UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • 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...
diroama said:
How could a basic income not be at least the amount that is needed for a person to live off?
Click to expand...
Same way housing benefit doesn't always cover the rent, though the implication of UBI is that there'd be plenty enough market disruptions to make things like "living wage" more of a scarcity measurement than a not-dying one. What you can "live off" and what you can actually survive off of isn't really something you can objectively measure without getting gay and communist about it.
1.3 trillion isn't that far removed from what's blown on giving people free shit already anyway, start charging for things instead of just giving it and the numbers would make even more sense I reckon, god forbid we ever actually try anything different though.
1773177806541.png
 
Mound Dweller said:
Same way housing benefit doesn't always cover the rent, though the implication of UBI is that there'd be plenty enough market disruptions to make things like "living wage" more of a scarcity measurement than a not-dying one. What you can "live off" and what you can actually survive off of isn't really something you can objectively measure without getting gay and communist about it.
Click to expand...

So how much would this basic income be and where will it leave me - somebody who does not claim benefits? Will I get to keep it or will it be taken back off me in extra tax to fund the UBI scheme?

Will I be better off when I have to fund my own private healthcare, pay for toll roads to go anywhere, and subcribe to privatised security and fire response services?
 
Mound Dweller said:
Any sort of handouts are doomed to fraud/misuse/waste
Click to expand...
Benefits are a good system and the government should 100% give people financial support.

The problem is that the labour market is fucked. The problem isn't benefits are too high, it's that jobs don't pay enough. It's not that you can live comfortably on benefits but that the change in comfort level from the increase in money from working is a smaller increase than the effort you have to put in to work being a larger decrease. The entire point of benefits is to give the people who are in between work something to stop them spiraling, that worked for decades. If you are on a low wage and lose your job with no benefits what happens? Car gets repossessed and you get kicked out for not paying the rent/mortgage. Is someone that that happens to more or less likely to get back into work? If we had the jobs and didn't have the retarded managers and government then it'd be fine. There's always going to be scroungers and lazy cunts, those are the ones that should be cut off. Don't punish people for being on the dole, reward the ones that aren't. Right now it is the opposite, hence the increase.
 
diroama said:
So how much would this basic income be and where will it leave me - somebody who does not claim benefits? Will I get to keep it or will it be taken back off me in extra tax to fund the UBI scheme?

Will I be better off when I have to fund my own private healthcare, pay for toll roads to go anywhere, and subcribe to privatised security and fire response services?
Click to expand...
It's important to bear in mind that money isn't real, much of the value ascribed to it is blind faith, this the glory of fiat.
The ideal scenario for UBI replacing welfare would be in combination with gas chambers for immigrants and dedecimalisation, more practical would be a gradualist implementation where it just supplants the existing system of giving poors free shit, but instead of futilely complex hoops and qualifications for status it's more a bread dole than a free pass.
As for you: Depends on (((you))) doesn't it, but the clue is in the name: universal basic income, another word/version of it is negative income tax which tends to rustle fewer jimmies. Would you do better? If you're paying for it damn right you would, if you actually pay for something you're in more of a position to get what you're paying for in the first place, this just isn't something you get when it's given.
femboy fart huffer said:
Benefits are a good system and the government should 100% give people financial support.

The problem is that the labour market is fucked. The problem isn't benefits are too high, it's that jobs don't pay enough. It's not that you can live comfortably on benefits but that the change in comfort level from the increase in money from working is a smaller increase than the effort you have to put in to work being a larger decrease. The entire point of benefits is to give the people who are in between work something to stop them spiraling, that worked for decades. If you are on a low wage and lose your job with no benefits what happens? Car gets repossessed and you get kicked out for not paying the rent/mortgage. Is someone that that happens to more or less likely to get back into work? If we had the jobs and didn't have the retarded managers and government then it'd be fine. There's always going to be scroungers and lazy cunts, those are the ones that should be cut off. Don't punish people for being on the dole, reward the ones that aren't. Right now it is the opposite, hence the increase.
Click to expand...
The entire point of benefits is to soothe the dark masses so they don't chop off heads, it's not some altruistic vision, it's social paracetamol.
I've spent my whole life seeing people "worse off" than me live much better than me, it's weird sort of reverse envy, and it's just not the way I like it.
It isn't about punishment or rewards, it's about an efficient distribution of resources that doesn't rub me the wrong way, that's what it comes down to for pretty much everyone, though most will pretend to bring morality into it the fact is it feels really nice giving soup to homeless people.
 
diroama said:
So how much imaginery money would everyone receive a year? I ballparked it at £28k, what's your ballpark?
Click to expand...
Well you don't want it to be too generous... £28K (or equivalent) is too generous, it's universal basic afterall.
Don't wanna be too harsh either, paying it out in Zimbabwean Dollar equivalent would defeat the purpose.
 
Mound Dweller said:
Well you don't want it to be too generous... £28K (or equivalent) is too generous, it's universal basic afterall.
Don't wanna be too harsh either, paying it out in Zimbabwean Dollar equivalent would defeat the purpose.
Click to expand...

OK.....so how much am I getting before giving back 40% of it in tax so I can see what level of health insurance that can get me?
 
diroama said:
OK.....so how much am I getting before giving back 40% of it in tax so I can see what level of health insurance that can get me?
Click to expand...
You? You get nothing comrade, you ask too many questions, please face the wall :stickup:
 
Mound Dweller said:
The entire point of benefits is to soothe the dark masses so they don't chop off heads, it's not some altruistic vision, it's social paracetamol.
Click to expand...
That's what it is now. That is what the current system is. Not the concept. You do realise that most of the social systems we have in place were when England was like 95% white right? This is like saying we should burn down every migrant hotel instead of just kicking them out. Remove the problem with the system not the entire fucking system.
 
Mound Dweller said:
actually kinda working was a historical anomaly.
Click to expand...
And so is the existence of a train. Does that mean we should get rid of them because browns misuse them too? It worked until mass migration. If we make a new system then we accept the idea of mass migration being here for good. The same way as raising wages in response to inflation does not fix inflation it just creates a new norm. We should not create systems with the assumption of 500 million browns because that is inviting them in. We should instead just get rid of them.

If shit is fucked after that then shit is fucked and we should do something about it. But you fix the biggest issues first. If your car doesn't start you don't worry about a stain in the seat. You get rid of all the leeches first. Then we fix the next largest problem, maybe that does need a massive revamp of the system but we'll get to that when we get there.
 
Ok I came across this faggots Jew Tube video by accident but I think he has a few good points and it's worth a watch.

Just be aware that he's a pro-EU, anti-British faggot


The parts I agree with are;

1, The UK has become a "bunker style" economy. Where those on the inside are doing great but anyone locked outside are fucked.
2. The economy, and thus political movements, are no longer about growing the economy but rather "how do I keep what I already have". We can't "grow the pie anymore" so I want to do everything possible to protect my slice of it from others.
3. The new political divides are no longer class based but rather economic based. The those inside the bunker only desire to keep things going until they die and don't give much of a shit about fixing anything, while the poor/young on the outside want change at any price.

Watch it, sure it's 30 min's of some Brit-fag talking but I found much of what he said useful.
 
Sweeter and Savoury said:
3. The new political divides are no longer class based but rather economic based. The those inside the bunker only desire to keep things going until they die and don't give much of a shit about fixing anything, while the poor/young on the outside want change at any price.
Click to expand...
You're going to have a very hard time splitting economics from class. People are like the areas they're from and they're in this areas because of economics.

There isn't even a bunker economy, that implies we have an economy and we don't. We have an ever mounting amount of fake money being spent on nothing, created by nothing and added to a bill no one will ever pay. An economy would imply some level of reality to the situation but there is none. Every where is bankrupt but also spending millions renovating the library and building a new bus shelter/football stadium.

Here's some more news stories stole from Brit/pol/. They're good at finding the headlines and I'm lazy and not a Reform fanboy.

>Legal costs in asylum seeker hotel case hit £566k
>Fears over free speech as Labour gives definition to Islamophobia and announces its first 'anti-Muslim hostility' tsar
>Starmer faces utter catastrophe as Corbyn-Galloway-Polanski pact threatens to go national
>Britain’s spiralling master’s degree crisis – and the jobless graduates who have no other option
>UK inflation likely to rise because of Middle East war, says Rachel Reeves
>‘Significant improvement’ needed for UK firms to meet diversity targets
>Iran ‘activating sleeper cells’, US officials warn as security across London stepped up
>Glasgow Central remains closed after huge fire nearby
 
In unrelated news, I fucking hate employer pensions. I feel like they're deliberately designed to be bad so the government will change their mind on employer pensions being mandatory.

I own my own SIPP (private pension) and by putting in LESS than what is going into my employer pension, I'm making more per year because I'm not a retard putting everything in stocks that absolutely do go up, even if it's going up below inflation. I'm willing to take the risk that in 20-30 years time I'll be comfortably outpacing any workplace pension just by sticking things in a boring mutual world fund.

To make matters worse, most of the time you can't even call up the finance department of your workplace to transfer the money into your SIPP directly as the accounting division is run by highlighter girlies who can't grasp that there's people who are financially literate. They act like I'm a retard wanting to stop my pension because their minds can't comprehend that people aren't content with 'it just works'. One lass I spoke to seemed to have trouble understanding what a SIPP was and acted like I'd be breaking the law by getting the employer to put mine and their contributions from one private pension into another.

A LOT of people are going to hit retirement age and realise their pension pot is actually pathetically small because they just figured it'd go up massively near the end.
 
Last edited:
Benefits needs a change. I think we should have a welfare system, and it should be geared towards supporting people short term in the main.
Some European countries have schemes where you pay in an amount each month and then if you lose your job you get something like 80% of your wage up to a limit (which is sort of liveable off, but not excessive) for up to a year. That allows you to get yourself sorted. It’s short term, it’s not for life but you won’t lose your home.
We cannot be paying benefits for people who are not British, or who are milking the system. Then you’ve got things that are expensive but used to be rare and are now common, like kids born with severe disabilities. It used to be fairly rare, and it was cheaper to pay parents/families to be cares than have the in assisted living or care facilities
Enter the Pakistani community, and their love of consanguinity. and now it’s too common and is a huge part of council budgets and NHS budgets.
The whole thing needs a revamp. We need to get rid of all the immigrants who were brought in to depress wages. We need better skilled, higher paying jobs and to create jobs that allow people to earn enough to live off. We are a low skill low wage high tax economy and that’s a path to third world standards of living. So we need to train people better, educate them better (everyone in uni doing stupid degrees is not better education.) reduce the population, kick out all the illegals and a lot of the legals. Then we need good jobs. We need to start making stuff again. Become a knowledge and high tech making economy. We can’t compete on bulk and price but we can on skill and quality.
We need to encourage people to be healthier. Mentally and physically. I’d roll out free vitamin D drops for babies and children. Better public transport. More green spaces in cities. SAFETY is critical, people won’t go out for a walk if their area looks like Mogadishu. Tax breaks if you have secure bike parking and showers at the office. Safe not-a-road bike paths, not bike lanes in roads. More and secure park and rides. Cleaner water to swim in (when im empress I’m going to personally execute any water company execs who allow sewage spills.)
Return to Parker-morris standards for house building.
But a lot of this starts with removing the drag on the system, and a big part of that is a few million people who are recently arrived and who only take, and don’t contribute.
 
As an auditor/controller in a previous life. I think there should be a financial OSINT linked to benefit claims. So, for example, the British visually impaired/autistic/wheelchair etc. These numbers are actually negligible. The benefits system was put in place to support people like this. It's a very low percentage of the population.

What I propose;
  1. You have to be British ENTIRELY. A lot of other countries have this in place, and rightly so. How Osint will go into this; looks into grandparents andgreat grandparents, and X if so. Other countries do similar procedures if they cannot track the grandparent(s). The case is scrapped entirely.
  2. The scope of illnesses and authentication changed. So for example, conditions like ADHD are removed as these conditions clearly do not prevent you from living normally. Bad back scrapped, etc. Now the kicker: incest babies. Since it is predetermined knowledge that by fucking a relative, you are creating a social contract that you are accepting, that is an outcome/risk. The claimant is accepting this as a cause they have done. Now, what is the difference between this and a work-based injury that is severe? Well, the receiver of illness is a taxpayer, but also a result of something unforeseen. Fucking your cousin and creating a tard baby is not unforeseen but a known consequence.
We need to address wages in this country, though. They're far too low. There are some managers on less than 30k pre-tax.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom