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...
Wuornos said:
The claim by some that "the internet isn't real, so post what you like" is such a fucking retarded opinion. I've seen nonces spout the same bullshit. I don't think people should be arrested for words on a screen, unless they're advocating violence, but pretending the shite some morons post online doesn't have real world consequences is fucking stupid.
Click to expand...

The online hate bills is a framework that can and will be used by a future fascist government to persecute pakis, africans and trannies. Hate is such a deliciously flexible word. It can be bend every which way.
 
Bog-standard Poster said:
they ALL agreed that naughty words on the internet should have you fined and thrown in prison
Click to expand...
How did we get here as a country? We used to be the freedom-loving country. British political philosophy stood out in opposition to the continent in valuing personal liberties. The US was founded on ideas of freedom because the people that founded it were British, who wanted to exercise their free rights as Englishmen. How did we become a country filled with so many "if I don't like it it should be banned" cunts? I want to blame the rise of Labour as one of the two major parties but there must be more to it than that. Maybe it correlates with the decline in the average voter's stake in the country - we've gone from an electorate of land-owning, tax-paying men to one in which half the people live in a house they don't own, and a bunch live off a diet of bennies they didn't earn. Obviously there's the fact that a chunk of the population isn't British whatsoever...
 
Wuornos said:
The claim by some that "the internet isn't real, so post what you like" is such a fucking retarded opinion.
Click to expand...
Wuornos said:
but pretending the shite some morons post online doesn't have real world consequences is fucking stupid.
Click to expand...
Words on a screen have as much power as you give them.

TL;DR - KYS you fucking mong.


Bloom Worm Cross Field said:
How did we get here as a country? We used to be the freedom-loving country. British political philosophy stood out in opposition to the continent in valuing personal liberties. The US was founded on ideas of freedom because the people that founded it were British, who wanted to exercise their free rights as Englishmen. How did we become a country filled with so many "if I don't like it it should be banned" cunts? I want to blame the rise of Labour as one of the two major parties but there must be more to it than that. Maybe it correlates with the decline in the average voter's stake in the country - we've gone from an electorate of land-owning, tax-paying men to one in which half the people live in a house they don't own, and a bunch live off a diet of bennies they didn't earn. Obviously there's the fact that a chunk of the population isn't British whatsoever...
Click to expand...
To answer this, please refer to this masterclass of a post:

 
Bog-standard Poster said:
Too late, his minions have assembled. Here's a doom pill:

Talking to normie cattle at work today, ages 20-30 (5 of them), lower middle-class background, would classically be called chavs in the 90s. Own the latest phones, partake in the latest slop, drop thousands on fifa and cod. Literally thousands.

Got talking about online chats. they ALL agreed that naughty words on the internet should have you fined and thrown in prison. I start the convo off in a light-hearted a joking manner and they turned it aggressive quicker than a lefty jumps on trump.
One lad said "If a black footballer misses a penalty, you think it's ok for me to go on twitter and drop Nbombs?!"
"Yes" I replied. "Why not?"
"It's hate speech and promoting hate" he snarked back
"It's the internet. it isn't real. IRL be a decent human being, on the internet say what you want. it isn't real" I retorted
"It's promoting hate either way and should be punished" he got up and stormed off.

I worry that if the labour tries to push online hate bills, it will be welcomed with open arms.
Click to expand...
Niggercattle believe what they're told to believe. They'd defend to the death the canonisation of Adolf Hitler if the media told them to support it and was a Good Thing™
 
Funnily enough I got speaking to some Randoms in a bar just after the Southport riots and the topic of online posts getting people arrested came up and they were all 100% in favour of it. These were older guys too so it wasn't the typical zoomies who you would expect to come out with such an opinion.
It really makes you think that these people will look at Russia or China arresting someone for something they said online and think this is some horrible crime by a country that hates free speech but the same thing can happen in their own backyard and all you get is the usual excuse of "well they were alt right racist football hooligans".
 
Bog-standard Poster said:
Too late, his minions have assembled. Here's a doom pill:

Talking to normie cattle at work today, ages 20-30 (5 of them), lower middle-class background, would classically be called chavs in the 90s. Own the latest phones, partake in the latest slop, drop thousands on fifa and cod. Literally thousands.

Got talking about online chats. they ALL agreed that naughty words on the internet should have you fined and thrown in prison. I start the convo off in a light-hearted a joking manner and they turned it aggressive quicker than a lefty jumps on trump.
One lad said "If a black footballer misses a penalty, you think it's ok for me to go on twitter and drop Nbombs?!"
"Yes" I replied. "Why not?"
"It's hate speech and promoting hate" he snarked back
"It's the internet. it isn't real. IRL be a decent human being, on the internet say what you want. it isn't real" I retorted
"It's promoting hate either way and should be punished" he got up and stormed off.

I worry that if the labour tries to push online hate bills, it will be welcomed with open arms.
Click to expand...
Powerleveling slightly but as a Zoomoid myself, I've spoken with plenty of people my age who espouse right-wing views, and what with a large plurality of zoomzooms voting right in other countries, I can only hope it's a form of political taqiyya. But we can be quite exceptional so perhaps that's me being too optimistic, one truly can only hope that we manage to climb out of this nadir.
 
Otis Mallebrok said:
The online hate bills is a framework that can and will be used by a future fascist government to persecute pakis, africans and trannies. Hate is such a deliciously flexible word. It can be bend every which way.
Click to expand...
As if they’d ever try and touch tier 1 citizens.
 
JPG said:
One bloke who is being extradited to Belgium, so I don't think we can even count that has Kier arresting him.

Is selling dinghys illegal now? Do we need background checks on who buys a dinghy? I don't even understand how they can charge him.
Click to expand...
Usually things like this are horrifically reported and they’ll have committed a ton of real crimes but the press will say it was because they did a wrongthink or something that isn’t true.
 
Agree completely on smartphone usage, it’s kiddie crack and it rewires brains in very bad ways.
isalaide said:
The kids have lost all desire to do anything but look at phone, press button on phone, respond to prompts and alerts from phone. They are going through their lives anaesthetised to reality.
Click to expand...
You can give rats a little lever to press and it dispenses rat drugs, and you can implant electrodes in rats that give them the equivalent of dopamine /rat orgasms or whatever and they will press it and press it and press it until they die of starvation.
Everything you do through a screen stops you experiencing it in reality. That’s fine for ordering cat litter on repeat or paying bills but it’s a disaster for everything else. Kids need to be outside, they need to be bored, and curious, and experience the world around them
 
A-Logato said:
Funnily enough I got speaking to some Randoms in a bar just after the Southport riots and the topic of online posts getting people arrested came up and they were all 100% in favour of it. These were older guys too so it wasn't the typical zoomies who you would expect to come out with such an opinion.
It really makes you think that these people will look at Russia or China arresting someone for something they said online and think this is some horrible crime by a country that hates free speech but the same thing can happen in their own backyard and all you get is the usual excuse of "well they were alt right racist football hooligans".
Click to expand...
It's simply tribalism, people belonging to the other tribe should be punished for anything and everything while people of your tribe should be free to do whatever they want.

To use a football analogy how many Man City fans would cheer on Man Utd fans being arrested for typical derby day banter but would be outraged if that happened to one of theirs?

Humans are spiteful we will justify no end of shit happening to people we don't like.
 
Howslans said:
Since when was it illegal to hate? Is this ban on regular emotions going to be extended to disliking soon as well?
Click to expand...
This is the problem with any sort of legislation in this area. Subjectivity. Who defines what constitutes hate ? If I say I hate marmite, is that a crime, is saying I dislike it better ? Does that not offend the delicate sensibilities of these people ? We make decisions based on preference from the moment we open our eyes to the moment we close them - that, in part, is what living is. But is this "hate" or is it merely expressing a preference for one thing over another ? Is banning any conversations on these preferences going to improve anyone's life. If I say I prefer the company of Mancs to Scousers or Geordies to Brummies, does that make me offensive, ill informed or racist ? Who decides ?!!!

Otis Mallebrok said:
The online hate bills is a framework that can and will be used by a future fascist government to persecute pakis, africans and trannies. Hate is such a deliciously flexible word. It can be bend every which way.
Click to expand...
I assume the first sentence is sarcastic, given the way the current government is acting. This is why any pretension to these sort of laws being for the greater good should always be measured with the greatest cynicism. As I've said in previous posts, they are always introduced under the guise of some morally noble objective, but hidden either within them or through interpretation, they can be used for an extremely insidious agenda. The ultimate goal of anything that curtails free speech is power - the power to silence dissenting opinions and with hate laws to create protected classes of people that have more rights under the law than others. By definition all those not in the protected class are in an underclass. That would be a two tier system....thanks Keir.
My opinions can be contrarian, I don't agree with the masses or always go with the consensus, but my ability to question, debate and reason with others is one I cherish. In that respect even if I disagree with another person, I uphold their right to express their opinion.

Bog-standard Poster said:
Words on a screen have as much power as you give them.

TL;DR - KYS you fucking mong.
Click to expand...
That answer lacks empathy, just because the words of others are meaningless to you, doesn't mean the rest of the population share that opinion. Others may be more easily influenced and incited into action they wouldn't otherwise have taken. Simply put, I don't think the sole responsibility for the words can be put on the reader and their interpretation, surely some accountability lies with the messenger ?
If you're telling somebody online to kill themself, then it's probably either a joke, or you have anger issues when faced with any opinion different to your own, or you're just reprehensible gutter scum that should be ignored.
Whilst I've stated above I agree with the right of others to offend me, as I don't believe dissenters should be silenced......
My question would be what about all the terrorists that were radicalised online ? Were the words they read meaningless, had no real world consequences ? Just because the messages have no radicalising effects on 99% of the population, you would argue any language, even if it directly encourages violence should be allowed ? Is the argument anyone who thinks that way would become a terrorist anyway ? Surely this kind of radical propaganda is only labelled that because it is words that create extremists that are willing to go too far ?
It is a difficult thing this subjectivity, because whilst I agree that people should be allowed to debate and offend each other, I don't believe hate preachers, such as Anjem Choudary, should be given a soap box to encourage acts of terror. I appreciate there is some degree of double think in that statement or at least double standards. I would conclude that the line for me is probably the current law - threats of violence or encouraging violence to others should be investigated and potentially prosecuted, saying something that hurts someone's feelings should not.
 
EddyRooney said:
Simply put, I don't think the sole responsibility for the words can be put on the reader and their interpretation, surely some accountability lies with the messenger ?
Click to expand...
I believe that the sole responsibility is put on the read for one reason; messages and text are subject to the emotional state of the reader and are therefore open to interpretation. Because messages are subjective, no hard, factual evidence can be attributed to them and a clear, unanimous intent to be seen.
It would be like using DNA evidence in court if DNA looked different to every person.
Case in point, and I'm glad you point it out ...
EddyRooney said:
If you're telling somebody online to kill themself, then it's probably either a joke,
Click to expand...
...It's always a joke to tell someone to KYS online. In this instance, I did it as a joke of juxtaposition, where my main point was "Words mean nothing" followed by strong words that, mean nothing.
EddyRooney said:
My question would be what about all the terrorists that were radicalised online ? Were the words they read meaningless, had no real world consequences ?
Click to expand...
Terrorists were mainly radicalised in person but autism and nit-picking aside, yes, I believe they should read whatever they want online. They should discuss whatever they want online. All that matters is actions.
For example, I was fightin derr turrurists (in the desert) back when hook-hand hamza was telling the pakis in london to get bomby. Most people I knew called for his head and said he shouldn't be allowed to do it, I defended him. He should absolutely be allowed to call for TWD in the same way I should be allowed to call for TND. The disgruntlement was caused because Hamza was allowed to hate-preach but no other people could. Inequality and hypocrisy are the problems there, not the speaker.

The other view I have is that any words can be placed on a screen in any language, logically arranged or otherwise, attached to any username one could imagine. How does the magic combination of symbols arranged to say "Niggers choke on watermelon flavoured shotgunshells" be any more or less hateful, damaging and powerful than "jfd 49grs ngjh;s5ehty-3 f\zlsg2". It may seem like a retarded point at first, but really, it isn't.
6MillionCoofs said:
Well of course. More time goes on the less people will be around that grew up when that wasn’t the norm. Why would you not welcome more of what you’ve always known.
Click to expand...
I've said for a decade and more that we need to return the internet to anonimity. The "15 minutes of fame for everyone" was an entertaining idea, back when society knew what "15 minutes of fame" was.
Imagine telling someone nowadays that they can only watch 1 episode of Slopshow 5 per week. Yet we expect these same people to understand the importance of separation of online and real life?

The watershed was a good idea. What chance does it have nowadays?
 
Bog-standard Poster said:
Yet we expect these same people to understand the importance of separation of online and real life?
Click to expand...
Yeah. iphone is almost 20. Anyone in the early or late 2000s has no concept of any of that. Social media as we now know it showed up when they were 8. Anyone that knows any of that, mid to late 30s and older.

It’s going to be wild when people grow up with good AI being common or when we’ve figured out brain chips or VR for mass use.
 
Last edited:
45+ year old demographic have brought this in since voting Blair and New Labour , Cool Britania, open EU travel then the New Conservative mid-2000's and continue to fuck over everyone after, either due to them reaching and clinging to mid-management position plus it's their kids now in their 20's raised by the same self entitled pricks while sticking their parents into the care system...saw the Farmer's protest agreed not to take tractors to London as it's to be a "family friendly event" don't want to look bad...fucking pointless cause Optics...MATI as fuck!
 
Bog-standard Poster said:
To answer this, please refer to this masterclass of a post:

Click to expand...
Covid happened four fucking years ago. You are just as bad as the people you're complaining about who can't think beyond the recent past. You're also arguing that words only have meaning because we assign them meaning but that's the exact fucking bullshit behind the tranny movement. The EXACT argument.

Also, terrorists and their enablers like Shamima Begum were not radicalised in person. You're just completely behind the times, you're on kiwifarms and you don't even understand how gender id works, like ROGD, or how the internet is radicalising people. Why are you here?

Otterly said:
Agree completely on smartphone usage, it’s kiddie crack and it rewires brains in very bad ways.

You can give rats a little lever to press and it dispenses rat drugs, and you can implant electrodes in rats that give them the equivalent of dopamine /rat orgasms or whatever and they will press it and press it and press it until they die of starvation.
Everything you do through a screen stops you experiencing it in reality. That’s fine for ordering cat litter on repeat or paying bills but it’s a disaster for everything else. Kids need to be outside, they need to be bored, and curious, and experience the world around them
Click to expand...
Actually the rat cocaine study showed that when rats were given healthy environments with socialising they did not prefer the cocaine. I'm probably the youngest person here (although I was already out of school by covid) and socialising is not happening because boys literally cannot fucking function without porn and girls don't want to know. Women attempted to set up female only spaces and would socialise irl if they could; those got taken over by trannies and drove women and girls back online where you can endlessly create spaces to escape them even if you say you're okay with it. Think of places like /r/actuallesbians where there aren't any lesbians left. There's stuff set up all the time like 'the London Lonely Girls Club' with thousands of members. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-64963937
But I bet you they also allow trannies. Or think about how many women and girls turn up for taylor swift meet ups and concerts. Girls are finding excuses to meet up irl.

Girls want to socialise irl. Boys don't. Boys want to stay home and goon to porn, and that's been a problem since the 70s, it just got worse with smartphones. Gender wars - aka women not wanting to put up with sex addicts - has just been getting worse since the 70s too. When you talk to 30 year old men they are unbelievably fucking weird and romanticise weird shit like having to find porn magazines in bushes pre-internet. They bring this shit up so much. This is also where all the age gap shit is coming from ... nobody wants to date these men, they're all fucking weird and predatory because they've all watched so much porn that they say that they know it's not real but they secretly think they can act it out in real life. There are no men left who don't zombify themselves on porn. Women internet is if you remove the gender war shit just doing dances on tiktok which doesn't hurt anybody.

edit: weird, I got a response notfication (which only happens for posts now) and then it disappeared. It couldn't be that you responded then deleted and put an autistic sticker on my post because you had a negative response to words on the internet could it? If words are just words then so is a little puzzle piece so why add it at all? why do I need to know that you didn't like my post?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom