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...
For the very first time non-Christian figures would be represented in the coronation of a British monarch. According to a report by the Times, this comes as King Charles III whose coronation is going to take place next month has stated his desire to be a defender of all faiths.
Click to expand...

Now fix the Hinduphobia problem
 
PS1gamenwatch said:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=j8hS-_1MBb8

Now fix the Hinduphobia problem
Click to expand...
Lol, COE was started by a retarded faggot, and will be ended by retarded faggots, like pottery.
How can the man who would be king, lack any semblance of pride for the position like Charles does? He isn't even wearing the crown on the money the absolute fuckstick. Obviously the monarchy is a vestigial arm of a bygone power structure, but why is he so blatantly reveling in that fact?
 
Johan Schmidt said:
Lol, COE was started by a retarded faggot, and will be ended by retarded faggots, like pottery.
How can the man who would be king, lack any semblance of pride for the position like Charles does? He isn't even wearing the crown on the money the absolute fuckstick. Obviously the monarchy is a vestigial arm of a bygone power structure, but why is he so blatantly reveling in that fact?
Click to expand...
He's 75 years old, has long Covid, peripheral edema and heart problems. There's no point getting comfy, he won't be occupying the throne for long, fortunately.

Not that I'm that big a fan of Wills, but at least he hasn't spent the last 3/4 of a century blithering on about things he doesn't understand. If William learned one thing from his grandma, it was to shut the fuck up at the very least.
 
Last edited:
Johan Schmidt said:
And she lived for ages, and was beloved by all. Coincidence?
Click to expand...
Let's be fair, that's never going to happen for Charles. He's going to have a short reign and do some unlikable stuff, things I think he has already accepted. His role is to make matters easier for the next ruler and honestly the fact that he's trimming down the family, urging more of them to actually engage with the public so support remains present and likely to be the one that tells the ginger failure and his fame-seeking wife to fuck off directly into the nearest hole suggests he is on the right path.

Spunt of course nailed the lifespan thing too.
 
FudgeFish said:
I have no idea why any country would willingly allow Muslim immigrants to take up residence. They're demonstrably a net-negative to any society they touch.
Click to expand...
They should have to convert to a real religion, like Christianity or Judaism, and quit worshipping demons, which is Islam.

Otherwise, they should just stay back in their backwards Third World shitholes, where they can molest children to their heart's delight. This is not something they should be allowed to do in real countries inhabited by humans.
 
Kane Lives said:
Isn't the Defender of Faith thing primarily a Catholic thing to begin with? Something the COE hasn't been since the 16th century.
Click to expand...
Not quite, it comes from Henry VIII. Early in his life he wrote a treatise attacking Martin Luther and was awarded the title "Defender of the Faith" by the Pope for defending Catholicism and generally being a good boy. Then when he split the CofE from the Catholic Church so he could re-marry and have an heir and steal all the gold from England's monasteries be a good Protestant, he kept the title for himself as a Fuck You to the Pope for excommunicating him. English, then British, monarchs have used the title ever since.

It's a bit like how the trains to Paris used to leave from Waterloo station. Being irritating to the continentals is a proud and ancient tradition.
 
I made a passing comment back in 2020 when Charles got the Chinavirus that "Coronavirus is as close to Coronation as he's ever going to get". I will never forgive Queen Liz for dying so selfishly, nor Charles for selfishly not dying, and ruining my joke. Fuckers.
 
Tequila Jong said:
I made a passing comment back in 2020 when Charles got the Chinavirus that "Coronavirus is as close to Coronation as he's ever going to get". I will never forgive Queen Liz for dying so selfishly, nor Charles for selfishly not dying, and ruining my joke. Fuckers.
Click to expand...
You never know, he might drop dead right before he's crowned.
 
AnOminous said:
They should have to convert to a real religion, like Christianity or Judaism, and quit worshipping demons, which is Islam.

Otherwise, they should just stay back in their backwards Third World shitholes, where they can molest children to their heart's delight. This is not something they should be allowed to do in real countries inhabited by humans.
Click to expand...

Not to go off on some bizarre religious rant, but I've always maintained that Muhammad - if he truly had some kind of legitimate spiritual vision - it was very clearly with a demon. Angels in the Bible tend to immediately let humans know they shouldn't be afraid, whereas whatever Muhammad encountered apparently felt like trying to choke him to death was a solid introduction.
 
Do hate to break in the religious discussion but we've got another NHS strike coming...which is astoundingly enough actually potentially illegal.

TLDR: the ballot they did supporting strike actions gives them the power to do so for 6 months. The strikers have pointedly chosen the next strike to overrun by one day because they want to bait legal action.

www.independent.co.uk

NHS tells nurses that planned strike is illegal

The RCN said it would “forcibly” resist any potential legal action from the NHS over strikes
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
Healthcare leaders have written to the Royal College of Nursing suggesting its plans to extend strikes to midnight on 2 May are unlawful, it has emerged.

NHS Employers, which represents every hospital in the country, has written to the RCN’s warning that legally it must end its strike on 1 May.


In order to hold any strikes beyond this date there would need to be a new ballot of members, the organisation said.

Its legal warning was in response to the RCN’s plans to hold a 48-hour strike with no services exempt from 8pm on 30 April to 8pm on 2 May. Its latest strike comes after the union’s members voted to reject a five per cent pay rise offer from the government.

The RCN said any legal action by NHS Employers “will be forcefully resisted” and that it would seek to recover any legal costs.


In a statement Daniel Mortimer, the chief executive of NHS Employers, said: “The RCN ballot for industrial action ended at midday on 2nd November 2022 and allows the union six months to undertake any action approved by that ballot.

“NHS Employers has written to the RCN stating our view – on behalf of Trusts in England, and with clear legal advice – that the RCN’s mandate for industrial action ends at midnight on Monday 1st May. We have therefore asked the RCN to amend its guidance to its members regarding any action planned for Tuesday 2nd May 2023. We are in ongoing exchanges with the RCN on this matter.”


According to The Guardian, the letter from NHS Employers could result in a high-court action against the RCN. NHS Employers declined to comment when asked whether it had threatened the union with formal legal action and declined to share its letter.

The RCN said in a repsonse to NHS Employer’s letter: “I would refer you to RJB Mining (UK) Limited v National Union of Mineworkers [1995] IRLR 556. This was a case relating to the provisions as they were prior to 1 March 2017 when unions were required to take action within 4 weeks of the date of the ballot. In that matter, the last date of the ballot was 16 May and 4 weeks later was 12 June. The union called strike action to commence at midnight on 12/13 June.


“The Court of Appeal held the 4 week period in section 234 (as it was then) finished at the end of 12 June i.e. the final day. Furthermore, the law does not recognise part of a day and a day extends until its last moment namely midnight.

“That being the position, I trust you agree that our strike action on 2 May 2023 until 8pm or the start of the night shift does have the support of the ballot and is lawful. However, and if any employers do apply for an injunction on this basis, it will be forcefully resisted by our leading Counsel retained on this matter and we would also seek to recover our costs if any such application is unsuccessful which I believe it would be.”


Meanwhile, in a fresh plea, NHS leaders urged the RCN to allow some exemptions to the strikes next month warning safety of vulnerable patients is at risk.

Sean Duggan, the chief executive of the NHS Confederation’s mental health network, said: “We urge the RCN to reconsider its stance on derogations in this latest round of strike action.


“In particular, high secure and inpatient mental health services, as well as emergency departments and critical care must be considered as life and limb services and therefore nursing provision must be granted in these areas.

“Unless these areas are made exempt by the RCN for the upcoming strikes, as they have been up until this point, patient safety will be put at direct risk.”

An RCN spokesman said: “Nursing staff don’t want to go on strike.

“We have given the NHS and Government two weeks to plan for this and it’s the responsibility of the employer to maintain safe staffing levels.


“There will be nurses working those days but we are asking the NHS to run what services it can safely without our members while they take legal action.


“We know this is a difficult task and there are exceptional circumstances where we would call it off in any hospital. But we must remember employers already make difficult staffing arrangements work on most days.”
Click to expand...
Here's the Recommend to show the subtle bias on display for the paper.

Recommended​

Click to expand...
 
Morethanabitfoolish said:
Wage increase mostly.
Click to expand...
The strike started when junior and new nurses were given something like a 17% increase, but higher paid nurses were given smaller increases as they were already earning significantly more. The effect of the original proposal was fair and equitable, as it gave those most needing it a significant bump in income, whilst those who were already earning more than enough to survive got a smaller, but still visible increase somewhat in line with inflation. The problem with the strikes is that they're now demanding the same percentage increase across every pay grade. It would income disparity and place a significant financial burden on the NHS, right when it's trying to find the funds to increase recruitment.

They always frame it as "junior" staff making the demands, but they would have already got what they're asking for under the previous proposals. It's the senior staff who are driving these strikes; they got greedy and are exploiting juniors (who are already overworked in comparison) for their own financial gain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom