, you should kill him or get someone else to. I think if someone abused my sister, or my mother, or my cousins or friends, I'd want to kill them. I don't think these are unreasonable things, but sadly they are. I'm just so fucking sick of seeing the constant, unrelenting miscarriage of justice applied by smug, out of touch retards.

I just want to line people against the wall at this point. As a book on revolutions said recently: "Once you start killing people in power that fail to uphold your expectations, it becomes addicting," I get it man, I really do.

I like it when Chunky's mask slips and we see he's actually a decent human being.

Everyone loves me actually, but thanks bby <3

 

[emptypacketofmethadone]

It's insane and absurd; you only ever interact with them as a victim of DV when you have a crash out; and the mere act of having a crash out is evidence of being unreliable and thus casts doubt on your accusation.

Therein lies my issue, too, with the UK 'justice' system.

 

[marlimar]

my cousin had messages on her phone of her ex blackmailing her for sex

Did she put out?

 

[the printer is outo fink]

Absolutely. It takes a total fucking coward of a man to stay with a piece of shit woman simply because it's better than being alone.

What if they have a child together? Many people stay in horrible relationships in order to ensure their children never have to endure the other parent's behaviour alone.

And it's all very well saying don't have kids with someone abusive. Abusive behaviour is often toned right down pre-pregnancy.

 

[SirCliveSinclairdabbing]

Hint, joined Wednesday, antagonising, presenting ludicrous edge cases bordering on handmaidens fantasies.

 

[Tom Nook's Gloryhole]

I think if your husband abuses you, you should kill him or get someone else to

Just curious, if your wife abuses you do you have the right to kill her?

Because I will forever be against the murder of a partner as there's a clear option that sits in between killing them or being killed and that's running away. Murder is a permanent solution to an avoidable problem and it creates a scenario where the alleged abuser cannot argue their case as they are fucking dead. Anyone who kills their partner should serve a full life sentence as they've already weighed up in their heads that killing their partner is preferable to them being alive. You don't get to kill your partner and ALSO walk free.

It's one of the key reasons why I don't actually blame the police one bit when it comes to domestic disturbances: they require years of fucking context, can feature elements of out of context moments (like joking about killing your partner when things are going rosy, which is now considered a valid threat to life now things are on the verge of breakdown) and ultimately it's a he said, she said scenario. Kind of how rape is virtually impossible to prosecute against unless the rapist is a zero IQ retard who denies any sexual activity (when there's DNA present) or did it in front of witnesses.

Is it really any surprise that the police rock up, see that the CPS would never touch it with a bargepole and give a condescending "There, there". The fact that the police are there in the first place is indication that the abused person believes that living in the same house with all their belongings is better than going straight to the council for emergency housing. The police know that even if they have a bang to rights abuse case, the victim can turn around and admit consent and derail the case (just look at the Mason Greenwood case).

The ultimate issue here is that there are no solutions, and while it is fucking horrible to witness things play out knowing you cannot do anything there's realistically nothing that can be done to fix it. You can't change how trials work to boost abuse/rape convictions without breaking how UK law even works. You can't create a magic lie detector that can determine which person is the abusive one. Domestic cases do my nut in because there will always be people whining about how the police/council/public services won't help and it'll always gain an incredible amount of traction because you can't just say "It doesn't work like that" without people getting even madder.

 

[DreinMeinVein]

5. Etc etc
The OSA is about control of the internet, stifling dissent, and removing anonymity

@emptypacketofmethadone

I agree with the online safety act's stated aims. I think that leaving your kids with smartphones is akin to handing them 20 Bensons and a bottle of whisky. It'll take several years of cultural shift, at minimum, for teens to stop expecting to own one. Smartphones can be a blight on anybody, but aspects of social media are extremely damaging to children.

Many socmed sites have a minimum sign-up age of 13, yet freely allow 18+ content. They should all be adult only. If you allow tits, swears or glamourised scars on your site, it's an adult site.

The online safety act is far more censorious than that. The OSA is all about protecting ME, a grownup, from reading the naughty N word. It's to stop US from reading an annoyed mother's vent about the state of the country. It's stopping adults from reading/writing things that most of us believe fall well within the limits of free speech.

No, a 13yo girl shouldn't be bombarded with self-harm photos or tranny propaganda. Totally. They shouldn't be allowed to post it, look at it, whatever. They shouldn't be on those sites.
A task force to combat grooming on Roblox I can get with.
A law that's the opposite of USA's section 230 (?) on websites for adults makes me feel suspicious.

I don't like censorship laws that read like using a sledgehammer to crack a nutsack.
I won't miss choking porn. Never did it for me.

 

[Chunky Salsa]

Just curious, if your wife abuses you do you have the right to kill her?

I'm not the best person to ask this, since I think if your wife cheats on you and you catch her, you should be let off if you murder her and her lover. I am a very unreasonable person, and so will say 'Maybe?' as the answer to the question. I fundamentally don't see women abusing men, as bad as men abusing women.

EDIT: I think my worldview has been warped because all I hear for every issue is 'It's complex' which just gets used an excuse and fig leaf to do nothing. So now I wish to simply shoot everyone that disagrees with me.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

Every woman I know would flip out if a bloke tried to strangle them during sex, it's not normal

Every woman I know has soft choking as a turn on. I'm not talking going full homer simpson, but a light grasp around the neck triggers caveman shit.
It shouldn't be shocking when 80% of women rank rape (CNC) as their top fantasy.

 

[FedPostalService]

Every woman I know has soft choking as a turn on. I'm not talking going full homer simpson, but a light grasp around the neck triggers caveman shit.
It shouldn't be shocking when 80% of women rank rape (CNC) as their top fantasy.

There's a difference between a rough fuck and choking. There's a time and a place for the first, the second would make me finish a relationship if a woman requested it. Right after I bust a nut after hearing her gasping for breath of course. I am a gentleman and wouldn't refuse the request.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

There's a difference between a rough fuck and choking. There's a time and a place for the first, the second would make me finish a relationship if a woman requested it. Right after I bust a nut after hearing her gasping for breath of course. I am a gentleman and wouldn't refuse the request.

Gasping for breath?
Has anyone ITT even had sex? I know I haven't. If I had though, I would know that choking isn't strangulation. It's no different than pinning wrists to the bed.

Or do you all get it on like the family guy sketch?

 

[Otterly]

soft choking

Problem is there’s no such thing as soft choking. If you apply pressure to the arteries around the windpipe, you are dicing with death. It’s very easy to go too far, and even if you don’t, you’ve no idea if there’s a bit of plaque just ready to break off and lodge in their brain. This idea that you can do it safely comes from porn. In reality, choking is the number one indicator if done as DV that a man will kill you. If he’s had his rounds round your neck even without pressure that’s seen as the biggest red flag there is.
I truly believe that all this stuff - the easy hardcore porn everywhere, the degeneracy, the troonism, is all pushed to destroy society. I have no wish to live in a puritanical state. I know people have been carving tits into stones since man could hold a pointy rock and i know that men are visual and that’s that. Porn will always exist, people will always get their rocks off, whatever - but we had a set of taboos about it, and when you take the shame brakes off things go downhill fast.
All this is pushed to desensitise people so that people like the aforementioned Nonces In The Establishment etc can get their rocks off without fear of censure. They go after anyone who objects and slander them. They push the idea it’s normal until it becomes normalised and that’s why you’re seeing so many girls thinking it’s normal. Except it’s not.
The OSA is a nasty bit of legislation. It’ll do nothing to keep children safe. We keep children safe by making their parents aware of whats out there and to keep the children away from it and by using our considerable intelligence apparatus to ruthlessly hunt down child predators. Preferably we them shoot them all into a pit but since we no longer hang them lock them up for life.
The fact that the men in the rape gangs got tiny sentences, Hugh Edwards got a slap on the wrist and nonces up and down the country get off Scot free shows the government has no wish whatsoever to keep our children safe. They are importing a bioweapon population to exterminate us. They DO however want to restrict what naughty adults can do or say. Freedom of speech and thought is a huge threat to them.

 

[Made In Wales]

We can have plenty of sympathy while still pushing the point that
1. You have to leave
2. We will keep you safe if you leave
As people have pointed out, when they lose control of you is the point they will break and get very nasty. It’s important that women’s refuges exist, that they are women only (no male trannies) and that women are supported to leave. Part of that is all of us - if you have a female friend or family being isolated (I know this is not a close person, so I’m not saying you and her personally) do NOT let it happen. Be a pain. Go round and visit. Make it clear you’ll help. Make them memorise your phone number and get them to pack a bag and hold the kids passports.
Actively seeking out the big boy thug gangsters? No sympathy at all. But we have someone we know (again not terribly well) who is being financially and coercively by her asshole husband and we keep going round and making sure she knows that when she gets the courage, one call will have half a dozen people there to get her out. It’s her Choice and we can’t make her

A very fair post.

I am not without some sympathy or empathy, and would not delight or revel in anybody getting hurt, but when time after time I see and hear women especially making poor decisions about men then I think I can at least be forgiven for thinking 'oh fucking hell, not again.'

The one phrase I am sick of hearing is this:

'I can change him'

Unless it's a baby, you can't and shouldn't need to change the man you're with. If he acts like an ape on steroids and has the intelligence of wet cardboard at the age of 25, no you aren't going to change him.

 

[Otterly]

'I can change him'

Well, I don’t disagree but that’s not going anywhere either. It’s so hard wired into women that it’s in the epic of Gilgamesh. taming the wild man is one of the oldest narratives we have written down.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

Problem is there’s no such thing as soft choking. If you apply pressure to the arteries around the windpipe, you are dicing with death. It’s very easy to go too far, and even if you don’t, you’ve no idea if there’s a bit of plaque just ready to break off and lodge in their brain.

That's a tad bit over-reactionary from you, Otterly, but I appreciate the sentiment. Maybe I haven't watched enough porn (anyone who does is a cuck) but choking is like putting on a tie a little too tight. The presence of the hand is enough. Force of any kind is not required.
Do some fucking spastics throttle the shit out their lass like they're trying to asphyxiate a chicken? I don't doubt it. Those people are just doing darwins natural selection though.
Besides, being choked is Scarlet's smallest problem when big tyrone jackhammers her inside to mine meat.

 

[Otterly]

Force of any kind is not required.

Minimal to no force required to knock a bit of plaque off either (especially as everyone’s so fat these days.)
There was a fat Anna video of her using one of those massage guns on her neck ‘for inflammation’ and everyone was rightly pointing out that this is about the best way she could have induced a stroke.
Honestly, hands around the neck is a no no. it’s not ever safe

 

[Chunky Salsa]

especially as everyone’s so fat these days

No penis for fatties then!

 

[FedPostalService]

Has anyone ITT even had sex?

Look where you are, mate. None of us here have even touched a boob

 

[lamppost]

Cheers for frightening the shite out of me Otterly. Never again

 

[Made In Wales]

Gasping for breath?
Has anyone ITT even had sex? I know I haven't. If I had though, I would know that choking isn't strangulation. It's no different than pinning wrists to the bed.

Or do you all get it on like the family guy sketch? https://youtube.com/watch?v=nuHI9-_Moig:4

Yes, and I was dying for a pint of Brains Dark afterwards.

Also, no, she wasn't called 'Dolly', 'Maaaary' or 'Baaaarbara'.