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.

 

[ProgKing of the North]

Yes, let's ruin this guy's life - name and shame - for making fun of the inbred royal family.

I meant to be fair dude’s problem was he wanted them to stay inbred

 

[Ashenthorn]

berserk misogyny

Great band name.

The whole thing about "encouraging or glorifying terrorism" as an offence to my mind is suspect. I'm not entirely sure that should be an offence because of what is "terrorism" but suffice to say I can't help but feel there's more appetite to go after neo-Nazi terrorist glorifiers than Islamist terrorist glorifiers.

This is the most chilling one:
"five [counts] of possessing documents useful to a terrorist."

 

[FierceBrosnan]

Lol imagine being such a fucked up country it makes me side with actual fucking neo Nazis.

When is the UK gonna kick that family of freeloading welfare queens off the dole

i'm waiting for the day the native Brits finally have enough of this shit and riot the country into the ground and become fucking awesome again. Become the empire we all know you should be! Not a kowtowing caliphate of dangerhairs.

 

[CivilianOfTheFandomWars]

Great band name.



This is the most chilling one:
"five [counts] of possessing documents useful to a terrorist."

“Useful to a terrorist”
That’s a very broad definition. I have a chemistry book that tells me how thermite is made, that would count. As would most any book on gunsmithing, chemistry, and possibly even medicine, depends on how much they want you in trouble.
The UK is fucked.

 

[January Cyst]

“Useful to a terrorist”
That’s a very broad definition. I have a chemistry book that tells me how thermite is made, that would count. As would most any book on gunsmithing, chemistry, and possibly even medicine, depends on how much they want you in trouble.
The UK is fucked.

Technically any book on publishing, a dictionary or a telephone book are useful to terrorists if they wanted to design flyers and fax them to potential converts. This high-tech terrorism is a great threat and should be punished harshly.
The solution is a simple one, make sure your kids are uneducated and not affected by subversive materials such as not approved literature, they'll learn everything they need to know once Ahmed snatches them up at age 8 and shows them the ropes of living in a diverse society.

 

[Ginger Piglet]

Great band name.



This is the most chilling one:
"five [counts] of possessing documents useful to a terrorist."

Have a look at that Wikipedia page on the TA 2006. The British Museum has refused to curate historic documents pertaining to the Taliban's regime in Afghanistan and original sources because they may be glorifying terrorism in such a manner. Yes. We can't keep records of how awful the Taliban were because we might inadvertently glorify them.

Clown world may only be a recent meme, but the lunatics have been in charge of the asylum here for quite some time.

 

[MG 620]

Great band name.

This is the most chilling one:
"five [counts] of possessing documents useful to a terrorist."

Driving a van, by The Driver And Vehicle Standards Agency
Youth volunteering and you - getting started
My Legacy: What I Will Be Remembered For, by David Cameron
The Bible
Dictionary, English

 

[Takodachi]

Would be a shame if their social media profile got spammed with similar posts.

 

[Comrade]

Ok I promise I'm not trying to be like 'gotcha!' with this, genuinely curious to hear people's opinions
Whilst I understand that for a lot of people (especially on this site) free speech is the number 1 priority, and I don't even necessarily disagree with that point of view, I'm interested what you guys would think if instead of these guys being neo-nazi's threatening Prince Harry for being a race traitor, it was 2 muslim terrorist sympathisers calling for someone to attack him in order to bring about the new caliphate. If those islamic terrorists hadn't actually started putting together materials for an attack, or outright said 'I"m gonna do this on this date', but just encouraged someone else to do so, would their right to free speech still triumph?(
I mean, these guys were part of a pretty far right extremist group, with links to a US group that literally encourages lone wolf attacks. They've been sentenced under the same laws that would allow the government to imprison members of an islamic terrorist supporting group with links to ISIS. I'm asking because my knee-jerk reaction was also 'what about free speech' and then I played my favourite game of switch genders/sexuality/beliefs and was surprised at how harder it made me think about where/if there should be a point where 'free speech' is no longer an acceptable excuse
I've been trying to think of a way to phrase this that doesn't just sound like I'm trying to force everyone to say 'yes we were wrong jail everyone for speaking out of line' but I haven't found one, so please just take my word that I"m just playing devils advocate and trying to get a more interesting discussion going than 'Fuck the UK, 'MURICA RULES'. There are plenty of valid arguments as to why it's wrong to jail these dudes, but I think the situation is a little more nuanced than people just being jailed for wrongthink

Then again fuck the royal family anyone who gets rid of them for good is ok in my book (in b4 I get sentenced to 4 years in jail for saying that)

 

[Arctic Fox]

Lol imagine being such a fucked up country it makes me side with actual fucking neo Nazis.

When is the UK gonna kick that family of freeloading welfare queens off the dole

It'll never happen. Being on the bottom is too ingrained in British society for them to ever actually do anything. In short, they're pussies.

Exactly. You hit the nail right on the head.
It’s not the average people pushing this, it’s the Gentry, the politicians, the journalists and celebrities. But they aren’t affected, the normal people are.

And the average people are doing shit-all to stop it. It's like dogs waiting for a treat while master eats dinner. Very sad.

i'm waiting for the day the native Brits finally have enough of this shit and riot the country into the ground and become fucking awesome again. Become the empire we all know you should be! Not a kowtowing caliphate of dangerhairs.

The days of the British Empire are dead and gone. I'm certain in saying the only reason the UK hasn't been invaded and plucked apart by other nations is due to US protection. America is the sole reason all of western Europe hasn't been attacked by Russia, and/or former colonies.

 

[Damn Near]

Just think, if the Brits had surrendered to the Germans, they'd have the EXACT same government they have now and no muslims or blacks! Ya blew it, tea-niggers.

 

[Ginger Piglet]

Just think, if the Brits had surrendered to the Germans, they'd have the EXACT same government they have now and no muslims or blacks! Ya blew it, tea-niggers.

Hitler quite liked Muslims because they both valued a sort of die for the cause mentality and both hated Jews. And he approved of Iranians and Turks because they were fellow Aryans.

 

[Damn Near]

Hitler quite liked Muslims because they both valued a sort of die for the cause mentality and both hated Jews. And he approved of Iranians and Turks because they were fellow Aryans.

True, but I doubt he'd be packing your country with them

 

[Trig.Point]

The British legal system love cases like this, everything is there on Social Media, and context doesn't matter.

. Also typically the Police will raid a persons home confiscated everything electronic and take their time outsourcing it to a company who will go over everything looking for further charges. They'll drag the whole thing out for months, and if you're unlucky enough to be on Legal Aid your Solicitor will only be interested in you pleading guilty. Unless your suspected of certain type of terrorism where you'll get one of the trendy legal firms.

 

[Ginger Piglet]

The British legal system love cases like this, everything is there on Social Media, and context doesn't matter.

. Also typically the Police will raid a persons home confiscated everything electronic and take their time outsourcing it to a company who will go over everything looking for further charges. They'll drag the whole thing out for months, and if you're unlucky enough to be on Legal Aid your Solicitor will only be interested in you pleading guilty. Unless your suspected of certain type of terrorism where you'll get one of the trendy legal firms.

Okay, that's not true that on legal aid you only get someone who's making up the numbers. I did 4.5 years in legal aid, and the firm I worked at did criminal work though I myself was in civil. We went to fucking war for our clients. And for fuck all money too. Because at the end of the day, a robust legal defence means that prosecutors have to do their job. This means the innocent are less likely to be convicted and the guilty are less likely to have their convictions overturned because someone cocked up.

What you are probably confusing things with is that if you plead guilty to any offence at the earliest opportunity, you are entitled to a one third reduction in sentence as a matter of law. If it seems that you're probably potted because of evidence regardless of whether you did it or not, an early guilty plea is in your interests.

You are right about seizure of electronics though. The procedure in that respect is in itself the punishment so they deliberately drag their heels. I sometimes think that if I had any incriminating electronic documents I'd store them on SD cards and body pack them as soon as the door was kicked in.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

They know they live in Airstrip 1, they should've been using VPNs and posting anonymously, what were they thinking?

 

[Trig.Point]

Okay, that's not true that on legal aid you only get someone who's making up the numbers. I did 4.5 years in legal aid, and the firm I worked at did criminal work though I myself was in civil. We went to fucking war for our clients. And for fuck all money too. Because at the end of the day, a robust legal defence means that prosecutors have to do their job. This means the innocent are less likely to be convicted and the guilty are less likely to have their convictions overturned because someone cocked up.

What you are probably confusing things with is that if you plead guilty to any offence at the earliest opportunity, you are entitled to a one third reduction in sentence as a matter of law. If it seems that you're probably potted because of evidence regardless of whether you did it or not, an early guilty plea is in your interests.

You are right about seizure of electronics though. The procedure in that respect is in itself the punishment so they deliberately drag their heels. I sometimes think that if I had any incriminating electronic documents I'd store them on SD cards and body pack them as soon as the door was kicked in.

No that's not my criticism of Legal Aid. Let me ask you a question, in your experience is every UK solicitor willing to risk pissing off a judge by taking up court time to mount a defense of a client? Particularly in cases where they know that Legal Aid simply won't cover their time. These days a lot of people using legal aid never meet their solicitor they just get a phone consultation.

 

[Shiversblood]

What is the royal family eventually all becomes black? Because the prince married and had a baby with a black woman. Mixed babies usually only have babies with black people. And with all the Muslims and Africans going to England, there may be a day in the future when there is no white people in England.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Of course she should. That’s the point of free speech. The laws some people want to pass would end up screwing them over as well, and they can’t see that they are doing the same thing they claim to hate.

No, there's a thing called "selective enforcement", so let's say we're getting VtM levels of political conspiracy and the people who seek to push these laws into legislation do so on the pretenses they also pull strings on law enforcement. Therefore, the law is only enforceable at the cops' discretion, which as an extension of the party's will, is really at the party's discretion. If someone on their side is getting bit in the ass, it'd either be because a rogue cop is flexing his tenuous authority (which would be quickly undone by his superiors) or because they're being excommunicated by the party itself. I have no reason to believe this is how they think it'd work out for them.

 

[NN 401]

Question for Brit kiwis

Do you people like living this way? :/

I remember long ago Brits and Euros shitting on Americans because of our various tempest in a tea pot scandals like Janet Jackson’s boob flopping out during the super bowl.


And our “Puritan” attitudes towards nudity.


Meanwhile, apparently you all only enjoyed free speech at the whim of your peers.

And now they won’t even let you watch porn...