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...
Lawyers across Scotland are expected to join a near "unanimous" boycott of a pilot scheme for juryless rape trials.
Stuart Murray, vice president of the Scottish Solicitors Bar Association, said at least seven bodies had voted against the government proposals.
Legal professionals have said the scheme, proposed to tackle low conviction rates, could undermine the judicial system.
First Minister Humza Yousaf has defended the plan.
He pointed to a "weight of evidence" that juries are affected by rape myths and misconceptions.
Click to expand...

Humza Yousef is continuing his unremitting quest to alienate literally fucking everyone since he took over the SNP is trying to ram through a reform that would make rape trials juryless. Shit's such a retarded idea basically every lawyer in Scotland is refusing to take part in the clown shows that will inevitably result.
 
East_Clintwood said:


Humza Yousef is continuing his unremitting quest to alienate literally fucking everyone since he took over the SNP is trying to ram through a reform that would make rape trials juryless. Shit's such a retarded idea basically every lawyer in Scotland is refusing to take part in the clown shows that will inevitably result.
Click to expand...
jesus christ. I was a tiny bit willing to think he might just be an unwitting patsy, manoeuvred into place by sturgeon as a fallguy for all the corruption she oversaw, but he's clearly neck deep in the whole debacle. Entirely willing to drive the whole country off a cliff in service of the grand plan.
 
East_Clintwood said:


Humza Yousef is continuing his unremitting quest to alienate literally fucking everyone since he took over the SNP is trying to ram through a reform that would make rape trials juryless. Shit's such a retarded idea basically every lawyer in Scotland is refusing to take part in the clown shows that will inevitably result.
Click to expand...
That is impressively evil but pure red meat to the insane progressive types. The low conviction rate of rape cases is something they hate and being able to dispense with the need for convincing evidence and simply get the right judge would cause a lot of them to go mad. That, as a fringe benefit, a sufficiently political appointee would also refuse to convict cases where the rapist was caught dick inside their victim if they're the right sort of rapist would be even better for many of them.
teriyakiburns said:
jesus christ. I was a tiny bit willing to think he might just be an unwitting patsy, manoeuvred into place by sturgeon as a fallguy for all the corruption she oversaw, but he's clearly neck deep in the whole debacle. Entirely willing to drive the whole country off a cliff in service of the grand plan.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly certain he was the one behind trying to push laws to require reporting of untoward statements in people's own homes. So if granny said she hates that nasty Pakistani man running the country you need to shop her. Off that alone he's as mad as the usual SNP lot.
 
It won't even work, is the most pointless thing about this. Such evidence as we have around juries being influenced by rape myths also shows that judges sitting alone are more influenced by them, particularly at sentencing. This isn't an intervention that will meaningfully do anything. I understand fully why Lady Dorrian felt she had to recommend it, but the pilot courts would only have returned similar conviction rates. The truth is, rape is overwhelmingly a crime that happens between people who know each other, in private, and trying to prove such a crime in the absence of overwhelming (and I do mean, overwhelming) physical violence beyond reasonable doubt is the steepest hill to climb in any justice system.

All the defence has to do is evidence a reasonable doubt that you consented to the activity, and that's it, no conviction. People don't like to hear that, but it's true. It is incredibly difficult to secure a rape conviction in Scotland, even with evidence of injury and violence. I have been both lawyer and victim in this process more than once, and this is the reality of it. The jury are not entitled to convict on the balance of probabilities. Juries are confronted every week with cases where they are satisfied it's more likely than not that the incident was a rape, they believe the accused is probably a rapist, but the accused is entitled to be found not guilty if there is reasonable doubt about consent. Think for a second about what you would have to do to prove beyond reasonable doubt you didn't consent to sex with an existing partner in your own home. Forget it. Unless your man batters you half to death first (oh, prove that as well), the benefit of the doubt goes to the accused (as it should, in any justice system).

Forget in most cases even your classic stranger rape, as well. I couldn't identify my attacker because it was pitch black, he was wearing a balaclava and he grabbed me from behind into the bushes. I had no fucking idea what the guy looked like. By the time of the forensics being taken, the scar from the bite mark no longer matched the dental imprints they took from me closely enough for it to be proved that it was me who bit him. The only reason he was convicted was that the poor lassies he had actually managed to rape had had the rape kits done and there was a DNA match to all of them. I didn't even testify because nothing I could say could actually link my attack to this man enough to substantially strengthen the prosecution case. I know it was him. The police, the prosecution, the defence, everyone knew it was him. That's not enough.

Anything involving child witnesses is a total bust. Anything involving child witnesses is a type of institutional cruelty visited on already deeply traumatised little people. It is something I pray never to witness or be involved in again in my whole life.

I respect from the bottom of my heart those victims of rape and serious sexual assault who continue to report their attacks to the police in Scotland, but I would never repeat the experience myself and I would strongly dissuade anyone close to me from doing so, either. The nature of the crime presents too high an evidential barrier, and the nature of the process of investigation and prosecution is to trap people into reliving that trauma for years, without any real idea of when the trial might happen and the experience be over.

You're not going to "get justice", you're not going to see your attacker punished; you are much better off focusing on getting your life back together and doing what you can to heal and move through the trauma. Wasting three years of your life waiting to see if they get the jail (they won't) is just giving them three more years of your life. I didn't even get past statement stage in circumstances when my attacker was known to me. If the police had been prepared to take that further, he might not have made a serious attempt on my life and he might not have finally been put away for terrorising me for years afterwards. There is no point in revisiting that, though. The legal system cannot protect people in the position I was in then.

There are things you just have to live with, as best you can. Get therapy, get help. Don't bother about 'protecting the evidence': do what you need to do to overcome what has happened to you. People close to you can hurt you. The only thing preventing them from doing that with effective legal impunity is whether or not they are a person who is willing and able to hurt you. You will not be able to protect yourself adequately from harm, particularly if you are female, without fully internalising what that means.
 
Fucking Dong Gone's faggotry almost made us miss perhaps the most important news story in ages, the Somerset Gimp has been caught at last.

https://archive.is/Ex8qi
A man has appeared in court following a series of incidents involving someone terrorising villagers in Somerset while wearing a gimp suit.
Joshua Hunt, 31, is accused of two counts of affray and one count each of possession of a bladed article and committing an act of outraging public decency.
One of the affray charges and the alleged possession of a bladed article offence is in relation to an incident on Monday in Bleadon, near Western-super-Mare.
The second affray charge is over an incident in the same area on 7 May, while the outraging public decency charge relates to an incident in Cleeve on 25 October last year.
Hunt, of Claverham, Somerset spoke only to confirm his name, address and date of birth during a hearing at North Somerset Magistrates' Court in Worle on Wednesday.
He did not enter any pleas to the four charges he is accused of.
Prosecutor Leanne Grover told the court a member of the public reported being approached by a man wearing a "gimp suit" to police in October last year.
The further alleged incidents took place earlier this week when female motorists saw a man in the street dressed in a black costume.
Click to expand...
ladies-and-gentleman-we-got-him.gif
 
We got one fun one from the local elections at least. Tories won a seat but somehow the Labour candidate was announced as the winner. Now said candidate refuses to step down forcing it to court, where they will lose.

A local election result is set to be decided in court after officials accidentally announced victory for a Labour candidate, who now refuses to step down for the real Tory winner.

Julie Green, a Conservative councillor for the Lancashire town of Nelson, was robbed of her electoral win eight days ago after the name of her Labour rival, Patricia Hannah-Wood, was mistakenly read out.

Officials quickly realised their error and apologised – but a legal quirk meant the declaration could not be changed. And instead of acknowledging the mistake and standing down, Ms Hannah-Wood celebrated her fake victory.

Now only a legal challenge can reverse the result, which Tories say will take up to six months and cost local taxpayers more than £10,000.

'You can't make these things up. I am flabbergasted,' said Mrs Green. 'It's not democracy when somebody steals your seat. I can't understand why somebody would behave so immorally. If you know you've lost, you have to accept it.'

Tory councillor Kieran McGladdery who witnessed the bungled announcement, said: 'It was an extremely unfortunate mistake caused by fatigue and tiredness.

'We could see the piles of paperwork as they were counting the votes, and the blue pile was visibly larger than the red pile,' he said.

He told The Mail on Sunday that when officials declared a Labour victory, 'somebody ran to the front and said [the announcement] was wrong. The incorrect results were written on the slip of paper.'

Rose Rouse, Pendle Borough Council's chief executive who announced the result as returning officer, rushed off to get legal advice. 'She came back and said the declaration was a legal statement and it was too late to reverse it,' Mr McGladdery said.

Labour has the majority on Nelson Town Council and this ward, Marsden West, would not have changed that. But the Conservatives were still furious at Labour.

'They didn't give a monkey's. They were whooping and hollering, celebrating wildly, as if they had actually won,' McGladdery said. 'Pat was there with other Labour members. They said: 'We're keeping the result, it's your problem'.'

Fury mounted last week when Ms Hannah-Wood attended a town council meeting and put herself forward for three committee roles. On social media, locals labelled the power grab as 'Machiavellian'.

The Mail on Sunday tried to reach Ms Hannah-Wood but she was unavailable for comment. However, another Labour councillor, Yvonne Tennant, said: 'All I know is that the returning officer made the announcement and apparently that is legally standing. As far as I know, nobody's approached Pat.'

Ms Hannah-Wood, who is transgender, hit the headlines two years ago when she told Labour Party conference about being targeted with transphobic abuse in the women's toilets while attending the event in Brighton.

Pendle Council admitted the mix-up was 'a simple human error' and apologised, but confirmed the result can now only be challenged with a court hearing. Electoral law says declarations are 'final and cannot be amended', but returning officers can correct any error in their announcement, 'provided it is done immediately'.

Electoral Commission spokeswoman Orla Hennessy said: 'The council would need to confirm why it wasn't immediately corrected.'
Click to expand...
 
Fareal said:
but I'm absolutely fucking hating the new vacuum packed mince at Sainsbury's. Fuck all point in mincing it to then vacuum pack it back into a brick of flesh.
Click to expand...
Oh the vac packed meat… It pisses me off too. What are they thinking? And yes the quality of produce is down the shitter - I’ve had mince from Sainsbury’s tha was rotten in the middle, chicken off covered in white cultures, and the veg is terrible. Thank goodness it’s starting to hit growing season.
Fareal said:
All the defence has to do is evidence a reasonable doubt that you consented to the activity, and that's it, no conviction. People don't like to hear that, but it's true.
Click to expand...
It is true. I do wonder as well what porn availability does to peoples perception of what women (and men) will consent to. The Natalie Donnelly case, and there was another I cant remember the name where she was taken home by a guy from a bus stop and beaten half to death, and a similar case with a young man. The defence in all was ‘they consented and liked it rough.’ I suspect t that very few jurors would be convinced by that twenty years ago. Now with the availability of hard porn and the over sexualisation and normalisation of stuff like anal, it’s used as a defence more.
A generation ago of a man had done that in the community I was from he’d have disappeared one night and nobody would have seen anything at all.
I usually hate masks but I’ll make an exception for ‘Patricia’
 
Fareal said:
Story is not complete without the opportunity to behold the Labour councillor in question. Tranny of the Week, hands down: https://www.itv.com/news/granada/20...ays-she-faced-transphobic-abuse-at-conference
Click to expand...
I was avoiding the easy shot. That it is a trans councillor should be irrelevant, any MP who has lost the vote and "somehow" manages to claim the position is a joke and that they refuse to stand down makes the party as whole look weaker as a result. Kier should be publicly telling them to step aside and instead he will be hoping the story does not go into the wider public eye.
 
Morethanabitfoolish said:
I was avoiding the easy shot. That it is a trans councillor should be irrelevant, any MP who has lost the vote and "somehow" manages to claim the position is a joke and that they refuse to stand down makes the party as whole look weaker as a result. Kier should be publicly telling them to step aside and instead he will be hoping the story does not go into the wider public eye.
Click to expand...
I would have to say though that a man who thinks he has become a woman can easily believe that he has won an election he actually lost. Not reality-based people, the trannies. Completely agree party HQ should be telling him to fuck right off, but ermagerd twansphobia. Any non-tranny would have been shot by now.

@Otterly: Chloe Miazek, the bus stop lassie. Up in Aberdeen. Blind drunk and chucked out a club on her own past midnight. God knows if she even was awake when he got her in the car, let alone when he killed her in his flat. She was only twenty. He got a whole four years. I remember a case in Scotland about 20 years ago where the husband killed the wife by shoving a broom handle into her vagina and rectum until she bled out, and claimed it was rough sex. However I recall him getting life for murder, and parole eligibility at not before 30 years. This pish, that severe and indeed fatal injury is 'part of sex', was not entertained at all by jury or judge. You can't consent to this shite, and let's be real here: no one is consenting to this shite. The cases in the last few years have involved throats being slit and multiple spinal fractures. No one is asking for that. I sadly think you have something there about the (now) widespread availability of considerably more violent pornography than was readily accessible even twenty years ago. You could get it of course, but it wasn't mainstream content the way it is now. The young folks who are getting their ideas about How The Sex Is Done from internet porn are definitely getting different ideas that we grew up with about what to expect.
 
Story in the Guardian about PC Samantha Lee aka 'Officer Naughty'.


Turns out that before he murdered Sara Everard, Wayne Couzens was caught on CCTV committing indecent exposure. PC Lee was assigned to investigate the case but never bothered getting the CCTV, or doing any sort of investigation.

4753536.jpg


What's funny is the sections of the media have known about it for years. However PC Lee didn't really fit into anyone's narrative. Only for the fact that she seems to be enjoying the negative attention it probably wouldn't be in the media now.
 
Chaos Theorist said:
@Fareal what do you think about women who use false claims about sexual assault against men who have upset or rejected them
Click to expand...
I’m not who you were asking but most women I know would be aghast and think it was a terrible thing to do. Harming others like that is a terrible thing. there has been a few cases recently where a woman has indeed been convicted of this and rightly so.
The rape conviction rate is never going to be high becasue of the nature of most rape. The majority is people who know each other and that’s hard to prove. The problem is when you get cases like Rotherham - and I can tell you there’s similar gangs over the entire country, or men allowed to do it with impunity (couzens case etc) or the establishment is involved. Cases where it’s the stereotypical ‘grabbed off the street’ or kids or people in hospital also get worked so badly. It’s never going to be a straightforward crime like burglary, but the way the rape of kids was swept under the carpet in Rotherham was sickening. Oh and have a look at the sexual assault rate in NHs hospitals - it’s huge. Thousands of cases in a year. Women who use it as a retaliation should be punished, but that doesn’t say anything about actual rates of assault and rates of catching the people who do it.
 

Man abducted and sexually assaulted schoolgirl while dressed as woman​

A man has admitted abducting a schoolgirl while dressed as a woman before sexually assaulting her at his home in the Scottish Borders.
Andrew Miller, who is also known as Amy George, offered to give the girl a lift home in February of this year.
The 53-year-old instead drove her to his own house, locked her in a bedroom and refused to let her leave.
He then subjected her to a series of sexual assaults over the course of a day.
The court was told that Miller is in the process of transitioning to female.
He pled guilty to the charges at the High Court in Edinburgh.
The offences were committed at his home in the village of Gattonside near Melrose.

Link


Oh look, the thing that never happens has happened yet again, hilarious that Sturgeon was willing to martyr her political career for these people. Wonder if he'll end up in a women's prison, as she would have wanted.
 
Greggs has won the right to sell late-night sausage rolls at its flagship Leicester Square store.
The chain has come to an agreement with Westminster City Council that allows it to sell some baked goods and hot drinks until 02:00 on certain nights.
Greggs had originally planned to serve hot food and drinks there 24 hours a day, but the council blocked the idea over fears of anti-social behaviour.
The deal was reached as a court case was about to start.
It is an agreement that "works for everyone", the council said. Greggs has been contacted for comment.
Westminster City Council, which grants licences across London's entertainment district, had previously refused permission for any trading at the branch between 23:00 and 05:00.
But the fast-food chain did not accept the council's ruling, and a three-day court hearing had been set to commence on Tuesday.
Under the new agreement, Greggs can sell food that is baked elsewhere and reheated, which means its famous sausage rolls will be on the menu.
However, items from its daytime hot food menu, such as chicken bites and potato wedges, will not be on sale to late-night revellers.
Click to expand...
Sosij rolls for the sosij god, pasties for the pasty throne!

Selling that shit to pissheads after a night out, or people on their way home from late shifts, is a fucking license to print money, no wonder they're willing to pay for more security to be allowed to do it.


Help I'm A BritFag said:
Oh look, the thing that never happens has happened yet again, hilarious that Sturgeon was willing to martyr her political career for these people.
Click to expand...
It will genuinely never not be funny to me how hard normies will go on defending tranny shit, while the trannies simultaneously continue to demonstrate exactly why they deserve the rope.
 
SNP keeps winning.


Police probe into ex-SNP council leader over sex assault claim

Police are investigating an allegation of sexual assault made against former SNP council leader Jordan Linden.

Mr Linden stepped down from North Lanarkshire Council and left the party earlier this year.

The Sunday Mail reported that five men have made allegations regarding the former leader, with two speaking to detectives.

Mr Linden told the newspaper he did not accept the allegations which had been made against him.

A Police Scotland spokeswoman said: "Officers are investigating a report of a sexual assault incident having taken place in 2017. Inquiries are at an early stage and ongoing."

Mr Linden stepped down as council leader in July last year amid accusations of groping and sexual harassment, leading to the collapse of his party's administration.

The ex-SNP politician then quit the council in March after fresh claims of misconduct, dating back to 2015.

At the time, Mr Linden said he refuted the allegations and vowed to "robustly" defend himself.

Several councillors have since left the SNP's group in North Lanarkshire to sit as independents.
Handling of complaints

On Saturday, SNP leader and first minister Humza Yousaf was campaigning in Bellshill ahead of a by-election triggered by Mr Linden's resignation from the council.

He said the party would investigate how it handled complaints regarding Mr Linden and admitted the SNP's issues in the area "could have been handled better".

Mr Yousaf added: "We're absolutely holding our hands up - I, as first minister and leader of the party, say that things of course could have been handled better.

"That's why we'll do the investigation."
Click to expand...
 
The Linden business is 100% true and there are more victims who will come forward when it becomes clear he's done for. This has been known since before he became council leader. It's been known for almost a decade. He likes underage boys, and he likes boys who are saying no the best.

Absolute fucking scumbag, fat groomer bastard. The party chose to protect him, brief against victims, and pile in behind him whilst throwing other SNP politicians to the wolves for allegations they knew they were untrue. The party has become worse than the late stage Kremlin for machinations and powergrabs and betrayals.

This is why they will lose most of their seats in the next election. This can't go on.
 
Almost missed this because I've been busy this weekend. Arron Banks' has, at least partially, successfully appealed his libel case against journoscum Carole Cadwalladr, for her assertions about him being a Russkie stooge during the Brexit referendum.
Journalist Carole Cadwalladr has been ordered to pay legal costs of around £1.2 million to Arron Banks after he partially won an appeal in a long-running libel dispute.
Brexit campaigner Mr Banks originally lost his case against Ms Cadwalladr for her remarks in a speech and a tweet.
In February he succeeded in partially reversing that at the Court of Appeal.
Ms Cadwalladr said it was a "dark day for press freedom". Banks called it "vindication".
The case centred on comments Ms Cadwalladr made in a Technology, Entertainment, Design (TED) talk broadcast online in April 2019, in which she accused Mr Banks of lying about "his covert relationship with the Russian government", as well as a tweet linking to the speech.
Mr Banks argued her remarks were "false and defamatory" and sought damages and an injunction to restrain the continued publication of the remarks.

In June 2022, Mrs Justice Steyn ruled in favour of Ms Cadwalladr, concluding she held a "reasonable belief" that her comments were in the public interest until April 2020, when the Electoral Commission announced that a National Crime Agency investigation concluded there was no evidence to support the allegations against Mr Banks or his companies.
Mr Banks then went to the Court of Appeal, which partially ruled in his favour, concluding that it had in fact been defamatory for the allegations to still be published after it had become clear that they were unsubstantiated.
However it upheld other rulings made by Justice Steyn, including that Mr Banks had not proved that what Ms Cadwalladr tweeted had caused or was likely to cause "serious harm to his reputation".
Click to expand...
She's been ordered to repay the ~£800k in costs she was awarded originally, plus pay ~£400k towards his original costs, plus ~£50k towards his appeal costs. Naturally she's been on Twatter absolutely fucking seething at him, at the judges, and most hilariously at the Guardian and TEDx (seemingly because they're not lining up to take one for the team and pay for her). Similarly the EU profile flag having faggots (flaggots?) are also fucking seething, insisting the judges must have been biased in some way etc
 
@East_Clintwood I especially love that they are seething that the amount is clearly intended as a chilling effect on journalists while neglecting to note that the vast majority of it are in fact her own costs that she is having to repay. Funny how the poor, helpless journalist was able to source close to a million in costs for her legal fees.

Also the Guardian did produce an article screaming about it


And published a statemenbt of support on Twitter

TLDR - wah, why so much? Why? Wah!

Here's someone whose Twitter profile claiming she is the director of the Guardian Media group explaining how this means the First Amendment is under threat. Because what happens in the UK absolutely determines American law right?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom