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.

 

[Coelacanth]

Holy shit what happened here while I was gone last night?!?

Spoiler: Spoilered for Length

I can at least give some sympathy to @Doctor Love over here. We're in very similar situations health wise and let me tell you something: when you keep getting chewed up by the NHS it really taxes your mental stability. You know something is wrong with you but those in charge have no intention of helping you and keep misdirecting you over and over until you either end up in the emergency wards or go private. Just fighting for someone to take you seriously is a nightmare and when it all comes out that your life is simply "too expensive" for the NHS to treat, it destroys you and finally can push you over the edge. Because that's your worth. You're nothing.

It's hard to look in the mirror and see what is essentially a corpse staring back at you.

It's not really a good excuse to make bombs though. Please don't do that. There are better ways to deal with this dumpster fire country and stooping to the religion of peace's levels to achieve it is not okay.

Onto slightly more engaging matters: I'm with @Spunt on this matter. It took a lot of hemming and hawing but after seeing that the candidate in my area is a completely normal human being with common sense, I'm going to vote Reform too. It won't magically take the -istan out of Bongistan, but it will at least buy time until a party is formed or reformed that can actually get shit done.

 

[Eekum Bokum]

The only people in this country who think the BBC has a right-wing bias are the Corbynites IE the socialist class who think anything to the right of Stalin is fascism. Similar to the Bernie Bros. in America thinking CNN and company are pro-republican.

On the flip side, only the far right in Britain think the BBC has a left-wing bias. The BBC is as establishment as you can get.

 

[3deadniggers]

On the flip side, only the far right in Britain think the BBC has a left-wing bias. The BBC is as establishment as you can get.

Could you tell me what the establishment's current politics are? I believe they're LGBTQIA+, Support for minority groups and denouncing all kinds of hate speech.

I don't think you can argue the establishment is anything but firmly left wing. And if you're Scottish it's wanting to mutilate babies and children for those same ideals.

Centrists claiming the BBC is neutral because it's establishment ignores the establishment not being neutral it's self. This week the BBC went after every possible reform politician they could. One was in labeled an anti semite because he said Hitler was involved in the founding of Israel. It's been a while since I checked but last I heard Hitler did support Jews moving to Israel.

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

And I'll repeat it: she's got knives out for Starmer. I'd almost celebrate if she ended up charge of a Labour government, because she'll bring it all crashing down in short order and then perhaps the party can begin its restoration.

The problem I have with that is she will get a full term + however long into Kier's term she buries him. If I thought she'd make Labour unelectable then I could ignore her but I think if she gets in enough people will go "oh, we can't get rid of Labour's first female PM at the first election she is standing in," even if she's done everything bar tell Labour voters that she hates the white ones for being white, the non-white males for being males and the non-white females for being cisgender bigots.

So it won't be short order. It'll be half a decade plus which should get us all the way to 2030 and beyond.

 

[Failed Lurker]

The only people in this country who think the BBC has a right-wing bias are the Corbynites IE the socialist class who think anything to the right of Stalin is fascism. Similar to the Bernie Bros. in America thinking CNN and company are pro-republican.

On the flip side, only the far right in Britain think the BBC has a left-wing bias. The BBC is as establishment as you can get.

Surprised to see people cling to right/left framing when, in UK terms, it's been dead for 30 years firstly with NEW Labour, ditching left wing approaches and becoming the party of Big Business and then the Cool Britania era while over 10 year was the "New" Conservatives rebranding with Cameron came to the fore to finish off last traditional right wing positions and the only difference between them since was what colour they stood under.

 

[teriyakiburns]

The BBC is as establishment as you can get.

That's the real kicker. The BBC is literally The Man, applying the same paternalist culture today that was at its very foundation at the start of the 20th century. It will appear "left wing" or "right wing" (or even "disgustingly centrist" as someone I know once put it) to outsiders, depending on what particularly issue it's focus is at the time, but its actual position doesn't align with any political movement, except sueprficially; rather, it's the insufferable, unassailable belief that it is always correct and that you must be correctly educated to accept that self-evident truth. If the "correct" position shifts, the BBC shifts with it, while it continues to act smug and above it all.

