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.

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:
Soo on March 26th it'll be 5 years to day they stripped us all of basic and fundamental rights and freedoms under pretence of "flattening the curve" and "stopping the spread".

I'm not sure how, in keeping with the rules, two tier, kneeler Kier quares the mental circle of having had his "voice coach" drive to see him on Christmas Eve. While you were having the everloving shit scared out of you about "killing" your relatives, he had his "voice coach" travel over 50 miles to go see him. He was also pictutred sharing drinkypoos with Rayner, when people were forbidden from socialising outside of their "bubbles".

The cunt is just as guilty of flouting the law as Johnson was, and while I emphatically believe the laws were 100% BS and covid was grossly exaggerrated to hide the fact it escaped from a US funded gain of function lab in China (my pet theory is they needed an excuse to conduct mass testing of mRNA based vaccines) the fact they rammed it down our throats, scared the everloving shit out of people, and lied and lied and lied and lied pure boils my piss.

They took so much from so many, did so much harm on such a vast scale, the flat out murdered people, whipped into histrionics over all this by putting them into needless comas and shoving them onto ventilators.They effectively privatised by stealth the NHS dentistry system and took a ton of necessary health care from the HS from people. And all the while these smug, grinning cunts knew it was all a lie and carried on as normal, because they knew it was a lie.

I met my better half in early part of May 2022. When this whole fuckshow booted off, he was living with his ex. From March 2020 until she left him in early 2022, the poor bastard was not higged by her at all.Not once. No physical affection whatsover. She worked for the NHS and was so sompletely indoctrinated by the bullshit, she refused to even touch him. Jokes on her because he is a thoroughly decent chap, but the fact the lies, the endless fucking lies and the propaganda could do that to a person, to make them not even touch the person they apparently love, is beyond sick


Anyone else remember the video of Rayner and Starmer getting on their knees for the "black lives matter" movement? A man who gets on his knees for nothing isn't worth fecking anything.

Mussolini the whole lot of them from lampposts outside Westminster (in Minecraft/Roblox/Camp Penguin).
 
The cunt is just as guilty of flouting the law as Johnson was
Don’t forget Labour had a booze fuelled knees up around the same time as Partygate but this was memory holed by the media and dropped quickly by the police as they were actively trying to sabotage the Tory government there was no wrong doing.

In other good news it looks like our lizard overlords have realised what a disaster Reeves is and have set the press on her. When even the clowns at the BBC turn on you it’s over for a Labour minister.

I still can’t believe the four great offices of state are held by three retards and a closet homosexual.
 
Don’t forget Labour had a booze fuelled knees up around the same time as Partygate but this was memory holed by the media and dropped quickly by the police as they were actively trying to sabotage the Tory government there was no wrong doing.
I'm reasonably certain one of the fellows at the party was upper echelons of the police force involved in investigating. Can't find any confirmation though.
I still can’t believe the four great offices of state are held by three retards and a closet homosexual.
Because it's normally four?
 
I'm not sure how, in keeping with the rules, two tier, kneeler Kier quares the mental circle of having had his "voice coach" drive to see him on Christmas Eve.
Simple, he declared her a key worker, and key workers were allowed to travel for work, ergo everything is fine, stop asking questions. Of course most normal people recognize that if you made a list of jobs and ranked them how key they were during the pandemic, voice coach probably wouldn't even be on it since it's such a fucking unnecessary thing most people wouldn't even think of it.
 
blue lagoon
not only the worst chippy in the city, but the worst chippy in the city for literally decades, it was the worst chippy in the city when my parents' generation were youngsters. The only decent bit of advice my father ever gave me as a kid was that when you were steaming not to get the idea to go to the Blue Lagoon because not even drink made it tolerable.
 
Last edited:
not only the worst chippy in the city, but the worst chippy in the city for literally decades, it was the worst chippy in the city when my parents' generation were youngsters. The only decent bit of advice my father ever gave me as a kid was that when you were steaming not to get the idea to go to the Blue Lagoon because not even drink made it tolerable.
Maybe if you wanted to lose 3lb via a torrent of liquid shit?

Is The Vale pub still open in Glasgow? The one near the train station that's not Glasgow central? I had a good night in there once enjoying Sahara Nuts and a Guinness or three. I've not seen that particular bar snack sold anywhere else since.
 
Last edited:
I love the fact they've tried so hard to hide that Starmer is a bufty boy who Lord Ali porks and who had an affair and a bastard,but that it's common knowledge.
 
I love the fact they've tried so hard to hide that Starmer is a bufty boy who Lord Ali porks and who had an affair and a bastard,but that it's common knowledge.
Greetings Citizen

It is my pleasure to inform you, on behalf of the Prime Minister, that your bank account has been awarded a demerit for:

Far right thuggery

Your assets will now be redistributed among what Labour identifies as the working class, specifically Blackrock employees, to support building a better Britain for the peoples of MENA and the Balkans.

We thank you for your participation.
 
Won't somebody think of the poor widdle councillors?!? Link/Archive
Gosh it's almost as though their decisions have real, tangible impacts upon people and that when they fuck it up, people hold them to account. Who would have thought?

Public sector workers are a special breed of worksy, lazy, inept bastards.
 
Last edited:
I'm not going to bother posting the many, many articles across all media about the poor refugees freezing in tents in Manchester since the council just won its bid to be allowed to move them on. I am however going to archive this BBC article which shows they couldn't find a single woman to interview.

And in totally unrelated news why don't we do free cash for the homeless in Manchester? Oh sorry, UBI.
Academics and campaigners have claimed a new basic income pilot in Greater Manchester could “end absolute poverty” in the city region, starting with people experiencing homelessness – if it gets the green light from mayor Andy Burnham.
UBI Lab Network and Northumbria University experts have proposed a new basic income pilot for Greater Manchester. The model lays out how a £1,600 a month payment to create an income floor nobody could fall below would boost wellbeing, send poverty rates plummeting and tackle unemployment.
The group sent the proposal to Burnham on Monday (10 February) after he signalled his intention to launch a basic income in the region in his manifesto for re-election last year. The Greater Manchester mayor has also previously pledged to make the case for a basic income with the Treasury.
Alison Hawdale, co-founder of UBI Lab Manchester, told the Big Issue that Manchester’s devolution deal and the “imagination” of the city makes it the perfect place to develop the idea.
Greater Manchester is a proud and dynamic part of the world, and for hundreds of years its famously creative citizens have shown themselves to be resilient, resourceful and forward-thinking,” added Hawdale.
“But we have chronic problems around poverty, homelessness, mental health and crime which have not gone away, despite decades of action from local and national government, community groups and business. It’s time to try something new.”


A universal basic income has proven unpopular in Westminster with critics arguing that it is expensive and does little to boost employment and the economic inactivity that Labour has been struggling to shift.
But the idea’s champions argue giving everyone a universal payment and using the tax system to recoup money could be a better alternative to a growing benefits bill.
The idea is untested at national scale but there are existing pilots in the UK.
The Welsh government is currently operating a two-year study with more than 500 care leavers while there was a proposed basic income pilot in East Finchley and Jarrow in London.
In both trials, participants earn £1,600 per a month with no strings attached while academics test what it means for their lives. Results from both trials are currently under wraps.

Meanwhile, the Scottish government has been developing a minimum income guarantee for some time. Academics argued that a basic income was more efficient than a minimum income guarantee as it is provided first then taxed rather than being topped up when peoples’ income falls below a threshold.
Basic income campaigners in Manchester have also looked to international examples to shape the proposal.
UBI Lab Manchester hosted an event with Mark Donovan, founder of the Denver Basic Income Project, last February. Donovan is currently running a pilot project in Denver involving homeless people, paying $10.8m (£8.7m) to over 800 people so far.
Donovan told attendees how the interim results of the pilot showed that homeless people receiving a regular and unconditional income were able to make significant positive changes to their lives, thanks to the financial security offered by the basic income.
“The time has been now for a long time,” Hawdale told the Big Issue.
“During Covid, we definitely pushed it because the idea of furlough is not that far from the idea of a basic income.
“Why it is gaining a lot of traction at the moment is because of AI. When I first came into this a few years ago to shout about ‘the robots are coming’ it didn’t get you anywhere, but since ChatGPT basically there has been an explosion of interest in there just might not be the jobs.”

Now campaigners want Greater Manchester to be the next test bed, starting with hundreds of people experiencing homelessness in the city region.
Campaigners hope the cash would help provide people the financial security that could provide a platform to turn their lives around.
The pilot would run over two years, and would see each individual participant – not household – receive £1,600 per month. The cost for this would be £7.68m for 200 recipients, or £3.84m for 100 recipients.
The experts said the costs to run a pilot could be raised through a combination of central government support, public donations, reallocated service funding from the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and support from philanthropic organisations.
They also hope this will convince Burnham, who has vowed to make the case for the idea with Keir Starmer’s government, to take the idea to the Treasury.
The Labour government has targeted a shift towards prevention in its bid to reduce homelessness. Ministers have said they will spend £1bn tackling homelessness and rough sleeping in the next year with a significant increase in spending on prevention.
Burnham has launched a “Housing First philosophy” in Greater Manchester, designed to use more preventative approaches to tackling homelessness and poverty as well as boosting wellbeing.
He wrote in his 2024 re-election manifesto: “The evidence from our Housing First pilot is that, if you set people up to succeed, the vast majority will and, in turn, that saves money on crisis provision in other public services.
“For this reason, we believe the logical next step, after the success of our Housing First pilot, is to bring forward a basic income pilot, as suggested by Compass. This would fit well with our new Live Well concept and would test whether a different, more preventative way of supporting people would lead to better use of public funds.”
The paper submitted to Burnham on Monday – titled Basic Income for Greater Manchester: Plans for a Feasible, Affordable and Popular Pilot – insisted a basic income could help further efforts to prevent people falling into crisis.
Campaigners previously met with the mayor to make the case for a basic income ahead of his re-election last year.
One of the report’s authors, Eliott Johnson, a vice chancellor’s fellow in public policy at Northumbria University, told the Big Issue that focusing on people experiencing homelessness in Manchester offers the chance to show a “proof of concept” for the idea.
But, ultimately, he sees the need for a basic income to be much more universal.
“I think in that post-pandemic, we have a complete sea change in opinion about what we need to provide everyday people,” said Johnson.
“Suddenly, people who never considered that they might have to rely on the welfare system were exposed to it. So we’re in a completely new world.
“I think one thing about Manchester and the devolution deal it has is that it enables quite significant progressive policy making potentially to be made. And I think Andy Burnham understands that.”


Then a quick screaming rant by Louis Chilton about JK Rowling. Always good the Independent gives a home to the insane.
Call it Harry Potter and the Cursed Casting Process. It has been nearly two years since Warner Bros announced the development of a lavish new TV series adapting JK Rowling’s fantasy novels, and there’s yet to be a single actor confirmed. This week, it was reported that John Lithgow (Dexter) is set to take on the role of Professor Dumbledore, the elderly wizard previously played on screen by the late Richard Harris, Michael Gambon, and, in the abortive prequel saga, Jude Law. Names such as I May Destroy You’s Paapa Essiedu have also been bandied around, reportedly in the running to play the oily Professor Snape. It’s easy to see why actors might be drawn to Harry Potter 2.0: it’s lucrative, high-profile work, a TV show that YouGov polling suggests four in 10 Britons will watch. But make no mistake: this new series should have every sensible actor running for the hills.
Even if you leave aside the biggest and most intractable reason actors should steer clear of Potter – namely, Rowling – there are countless grounds why signing on would be a dicey proposition. For one, the previous adaptation (the eight-part Potter film series, which ran from 2001 to 2011) was beloved by fans, and remains, for many, definitive. If you’re an actor cast as Snape, for instance, and Alan Rickman’s career-defining performance is your yardstick, it’s going to be impossible to measure up. That producers will be hoping Potter runs for seven seasons – one per book, each corresponding to a school year at Hogwarts – only makes the project less appealing; it is a major commitment for most of the cast, one that will define an entire chunk of their professional lives.
The main reason actors should be avoiding this new series, though, is a simple, moral one. Rowling, the creator of Harry Potter and an executive producer on the new show, has over the past few years devoted much of her time to sharing anti-transgender rhetoric on social media. She has become the de facto face of the anti-trans movement in Britain, and is, as a result, reviled by many trans people, queer people, and straight people with compassion for and awareness of the struggles facing the trans community. Several members of the Potter film cast, including Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson, have distanced themselves from Rowling’s views and affirmed their support for trans rights; the series offers the chance to reframe the legacy of Potter on screen with a cast whose very involvement will constitute a tacit endorsement of Rowling.
It’s worth noting that it isn’t just some purely symbolic problem. As well as using her considerable public platform to proliferate anti-trans views, Rowling has donated large sums of money to organisations seeking to restrict trans rights through legislative change. This TV series will be making Rowling, already roughly a billionaire, richer, and to work on this project is to be complicit in it. The older cast – actors such as Lithgow, was he indeed to take on the role of Dumbledore – will rightly shoulder the most criticism from LGBT+ circles. It is easier to make excuses for the younger cast members, the series promising as it does a huge amount of exposure, as well as what’s probably the biggest paycheck of their career. But it’s nonetheless a moral compromise, and, for many people outraged by Rowling, will tarnish their reputations going forward. Even on a practical level, the issue creates myriad complications: the ethics of the project will be discussed widely and repeatedly when the series comes out, and actors will face questions, criticisms and scrutiny for their involvement. Who wants that? (The “exposure”, too, is fickle and illusory: just look at the careers of Radcliffe, Watson and Rupert Grint – all of whom struggled to find their creative footing in the wake of Potter’s success.)
There’s another thing to consider. The original Harry Potter films featured a nearly entirely white cast. Rowling’s source material faced criticisms, too, on ethnic grounds, particularly concerning stereotyping in characters such as the explosion-loving Northern Irish student Seamus Finnigan, bookish Asian pupil Cho Chang – whose name, many have suggested, is a careless mashup of different origins – and the avaricious hook-nosed goblins running the banking system, which many have read as antisemitic. (Asked once on X (Twitter) whether there were in fact any Jewish students at Hogwarts, Rowling issued a much-mocked five-word reply: “Anthony Goldstein, Ravenclaw, Jewish wizard.”) Rowling and others have disputed some of these criticisms in the past, and the author has suggested that prominent characters such as Hermione were written without a specified racial identity. It’s almost certain that the new Harry Potter series will feature more diversity than the original, and will likely cast people of colour in some of the major previously white roles, as the stage show Harry Potter and the Cursed Child did when casting a Black actor as Hermione. But what this means, in practice, is that it will be actors of colour who are used as the face of the project, who will go out on press tours and are held to account for Rowling’s opinions.

It’s frankly rather ridiculous that a book series about the magical adventures of a boy wizard has become such a political minefield. Many of the people who watch this new series will be oblivious to the discourse around its creator, to the ways she is hated and feared by so many marginalised people in the UK. But that doesn’t make it any less real. It’s a minefield of Rowling’s own making, and it’ll be the cast who have to navigate their way through it.
 
Back
Top Bottom