UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

  • 🔧 Issue with uploading attachments resolved.
  • 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:
Mr Kaba was driving in Streatham on the night of 5 September 2022 when he was stopped by police in two cars.
In the moments that followed, Mr Kaba was shot in the head through the car windscreen. He died in the early hours of the following day.

Except...........this isn't really what happened, is it BBC ? Some rather glaring omissions which paint a rather different picture when included......
FFS, this is Private Clegg all over again, isn't it?

I do get genuinely MATI (well, MATR) every time I'm too slow to get to the radio and the BBC news comes on. Every single story they run is tendentious. It's ridiculous.
 
One could speculate why the BBC decided to circulate such a redacted, biased version of events ? It would almost be as if they deliberately lied in order to suit a specific agenda of favouring the anti-Police version ?
Colossal shower of cunts the lot of them.
 
One could speculate why the BBC decided to circulate such a redacted, biased version of events ? It would almost be as if they deliberately lied in order to suit a specific agenda of favouring the anti-Police version ?
Run by self-hating brits who are infested with the social justice mind virus. That police officer did his job and took a violent criminal off the street. If the dead guy wanted to be not-dead...he could have tried not being involved with gun crime, and ramming police cars.
 
Run by self-hating brits who are infested with the social justice mind virus. That police officer did his job and took a violent criminal off the street. If the dead guy wanted to be not-dead...he could have tried not being involved with gun crime, and ramming police cars.
I think I heard the family of the nigger was wanting to press a load of charges and kick up a big fuss.... then they went eerily quiet once they were shown the bodycam footage.
 
I think I heard the family of the nigger was wanting to press a load of charges and kick up a big fuss.... then they went eerily quiet once they were shown the bodycam footage.
But the BBC want to tear the UK apart St. Floyd style, as does the judge who released the name who wants trial by media. It's fucking disgusting. Actually, it saddens me to see how far the UK has fallen, and I'm glad I left when I did as there's no way in hell it's going to be fixed within my lifetime.
I imagine in 100 years the fall of the UK from Empire to joke will be a history casestudy in schools.
 
But the BBC want to tear the UK apart St. Floyd style, as does the judge who released the name who wants trial by media. It's fucking disgusting. Actually, it saddens me to see how far the UK has fallen, and I'm glad I left when I did as there's no way in hell it's going to be fixed within my lifetime.
I imagine in 100 years the fall of the UK from Empire to joke will be a history casestudy in schools.
I do hope the tide turns. I do have family and friends who were previously blissfully unaware now voicing their concerns and agreeing with my spicy opinions when only 5 years ago they'd be like fookin 'ell Cloaca Rimjob (maiden name Pounding) you can't say stuff like that.
 
I honestly don't give a shit. Every police officer hoist by their own petard is beautiful.
They wouldn't spare a thought shooting anyone posting here. Why should I care when the hammer or justice comes for them?
 
I honestly don't give a shit. Every police officer hoist by their own petard is beautiful.
They wouldn't spare a thought shooting anyone posting here. Why should I care when the hammer or justice comes for them?
Really ?! I don't think the armed police shoot innocent, law abiding members of the public that comply with their instructions.....Strangely enough, it seems to be only one section of society that are arrogant enough to think they don't have to obey the law and then face no consequences.
You should care when the hammer of "justice" comes for them, because without them, criminality will run rife and dominate society, even more than it does already.
You want to live in a country where "gangstas" run the streets and normal people are fearful of going about their every day business ?
I hear Haiti is nice this time of year.....
 
Really ?! I don't think the armed police shoot innocent, law abiding members of the public that comply with their instructions
Oh don't kid yourself, they are very much a law unto themselves. Especially the Met armed police. Fuckers will rock up, shoot you in the back without warning, then claim they thought you were running at them with something that looked like a gun. Harry Stanley is only the most visible of their crimes; they have developed a reputation over the decades for being arrogant, lawless, out of control fuckers who relish any chance they get to execute people in the street. Or the tube, if it comes to that.

This is the problem they face in this case. It's clear that the shooting was justified by the circumstances, but the reputation the armed police have is very much a rod they made for their own backs.
 
Really ?! I don't think the armed police shoot innocent, law abiding members of the public that comply with their instructions.....Strangely enough, it seems to be only one section of society that are arrogant enough to think they don't have to obey the law and then face no consequences.
You should care when the hammer of "justice" comes for them, because without them, criminality will run rife and dominate society, even more than it does already.
You want to live in a country where "gangstas" run the streets and normal people are fearful of going about their every day business ?
I hear Haiti is nice this time of year.....
Isn't that how Cressida Dick became chief of police? Shooting an innocent?
Anyway. What do you mean "Law Abiding"? Every UK resident that visits this site is committing an offense.

The police already let criminality run rife. That's their function. They enable it. We're already unsafe.
 
The police already let criminality run rife. That's their function. They enable it. We're already unsafe.
Back when Sir Robert Peel had his jolly idea of a set of robust principles for the fair and just enforcement of the law, he did so in a time when city watches were rife with corruption, used their power and arms to menace and extract bribes from the population at large, and served the interests of the nobility and the wealthy over those of the common man. Peel's principles created the model against which all subsequent police forces were measured; his policemen, "men of the polis (city)", were public servants, who were not armed except with a baton and whose sole interest was the equal and just enforcement of the law. They were never to hold themselves above the citizen and would always be deferential to the common man, and they would not give preferential treatment to the wealthy and the powerful, but would enforce the law equally against all who breached it. If they required guns while in pursuit of a criminal, they would ask to borrow them off passing citizens, with a receipt exchanged so the citizen could retrieve the weapon later.

The whole thing has come full circle. The police once again protect their wealthy benefactors, menace the citizenry for "fines" that flow right into their unacknowledged quota bonuses, enforce the law only at the behest of the powerful and influential men of privilege, and outright murder anyone who gets in their way. I like to blame Blair for it, with his half-cocked attempt to re-organise police forces into remote, unaccountable, french-style gendarmeries, but the rot is much older than that. He just forked it over, like a pile of compost, to get it steaming good and hot.
 
Oh don't kid yourself, they are very much a law unto themselves. Especially the Met armed police. Fuckers will rock up, shoot you in the back without warning, then claim they thought you were running at them with something that looked like a gun. Harry Stanley is only the most visible of their crimes; they have developed a reputation over the decades for being arrogant, lawless, out of control fuckers who relish any chance they get to execute people in the street. Or the tube, if it comes to that.

This is the problem they face in this case. It's clear that the shooting was justified by the circumstances, but the reputation the armed police have is very much a rod they made for their own backs.
You're crying over a dead Sweaty ?!
They might have been a law unto themselves in the past ( 70s, 80s ), but I find that hard to believe with the advent of bodycameras. I seriously doubt any plod would be so stupid as to deliberately shoot someone without justification on camera.
I can appreciate that a percentage of coppers are little Napoleons, but I seriously doubt that they would take it that far deliberately. Shooting a person because they mistakenly believe someone is armed, a credible threat and not following instructions and they are scared of being shot themselves - that I can buy into.
But shooting me because I'm walking down the street, minding my own business, sorry, no.

Back when Sir Robert Peel had his jolly idea of a set of robust principles for the fair and just enforcement of the law, he did so in a time when city watches were rife with corruption, used their power and arms to menace and extract bribes from the population at large, and served the interests of the nobility and the wealthy over those of the common man. Peel's principles created the model against which all subsequent police forces were measured; his policemen, "men of the polis (city)", were public servants, who were not armed except with a baton and whose sole interest was the equal and just enforcement of the law. They were never to hold themselves above the citizen and would always be deferential to the common man, and they would not give preferential treatment to the wealthy and the powerful, but would enforce the law equally against all who breached it. If they required guns while in pursuit of a criminal, they would ask to borrow them off passing citizens, with a receipt exchanged so the citizen could retrieve the weapon later.

The whole thing has come full circle. The police once again protect their wealthy benefactors, menace the citizenry for "fines" that flow right into their unacknowledged quota bonuses, enforce the law only at the behest of the powerful and influential men of privilege, and outright murder anyone who gets in their way. I like to blame Blair for it, with his half-cocked attempt to re-organise police forces into remote, unaccountable, french-style gendarmeries, but the rot is much older than that. He just forked it over, like a pile of compost, to get it steaming good and hot.
Okay comrade.......
"enforce the law only at the behest of the powerful and influential men of privilege, and outright murder anyone who gets in their way." Really ?! I think you're getting a bit carried away there !
I'm getting a disband the police vibe from this. What would be your solution then ?

Isn't that how Cressida Dick became chief of police? Shooting an innocent?
Anyway. What do you mean "Law Abiding"? Every UK resident that visits this site is committing an offense.

The police already let criminality run rife. That's their function. They enable it. We're already unsafe.
What offence ( English spelling ) is being committed by an English resident visiting this site ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is the problem they face in this case. It's clear that the shooting was justified by the circumstances, but the reputation the armed police have is very much a rod they made for their own backs.
We definitely have PDs like that here too. I'm generally now a lot more skeptical of claims of brutality after Saint Floyd's canonization, and years of "news" stories where something is presented as an act of unprovoked brutal violence and then the instant you see the actual footage it's obvious the police were justified. However, make the PD in question the LAPD Ramparts Division and I'm probably believing it sight unseen until proven otherwise.
What offence ( English spelling ) is being committed by an English resident visiting this site ?
Ask Caroline Farrow. They often call it a "non-crime hate incident."
 
The whole thing has come full circle. The police once again protect their wealthy benefactors, menace the citizenry for "fines" that flow right into their unacknowledged quota bonuses, enforce the law only at the behest of the powerful and influential men of privilege, and outright murder anyone who gets in their way.
I had my issues with the police but in 2020 I admired the fact that, in London, when a bunch of black criminals decided to try to have a curb party on a pair of officers while screaming "BLM!" a black lad carrying a bat came to help the police out. That was always the Peelian vision, that when the thugs outnumbered the good officers the decent citizens would have their back because they knew they could trust the police.

Now I simply content myself with the fact that Peel is lurking by the door to the afterlife with a blackjack muttering, "Satan gets you after me," as he waits for various currently living members of the police force in the UK to arrive to their just reward.
 

UCL bans lecturer from China course to protect its ‘commercial interests’

Archive
A leading UK university has banned an academic from teaching a “provocative” course involving China to protect its commercial interests, The Telegraph can disclose.

Michelle Shipworth, an associate professor at University College London (UCL), told The Telegraph she had “no choice” but to blow the whistle in order to “expose” how British universities were “conceding to the censorship demands of some Chinese students”.

Ms Shipworth, 58, was also accused of being anti-Chinese after she caught out two students from China who were cheating and they were subsequently expelled. One had used a body double in an attempt to hoodwink her during a supervision.

Her head of department at UCL told her he was taking action because “in order to be commercially viable”, the university’s courses “need to retain a good reputation amongst future Chinese applicants”.

UCL has the highest number of Chinese students in the UK, making up almost a quarter of its total student population. More than 10,000 Chinese students are at the university, typically paying two to three times the fees of home-grown students – up to £40,000 a year.

Ms Shipworth, who teaches at UCL’s Bartlett School of Environment, Energy and Resources, found herself under investigation after a seminar last October examining data from the Global Slavery Index 2014. The data claimed China had the second-highest prevalence of modern slavery in the world.

She asked small groups to discuss the question: “Why are there so many slaves in China?” in order to build their data assessment skills, leaving the methodology open to criticism.

Far from being anti-Chinese, Ms Shipworth said her use of the survey was only to highlight problems with it – not least that, because China has the world’s second-largest population, it would inevitably be close to the top of a modern slavery index.

‘Provocative in-class exercise’

She recalled that, at the end of the seminar, one of the Chinese students “stood up and said in a fairly cross tone – I wouldn’t even describe it as angry – something along the lines of: ‘Why are you using such a horrible provocation?’”
Prof Neil Strachan, Ms Shipworth’s boss, was alerted, culminating in her being told that another academic had been asked to “take over” the research module she had taught for the past 10 years.

She was also told to “not use teaching case studies or examples that only focus on one country”, and advised against posting “educational issues about only one country” on social media.

In an email, Prof Strachan also informed Ms Shipworth that she had been accused of “being biased against students from a single country – China”.

He cited as an example of a “specific instance of bias” that, having caught out Chinese students for cheating, she was now “overly suspicious” of students cheating “and these students are all from China”.

Prof Strachan said a further complaint had said that “you used a provocative in-class exercise – investigating data quality but using the subject of slavery – that focused only on China and that made Chinese students feel demeaned”.

He went on to say that “the result of this perceived bias is that Chinese students are not having a good experience at UCL, and that the reputation and future recruitment of our courses is being damaged”.

‘No choice but to make this public’

Ms Shipworth told The Telegraph she “was suicidal” after being subjected to restrictions on her teaching, academic freedom and use of social media on the basis of a class she had taught without any previous known complaint for a decade.

“I feel I have no choice but to make this matter public in order to expose the extent to which UK higher education is conceding to the censorship demands of some Chinese students,” she said.

“In my time at UCL, I have seen and exposed flagrant cheating, including falsified references used in student applications and some Chinese students using paid services to produce assessments for them, which they are then unable to discuss in class.

“Because so many universities are dependent on overseas student funding, university managers often do not want to hear these types of concerns being raised. This threatens to undermine the value of an academic degree.

“I am astonished that asking students a question about China, and my raising of cases of contract cheating, is being used to justify curtailing my academic freedom and freedom of speech.”

Ms Shipworth’s case has been taken up by the Free Speech Union, which has written to UCL’s provost to demand that all restrictions be lifted.

A Free Speech Union spokesman said: “The documents we have seen reveal an undue deference to the sensitivity of some Chinese students that is utterly incompatible with academic freedom.

“Academics and students have every right to discuss and even criticise China, even if it is inconvenient for institutions increasingly in hock to Chinese student fees, and we will defend that right.”

A UCL spokesman said: “We always follow up complaints received through our Report + Support tool. However, it would not be appropriate to discuss individual cases.

“UCL is proud to have a thriving and diverse student community, with the brightest minds from the UK and more than 150 other countries choosing to study and research here.

“We also have a long tradition of safeguarding freedom of speech, and are committed to upholding the rights of our staff and students to facilitate debate and exercise their academic freedom of enquiry.”


‘I didn’t see the point of living ... I hadn’t done anything wrong’

Standing in a classroom in front of 80 students, of whom between 20 and 30 were Chinese, Michelle Shipworth showed them a slide in her Data Detectives course.

It was just after 3pm on Oct 25. Now, more than four months later, she is at the centre of a row over academic freedom.
The slide the associate professor had shown was taken from the Global Slavery Index 2014. She recalled: “I put the slide up and said: ‘Why are there so many slaves in China?’”

It was a question intended as a starting point for students to explore data and how it is used. In fact, she used the survey precisely because “there is a massive problem with it”, not least its ranking of China as the world’s second-worst country for modern slavery.

Further slides in the course describe the survey as “terribly inaccurate” and encourage students to think about how the data was compiled and the comparisons made.

But at the end of the hour-long seminar, one of the Chinese students, a man in his 20s, stood up to lodge a complaint.
“I wouldn’t even describe him as angry,” said Ms Shipworth, “He said something along the lines of: ‘Why are you using such a horrible provocation?’”

Sitting in the kitchen of her north London flat and reflecting on the events, she still appears bamboozled.

“It’s a great question. I was just slightly concerned he was asking it after I had already demonstrated the problem with the dataset. It signalled that he hadn’t been paying attention in class,” she said. “But I didn’t get the sense he had been stressed in any way. I certainly didn’t think anything of it.”

The next day, however, she received an email from a colleague. Another student, who was not Chinese, had flagged that they were upset the Chinese student had been made “cross” in class.

Ms Shipworth, who has been teaching at UCL since 2009, was exasperated. “To be honest, I rolled my eyes at this. Honestly, I don’t know if it’s a generational thing,” she said.

“It was like a child at kindergarten fell over and yelled a little bit and then another child that observed this got upset and then went to the headmistress. And then the headmistress goes to the person in charge of the playground and says: ‘What’s this all about?’ It happens occasionally. So what? I couldn’t take it seriously. I didn’t bother to respond [to the email].”

But on Oct 30 – five days after her seminar – Prof Strachan, Ms Shipworth’s head of department, called her to say that a “bunch of Chinese students are very upset” and asking for an explanation of what had happened.

Ms Shipworth, whose husband is a professor in the same department, gave her version of events. Prof Strachan, she said, suggested she use India as an example too so that her Chinese students would not feel singled out.

She declined to alter a course she had taught for a decade with no previous complaints. “In fact, I have had loads of Chinese students thanking me over the years,” she said.

She has had Chinese research students who have previously assisted her in the same seminar. “I felt then as I still feel now – our obligation is to teach the very best we can,” she said. “It doesn’t mean making them [students] happy every day, but it does mean challenging them.”

Shut out of teaching module

Later that day, Ms Shipworth found herself unable to edit UCL’s internal learning hub, called Moodle, for her next seminar, or to email students their coursework. She had been shut out of her teaching module.

In an email sent by Prof Strachan at 3.29pm on Oct 31, he told Ms Shipworth: “While we respect your academic freedom to teach [and] to promote critical thinking… the teaching teams are really worried about how the students have taken this, and it’s important to respond to their concerns.

“Focusing on just one country and using a topic that is currently geopolitically controversial is a sensitive topic.”
When Ms Shipworth cited John Stuart Mill, the English philosopher, in her drive for academic freedom and her preference not to modify her teaching, Prof Strachan replied at 10.34pm: “I would be pleased to continue this discussion in person to continue this broader conversation – note that I am an economist and modeller and I have no idea who JS Mill is.”

He praised her seminar, saying he was “pleased that a set of your students really benefited from working through a challenging question that has poor data underpinning it”, but again stressed that the question “was phrased to be too controversial and difficult for them to understand”.

Ms Shipworth, an academic energy expert, said that response “p---ed me off massively”.

At that week’s seminar – seven days after the initial controversy – the students dutifully returned. The Chinese student who had complained sat at the front of the class. “He was smiling broadly, like really grinning,” said Ms Shipworth.

“I really genuinely don’t think any of this situation had distressed him or the other students. If they were really distressed by me, they wouldn’t have come to the class.”

‘Absolutely harangued me’

The following week, two colleagues – Ms Shipworth will not reveal their identities – “absolutely harangued me and insisted I completely remove this exercise for subsequent years”.

She admitted caving in to the request. After suffering from mental health issues in the past, she took a nosedive. “I was suicidal. This is one of the problems of somebody who suffers from depression. I hadn’t done anything wrong. I wasn’t making plans [to kill myself] but I was telling my husband I didn’t see the point of living,” she said.

By now, it was mid-November. Ms Shipworth kept on teaching – and given her undertaking not to repeat the China slavery exercise, the problem had seemingly gone away.

In January, she attended a workshop with senior academics, among them Michael Spence, UCL’s provost, a man she describes as “fabulous” and hugely supportive.

She raised her case, and what she saw as the infringement of her academic freedom, at the workshop. “All the senior academics in the room agreed with me,” she said.

Ms Shipworth fired off an email to her departmental colleagues, informing them that senior staff at the workshop believed her academic freedom had been curtailed.

Three days afterwards, on Feb 6, she received an email from Prof Strachan informing her that two related complaints had been made against her under a UCL reporting system.

“The general issue made is that you are perceived as being biased against students from a single country – China. This perception of bias is from Chinese students and by a UCL staff member of Chinese heritage,” he wrote.

‘Getting other people to do all his work’

The professor cited specific instances that included her investigation into so-called contract cheating, where one student gets somebody else to do their work. Twice she had discovered cheating, in 2018 and 2022, and both times Chinese students had been expelled.

She has asked UCL how many students have been kicked out for cheating, and has been given no answer. She suspects she is the only academic who has dared to call out a Chinese student for “contract cheating”.

In one case, a student had used a body double to take part in a Zoom call, and Ms Shipworth had spotted the deceit.
“He was getting other people to do all his work and then using a body double in meetings. It was due to my investigative work that the student was expelled,” she said.

In another instance, she raised suspicions about a student’s poor performance in class and a “mismatch” with far superior submitted essays.

In the email, Prof Strachan again raised the issue of the Data Detective seminar using the slave labour example, and also accused Ms Shipworth of “making a Chinese student embarrassed in class and accusing them of lying when they made an excuse to leave”.

On that occasion, she said, she had asked a Chinese student for a response to a question and he had reached for another student’s laptop in search of the answer.

Finally, she was accused of posts on Twitter relating to academic freedom in China “when no similar posts are made about any other country”. Ms Shipworth said she repeatedly asked for any examples but has not received any from the university.

The result of her “perceived bias”, wrote Prof Strachan was that “Chinese students are not having a good experience at UCL and that the reputation and future recruitment of our courses is being damaged”.

‘Contributing to the perception of bias’

Two days later on Feb 8, Prof Strachan sent a follow-up email in which he expressed concern about Ms Shipworth’s mental health and told her she could “at any time… take sick leave”.

He said he was handling the complaints “informally” and had not concluded either way whether she had breached UCL policies.

But he added: “We have a collective duty to ensure all students have a good educational experience at UCL and, in order to be commercially viable, our MSc courses need to retain a good reputation amongst future Chinese applicants.
“I am therefore concerned that if there is a perception or misperception of bias that this could damage your own reputation as well as that of the course.”

He then listed a series of “requests” that included stopping Ms Shipworth from “teaching case studies or examples that only focus on one country” and to “find different ways” of encouraging Chinese students “perhaps with weaker English language skills… to engage more fully”.

Using China as an example, was, said Prof Strachan, “contributing to the perception of bias”.

He said the department was putting a different academic in charge of the module, effectively preventing Ms Shipworth from teaching a course she created, and also advised her not to post on social media “educational issues about only one country”.

Ms Shipworth was appalled at her treatment, shocked that she could be asked to stop using one country examples in her teaching. “I use examples from the UK all the time; I focus on India. This is just stupid,” she said.

The same went for preventing her from asking specific individuals for responses. “It’s a way for me to pick up on students who are struggling,” she said. “It would detract from their education.”

The furore her class in October has created has left her scarred, and Ms Shipworth is adamant she is not biased against her Chinese students.

“It is crazy. In my experience, Chinese students have been really robust because they are so focused on their studies,” she said. “That is what has startled me so much – this supposed distress when I know they are strong.”
Your chosen future kek.
 
I'd like to see exactly how she presented the data because I'd like to believe she had the best intentions but the way the journo describes the situation (it could be them putting words in her mouth) its harder to argue her innocence.
 
I'd like to see exactly how she presented the data because I'd like to believe she had the best intentions but the way the journo describes the situation (it could be them putting words in her mouth) its harder to argue her innocence.
She's been doing the same exercise - with chinese students every year, she says - for more than a decade without complaints. This is most likely the child of some party member throwing a fit because he's learning things about his country he doesn't want to hear. The uni is only thinking about the potential loss of earnings in the case the drama causes them to lose chinese students.
 
Your chosen future kek.
Imagine groveling to insectile, servile chinks, the lowest form of life on Earth.
I'd like to see exactly how she presented the data because I'd like to believe she had the best intentions but the way the journo describes the situation (it could be them putting words in her mouth) its harder to argue her innocence.
The journo was lying, and I know that because it was published in the "news."
 
Since this is the British News thread, what are the thoughts on the Princess of Wales' whole thing?
 
Back
Top Bottom