The problem I have with that is she will get a full term + however long into Kier's term she buries him.

Leadership betrayals have a habit of collapsing governments fairly quickly, especially when the replacement leader is an ignorant gobshite. I also don't think people will be nearly so willing to forgive her just because she's the first woman labour PM, especially if her first acts in office are to make things objectively worse - and they will be. She'll make Starmer's meanderings look positively pedestrian in comparison.

It's unreasonable to assume she'll last long in leadership because of this. She might last to the end of Labour's initial term, but she'll have so poisoned the electorate - and enough of the party - against her that, even if Labour returns for a second term, it's unlikely she'll still be PM. If nothing else, forcing the gender issue will split the party down the middle and make it even more ungovernable than it already is.

In the event that Labour has a huge majority, there will also be a sizeable contingent within Labour who may demand an election if she coups Starmer, enough that an inevitable Tory vote of no confidence will have sufficient backing to force the issue. If Labour doesn't - as I'm still optimistically assuming - have a huge majority, then she'll be acting in the context of a Labour government that is already vulnerable and needs every bit of support it can get, support that will quickly drain away when it becomes obvious just how much of a raging cunt she actually is.

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

Surprised to see people cling to right/left framing when, in UK terms, it's been dead for 30 years firstly with NEW Labour, ditching left wing approaches and becoming the party of Big Business and then the Cool Britania era while over 10 year was the "New" Conservatives rebranding with Cameron came to the fore to finish off last traditional right wing positions and the only difference between them since was what colour they stood under.

People use them mostly because it's a good shorthand even though as you say it is not entirely correct especially with the way certain issues like say pro-migration became a left wing one and things like openly shitting on people for their lack of education also became one the left now more publicly embrace, unlike the barely concealed contempt that tends to be the Tory tendency.

If you say a media group is left aligned in UK terms what you mean is they embrace the things the parties like Greens and Labour champion whereas if they are support the right they support things the Conservatives claim to be in favour of yet never do anything about.

 

[COMMI3 MARK]

You just know this thread's going to get mentioned in the press when he inevitably blows himself up

That would be the appropriate time for us to discuss it. Ya know, when it's actually "British News"

 

[Failed Lurker]

That's the point I'm making, it's not a good thing because it's easy for shorthand, that's a distraction. I'm getting at still framing it as right vs left is redundant and seeing people fall that one side is "more" than the other, when they are all proposing continuation of the same shitshow.

Not one party is proposing actual solutions that will improve the life of society, only how they'll manage the current situation differently i.e more bureaucracy, consultations on new policy and legislations, from think tanks or NGO's, who are usually staffed with either friends and family of politicians or their donors. And so the taxpayer's money goes round and round the same hands, legal cases brought and challenged to "stop" action then blame is attributed to one side or the other, meanwhile, situation continues to punish the population who are led to, left vs right with the illusion that there's a difference between the parties, the concept of the Overton window shifting is only applicable if their is an actual oppositional viewpoint or doctrine that challenges the other position instead of reinforcing controlled vs controller,
establishment vs anti-establishment.

Earlier in the thread was referring to the whole Basic Instinct Angela Rayner bullshit, what wasn't really questioned that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was in a social setting with an Conservative MP, cracking jokes about in the first place? Sure, it might have been by chance, or it should be a good thing they can leave politics aside and work across the aisle or is it more likely that they're in the same social circles cause they share similar goals, thoughts, opinions and this isn't highlighted by the media cause funnily enough they're already there too.

Edit: Attempts to make the above rant have some kind of focus.

 

[3deadniggers]

That's the point I'm making, it's not a good thing because it's easy for shorthand, that's a distraction. I'm getting at still framing it as right vs left is redundant and seeing people fall that one side is "more" than the other, when they are all proposing continuation of the same shitshow.

Not one party is proposing actual solutions that will improve the life of society, only how they'll manage the current situation differently i.e more bureaucracy, consultations on new policy and legislations, from think tanks or NGO's, who are usually staffed with either friends and family of politicians or their donors. And so the taxpayer's money goes round and round the same hands, legal cases brought and challenged to "stop" action then blame is attributed to one side or the other, meanwhile, situation continues to punish the population who are led to us vs them instead of controlled vs controller.

They don't propose management any more. They shout "Look! That paki is awful!" and "Look! That commie awful!" and never make a single argument for why you would want them in power.

 

[Spunt]

The BBC's bias is towards WEF pod/bug Greta Thunberg neo-liberalism, whether you consider that particular ideology to be left or right (personally I think it's neither as it has more resemblance to medieval feudalism than the post French Revolution split between left and right). Their bias against the Tories and the liberal spin they put on all their news output is indisputable, but so is their bias against leftism - they pretty much made it their mission to hound Corbyn out of office because he risked disrupting the neolib project, something they succeeded doing almost entirely on their own.

I wrote at length about the BBC and the subtle ways it biases its news coverage here.

 

[Rusty Metal Skull Gun]

Sunak's NS plans will never happen because he's going to be jettisoned in 2 weeks, but the fact the tories are willing to fuck with people's civil rights in that way shows why it is so important to destroy them so we don't end up with a US style uniparty, assuming we don't already have one.

I suspect he was probably thinking of the US when he said the thing about driving licences, where you have to register for the Draft in order to get a student loan. But that's retarded and so is this. You shouldn't mess with people's unrelated civil rights just to get your way - that way lies tyranny.

 

[AssignedEva]

I actually appreciate and agree with quite a lot of what you are saying but from the sidelines on this conversation so far it feels a little like the conversation is taking place at two levels. One group saying the game is rigged and you saying "but X is better than Y". It's not that your arguments for X being better than Y aren't supportable. And it's not like I personally entirely reject the principle of being pragmatic and going for the least bad option. But you're smart, you know the game is rigged. When you say things like you vote for Sadiq Khan because he's not as bad as _______ (which I'd actually dispute personally but that's besides the point I'm making), people respond by saying the game itself has to change. Like, if there are no good candidates, we should actively get more involved ourselves. We being destroyed over and over by a carefully managed game of present two things we don't want, one of which is slightly less bad than the other

I appreciate your reply and I can see what you're saying. I think my knack for switching codes professionally is hampering me a bit here.

In all honesty I don't think it really matters who wins the next few elections because frankly, we're facing a large scale societal collapse within the next couple of decades. And I don't mean that in an "eat the bugs, live in pods, own nothing and be happy" way - I mean it's inevitable that the world is going to face significant death from climate change in the coming decades - droughts, famines, political instabilities (arguably Syria was the start of that) and nothing we can do can change it, so we might as well carry on as we are and try and have a nice time as long as we can. We'll be faced with hoardes of migrants, literal hoardes, and at that point we'll turn the guns on the Channel. It's not nice to think about - we'll be sinking boats with innocent children just trying to find safety - but we'll do it because we'll have to, regardless of who is in charge. At that point it'll be too late though, and I don't think there's anything anyone can do to win things over in the current system, and toppling the system would only come too late.

If we reverted to a sort of 18th century rural lifestyle I could still make myself useful, but we'll be going back far further than that and I don't have any of the skills that would be useful in that scenario. It'll be carnage. No point knowing how to grow crops if I'm old and can't defend my plot from scavengers. No point knowing what British plants make for good forage or how to butcher game if the countryside is picked dry by people fleeing the cities.

But I try not to think about the existential toppling point and just switch into the mode where elections still matter (much like I pretend I don't hold my actual opinions most of the time irl). In the scenario where we carry on as we are, I don't trust Nigel Farage as far as I can throw him and I think his current selection of candidates will be like the 2019 Tory intake who lack political ability but just serve as warm bodies to vote a certain way. It's like this thread's discussion about pension reform - if you think there'll be blood in the streets soon, then our pension policy is irrelevant as nobody's being paid a pension in that scenario.

If there was a political party I thought would do something meaningful, someone who occupied a position similar to Reform, I'd hold my nose and vote. But this is a Farage vanity project, the sort of stance that's required would never be elected (at least not anytime soon) and likewise I don't see how anyone would get the populist support for an overthrow of the system anytime soon.

 

[3deadniggers]

I would argue civil rights don't exist here.

But this is a Farage vanity project, the sort of stance that's required would never be elected (at least not anytime soon) and likewise I don't see how anyone would get the populist support for an overthrow of the system anytime soon.

I'm starting to think you're a labour spook. Not being paranoid but you keep rambling about leftist points, even to the BBC insanity. And you keep calling Reform a Farage vanity project when many of the people running for it have a history in local politics and have no connection to Farage. Farage stepped in at the very last second as a PR stunt for himself (and possibly the party). Farage is irrelevant to your local politics, he is not who you're voting for. You have 3 choices for the future. Wait for the collapse, hope you can change things through voting parties like reform or pray the black shirts return and they have enough fire power to take over the country. Nothing else is viable.

Doctor Bomb, I hope you can take a break from the thread and chill a bit. Fed posting is a bad idea no matter what. If you're serious you get caught and if you're not you get caught. Go get a 99 and take a walk around your local lakes to enjoy the weather.

 

[Midwit]

Having high unemployment and a high number of vacancies at the same time is ridiculous.

Probably a dumb question but who thought giving illegal immigrants free hotel rooms was a good idea? Unless you're intention is to completely destroy a country why would you carry out the system the way it is now? It's nothing short of evil and it seems crazy we got to this point. We always talk about it in abstracts but where's the root of the problem?

I'm pretty sure that the vacancies are only high since companies get some kind of benefit for having open positions which never get filled, and politicians can use it to justify the mass importation of brown people so that their friends can make a lot of money out of scamming the state on behalf of migrants from which they doubtlessly receive significant kickbacks.

It’s a deliberately confusing system that deliberately discriminates against people who try to make the best of their conditions and try to function as well as they can.

It feels set up in a way that deliberately encourages benefit fraud, and as someone who's unfortunately reliant on it to cover expenses the fact that I'll probably have to bend the truth a bit about it just to keep myself in the black makes me feel like a piece of shit.

It seems like the ran a calculation and decided it was more beneficial to keep them on then it was to get them off.

Due to the cost of rent a surprising amount of people are better off staying on UC while claiming housing benefits than they would be working a basic minimum wage job, or so I've been told.

Farage is the antithesis, not the synthesis.

Fuck off with the Hegelian bullshit, he's half the reason we're in this mess to begin with.

Go get a 99

More like a £2.50 nowadays, country's really gone to shit now ain't it?

 

[AssignedEva]

I'm starting to think you're a labour spook. Not being paranoid

Yes you're being paranoid, I'm not a Labour spook. Or maybe I am in which case mute me

 

[teriyakiburns]

If there was a political party I thought would do something meaningful, someone who occupied a position similar to Reform, I'd hold my nose and vote. But this is a Farage vanity project, the sort of stance that's required would never be elected (at least not anytime soon) and likewise I don't see how anyone would get the populist support for an overthrow of the system anytime soon.

The only value I can personally see in a vote for Reform is to reduce whatever margin Labour or Tory has in a particular seat, but that calculus also applies to any other minority party, so even in that situation there's not much point voting for Reform unless you're already on board with their general position.

 

[3deadniggers]

Yes you're being paranoid, I'm not a Labour spook. Or maybe I am in which case mute me

No, I'd rather call you out on your bullshit.

The only value I can personally see in a vote for Reform is to reduce whatever margin Labour or Tory has in a particular seat, but that calculus also applies to any other minority party, so even in that situation there's not much point voting for Reform unless you're already on board with their general position.

If you're only voting for that purpose you may as well not vote at all (which is probably the right move in general). One vote is meaningless and that's if the votes aren't already rigged which is entirely possible considering how bad things are.

 

[Tragon Dirtle]

When you say things like you vote for Sadiq Khan because he's not as bad as _______ (which I'd actually dispute personally but that's besides the point I'm making), people respond by saying the game itself has to change. Like, if there are no good candidates, we should actively get more involved ourselves. We being destroyed over and over by a carefully managed game of present two things we don't want, one of which is slightly less bad than the other.

This forum likes to make fun of communists who talk about the revolution like its any day now. Isn't this is the same thing, people saying the game needs to change so don't try and play by the rules? when is the game actually going to change though? any day now.

That's the real kicker. The BBC is literally The Man, applying the same paternalist culture today that was at its very foundation at the start of the 20th century. It will appear "left wing" or "right wing" (or even "disgustingly centrist" as someone I know once put it) to outsiders, depending on what particularly issue it's focus is at the time, but its actual position doesn't align with any political movement, except sueprficially; rather, it's the insufferable, unassailable belief that it is always correct and that you must be correctly educated to accept that self-evident truth. If the "correct" position shifts, the BBC shifts with it, while it continues to act smug and above it all.

Strongly agree. It's also good to remember that a large chunk of the current bbc hierarchy were put in by Cameron, who is centre right and wants to stay that way (neolib).

That's the point I'm making, it's not a good thing because it's easy for shorthand, that's a distraction. I'm getting at still framing it as right vs left is redundant and seeing people fall that one side is "more" than the other, when they are all proposing continuation of the same shitshow.

Not one party is proposing actual solutions that will improve the life of society, only how they'll manage the current situation differently i.e more bureaucracy, consultations on new policy and legislations, from think tanks or NGO's, who are usually staffed with either friends and family of politicians or their donors. And so the taxpayer's money goes round and round the same hands, legal cases brought and challenged to "stop" action then blame is attributed to one side or the other, meanwhile, situation continues to punish the population who are led to, left vs right with the illusion that there's a difference between the parties, the concept of the Overton window shifting is only applicable if their is an actual oppositional viewpoint or doctrine that challenges the other position instead of reinforcing controlled vs controller,
establishment vs anti-establishment.

Agree. Honestly just quoting this to make people read it again.

It's like this thread's discussion about pension reform - if you think there'll be blood in the streets soon, then our pension policy is irrelevant as nobody's being paid a pension in that scenario.

Agree with this too, but it's a bit like the above about revolution being any day now - we have too much genuinely useful technology to resort back to medieval times overnight for no reason. Technology can be lost but it happens very slowly, through the decline of developed infrastructure that self-perpetuates its own operational knowledge. It'll be the fall of rome, not mad max.

I can see things like riots and bloodbaths happening, but I don't think there will be another french revolution or mad max scenario, there will be just lots and lots of small unpleasant happenings somewhere else - like the multitude of deaths at mecca the other day - and you will get on with your life grateful that it's happening somewhere else. The answer to politics is always getting involved locally and getting to know the people around you.

I'm pretty sure that the vacancies are only high since companies get some kind of benefit for having open positions which never get filled,

Haven't heard this, do you know where to find out more about it?

 

[Midwit]

Haven't heard this, do you know where to find out more about it?

I haven't dug too much into it myself but from what I've gathered it's usually done by companies that are either trying to appear like they're growing by having vacancies up constantly or they're doing it as a way to get an immediate replacement in case somebody decides to quit on them. I've heard that employment agencies do a similar thing so that they can get people in whenever a position opens but that's not really the same thing and everyone knows it.