UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

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

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.

 

[SirCliveSinclairdabbing]

> trying to avoid a near-peer war less than 20 years after WWI
wow what a cuck amirite?

Him and Hess could have sorted it.
Explain about the slaughter of Germans in poland, their response and keep the peace.

 

[Amin Yasister]

No matter how much you hate journalists it's not enough.

There are very few journalists now. Most are just reporters with no integrity, just rearranging the words of something they read earlier.

 

[Friendly Primarina]

Oh yeah, there's nothing wrong whatsoever with giving into the territorial demands of dictators made under dubious pretenses. Certainly didn't embolden the man in the slightest.

Obviously a much better solution was to elect a fat retard who had already killed over 30,000 British soldiers in Gallipoli.

"We may have killed over 80 million people, including half a million Britons, but at least we stopped Hitler!"
"What's that? I can't hear you over the call to prayer"
"I SAID, AT LEAST WE STOPPED HITLE-"
*gets acid attacked*

 

[Dick Mason]

There are very few journalists now. Most are just reporters with no integrity, just rearranging the words of something they read earlier.

I disagree. Nowadays there are not many actual journalists. Modern reporters mostly rephrase prior reports, and overall lack integrity..

 

[Snekposter]

Obviously a much better solution was to elect a fat retard who had already killed over 30,000 British soldiers in Gallipoli.

"We may have killed over 80 million people, including half a million Britons, but at least we stopped Hitler!"
"What's that? I can't hear you over the call to prayer"
"I SAID, AT LEAST WE STOPPED HITLE-"
*gets acid attacked*

Ah yes, holding Churchill accountable for the post-war English being spineless cucks. I've never seen that done before. If you want to blame anyone, blame Atlee and Labour for setting the place down on its current path.

 

[Friendly Primarina]

Ah yes, holding Churchill accountable for the post-war English being spineless cucks. I've never seen that done before. If you want to blame anyone, blame Atlee and Labour for setting the place down on its current path.

I was simply pointing out that Chamberlain was not a cuck for wanting to avoid a war he knew would be as bad as, if not worse than, WWI (and he was right). The deaths of so many white fighting-age men led directly to the WE NEEDED TO IMPORT THE 2ND AND 3RD WORLD TO KEEP THE COUNTRY RUNNING lie.

 

[Snekposter]

I was simply pointing out that Chamberlain was not a cuck for wanting to avoid a war he knew would be as bad as, if not worse than, WWI (and he was right). The deaths of so many white fighting-age men led directly to the WE NEEDED TO IMPORT THE 2ND AND 3RD WORLD TO KEEP THE COUNTRY RUNNING lie.

>Cuck wants to avoid ruinous war.
>War happens anyways and is made immeasurably worse by the cuck refusing to put his foot down in the first place.

Many such cases. Sad!

More seriously, imagine if England and France had put their feet down at the Munich Conference and told Hitler that if he felt that strongly about the Sudeten Germans they had no problems with him going to war with the Czechs, but they weren't just going to demand the Czechs hand over all their border fortifications first.

 

[Overly Serious]

Wales is...I mean has Wales ever mattered ever politically?

Well, in one instance I can think of.

 

[Friendly Primarina]

>War happens anyways and is made immeasurably worse by the cuck refusing to put his foot down in the first place.

If you say so lol

Maybe if the UK had had a Chamberlain at the helm instead of a Churchill when Ukraine was considering peace talks last year, the rest of Europe would still have an economy and affordable energy, huh?

 

[Rusty Metal Skull Gun]

I've never seen so many Chamberlain simps as I have on KF. Is this like a neo-Nazi thing or something?

 

[Spud]

I've never seen so many Chamberlain simps as I have on KF. Is this like a neo-Nazi thing or something?

The bar for competent people in politics who will put the interests of their countrymen over foreigners are few and far between. You gotta take who you can so long as they don't diddle kids.

 

[EddyRooney]

I've never seen so many Chamberlain simps as I have on KF. Is this like a neo-Nazi thing or something?

I think it's more a not being ignorant of the history and circumstances of the time thing. What Chamberlain did was logical at the time. It proved to be a failed strategy in one sense ( underestimating the aggresiveness of Hitler's territorial claims ), but did it mean Britain was better prepared for an impending war we couldn't avoid ? Probably.
I think looking back on history with 20/20 hindsight is such an ill judged perspective.
"Appeasement was popular for several reasons. Chamberlain - and the British people - were desperate to avoid the slaughter of another world war. Britain was overstretched policing its empire and could not afford major rearmament. Its main ally, France, was seriously weakened and, unlike in the First World War, Commonwealth support was not a certainty. Many Britons also sympathised with Germany, which they felt had been treated unfairly following its defeat in 1918.

But, despite his promise of ‘no more territorial demands in Europe’, Hitler was undeterred by appeasement."

So many are so quick nowadays to rush to an ill informed judegement of history by either using today's standards or seeing what happened next and weighing that in their conclusion.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

Is it possible that Cameron has been brought in as a corporate-style axeman? He's there, on the orders of the Lords (directors) to go clean house and install new MP's (management) before the PM (Plant Manager) ruins the Tory Party (business)?

Cameron, while a slimy, unlikable posh cunt, did set the stage for Brexit and dig the UK out of austerity before the frogs and Krauts. The result of which led the EU to demand an even bigger contribution to Europe to cover for the lazy frogs, as the UK was making bank.

I hate the guy as much as the next person but he did sort the country out.

 

[Friendly Primarina]

Cameron, while a slimy, unlikable posh cunt, did set the stage for Brexit and dig the UK out of austerity before the frogs and Krauts. The result of which led the EU to demand an even bigger contribution to Europe to cover for the lazy frogs, as the UK was making bank.

I get the impression he only set the stage for Brexit because he never imagined Remain would lose.

 

[Clem Fandango]

Cameron, while a slimy, unlikable posh cunt, did set the stage for Brexit

What the actual fuck are you on about? He never wanted or intended for Brexit to happen, and fucked off the nanosecond it did

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

I get the impression he only set the stage for Brexit because he never imagined Remain would lose.

I think Cameron and many other powerful people saw the EU powers encroaching on Britain and Her ability to grow independently as a country. Whether or not they want the Brexit that we go, and i don't believe they did, sending a message to the EU to "knock it off" was desperately needed.

During a time of austerity, where the UK buckled down, the frogs and krauts spent the EU pot, then came cap-in-hand to Britain and ordered Osbourne to fork over the £10 billion we had saved up, just so it could prop up the frogs and Krauts.

Although, Cameron and Sunak won't be popular if someone reminds the goldfish-brained voters that Cameron was responsible for Brexit. I wonder if Labour will use that?

Or was Cameron from an era just long-enough ago, that most people who care about 'politics' (virtue signalling) will have no idea who he is?

What the actual fuck are you on about? He never wanted or intended for Brexit to happen, and fucked off the nanosecond it did

What the fuck are you talking about? Brexit and the vote to leave the EU came directly off of the back of a spat between Comeron+Osborne and the EU.

 

[whogoesthere]

Anything touched by Farage is poison.

Farage is a known spooky and used as a catch net for anyone who might have become disillusioned with UK mainstream politics.

The UK has a history of never adressing problems, and trying to lobby/legal/force it into silence.

 

[Moja Zemlja]

What the actual fuck are you on about? He never wanted or intended for Brexit to happen, and fucked off the nanosecond it did

It speaks volumes that someone having enough integrity to go "my side lost, I'll stand down" is something to be admired. Even if with hindsight him standing down did way more damage in the long run.

 

[Clem Fandango]

What the fuck are you talking about? Brexit and the vote to leave the EU came directly off of the back of a spat between Comeron+Osborne and the EU.

You're giving Cameron "credit" for Brexit when he campaigned for Remain, you daft cunt.

Also, no it didn't "arise" out a spat between him and the EU. The Brexit referendum was offered to placate the right wing of the Tory party and to neutralise UKIP/Brexit party. If he had got the Remain vote that, again, he campaigned for, then leaving the EU would have been off the table for a generation, the proles having "had their say" and Cameron would have been very happy about that.

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

Unsurprising.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67423745

The government's Rwanda asylum policy is in disarray after the UK's highest court ruled it is unlawful.
Ministers say the plan to deport asylum seekers and ban them from returning is needed to tackle small boat crossings.
But the Supreme Court upheld an earlier Court of Appeal ruling which said the policy leaves people sent to Rwanda open to human rights breaches.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak responded by saying "this was not the outcome we wanted".
The controversial policy has been subject to legal challenges since it was first announced by Boris Johnson in April 2022.
The government has already spent £140m on the plan but Wednesday's ruling by the UK's most senior court effectively ends the policy's chances of ever being realised in its current form.
Flights were prevented from taking off in June last year after the Court of Appeal ruled the approach was unlawful due to a lack of human rights safeguards.
The legal case against the policy hinges on the principle of "non-refoulement" - that a person seeking asylum should not be returned to their country of origin if doing so would put them at risk of harm - which is established under both UK and international human rights law.
Ten claimants in the Supreme Court case argued that ministers had ignored clear evidence that Rwanda's asylum system was unfair and arbitrary.

In a unanimous decision, the court's five justices agreed with the Court of Appeal that there had not been a proper assessment of whether Rwanda was safe.
The judgement does not ban sending migrants to another country, but it leaves the Rwanda scheme in tatters - and it is not clear which other nations are prepared to do a similar deal with the UK.
In their judgement, the Supreme Court justices said there were "substantial grounds" to believe people deported to Rwanda could then be sent, by the Rwandan government, to places where they would be unsafe.
It said the Rwandan government had entered into the agreement in "good faith" but the evidence cast doubt on its "practical ability to fulfil its assurances, at least in the short term", to fix "deficiencies" in its asylum system and see through "the scale of the changes in procedure, understanding and culture which are required".
A spokesman for the Rwandan government said the policy's legality was "ultimately a decision for the UK's judicial system", but added "we do take issue with the ruling that Rwanda is not a safe third country".

A flight was due to take off for Rwanda in June 2022 but was grounded after legal challenges
It leaves Mr Sunak - who has made tackling illegal immigration a central focus his government - with a major political and legislative problem.
In a statement issued after the ruling was issued, the prime minister said: "This was not the outcome we wanted, but we have spent the last few months planning for all eventualities and we remain completely committed to stopping the boats.
"Crucially, the Supreme Court - like the Court of Appeal and the High Court before it - has confirmed that the principle of sending illegal migrants to a safe third country for processing is lawful. This confirms the government's clear view from the outset."
He is expected to hold a televised press conference in Downing Street at 16:45 GMT on Wednesday.
The Supreme Court decision comes as the political fallout continues after the sacking of Suella Braverman on Monday.
Mr Sunak dismissed her days before the court was due to rule on the policy which she had championed as home secretary, after a row about her criticism of the Metropolitan Police.
In a highly critical letter to the prime minister, published on Tuesday, Mrs Braverman sand the prime minister had "failed to prepare any sort of credible Plan B" in the event the Supreme Court halts the policy.

Lee Anderson MP, the deputy chairman of the Conservative Party, urged the government to ignore the Supreme Court and "put planes in the air" anyway.
Natalie Elphicke, Conservative MP for Dover, the landing point for many of the small boats, called for a total overhaul of the government's immigration plans.
She said: "The Supreme Court decision on Rwanda means the policy is effectively at an end. No planes will be leaving and we now need to move forward.
"With winter coming the timing of this decision couldn't be worse. Be in no doubt, this will embolden the people smugglers and put more lives at risk."
Charity Asylum Aid said the government must "abandon the idea of forcibly removing people seeking asylum to third countries", describing the policy as "cruel and ineffective".
But Home Secretary James Cleverly said it was "clear there is an appetite for this concept". He added the government will "continue to look at every possible avenue" to disrupt people trafficking networks.
More than 100,000 people have arrived in the UK via illegal crossings since 2018, though the number appears to be falling this year.
In 2022, 45,000 people reached the UK in small boats. The total is on course to be lower for 2023, with the total for the year so far below 28,000 as of November 12.