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...

American firm Nike change the St Georges Cross on the England team football shirts.

Don't really give a toss about football, but Nike changing the English flag? And then the FA agreeing to it. Both Cunts.

Seems Sunak isn't happy either. He has already told the FA that they should ban biological men from playing for teams in the women's leagues.

Obviously the FA are corrupt left wingers (of which the England squad is otherwise light on).
 
Amin Yasister said:

American firm Nike change the St Georges Cross on the England team football shirts.

Don't really give a toss about football, but Nike changing the English flag? And then the FA agreeing to it. Both Cunts.

Seems Sunak isn't happy either. He has already told the FA that they should ban biological men from playing for teams in the women's leagues.

Obviously the FA are corrupt left wingers (of which the England squad is otherwise light on).
Click to expand...
I love that they asked Emily Thornberry for a quote on this, presumably in the hope that she'd say something stupid again.
 
Amin Yasister said:

American firm Nike change the St Georges Cross on the England team football shirts.

Don't really give a toss about football, but Nike changing the English flag? And then the FA agreeing to it. Both Cunts.

Seems Sunak isn't happy either. He has already told the FA that they should ban biological men from playing for teams in the women's leagues.

Obviously the FA are corrupt left wingers (of which the England squad is otherwise light on).
Click to expand...
I don't really see how it compares to the 1966 Training Kit
trainingkit.jpg england-2024-home-kit (8).jpg
 
Amin Yasister said:

American firm Nike change the St Georges Cross on the England team football shirts.

Don't really give a toss about football, but Nike changing the English flag? And then the FA agreeing to it. Both Cunts.

Seems Sunak isn't happy either. He has already told the FA that they should ban biological men from playing for teams in the women's leagues.

Obviously the FA are corrupt left wingers (of which the England squad is otherwise light on).
Click to expand...
Its not a "a playful update", it simply not the St. Georges Cross.
 
Just wondering if this American company have made a "playful update" of the Stars and Stripes too, or if it's okay to only do it to our flag because we truly are the most cucked nation in the fucking world ?
Not my flag. Not my England team. Not my players. Not my politics. Not my manager.
I don't identify with anything about them. Half of them can't or won't sing the national anthem, but the multi-millionaires will take the knee for BLM or "equality" ( know what nepotism is captain Harry and how that relates to equality, perhaps you should ask your agent brother, you ignorant, hypocritical, patronising cunt ? )
I can't and won't wish my own country defeat, but I can't support what they have become either. Impossible situation.
 
BBC soils its pants by trying to call Reform "far right" in a puff piece for the Lib Dems and is forced to apologise. Alas this means an Express article as few others quote the line directly.


The BBC has been forced to issue a grovelling apology to Reform UK after an online article defamed the party just days after Lee Anderson’s defection.
The article about Sir Ed Davey’s speech at the Lib Dem spring conference, published on Saturday, described Reform UK as “far-Right”.
The incorrect claim came despite Reform UK consistently outpolling the Lib Dems and solidifying its position as Britain’s third mos popular political party.
The article, published without a byline, reported: “It has been suggested by some polls that far-Right Reform UK has overtaken the Lib Dems in terms of popularity.”
The BBC said it was wrong to describe Reform UK as far-Right when referring to polling.


A statement said: “This sentence was subsequently removed from the article as it fell short of our usual editorial standards.
“While the original wording was based on news agency copy, we take full responsibility and apologise for the error.”
The sentence and all references to Reform UK were removed from the article within nine hours.
Responding to the BBC’s humiliating apology, Refom UK leader Richard Tice said the corporation’s concession only came after an intervention from his lawyers.
Click to expand...
 
It amazes me that there are a large percentage of people that think the BBC is neutral and reports unbiased, factual news stories.


The fact that the BBC has a "marginally left leaning bias" according to the above link, makes me question my own judgement. I suppose it is a question of individual perspective.

"The AllSides panel, which contains people from the left, center, and right, found that BBC's reporting was generally Center; there was no spin or slant detected. BBC's online news did not include much subjective analysis in its writing, and story choices were balanced, with topics of interest to both the left and right. Many articles equally quoted both sides."

No spin or slant detected ? They must read all the articles I don't ! I would welcome what other people think about this, because I think one does begin to genuinely question one's own sanity.......

BBC's online news did not include much subjective analysis in its writing - is that because the subjective stuff is very subtly presented as fact in the main article ?

I suppose if you're politically aligned with Stalin, then anything centrist or moderately right leaning looks "far right".
 
EddyRooney said:
The fact that the BBC has a "marginally left leaning bias" according to the above link, makes me question my own judgement. I suppose it is a question of individual perspective.
Click to expand...
It’s probably almost accurate in the old sense of left/right. It won’t use social issues to put a place on the axis though. The beeb is rabidly pro tranny and completely pozzed, but that’s not easy to place in a left/right acid if you’re just using ‘do they criticise train drivers on strike’ as a metric.
 
Otterly said:
It’s probably almost accurate in the old sense of left/right. It won’t use social issues to put a place on the axis though. The beeb is rabidly pro tranny and completely pozzed, but that’s not easy to place in a left/right acid if you’re just using ‘do they criticise train drivers on strike’ as a metric.
Click to expand...
Someone once made a browser plugin which switched the words Black and White on any web page. Suddenly the BBC site was filled with articles about "Is Blackness a Problem," "How do you deal with Black males" and my personal favourite headline: "What's wrong with Black people?"

Can you imagine the BBC running any of those in reality because I can't! There was also the time they explicitly advertised a job as not for White people. If it was casting for some production, fine. But it was some sort of backroom technical role.
 
EddyRooney said:
The fact that the BBC has a "marginally left leaning bias" according to the above link, makes me question my own judgement. I suppose it is a question of individual perspective.
Click to expand...
The mistake is trying to fit it onto a traditional left/right line. The BBC is broadly left wing in a lot of its editorial positions, but it can also swing into what are sometimes considered to be very right-wing positions. This is because it is not actually a left-wing institution. Instead if is paternalist, and has been since its foundation. Its core ideology is the assumption of the role of an enlightened, benevolent authority in the day-to-day lives of hoi poloi, whom it must educate into the correct way of thought for their own moral enrichment. Paternalism requires a strict hierarchy of authority derived from assumed wisdom and understanding, in which those at the top consider themselves free to interfere in the lives of those beneath them, because they are certain that they have a better understanding of the needs and wants of those lower people. People often mistake this for socialism, which is similar at first glance, but lacks the social hierarchy inherent to a paternalist society.
 
At first glance, the BBC doesn't seem to have a obvious bias (unlike GB News and especially Al Jazeera/ RT). But there are snippets, the deeper you look.
 
gamer2014 said:
At first glance, the BBC doesn't seem to have a obvious bias (unlike GB News and especially Al Jazeera/ RT). But there are snippets, the deeper you look.
Click to expand...
I listened to them gloating about Russians getting hit by an ISIS terror attack today.
I suspect I could find an RT article using the same language the last time it was the UK on the receiving end.
 
Otterly said:
It’s probably almost accurate in the old sense of left/right. It won’t use social issues to put a place on the axis though. The beeb is rabidly pro tranny and completely pozzed, but that’s not easy to place in a left/right acid if you’re just using ‘do they criticise train drivers on strike’ as a metric.
Click to expand...
I think this is probably it. Their views on Israel is another example - they were very quick to believe the evil Jews had bombed a hospital, for instance, despite the fact this was nonsense. Far-left aside, anti-semitism isn't a left vs. right thing.

Another is how "globalist" they are - they think that anybody but them gives a shit about the UN or the EU, which again isn't really a left vs. right thing. Well, not all that much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom