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...
I am performing the TERF equivalent of running around firing my AK in the air and shouting Allahu Akbar, i.e. I am enjoying a hot chocolate in my kitchen and smirking. Once again JKR and her money have protected women and children from the Death Eater tranny groomer menace.
 
Otterly said:
The ruling is meaningless then. If we can’t directly and indirectly discriminate what does that mean? Is discrimination saying no you’re a man get out of this female space? Can we call them men without getting arrested? Why are wr putting legal protections on a sexual fetish?
Click to expand...
It should protect female spaces, but no doubt Stonewall is running around telling big companies that this ruling means men in dresses are heckin' women. It's going to take a bunch of lawsuits to make people see sense.

I can see the College of Policing and some magistrate courts being retards too and needing a kicking that could need to go to the Supreme Court.

To really fix this fully we're going to need a Conservative/Reform government will to go to war with the establishment over this and scare the shit out of the House of Lords into behaving too.

I can honestly see the the Tories and Reform talking the talk on the issue and then doing fuck all because it's not worth the headache to impress a bunch of redfem cat ladies who will hate them anyway when they can just grandstand about the occasional rape instead.
 
The point of the ruling is that in UK law sex is assigned at birth, on your birth certificate, and isn't changeable. A Gender Recognition Certificate is just that; a certificate about your gender. No mechanism exists for changing your sex.

This ruling effectively reinstates the old status quo where it is not a violation of equality law to specify that certain jobs, spaces, or associations are restricted to single sex provision, as opposed to single gender. Which means regardless of whether it has a dress on, or even a magical GRC, it's not a woman and you are entitled to refuse it reindeer games on that basis.

You don't have to let it into the refuge. You don't have to let it be your rape counselor. You don't have to let it perform your intimate care. You don't have to let it use your lesbian-only dating app.
 
Cassius Crayfish said:
Amazing how people have forgot that she was a Lib Dem. In the immortal words of the superior Hitchens, "for all I know she still is."
Click to expand...
Churchill was a Liberal Party MP in his younger days. I don't see what your point is. People change as they age, normal humans are not internet autists.

If you think that a person doesn't change their politics drastically over the course of decades then you are as retarded as boomer Labour supporters.
 
FedPostalService said:
Churchill was a Liberal Party MP in his younger days. I don't see what your point is. People change as they age, normal humans are not internet autists.

If you think that a person doesn't change their politics drastically over the course of decades then you are as retarded as boomer Labour supporters.
Click to expand...
Nothing I saw from Truss when she was in Parliament gave any indication that she was any different to her Lib Dem days. Her sudden re-emergence in the last two years as an alleged conservative is not convincing.

Churchill also began his career as a Conservative MP. If anything, he is the opposite of what Truss is claiming to be. His politics never really changed, he just switched parties pragmatically. Truss is claiming that her politics changed drastically in a short period of time while still a member of the Conservatives.
 
Spud said:
The parties back then at least cared about the country.
Click to expand...
You're not making a point either and are just making a bitchy Reddit tier comment rather than admit a stranger is wrong. Not sure why you're being retarded and whiteknighting another retard.

For most of our history it's been liberal conservatives vs conservative liberals. Occasionally socialists would come in and fuck everything up, so one of the previous two factions would have balance the books again.

Now we also have this weird class of neo-liberal globalists who have fucked EVERYTHING up because they convinced themselves, like the socialists, it was possible to have your cake and eat it too.

To suggest Truss is a part of these neo-liberals ,when she coup'd out of office by them almost immediately, just because of a sassy quote by Christopher's dumber and very bitter little brother is absolutely stupid.
 
FedPostalService said:
You're not making a point either and are just making a bitchy Reddit tier comment rather than admit a stranger is wrong. Not sure why you're being retarded and whiteknighting another retard.
Click to expand...
I'm making a joke at your expense lad, calm down, have a sausage roll. Truss would have been a good start but not enough to make any real changes, no mainstream party is going to fix anything either as they're all ideologically aligned with one another, they just pay lip service to their audiences.
 
FedPostalService said:
To suggest Truss is a part of these neo-liberals ,when she coup'd out of office by them almost immediately, just because of a sassy quote by Christopher's dumber and very bitter little brother is absolutely stupid.
Click to expand...
If your whole argument for Truss not being a neoliberal is that she was ousted by other neoliberals, you are the real dumdum.
 
Morethanabitfoolish said:
There was mention Woman's Hour might cover it, I am not aware enough of when it airs on Radio 4 but if it's going to get done today someone doing a local archive of it might be worthwhile.
Click to expand...
Oh God I hope they do.
Biggest women's rights story in decades, defining who does and doesn't get those rights in the era of cross-dressers. To go with it? Or ignore, and prove the level of capture at BBC?

If they do I bet they give time to the weirdo argument of 46XX/46XY fused non-identical twins. I've seen a lot of that today, trying to deboonk the biological definition made by the supreme court. It's all bollox. It's like:

Woman "The sky is blue."
Trans "Not during a dramatic sunset, facing West, through a pair of binoculars because that's orange!"
–When tranny's real intended argument is that if you do a headstand on the lawn, the upsidedown sky is green as grass.

It's a shit argument they have. There's obviously room for a kid with a birth defect to piss in the ladies' room whilst also stopping cross-dressed men taking women's spots in society, sport, prisons etc. However, a drowning troon will clutch at straws.

This is very optimistic, but I see it as a good start. Sal Grover's Tickle v Giggle wouldn't have gone stupid if it were under current UK law. Be proud of our island! Greggs coffee/tea all round!
 
A breakthrough at last…..
“woman refers to women and trans women aren’t women according to Supreme Court….
IMG_5361.webp
At last sense prevails. And there will be much weeping and gnashing of teeth in certain quarters.
 
Capture.webp
Link | Archive

Ian is reeing about the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that the sky is in fact blue. You love to see it.

"I believe today was the day that transgender rights in the UK died" writes India, as if that
a). is what actually happened, and
b). is a bad thing even if it was.
 
Last edited:
Call me a cynic but this supreme court decision is just red meat, nothing will actually change.
 
SnergenFlergen said:
View attachment 7229364
Link

Ian is reeing about the fact that the Supreme Court today ruled that the sky is blue. You love to see it.

"I believe today was the day that transgender rights in the UK died" writes India, as if that is
a). what actually happened, and
b). a bad thing even if it was.
Click to expand...
Archived, I have a suspicion a lot of the lines in there will be quoted soon

I believe today was the day that transgender rights in the UK died.

I’m writing this just minutes after pulling over in the car, numb in shock, to listen to a UK Supreme Court Judge effectively strip me of my rights as a woman under the Equality Act.

The UK’s top legal authority ruled this morning that the legal definition of a woman in the UK under the 2010 legislation does not include transgender women – even those like me who hold gender recognition certificates (GRC).

For Women Scotland – a ‘Women’s Rights’ group that many consider an anti-trans organisation, won their final appeal against the Scottish Government.

Having already been defeated in lower courts, most of the trans community assumed the verdict would be the same today.


Sadly not.

In their ruling, the judges insisted that their interpretation ‘does not remove protection from trans people, with or without a GRC.’

Well frankly I don’t believe that. Telling me, and others like me, that we are not women is a historical injustice and the celebrations of anti-trans voices today prove to me that I am losing protections.

Join Metro's LGBTQ+ community on WhatsApp​

With thousands of members from all over the world, our vibrant LGBTQ+ WhatsApp channel is a hub for all the latest news and important issues that face the LGBTQ+ community.

Simply click on this link, select ‘Join Chat’ and you’re in! Don't forget to turn on notifications!
My heart is broken.

It’s going to take a day or so for me and the rest of the UK trans population to understand the full repercussions of what happens next, but make no mistake – this will embolden anti-trans voices who want the complete destruction of our rights.

This ruling will, in our eyes, inevitably usher in an even harsher era of state-sponsored degradation, stigmatisation and bullying.


I think it’s important to note that not a single trans person was represented during the legal arguments in this case. But ‘gender critical’ groups like Sex Matters and the LGB Alliance were allowed to intervene.

Likewise, the Equality and Human Rights commission, which many trans people believe has been unduly influenced by gender-critical voices.

Not represented, but looming over all of this controversy, is JK Rowling, one of the most prominent voices in support of this legal challenge, who donated £70,000 to For Women Scotland’s legal fees.

I’m sure the author is very happy today but she has inflicted pain on me and others.

She’s already retweeted celebrations about the decision, and has shared her ‘pride’ at the women behind it.

Rowling claims it will protect the rights of women and girls.


Well I’m a woman, and this removes my protections.

Today’s decision will have zero impact on the number of women raped or sexually assaulted.

It doesn’t make women safer. In fact, I believe more women, especially those who don’t have a typical feminine appearance – will now face increased aggression from emboldened bullies accusing them of being trans.

The judgment talks about the ‘practical problems’ that would arise if they rejected this appeal, and say that allowing people like me to be legally considered women would ‘render the Equality Act incoherent and impracticable.’

My identity certainly doesn’t feel incoherent to me.

It’s all so horrible and utterly degrading, and I really cannot believe that this is happening in the UK in 2025. It’s a nightmare for trans people, who have been left unsure of where they stand in law.

I predict today will be looked back on as merely the removal of the first domino that makes the few other pieces of legal recognition and protections we have collapse.

Most notably the Gender Recognition Act, in place since 2004, which is now effectively rendered meaningless and is already a target for right-wing voices.

As expected, those voices, like Kemi Badenoch, are out in force today, with the Tory leader writing ‘Hallelujah’ following this attack on my rights.


But compounding all of this is the fact that Labour – once a party that stood up for the vulnerable and disadvantaged – deliberately sat back and did nothing.Today, they welcomed the ‘clarity’ of the ruling, when they should have trans peoples’ backs.

I genuinely think it might take 100 years or more for my community to recover from this.

It is an historical injustice as big as anything this country has ever seen.

A City Law Firm told Metro: ‘In simple terms, the ruling restricts the definition of “woman” to biological/birth gender, separating this from those who have transitioned and/or reassigned their legal gender.

‘Biological sex is the basis for sex-based rights, while trans people’s rights are upheld through their own protected status.

‘So, while the legal definitions differ, the level of protection under the law remains equal. No group loses legal rights or protections, they are simply covered under different legal categories.

‘This judgment was a matter of interpreting statutory language and does not change the real-world protections available to either biological women or trans people under existing law.’
I believe this case was built on lies and fear-mongering, powered by an incredibly well-connected hate movement that has used ‘Women’s Rights’ as a disguise to exclude trans people from spaces we use.

Trans people have no money, no representation and no powerful allies.

Already our options seem limited as the Scottish Government has ‘accepted’ the ruling.

But I will never allow any politician, any judge, any millionaire author, to change this fact.

I have always been a woman – and I will always be a woman. I had to fight for it, and nobody will ever take that away from me.
Click to expand...
Anyone capture the SNP agreeing with the ruling since India is ranting about it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom