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...
PS1gamenwatch said:
A bit related Piers Morgan warns Biden that wokeness will ruin the Democrats like it did Labor

https://youtube.com/watch?v=FADtVq_Ytjk
Click to expand...
Broken clock is right twice a day. Conservative can keep fucking up and fucking over the country, but people are willing to look over that compared to the retardation of Labour, the fact Diane Abbott is still part of the party after all her racist remakes is a key point in how they have lost there way.

Labour is losing votes in areas that have always been Labour strong holds, they need to go to those areas and start acting why
 
Have any of you ever heard of a free paper called 'The Light'?

One came through my letter box today and it seems kinda nuts.
 
Why do the BBC get away with advertising for Twitter, Facebook and instagram?

Almost all of their online stories (I haven't watched the news since Suzanna reid and Bill Turnbull left) are links to Twitter and Facebook. Even pimping out Twitter and Facebook to get more links and stories. Worse still, the twitter links are some old hag from up the road. "Here's what some fat old trollop and a young council-estate slut with five kids have to say on Twitter"

I remember BP getting reamed for painting a pepsi cup in white, but you could still see the Pepsi logo very faintly.

What's the deal?
 
Mother Nature being a right bitch

www.bbc.co.uk

Blackpool lightning strike: Tributes paid to Jordan Banks

The boy, named locally as Jordan Banks, was taking part in a football coaching session in Blackpool.
www.bbc.co.uk

Tributes have been paid to a nine-year-old boy who died after being struck by lightning during a football coaching session.
Click to expand...

Schlong song said:
Why do the BBC get away with advertising for Twitter, Facebook and instagram?

Almost all of their online stories (I haven't watched the news since Suzanna reid and Bill Turnbull left) are links to Twitter and Facebook.
Click to expand...
Because it saves them going to the area and getting quotes from people there to pepper the story with. Instead they just go online and find some quotes.
You can see it in the article I linked. Football club already put out a FB post about it, why spend time and money contacting them for a quote when you have one on a public social media page?
 
Morethanabitfoolish said:
Because it saves them going to the area and getting quotes from people there to pepper the story with. Instead they just go online and find some quotes.
You can see it in the article I linked. Football club already put out a FB post about it, why spend time and money contacting them for a quote when you have one on a public social media page?
Click to expand...
I get why they do it, i want to know why it's allowed. We pay a license fee so that the BBC don't have to advertise, yet they're chucking free advertisement FB and Twitters' way.

Off-setting costs is one thing, breaking their own rules and the watchdog allowing it, is another.
 
Schlong song said:
I get why they do it, i want to know why it's allowed. We pay a license fee so that the BBC don't have to advertise, yet they're chucking free advertisement FB and Twitters' way.

Off-setting costs is one thing, breaking their own rules and the watchdog allowing it, is another.
Click to expand...
Because it's not seen as advertising. It possibly should be but ruling out social media from what they can report on takes a lot of what they would need to report on out of their hands.

Even a lot of politicians these days go through social media to make their announcements or drop some incendiary hot takes.

It'd be like trying to report on a robbery at a Tesco without being able to say Tesco. You're not promoting it, you're saying where it took place.

I do actually agree and feel it would be cleaner to just say "on social media" rather than name the specific one but then you get the slackjawed idiots complaining to the BBC that they can't find what was mentioned on FB when it was said on Twitter.
 
Morethanabitfoolish said:
Because it's not seen as advertising. It possibly should be but ruling out social media from what they can report on takes a lot of what they would need to report on out of their hands.

Even a lot of politicians these days go through social media to make their announcements or drop some incendiary hot takes.

It'd be like trying to report on a robbery at a Tesco without being able to say Tesco. You're not promoting it, you're saying where it took place.

I do actually agree and feel it would be cleaner to just say "on social media" rather than name the specific one but then you get the slackjawed idiots complaining to the BBC that they can't find what was mentioned on FB when it was said on Twitter.
Click to expand...
I have no sympathy at all, for anyone in your post, as harsh as it sounds.

Fuck the BBC for being so fucking lazy and useless that they can't do real journalism anymore. Here's an idea, why not lure in viewers by being the ONLY place that gives out facts and information, without bias and skew. It'll never happen with the inmates running the loony bin.

Politicians should be banned from the internet. The internet is global, our politicians are national. Get the fuck off of the internet and stop taking your political motivation and direction from an army of fucking mongs.

That's a fair point and good analogy.

The watchdog needs to clamp down hard on the BBC. Maybe then they'll have the boot up the arse they need to go back to what they used to be like, and better!
 
Morethanabitfoolish said:
Because it saves them going to the area and getting quotes from people there to pepper the story with. Instead they just go online and find some quotes.
Click to expand...
This is how you can get utter bullshit into news stories, by just having a remotely plausible looking social media account to post disinformation, and these dummies will just pick it up and publish it, and by the magic of all these goofs just plagiarizing each other constantly, it ends up a "fact." It might even end up in a Wikipedia article citing this bullshit as a "reliable source."
 
Schlong song said:
I have no sympathy at all, for anyone in your post, as harsh as it sounds.

Fuck the BBC for being so fucking lazy and useless that they can't do real journalism anymore. Here's an idea, why not lure in viewers by being the ONLY place that gives out facts and information, without bias and skew. It'll never happen with the inmates running the loony bin.

Politicians should be banned from the internet. The internet is global, our politicians are national. Get the fuck off of the internet and stop taking your political motivation and direction from an army of fucking mongs.

That's a fair point and good analogy.

The watchdog needs to clamp down hard on the BBC. Maybe then they'll have the boot up the arse they need to go back to what they used to be like, and better!
Click to expand...
By and large I agree with you. 100% on the BBC because their charter requires them to be neutral. They're a publicly funded organisation and they've been dangerously close to violating the terms of that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Problem is if a government moves on them for it then the other parties will scream censorship so loud they'll hear it in Australia.

You ban politicians from social media they'll hire a PR team to handle an account for them instead at which point they can blame their shitty takes on someone else. I agree that they should not be pandering to that crowd but unfortunately social media is a dominant force in the world at the moment. The issue is a lot of it is an echo chamber so it's useless for reading the mood of the silent majority. Conversely it is great for drawing out the shitty idiots into posting their takes to let their political opponents mock them for.

Ofcom will not say the BBC is biased in any political arena. They would more willingly make an actual effort to clamp down on telemarketing scams. It's too big a bomb to jump on. As I say I do believe a sufficiently spirited government effort could force them to do a serious review and I suspect if they did so they would very reluctantly say that there probably biases based off BBC hiring practices, work environment and numerous other factors. However I suspect you'd see rafts of people quit Ofcom first rather than bite that bullet.

www.ofcom.org.uk

Content standards

The Charter gives Ofcom responsibility for regulating the content standards of the BBC’s television, radio and on-demand programmes.
www.ofcom.org.uk www.ofcom.org.uk

AnOminous said:
This is how you can get utter bullshit into news stories, by just having a remotely plausible looking social media account to post disinformation, and these dummies will just pick it up and publish it, and by the magic of all these goofs just plagiarizing each other constantly, it ends up a "fact." It might even end up in a Wikipedia article citing this bullshit as a "reliable source."
Click to expand...
Yep. User account BLM4LIFEFUCKTRUMP124HIS/HER claims that (insert event) was motivated by racism is a fairly common thing in a lot of news stories and like you said when they report on reporting of reporting it soon muddies the waters in terms of the original source.
The BBC tends to be better at that since they usually try to ensure the account they're going to is one actually associated with the events and will as I understand contact for permission to quote it. But they still get it wrong a fair bit.
 
Overly Serious said:
Oh Jesus, Antifa vs. the IRA would not end well. "See now, we actually do agree with you about the whole All Cops Are Bastards thing, but we're still going to smash your kneecaps in with this 'ere hammer"
Click to expand...
Just to add a bit more, there's been a bit of right wing nationalist gathering in Ireland biggest players being the National Party who are nobodies, this past year mainly around the coof issues and antifa have been quite comfortably sharing the other side of the trenches with sinn fein types and various leftist split groups like eirigi. Bit of fisticuffs etc but mainly just posturing.

If you want to cause a fucking explosion, next time you're talking to a shinner or ra head casually drop into the coversation that SF/IRA haven't been real nationalists since McGuinness and Adams fed their best and most nationalistic operators to their handlers in MI6 back at crossmaglen and gibraltar. The marxist takeover is complete at this stage.
 
I don't watch BBC news, but the BBC website is total dreck. Every single article has some variation of "but critics say [thing is bad]", or "experts believe [thing] will lead to [outcome]".

Who are these nameless critics and experts, and when the fuck did it become acceptable just to throw that into your article?? That's worse than useless. For all I know, that's just the author's opinion chucked in.

They also do this weird thing where about a third of the way through the article, they insert a three paragraph piece of "analysis" by another person who is not the author of the main article but nevertheless has a picture of their face inserted into it. Why would I want to read this knucklehead's thoughts before I've even finished reading the article???

Defund this shit now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom