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:
The same cunts who introduced ULEZ in the first place and (basically) forced Sadiq to expand it?
The Guardian is not to be trusted in general and it doesn't say that. That's an article about the ULEZ considerations under Boris but even Wikipedia, a source biased to hell and back, says that while an area of ULEZ was under consideration for 2020 Johnson put nothing binding in to put it in place since that's not something ex-mayors can do. It came into effect under Sadiq in 2019 at his choice.

As for "the Tories made him expand it" that shit is bleated by Labour mayors non-stop and is always a lie. Environmental targets set by government do not include "and you must create ULEZ zones to do this." Andy Burnham in Manchester and some of his cronies tried that same lie, were called out on it and had to halt their plans.

Other fun things that are happening under Sadiq include the Met working with Peter Tatchell, an open pedo apologist, to better police the LGBTQ+ community. The only person outside of the Met with any power to jerk their chain and stop that sort of shit is the Mayor of London.

You've asked people show that Susan would have been better because "she's brain damaged." You then used a Guardian article as a source for another claim that was wrong so that suggests your information is coming from sources immensely biased. What policies proposed by Susan exactly made her less sane than Sadiq "people opposed to ULEZ are Nazis" Khan?
They try to feed us this nonsense in the US too.

If you live in a shit neighborhood and you're scared enough that you consider buying a gun/knife to protect yourself, you're already at higher chance of getting shot or stabbed whether or not you actually get that gun/knife. The relationship isn't causal.
There is an element of causality when it comes to idiot teenagers. The issue isn't people having tools for home defence but rather situations like this where what would be a fist fight normally escalates to a knife fight because they have knives. Not that a fist fight is guaranteed to be non-lethal but when a punch up between teens instead becomes a stabbing the odds of a corpse as the outcome goes up a lot.
 
Actually, is it even legal to defend one's self with a firearm in Bongland? Even a legally owned one?
It is illegal to own any weapon.

This includes anything you use to defend yourself. The defending part is the crime, not the object - so, if an intruder broke into my house and I used one of my many woodworking or metalworking tools, I would be liable for use of a weapon.

In terms of what you're not "allowed to have" (i.e illegal to be caught with) - if you have a weapon, you have to have a legally appropriate reason for it. Of course, actually using a shotgun for any human target whatsoever is a crime, so you cannot ever have a gun if you intend to use it as a weapon.

Thus, if you actually use whatever weapon you have, even in self defence, it is a crime.

I hope that clears it up for you. You can, if you're a gunsmith or museum curator, have a more varied license than anything which exists in the USA. However, you are never allowed to actually use it as a weapon. Because weapons are all illegal, and it's about what the police think your motive is.
 
I only know a single person who was impacted by ULEZ,
I get what you’re saying that there is nobody good to vote for. At the same time, everyone who the cameras cover is impacted. The camera network was the point, the ulez just the window dressing.
Right now it’s cars x years old or x amount of emissions. But the camera infrastructure will be used for other things. Facial recognition for one. Amd eventually the revenue from the old cars isn’t enough, so it’s one year younger then another then another and the. It’s pay per mile and then its ’citizens with odd or even numbers leave their homes only on x day of the week’ or you’ve overspent your allotted car miles for the week. Yes we know your elderly mum had a fall and you needed to go get her but you’re now over your carbon allowance and fined social credits
 
It is illegal to own any weapon.

This includes anything you use to defend yourself. The defending part is the crime, not the object - so, if an intruder broke into my house and I used one of my many woodworking or metalworking tools, I would be liable for use of a weapon.

In terms of what you're not "allowed to have" (i.e illegal to be caught with) - if you have a weapon, you have to have a legally appropriate reason for it. Of course, actually using a shotgun for any human target whatsoever is a crime, so you cannot ever have a gun if you intend to use it as a weapon.

Thus, if you actually use whatever weapon you have, even in self defence, it is a crime.

I hope that clears it up for you. You can, if you're a gunsmith or museum curator, have a more varied license than anything which exists in the USA. However, you are never allowed to actually use it as a weapon. Because weapons are all illegal, and it's about what the police think your motive is.
To further support what Train Boy @Doctor Love I'll give a suitably Bongish example. If you kick someone in Bongland that's probably assault. But if you're wearing boots with steel toe caps that's assault with a weapon. It doesn't matter that it's frankly not likely to make much difference or that frankly this is silly. You'd actually be asked with proving you had a reason to wear steel toe-capped boots in court. Do you work on a building site? Were you working on a building site that day?

In the late Eighties, steel toe cap boots were in fashion for skin-heads and bovver boys etc. Just part of the image. The British establishment lives in mortal terror of everything such people and most of them have no understanding of actual violence. So just as they freaked out about everything else, steel toe cap boots became a weapon in their eyes.
 
Maybe I missed this, but are 22s not an option available to you? Or is the loisencing just such a bitch you don't want to bother?
.22s are legally available, but require a Firearms Certificate

Also are air rifles totally unregulated in the UK?
Not totally. In England anything under 12ft-lbs is find for anyone over 18, no questions asked. Anything more powerful than that is technically classified as a firearm, and so would require a Firearms Certificate. Scotland, having devolved powers, and being utterly cucked beyond even the rest of the UK, require licenses for any and all airguns.


Actually, is it even legal to defend one's self with a firearm in Bongland? Even a legally owned one?
Theoretically yes, subject to the same stand of reasonable force, as any self defense claim, which means in practicality you'd probably struggle to successfully argue it with most of the cucked population that makes up a jury
 
My car isn't old enough to be impacted by ULEZ.
Yet. You really think Sadiq Khan put up all those cameras just to police ~10% of drivers?
I'm not boasting about "how great" life is under Sadiq. I think he's shit. I just think Susan would be significantly more shit. You've not really explained how Susan would be better in any way.
And who do I vote for, then? The worse person? Or do I just not vote, and let the worse person get in? Or do I do something extra retarded, and vote Lib Dem or Green and watch as the worse person get in?
The reason there's been such a Sadiq swing is because the Conservative government overruled Londoners and forced us to switch our mayoral elections from runoff voting to First Past The Post. The same cunts who introduced ULEZ in the first place and (basically) forced Sadiq to expand it?
See, the thing is, if you'd come to us and told us you voted for Sadiq Khan because you like him and/or you agree with and support his policies, I could at least respect you. I certainly wouldn't have liked you or agreed with you, but I could at least respect you for having the courage of your convictions. But no, you've told us that you voted Khan, a man you admittedly don't like and don't agree with, you've supported his continuity in office because you've swallowed wholesale all the propaganda bollocks about his opponent being worse. A woman conservative enough to run in London, and possibly the most milquetoast Tory ever.

She wouldn't even commit to abolishing the fucking ULEZ, the one thing she arguably had to do to win.

The fact that most of the candidates had more-or-less the same fucking platform (abolish the ULEZ, improve the policing, deal with the housing crisis) speaks to the abominable, terminal failures of the man, and yet you've voted to give him another five years in office.

So yes, I hope you do get culturally enriched. That's the least you deserve
 
Can you defend yourself with a weapon? If you're a farmer No, in the case of Tony Martin And Yes in this recent case.

In other news, The NHS is turning away British citizens who have gone through training with the NHS because "They can't prioritise British nurses over foreigners". Which, when you think about it, is a little bit retarded, considering we only imported nurses (some of whom are fantastic) because of a shortfall in home-grown nurses. Now we have enough home-grown nurses and we aren't giving the jobs to them?
What gives?

Article : Behind-scenes NHS problems leave new doctors without jobs
 
Can you defend yourself with a weapon? If you're a farmer No, in the case of Tony Martin And Yes in this recent case.

In other news, The NHS is turning away British citizens who have gone through training with the NHS because "They can't prioritise British nurses over foreigners". Which, when you think about it, is a little bit retarded, considering we only imported nurses (some of whom are fantastic) because of a shortfall in home-grown nurses. Now we have enough home-grown nurses and we aren't giving the jobs to them?
What gives?

Article : Behind-scenes NHS problems leave new doctors without jobs
Tony Martin had an unlicensed shotgun and shot a gypo in the back whilst he was running away.

Parts of the Tories party were trying to use him as a poster boy for castle doctrine to be introduced but it’s an incredibly bad case to point to.

Personally I think any house breaker should forfeit their lives but sadly I’m not in charge.

Our self-defence laws are retarded and make reference to “proportional” force. They were basically written by people with no idea about violence.

In a self-defence situation you’re pretty much reliant on a based jury as the Guardian reading cuckcold with the PCS will do everything to get you out behind bars.

God help you if you have a couple of spicy views.

TL;DR our laws are gay
 
As a nurse the doctor scenario is a tad different but yes too many international students. The problem is too those Jnrs have to serve under doctors and doctors are leaving at record pace meaning less jnrs can be trained. I am lucky as I am a practitioner (GP) but it is trained through nurses and because NPs are more in demand as their job role is more flexible it means I can emigrate or move counties quickly and I do less work than a GP and earn the same as one.

They have been trying to trap NPs for years by making them train to GPs but the idea of training jnr doctors is hell. Jnr Doctors are entitled pricks, there are some amazing ones but they treat nurses like shit even though nurses do the backbone of work. They try to act like they are surgeon equivalent but don't understand that surgeons are a rule of their own and highly gifted. They also fail to connect the joint hatred of surgeons, nurses to jnr doctors. It's very cliquey in my main workplace surgeons and nurses socialise and work well but hate jnrs just because they think they are the shit and they end up being massive NHS tools.

I will be watching the news closely this week as if there is any movement to get rid of Rishi it would be this week.
 
Parts of the Tories party were trying to use him as a poster boy for castle doctrine to be introduced
There were various changes or clarifications in the law around 2008 and 2013 as the result of this. See here (it's a government website, so clear your cookies or whatever, or see the spoiler box at the end). I don't know of any case that has actually used the new distinction between "disproportionate" and "grossly disproportionate" force applied to a trespasser in subsection (5A). But until I looked it up just now, I didn't know it was (ostensibly) allowed to use force to defend property and to prevent a crime happening to a third party.
I don't think "castle doctrine" is that precisely defined, but section (6A) states there is no "duty to retreat". The "duty to retreat" never seemed to come up in British cases, even before 2008, but one always hears from Americans that England had a common law duty to retreat in the 1600s, which extends to all US states that didn't explicitly pass a law countermanding it, so maybe the clarification was thought to be necessary. I can't track down when the "duty to retreat" actually started being used in American self-defence cases, nor what incident inspired the first "stand your ground" law to be passed in Florida in 2005.

76 Reasonable force for purposes of self-defence etc.​

(1)This section applies where in proceedings for an offence—
(a)an issue arises as to whether a person charged with the offence (“D”) is entitled to rely on a defence within subsection (2), and
(b)the question arises whether the degree of force used by D against a person (“V”) was reasonable in the circumstances.

(2)The defences are—
(a)the common law defence of self-defence; [F1 and]
[F2 (aa)the common law defence of defence of property; and]
(b)the defences provided by section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 (c. 58) or section 3(1) of the Criminal Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1967 (c. 18 (N.I.)) (use of force in prevention of crime or making arrest).

(3)The question whether the degree of force used by D was reasonable in the circumstances is to be decided by reference to the circumstances as D believed them to be, and subsections (4) to (8) also apply in connection with deciding that question.

(4)If D claims to have held a particular belief as regards the existence of any circumstances—
(a)the reasonableness or otherwise of that belief is relevant to the question whether D genuinely held it; but
(b)if it is determined that D did genuinely hold it, D is entitled to rely on it for the purposes of subsection (3), whether or not—
(i)it was mistaken, or
(ii)(if it was mistaken) the mistake was a reasonable one to have made.

(5)But subsection (4)(b) does not enable D to rely on any mistaken belief attributable to intoxication that was voluntarily induced.

[F3 (5A)In a householder case, the degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was grossly disproportionate in those circumstances.]

(6)[F4 In a case other than a householder case,] the degree of force used by D is not to be regarded as having been reasonable in the circumstances as D believed them to be if it was disproportionate in those circumstances.

[F5 (6A)In deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3), a possibility that D could have retreated is to be considered (so far as relevant) as a factor to be taken into account, rather than as giving rise to a duty to retreat.]

(7) In deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3) the following considerations are to be taken into account (so far as relevant in the circumstances of the case)—
(a)that a person acting for a legitimate purpose may not be able to weigh to a nicety the exact measure of any necessary action; and
(b)that evidence of a person's having only done what the person honestly and instinctively thought was necessary for a legitimate purpose constitutes strong evidence that only reasonable action was taken by that person for that purpose.

(8)[F6 Subsection (7) is] [F6 Subsections (6A) and (7) are] not to be read as preventing other matters from being taken into account where they are relevant to deciding the question mentioned in subsection (3).

[F7 (8A)For the purposes of this section “a householder case” is a case where—
(a)the defence concerned is the common law defence of self-defence,
(b)the force concerned is force used by D while in or partly in a building, or part of a building, that is a dwelling or is forces accommodation (or is both),
(c)D is not a trespasser at the time the force is used, and
(d)at that time D believed V to be in, or entering, the building or part as a trespasser.

(8B)Where—
(a)a part of a building is a dwelling where D dwells,
(b)another part of the building is a place of work for D or another person who dwells in the first part, and
(c)that other part is internally accessible from the first part, that other part, and any internal means of access between the two parts, are each treated for the purposes of subsection (8A) as a part of a building that is a dwelling.

(8C)Where—
(a)a part of a building is forces accommodation that is living or sleeping accommodation for D,
(b)another part of the building is a place of work for D or another person for whom the first part is living or sleeping accommodation, and
(c)that other part is internally accessible from the first part, that other part, and any internal means of access between the two parts, are each treated for the purposes of subsection (8A) as a part of a building that is forces accommodation.

(8D)Subsections (4) and (5) apply for the purposes of subsection (8A)(d) as they apply for the purposes of subsection (3).

(8E)The fact that a person derives title from a trespasser, or has the permission of a trespasser, does not prevent the person from being a trespasser for the purposes of subsection (8A).

(8F)In subsections (8A) to (8C)—
  • “building” includes a vehicle or vessel, and
  • “forces accommodation” means service living accommodation for the purposes of Part 3 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 by virtue of section 96(1)(a) or (b) of that Act.]
(9)This section [F8, except so far as making different provision for householder cases,] is intended to clarify the operation of the existing defences mentioned in subsection (2).

(10)In this section—
(a)“legitimate purpose” means—
(i)the purpose of self-defence under the common law, [F9 or]
[F10 (ia)the purpose of defence of property under the common law, or]
(ii)the prevention of crime or effecting or assisting in the lawful arrest of persons mentioned in the provisions referred to in subsection (2)(b);
(b)references to self-defence include acting in defence of another person; and
(c)references to the degree of force used are to the type and amount of force used.

Textual Amendments
F1 Word in s. 76(2)(a) omitted (E.W. and in relation to service offences) (14.5.2013) by virtue of Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (c. 10), ss. 148(2), 151(1) (with ss. 148(6), 152(6)(7)); S.I. 2013/1127, art. 2
F2 S. 76(2)(aa) inserted (E.W. and in relation to service offences) (14.5.2013) by Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (c. 10), ss. 148(2), 151(1) (with ss. 148(6), 152(6)(7)); S.I. 2013/1127, art. 2
F3 S. 76(5A) inserted (E.W. and in relation to service offences) (25.4.2013) by Crime and Courts Act 2013 (c. 22), ss. 43(2), 61(11)(b)(15)(16) (with s. 43(6))
F4 Words in s. 76(6) inserted (E.W. and in relation to service offences) (25.4.2013) by Crime and Courts Act 2013 (c. 22), ss. 43(3), 61(11)(b)(15)(16) (with s. 43(6))
F5 S. 76(6A) inserted (E.W. and in relation to service offences) (14.5.2013) by Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (c. 10), ss. 148(3), 151(1) (with ss. 148(6), 152(6)(7)); S.I. 2013/1127, art. 2
F6 Words in s. 76(8) substituted (E.W. and in relation to service offences) (14.5.2013) by Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (c. 10), ss. 148(4), 151(1) (with ss. 148(6), 152(6)(7)); S.I. 2013/1127, art. 2
F7 S. 76(8A)-(8F) inserted (E.W. and in relation to service offences) (25.4.2013) by Crime and Courts Act 2013 (c. 22), ss. 43(4), 61(11)(b)(15)(16) (with s. 43(6))
F8 Words in s. 76(9) inserted (E.W. and in relation to service offences) (25.4.2013) by Crime and Courts Act 2013 (c. 22), ss. 43(5), 61(11)(b)(15)(16) (with s. 43(6))
F9 Word in s. 76(10)(a) omitted (E.W. and in relation to service offences) (14.5.2013) by virtue of Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (c. 10), ss. 148(5), 151(1) (with ss. 148(6), 152(6)(7)); S.I. 2013/1127, art. 2
F10 S. 76(10)(a)(ia) inserted (E.W. and in relation to service offences) (14.5.2013) by Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (c. 10), ss. 148(5), 151(1) (with ss. 148(6), 152(6)(7)); S.I. 2013/1127, art. 2
Modifications etc. (not altering text)
C1S. 76(8B)-(8F) applied (with modifications) by Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 (c. 65), s. 3(1B) (as inserted (E.W.) (13.5.2014) by Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (c. 12), ss. 106(2)(b), 185(1); S.I. 2014/949, art. 3, Sch. para. 6)
Commencement Information
I1S. 76 in force at 14.7.2008 by S.I. 2008/1586, art. 2(1), Sch. 1 para. 36
 
The Church of Scotland teetering on extinction doesn't surprise me; the rise of some weird thing called The Humanist Society, though, that kinda does.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=sr_0io98-uA
I attended church regularly in my last village before moving out into the country. Despite being Church of Scotland, the minister didn't really push any gay stuff and I got along with her pretty well.

We've moved from there since. Although here the minister is a nice man, there's some things that have happened there that turned me off from going. Once right at the end of a service, this woman stepped onto the pedestal and stood there for like 5 minutes to advertise her business while everyone was waiting to go. There was also another service where a minister from another church was brought in and asked us to pray for the downfall of "Putin's evil regime." I'm not pro-Russia or pro-Ukraine, but that felt inappropriate for Church.

Not really related to the thread's why I put it in a spoiler box. While I was working in Glasgow, I tried attending an Orthodox Church since I watched Eastern Orthodox YouTubers (Jay Dyer) and was in a Discord server for it. The people were nice, but it did not live up to the expectations I had set in my head. At some point they offered to baptise me, which I later pulled out of since I realised that I really didn't know that much about Orthodox Christianity and hadn't looked into Protestantism or Roman Catholicism properly either (or any other religions for that matter). After that, I became agnostic again over a few months.

Do you think most people right now believe in the existence of a God or do you think most people are Atheists? A YouTuber I watched once said that to Americans, the existence of God is a very serious issue while Brits don't really care.
 
A YouTuber I watched once said that to Americans, the existence of God is a very serious issue while Brits don't really care.
I would say people in the UK care a great deal, we just dont like to talk about it openly. Its the same with politics, people in the UK for a long time (less so now, thanks to yanks) kept who they voted for to themselves. Only really party members would advertise who they voted for, as an act of recruitment of sorts.

Same when comparing UK to USA with wages, or money in general, its kinda rude to discuss a persons earnings. Even if they bring it up, its looked down upon unless its close family. All my life I never knew for sure who many of my family voted for, or how much they earned.
 
Do you think most people right now believe in the existence of a God or do you think most people are Atheists? A YouTuber I watched once said that to Americans, the existence of God is a very serious issue while Brits don't really care.
Living in the UK would make most people lose faith in God.
 
Back
Top Bottom