UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
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
2764.png


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Click to expand...
Kalamazoo 2 Timbuktu said:
I’m very sorry to say I’m one of those Americans. Almost all of my knowledge of England and it’s Monarchy comes from the very rosy lense of historical romances, the American Obsession with Princess Diana (our mothers held wedding watch parties and collected dolls) and my envy of Princess Kathrine’s wardrobe.
Click to expand...
Princess Diana risked a child’s life by going into that kids surgery in full makeup. Then shagged her way through the rugby team.

Otterly said:
Twinned with rimming-on-runnymeade
Click to expand...
Don’t stick it where you won’t lick it
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kalamazoo 2 Timbuktu said:
I’m very sorry to say I’m one of those Americans. Almost all of my knowledge of England and it’s Monarchy comes from the very rosy lense of historical romances, the American Obsession with Princess Diana (our mothers held wedding watch parties and collected dolls) and my envy of Princess Kathrine’s wardrobe.
Click to expand...
The Monarch is constitutionally bound by the 1689 Bill of Rights to be constrained and limited by the Parliament. The Glorious Revolution, which brought this about, saw the English Lords increasingly frustrated by James II and VII's provocative quasi-absolutist style and his blatant Catholicism and eventually deciding to invite William of Orange (through his wife, and the King's daughter, Mary) to seize the Throne on their behalf. The Monarch, after this point, has been essentially a slave to Parliament. Through successive generations, including a twenty year span under George I where the King didn't even speak English and Walpole ran the country, precedence has established that while de jure Parliament rules in the name of the King, in reality the King rules in the name of Parliament.

Even if a Monarch did want to effect change, such as dissolving Parliament or ordering the Army to seize London or something, it would be effectively legally impossible for them to do so. I don't believe the Windsors even want this to change, however. King Charles certainly doesn't, in any case, and I very much doubt William does either. But the only way that a Monarch could do something like this would either be through some audacious military coup - which would really just install a military junta using the King's image - or like what @>IMPLYING said having a nationalist party shove a speech in front of the King's face for the State Opening.
 
Kalamazoo 2 Timbuktu said:
May I ask the Brits a question? Why is nobody protesting the Royal Family? They’re doing nothing except supporting more subjugation of the natives and more raping filth. They’ve said not one word about what the English people are suffering under.

Do you not consider the Royals part of Government therefore not involved in the issue?
Click to expand...
(1) Protesting the royal family won't change anything because they can't actually affect change, all protesting the royal family will do will either achieve nothing (Like IRL Republicans) or push it towards being abolished. Whilst every act/bill is "seen" by the monarch before going to parliament, the idea that they actually change anything about the bills before they're voted on is theorised but implausible. All the "royal prerogatives" are effectively just powers the PM has since the monarch can't make use of them unless "advised" by the PM first. It'd be like if the President had to be told by the Leader of the House or the Senate Leader to use the presidential veto or sign an executive order, that's basically how it works.
(2) "They've not said one word about the English people suffering."
Bill of Rights 1689 basically says that Parliament has no higher legal authority than itself. The monarchy was restored at the will of Parliament and thus it's role is subservient to it, not the other way around. The monarch exists as this sort of weird not-executive. For example when the United States broke away from Great Britain, Washington had more power as president than George III had. I think the idea of the USA breaking free of a tyrannical Parliament might be less invigorating than breaking free of a king, and so that may naturally lead to the conclusion that George III had more power than he actually did. Let me demonstrate through a quick exchange the relationship of king to Parliament.
PM Keir: "I fucking love immigrants. We should accept infinity of them because I love them so much."
King Based I (in Public): "That's fucking stupid and I disagree."
King Based I has violated the constitutional protections afforded to Parliament by undermining it. Parliament has voted for and passed the "Cringe and Bluepilled" Act and forced the abdication of King Based I.
Or they just abolish the monarchy altogether because that's within their power. (I said some things here about it too)
Nothing they say is also really their own opinion. Their Christmas speeches are written by the PM's office or get passed over by staff first, and their primarily role is to reinforce and legitimise the government regardless of the party. That means if Reform gets in, King Charles will be forced to affirm their mandate essentially.

Christmas speech, 2034
"Gas the kikes, race war now," said King William, regally.

(3) They're effectively a non-entity, yes. I think in the event of passing some civil liberty protections, if the monarch was entrusted with the role of keeping to those protections and not signing off on bills that could violate them, then they could serve some function between glorified diplomat/PR-person for the government. Of course you'd need to pass some sort of bill to ensure their protection from removal but then that'd count as binding future parliaments (Hasn't stopped Labour from doing that shit in the past but still - it's not really allowed).
 
SirCliveSinclairdabbing said:
Princess Diana risked a child’s life by going into that kids surgery in full makeup. Then shagged her way through the rugby team.
Click to expand...

Please don’t tell me more. England to me will always be a magical land of pixies, faerie rings, quaint thatched roof inns with names like Stag Head and naughty dukes who drive their phaeton carriages, recklessly through Hyde park, when they know all the proper young ladies are out promenading with their chaperones. On the dukes way home, his war-horse, Achilles, (don’t ask why a war horse is pulling a phaeton through Hyde park) accidentally clips a destitute governess, who was just thrown out of her position and home, without reference, because the viscounts evil son was caught looking at her ankles. The naughty Duke marries the destitute governess and kills the evil viscount in a duel. And they live happily ever after, THE END.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Kalamazoo 2 Timbuktu said:
Please don’t tell me more. England to me will always be a magical land of pixies, faerie rings, quaint thatched roof inns with names like Stag Head and naughty dukes who drive their phaeton carriages, recklessly through hide park, when they know all the proper young ladies are out promenading with their chaperones. On the dukes way home, his war-horse, Achilles, (don’t ask why a war horse is pulling a phaeton through Hyde park) accidentally clips a destitute governess, who was just thrown out of her position and home, without reference, because the viscounts evil son was caught looking at her ankles. The naughty Duke marries the destitute governess and kills the evil viscount in a duel. And they live happily ever after, THE END.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately this fantasy land of Aristocratic England has also been dismantled and subverted by modernity:
ems.webp
 
The Gene Genie said:
Unfortunately this fantasy land of Aristocratic England has also been dismantled and subverted by modernity:
View attachment 7859837
Click to expand...
Bridgerton from Shondaland sounds like the nickname of a colonial era officer mocked despite his great talent at commanding and tactics because his parents, a governer and governess of some ubungo shithole gave birth to him outside of Britain.
 
Symbol of the Chud said:
Bridgerton from Shondaland sounds like the nickname of a colonial era officer mocked despite his great talent at commanding and tactics because his parents, a governer and governess of some ubungo shithole gave birth to him outside of Britain.
Click to expand...
He's a side character in a Flashman novel that saves him from Fuzzy-Wuzzies with sharpened mangoes but dies ingloriously when Flashy leaves him to die to the Big Villain whilst making his escape.
 
the rat said:
Might as well get a bunch of people on bicycles at home to generate electricity as it'd probably be cheaper than this load of shit.
Click to expand...
Okay, stay with me. How about when we set up these internment camps for migrants we have fields full of bicycles hooked up to the national grid, enough cheap VR headsets to match, hook 'em up to IVs and have them on a Sisyphean quest to catch up to a virtual underage girl. Kind of like a Ugandan version of The Matrix.
 
Last edited:
SirCliveSinclairdabbing said:
Princess Diana risked a child’s life by going into that kids surgery in full makeup. Then shagged her way through the rugby team.
Click to expand...
I am aware people made a fuss about her wearing makeup, but it seems like kind of an ignorant excuse to pick on her or manufacture outrage. Patients are restricted from wearing makeup during surgery but OR clinicians, including actual surgeons, often do wear makeup and are not generally subjected to a lot of hospital attire restrictions regarding cosmetics except for nail polish because it's below the elbow.

Now, in practice a lot of OR staff will choose to avoid heavy eye makeup because they don't want to blink a lot or feel like they need to rub their eyes, but if you're not touching anything that is less of a concern and most hospital systems simply don't have specific restrictions on this either written or enforced in practice. It's a little bit of a reach, and much better to criticize her for actual problems like the whackass way she treated her sons and so forth and so on.
 
Kalamazoo 2 Timbuktu said:
THE END.
Click to expand...
I have not seen it yet but the Thursday Murder Club film may do it for you. Given they have Ben Kingsley playing a character by the name of Ibrahim it has already irked a lot of people due to his skin colour being excessively pale.
Krishna Pandit Bhanji aka Ben is half Indian but, much like Meghan Markle, people need to be informed about that. So him DARING to play someone whose ethnicity largely lines up with his own is literal fascism.
 
Muad'Dick said:
Okay, stay with me. How about when we set up these internment camps for migrants we have fields full of bicycles hooked up to the national grid, enough cheap VR headsets to match, hook 'em up to IVs and have them on a Sisyphean quest to catch up to a virtual underage girl. Kind of like a Ugandan version of The Matrix.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't work, immigrants don't know how to peddle on a bike. All their bikes are motorised and are partly owned by Deliveroo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom