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.

 

[FedPostalService]

Northerners don't have the monopoly on being working-class or being poor. Try being poor and working-class down South where everything is more expensive.

If you’re poor in the south then you ain’t a proper white man.

 

[f4t2h7gc]

There isn't much empathy for why people who are anti-immigration actually arrived at that position. It is treated like a closed case. The nuance of being against mass immigration is lost on most commentators. It's all hand waved away by the types of people that: live in wealthy suburbs; have never been hard of money; work in jobs that are unaffected by undercutting; have only interacted with immigrants from members of the upper-middle class and of equal or better education than their own, and who simply have never experienced (and can't even pause to hear) the problems that someone who has been a victim of cultural clashes, religious persecution or who has valid concerns or counter experience to that world view, might raise.

People have been trying to discuss the problems with cultural 'softness' for years. If you can't even define (through a lack of education or otherwise) what your defining values are as a nation then how can you even consider robustly integrating people from different cultures? Let alone when 1% of the population enters the country every year. And now, in the 21st century, we have reached a point where certain minorities are told they can't walk in particular suburbs of cities like Berlin for threat of violence. This is after being told for years that 'so-called no go areas' were a myth and a conspiracy theory.

Denial of reality only lasts so long. These commentators that bury their head in the sand will only do so until they are forced into a position where they are made to experience the impact of the measures they defend.

 

[Hazel Motes]

Right? I'm not British (thankfully), and I don't know much about the inner workings of British culture like say a British citizen would but all I kept thinking to myself was "Is it wrong to be patriotic?". Like you mentioned the taxi driver, my first thought was "seems like a normal take to have" but OT wants to shape it as "unsympathetic alcoholics who really loves shouting racial slurs at dinner parties".

There's a famous quote by Orwell that discusses this:

In intention, at any rate, the English intelligentsia are Europeanized. They take their cookery from Paris and their opinions from Moscow. In the general patriotism of the country they form a sort of island of dissident 
thought. England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals 
are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always 
felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman 
and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse 
racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably 
true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of 
standing to attention during ‘God save the King’ than of stealing from a 
poor box. All through the critical years many left-wingers were chipping 
away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes 
squashily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always
anti-British.

Orwell does, in the essay this quote originates, suggest reasons for this; the stagnation of the Empire, technological changes, a general distrust for intellectuals by the English ruling classes.

Of all, there is something be said of the last point. England's greatest minds have in ways been common sense types and sentimentalists, a mindset that does not appeal to intellectuals. Our philosophers, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Mill, Spencer all have a spirit of compromise (though dogmatism lays beneath that superficially open surface). It is a fair to say liberalism was 'discovered' in England, as with Empiricism. We like the facts, not the speculation. We make do with what can see and live with what works. We allow for the discomfort of a humbled pride give way to comfort and common ground. I admit to finding most English philosophers a drudge to read for this reason.

Contrast this with German philosophy, which is more epic, more grand, more romantic, than anything English philosophy ever produced. There is no English Kant, no English Hegel, our philosophers do not concern philosophy- barring perhaps Berkeley- with big and final questions, which for the English are the answers for the individual to discover. We like to collect ideas, make up practical systems, and let the reader work out the rest. Even Hume, who seems nihilistic, has this spirit of conservativism, and there have been arguments that he was only suggesting what philosophy cannot do rather than revealing any metaphysical truth. He was no radical, preferring the company of Edmund Burke than Thomas Paine.

In modern philosophy, you can still see this mentality in Mary Midgley (a prominent critic of scientism), and in John Gray (a Millian liberal disguised as a Schopenhauerian). Scruton is an exception. His influences are all German, however, and he rarely refers English philosophy except to criticise. Michael Oakeshott reflects the English conservative tradition far better, for better and for worse.

We are, sometimes rightly, despised by other philosophers for this because it undermines the idea of a truth founded on humanist aspirations, for when someone says you are entitled to your opinion and I to mine, there is a hidden sneer involved, as though what one says does not really matter, that life is not to be taken seriously, that it should all be forgotten about. (Schopenhauer, who loved English culture, is the notable exception).

This is one of the compromises one must make to live in traditional English democracy, and it does not appeal to an intellectual for whom a supposed search for truth, a worship of ideas, of wishing to be right is a main drive. The common English intellectual would prefer the life and death battles you may have found in France or Soviet Russia than the secure, and ultimately stifling nature of English debate. AN Wilson said English intellectuals in 70s and 80s desired the English government to treat them like how the Soviets treated Solzhenitsyn. That way, they would have known how important they are.

Our state church, in the Via Media, also encouraged this need for compromise. There is no sense of absolutism and dogmatism (has any other Christian church be so indifferent to people disagreeing with its main tenets?) that is found in other denominations. If you are a little more Catholic, go high church; if you are a little more Evangelical, go low. However, never commit fully to one or the other. That is the reason John Wesley and John Henry Newman were unable to stay confided within its walls.

It is worth mentioning Newman. Of all men from the Victorian period, he is the one who least tied to his time while remaining so important to it. He seems this way because, well, he seems far more principled to his conscience, than he is with social manners and with the getting on with the world. He looked over the facts, followed his own reasoned argument, and out of principle and compassion, left his cushy number in the Church of England for ostracism. Catholic conversions happened often in England, but Newman’s conversion was of importance because it was not done out of a fear of death like Ben Jonson or marital needs like Graham Greene; Newman’s justification was well thought out, reasoned, and done intellectually. Even the opponents of Catholicism gave Newman their respect. Strachey’s Eminent Victorians, a book Orwell would be thinking about when writing of English-hating intellectuals, treats Newman with so much praise that it sticks out in a book that is hatred for everyone else. Joyce in Portrait declared Newman the greatest Englishman. Orwell felt English intellectuals had a soft spot for Catholicism simply because it was not the Church of England.

This liberal spirit is in our two greatest writers, Shakespeare, and Dickens, who, not by coincidence, are also the two greatest writers of character. The spirit of Shakespeare is a spirit of agnosticism. Shakespeare has his opinions but the reason he stays so widely read is because he gives every character his own say. There is no judging in Shakespeare, you are who you are when Shakespeare gives you a speech.

Dickens is the same. Chesterton described him as a real "democrat". Not in the political sense, but because Dickens thought every man as interesting:

Dickens then had this English feeling of a grotesque democracy. By that is more properly meant a vastly varying democracy. The intoxicating variety of men -- that was his vision and conception of human brotherhood. And certainly, it is a great part of human brotherhood. In one sense things can only be equal if they are entirely different.

That Shakespeare and Dickens are funny writers is also worth noting. Humour makes fools of everyone. When you make a good joke, you bring out a truth. Intellectuals are, barring the best like Joyce, not funny people. They are serious. They want to be taken seriously. If you do not take them seriously, well they may just die. A well-timed joke can kill any intellectual.

While many modern English intellectuals today are liberals, they are not of this carefree attitude, for that would be mistaking political thought for a spiritual feeling. One is liberal in attitude and practise, but not in politics. Political ideas are merely guises for power and status. Intellectuals today advocate for socially liberal policies because the masses do not. They support troons because it makes folks uncomfortable. There is no freedom in 'the new toryism'.

The English succeeded without intellectuals, and they hate it. Our Darwin is no Goethe, our Dickens no Proust, but we have done all right otherwise. We show the rule that a self-admiring intellectual may be on paper prove himself right, but in the general business of the world, he is ill fit. Thom Gunn put it best:

That though the mind has also got a place,
It’s not in marvelling at its mirrored face

 

[A-Logato]

There isn't much empathy for why people who are anti-immigration actually arrived at that position. It is treated like a closed case. The nuance of being against mass immigration is lost on most commentators. It's all hand waved away by the types of people that: live in wealthy suburbs; have never been hard of money; work in jobs that are unaffected by undercutting; have only interacted with immigrants from members of the upper-middle class and of equal or better education than their own, and who simply have never experienced (and can't even pause to hear) the problems that someone who has been a victim of cultural clashes, religious persecution or who has valid concerns or counter experience to that world view, might raise.

People have been trying to discuss the problems with cultural 'softness' for years. If you can't even define (through a lack of education or otherwise) what your defining values are as a nation then how can you even consider robustly integrating anyone? Let alone when 1% of the population enters the country every year. And now, in the 21st century, we have reached a point where certain minorities are told they can't walk in particular suburbs of cities like Berlin for threat of violence. This is after being told for years that 'so-called no go areas' were a myth and a conspiracy theory.

Denial of reality only lasts so long. These commentators that bury their head in the sand will only do so until they are forced into a position where they are made to experience the impact of the measures they defend.

During the brexit referendum I actually got into a decent conversation with someone who was anti-brexit giving out flyers. They weren't local at all from this area and had been shipped up from somewhere but I decide to have a polite talk with them over my and many other stance on mass immigration coming to the local area.

She had mentioned getting a rather frosty response from a lot of the whites so I decide to let her know why. I even pointed out the exact back alley some young white girl got raped down the week prior and just slipped in that one of the rapist was called Abdul. To her credit she seemed to kind of "get it" after that but I don't think I could have truly changed her mind on why brexit at the time was necessary and why so many had hoped it would have reduced if not stopped mass immigration.

I honestly think a large part of why the anti-immigration movement can not catch on or be taken seriously is due to the "gammons" and how they tend to come across. Their not exactly subtle or explain their points all that well and tend to come off as thuggish.

 

[Otterly]

The topic quickly turned to migration, where both agreed, almost instantly, that enough is enough and 'they' should be kicked out. 'they' have ruined Italy and milan with their 'antics' and how, once beautiful cities have fallen to 'them'. Both agreed that we will follow America and begin mass deportations.

This may make you laugh but I had a similar conversation with a Romanian
waitress recently

 

[f4t2h7gc]

His influences are all German, however, and he rarely refers English philosophy except to criticise.

I think this is a wider feature of academia, especially in the 'soft-science' faculties that have helped produce and promote the gender identity movement and critical social justice. An overabundance of praise or criticism will lead to dogmatism. The idea that the history of Britain is exclusively negative, that the British have been a solely negative force in the world, that we have nothing to be proud of and should accept the daily flagellation of our cultural heritage as punishment for the sins of (some of) our ancestors appears to be a prominent idea that is rarely challenged. History is usually a bit more complicated than black and white distinctions. What is true now is that we live in a better environment than any of our ancestors did, due in large part to their actions over many generations to secure it.

There are reasons why people want to live in the UK. However, we now have key features of what has made UK society attractive and a success (free speech and expression being the main example) under threat and without a sounding of supportive voices in its defense. Chipping away at the foundations of a successful society will lead to its collapse or regression at some point. It's just a matter of time.

Case and point. This complete hand waving response from The News Agents on the recent police visit to Allison Pearson, a journalist for the Telegraph, on account of a Tweet that she posted and deleted over a year ago. The police wouldn't even explain who the accuser was. People went to prison over social media posts following the riots. And yet, certain individuals like Nick Lowles of Hope Not Hate were free to amplify misinformation and face zero consequences. Is it really a mystery why the two-tier police state 'narrative' has gained traction?

Clip from the News Agents.

L/A

In other news, another partly recorded exchange where a member of the group Fair Cop was questioned by police for a Tweet that 'caused offense' and turned the law back on the police officers attempting to take him to the station.

Archived 𝕏 post.

Archived 𝕏 post.

 

[teriyakiburns]

In other news, another partly recorded exchange where a member of the group Fair Cop was questioned by police for a Tweet that 'caused offense' and turned the law back on the police officers attempting to take him to the station.

It's like a sketch from Not The Nine O'Clock News...

 

[Hazel Motes]

What is true now is that we live in a better environment than any of our ancestors did, due in large part to their actions over many generations to secure it.

The final lines to Eliot's Middlemarch will suffice.

But the effect of her being on those around her was incalculably diffusive: for the growing good of the world is partly dependent on unhistoric acts; and that things are not so ill with you and me as they might have been is half owing to the number who lived faithfully a hidden life, and rest in unvisited tombs.

I mean, look at something as simple as the Samaritans. The founder, Rev. Chad Varah, once took a funeral for a fourteen-year old girl who committed suicide because she believed she had contracted an STD (she was menstruating). Facing her grave, he told her, "Little girl, I didn't know you, but you have changed the rest of my life for good," and he vowed that day to do all he could for people who were contemplating suicide. The Samaritans has done a lot good since, that can't be doubted.

Is that done in spite of the English character or because of it? Certain people have you think that the English have done no good, but our history is full of countless example of strange, eccentric, individuals trying to do their best. We should be grateful for what good others have done for us. Perhaps the reason a man like Varah thrived was because a certain aspect of our country allowed people like that to flourish. Perhaps the reason we have intellectuals who despise their own country is for a similar reason.

The idea that the history of Britain is exclusively negative, that the British have been a solely negative force in the world, that we have nothing to be proud of and should accept the daily flagellation of our cultural heritage as punishment for the sins of (some of) our ancestors appears to be a prominent idea that is rarely challenged.

I recently talked to a Middle Eastern lady about this. I asked what specifically had the British Empire done wrong that you couldn't find anywhere else. She brought up Algiers.

People who tend to think in black & white tend also to know the least. The Empire did some bad, certainly, but it certainly did some good, and I am glad it existed, for there has been far worse empires. The Empire doesn't stir me. I do not sing its praises. I like the Zulu film and that is about it, but I am not to going to pretend to be sorry for something that, judging by the standards of human nature, has done far more good than ill.

 

[FedPostalService]

She brought up Algiers.

You’re both retarded. That was, and may Allah forgive me for saying this, the French.

 

[Hazel Motes]

You’re both retarded. That was, and may Allah forgive me for saying this, the French.

People who tend to think in black & white tend also to know the least.

That's what I meant. She knew fuck all.

 

[FedPostalService]

That's what I meant. She knew fuck all.

It turns out I was the retard all along. Sorry.

 

[Overly Serious]

I can have empathy for them and not want them here. They’re not mutually exclusive positions.

Indeed. And one can even disagree based on what is the most effective method to help people. The government seized a student hall of residence for the next nine years to house, 700 migrants was it? The cost of that will be many millions. Such sums could provide food and shelter for many times the same amount of people in their native countries. For example.

AN Wilson said English intellectuals in 70s and 80s desired the English government to treat them like how the Soviets treated Solzhenitsyn. That way, they would have known how important they are.

I have to say your post was a sterling piece of work and the above line in particular made me laugh.

A well-timed joke can kill any intellectual.

I believe this to be true.

 

[f4t2h7gc]

A well-timed joke can kill any intellectual.

I believe this to be true.

As do I.

First they came for the satirists and I did not speak out
— because I was an unfunny retard.

 

[K!w!Fartz]

This may make you laugh but I had a similar conversation with a Romanian
waitress recently

Even immigrants don't always want more immigration. Many want to bring their families, friends, and "clans" here, but some have a different mindset.
Some of them realize the differences in races and would prefer to live among white people.
Immigrants mostly work low-skill/low-wage jobs and do not want other immigrants stealing them.
Immigrants are aware of the fact that if too many of them come here to live on benefits, there is a higher chance that the native whites will rise up and kick them out.
Being the only black in a community must have advantages, some women will view you as exotic and different and want to sleep with you, you can also get jobs like acting in adverts easily because your the only nigger in the area. people will want to be friends with you in order to prove they're not racist because they've been misled into thinking that makes them morally superior to those who are.
Niggers generally lower the quality of life of other niggers, which is why there isn't a single pleasant African country. they drive up crime rates in all categories and even attack each other while giving each other a bad reputation.
I'm sure you could continue identifying more reasons why some blacks don't want more immigration, but you get the point, and the fact of the matter is, is that most aren't intelligent enough/self-aware enough to have those views.

 

[East_Clintwood]

Even immigrants don't always want more immigration. Many want to bring their families, friends, and "clans" here, but some have a different mindset.
Some of them realize the differences in races and would prefer to live among white people.
Immigrants mostly work low-skill/low-wage jobs and do not want other immigrants stealing them.
Immigrants are aware of the fact that if too many of them come here to live on benefits, there is a higher chance that the native whites will rise up and kick them out.
Being the only black in a community must have advantages, some women will view you as exotic and different and want to sleep with you, you can also get jobs like acting in adverts easily because your the only nigger in the area. people will want to be friends with you in order to prove they're not racist because they've been misled into thinking that makes them morally superior to those who are.
Niggers generally lower the quality of life of other niggers, which is why there isn't a single pleasant African country. they drive up crime rates in all categories and even attack each other while giving each other a bad reputation.
I'm sure you could continue identifying more reasons why some blacks don't want more immigration, but you get the point, and the fact of the matter is, is that most aren't intelligent enough/self-aware enough to have those views.

I moved to Texas a few years ago, and it was kind of funny to learn that some of the most vehement, almost virulently anti immigrant people are other Mexicans. More specifically it's the ones who spent the time/money/effort to get here legally who are absolutely sick of all the border hopping faggots causing shit and giving them all a bad name. I know a couple who even switched churches because they were fed up with their original one spending more on helping illegals than the people already in their community.

 

[K!w!Fartz]

I moved to Texas a few years ago, and it was kind of funny to learn that some of the most vehement, almost virulently anti immigrant people are other Mexicans. More specifically it's the ones who spent the time/money/effort to get here legally who are absolutely sick of all the border hopping faggots causing shit and giving them all a bad name. I know a couple who even switched churches because they were fed up with their original one spending more on helping illegals than the people already in their community.

Think Trump will be able to finish that wall in the next 4 years?
I imagine many Mexicans are genuinely fleeing persecution from the cartels and shit, but it's not Americans job to look after them, and I can say that as a Manx man. when the people who could fix the country have the far easier option of just fleeing it, then it'll remain a shit country with a Jewish woman illegitimately as president.

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

Random news collection again.

Labour expanding the none crime hate-incident stuff? Who could have predicted that.

https://archive.ph/dBzWY

The Home Secretary is planning to expand the recording of non-crime hate incidents despite the backlash over the threat to free speech.
Yvette Cooper is committed to reversing the Tories’ decision to downgrade the monitoring of the incidents, specifically in relation to anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, so they can be logged by police.
Labour believes the current guidance to forces prevents officers from tracking tensions involving Jewish and Muslim communities that could escalate into violence and criminality.
It comes amid calls by senior Tory MPs to scrap the requirement for police to record non-crime hate incidents (NCHI) or further restrict the ability of officers to log them to protect free speech in the wake of the Allison Pearson row.

A Home Office source said: “It is part of our manifesto commitment so we will work with the College of Policing to understand the best way of doing that so police can assess where there is a high incidence of anti-Semitic and Islamophobic hate crime.”

Pearson, an award-winning writer for The Telegraph, was being investigated by Essex Police for allegedly stirring up racial hatred with a social media post made in November last year. The force dropped the case on Thursday.
While Pearson was being investigated for an alleged crime, she initially thought an NCHI was being recorded against her. The case prompted criticism of NCHIs, which do not meet the criminal threshold but are recorded by police regardless.
Speaking on Radio 4’s PM, Pearson said: “The issue here is these non-crime hate incidents are out of control. Nobody with great knowledge of the law has ever suggested that there was any basis for charging me with anything.
“And we have to ask the question, why did Essex police persist in this? Why did they escalate it with me? I did not incite racial hate, nobody thinks I incited racial hate.

“I feel I was bullied and threatened, and this was wholly disproportionate. I won’t censor myself, but I will be more watchful in future.”
The plans to expand the recording of NCHI were first revealed in the summer but have recently come under fresh scrutiny.
Free speech campaigners are also threatening to take legal action against the Home Office if it goes ahead with plans to unpick rules laid down by Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, to stop police recording incidents just because someone was offended.
The rules, introduced last year, limited officers to recording personal data for NCHIs only where there was a “real risk of significant harm” to individuals or groups and a real risk that a future criminal offence could be committed against them.

What is a non-crime hate incident?​

​

The College of Policing states that it is any incident where a crime has not been committed, but where it is perceived by the reporting person or any other person that the incident was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on:

• A person’s race or perceived race, including any racial group or ethnic background including countries within the UK, and gypsy and traveller groups;
• A person’s religion or perceived religion, including any religious group including those who have no faith in a theology;
• A person’s sexual orientation or perceived sexual orientation;
• A person’s disability or perceived disability including physical disability, learning disability and mental health or developmental disorders;
• A person who is transgender or perceived to be transgender, including people who are transsexual, transgender, cross dressers and those who hold a gender recognition certificate under the Gender Recognition Act 2004.

While there is no specific sanction for a non-crime incident, it can be recorded by police if an incident is initially reported as a crime. But it is not clear from the report whether a crime has been committed or not.
It can also be recorded where the alleged behaviour falls short of criminal activity, but the surrounding circumstances suggest that the behaviour may contribute to – or become evidence of – a course of criminal conduct.
Expand
However, a report by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in September found many forces were still failing to correctly apply the guidance.
It uncovered evidence that confusion over the rules meant officers were taking a risk-averse approach summed up as “if in doubt, record”. As a result, NCHIs were too often being logged for complaints that amounted to little more than people’s “hurt feelings”.
Police have recorded a non-crime hate incident after a person refused to shake hands, which the victim “perceived to be hate related due to gender identity”.
They also logged a “rough” haircut reported by a customer who claimed his barber was “aggressive” following a discussion about the Ukraine war.
Ms Cooper has urged police to use “common sense” when recording non-crime hate incidents and has pointed to recommendations by the HM inspectorate for improved training and clearer direction for officers.
A Home Office source said: “We support the Inspectorate and College of Policing assessment that there needs to be a common sense and consistent approach – that means that trivial, irrational or malicious cases should not be recorded.

​

“The Inspectorate has been clear that guidance is not being followed consistently and we’ll be working with them and the College of Policing to make sure that the recommendations are implemented.
“Over the past 12 months there has been a big increase in anti-Semitism and Islamophobia and it’s really important that police forces are able to track and monitor that so that action can be taken to prevent harassment, crime or serious threats.”
Labour believes it can amend the guidelines to boost the recording of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia without changing the wider requirements to follow a common sense approach and not to record trivial or irrational incidents.
“Squaring the circle is what we are looking at mechanisms to do,” said a Home Office source, although they added that it was not being actively pursued at the moment.
A No 10 spokesman said Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, was clear that the police should be spending their time protecting the public and keeping streets safe.
“When it comes to those incidents we’ve also said that it’s vital we carefully consider how we balance the fundamental right to free speech and how police can gather information where relevant. We’re looking at how we can best ensure this is the case and will set out next steps in due course,” said the spokesman.

​

The Free Speech Union (FSU) and former police officer Harry Miller, chief executive of campaign group Fair Cop, have written to Ms Cooper threatening legal action if there is any loosening of the guidance on NCHIs.
The guidance was re-written by the Home Office and College of Policing under Mrs Braverman after Mr Miller won a Court of Appeal challenge over a police investigation into his tweets. The judges ruled the old NCHI guidance had been wrongly used and had a “chilling effect” on his freedom of speech.
Toby Young, director of the FSU, said: “The reason Suella Braverman tried to circumscribe the recording and retention of NCHIs isn’t because, as a Tory, she has more tolerance for anti-Semitic and Islamophobic hatred than the lovely and caring Yvette Cooper.
“It’s because the Court of Appeal in Miller vs College of Policing ruled that the guidance devised by the College, and the behaviour of the police in their efforts to comply with it, was unlawful.
“If Yvette Cooper scraps the statutory guidance and encourages the police to record even more NCHIs, she will be ordering them to go back to breaking the law. That’s not a great look for the Home Secretary.”

Nice to see the ex-Archbishop is still doing public functions after resigning due to protect a child rapist

https://archive.ph/Q4Pkr

The Archbishop of Canterbury’s attendance of a British Museum dinner the day after he stepped down from the Church was “jaw-dropping”, Private Eye editor Ian Hislop said.
The Most Rev Justin Welby attended a “gathering of the great and good” a day after he announced he was quitting over a Church of England abuse scandal, Hislop has revealed.
Hislop described it as “jaw-dropping” that the Archbishop had turned up to the British Museum trustees’ annual dinner last week.
The Archbishop released a statement on Tuesday of that week saying he was stepping down “in sorrow with all victims and survivors of abuse”.
The move followed days of pressure after a review concluded that John Smyth, the most prolific serial abuser to be associated with the Church, might have been brought to justice had the Archbishop formally reported him to police in 2013.

Hislop, a team captain on the satirical show Have I Got News for You, said he was in disbelief that Archbishop Welby appeared at the museum event a day later.

In a column in Private Eye, Hislop wrote: “It was a gathering of the ‘great and good’, but as I stood with a drink in my hand, I couldn’t help noticing that the man standing across the Great Court from me was the Archbishop of Canterbury.
“This was the day after he had been forced to resign in disgrace for his role in an appalling scandal and cover-up of monstrous abuse in the Church of England. Like many guests there, I could not believe he would turn up to a public event. It was jaw-dropping.”

He said the Archbishop had approached his group and introduced himself, before looking around and commenting, “isn’t this lovely?”
Hislop went on: “I am afraid at this point I couldn’t contain myself and refused to allow him to use the politeness of the British establishment to get away with what I thought was extraordinarily shameless behaviour. I said, ‘It is lovely that you have resigned.’”
Hislop said the Archbishop looked surprised by the comment.
Lambeth Palace has said it does not comment on private conversations.
The Archbishop intends to complete his official duties by Jan 6 and is likely to have “very little public-facing activity” between now and that date, Lambeth Palace said on Wednesday.

Official functions will be delegated to Stephen Cottrell, the Archbishop of York.
The BBC said Archbishop Welby will not deliver the traditional televised New Year message on New Year’s Day.
A spokesman for the broadcaster said: “Lambeth Palace have confirmed that there will not be a New Year’s message from the Archbishop of Canterbury this year.
“It will resume next year when the new Archbishop of Canterbury has been appointed.”
The Archbishop delivered his first televised New Year message in 2014, and each year since then.
The Church of England has not yet confirmed whether he will deliver the Christmas Day sermon from Canterbury Cathedral.

Rape crisis centre forced by the courts to issue an actual apology after targeting someone for being a dang dirty TERF.

https://archive.ph/uAfSu

A rape crisis centre has published a formal apology to an ex employee constructively dismissed over her gender-critical views.
Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC) had been ordered by an employment tribunal to publicly say sorry to Roz Adams over her dismissal for believing those accessing services should be able to know the sex of staff.
In a post on its website, the centre said it accepted the tribunal’s findings it “harassed and discriminated against Ms Adams” because of her beliefs.
Ms Adams was awarded £70,000 by the tribunal earlier this month.

ERCC apologised to Ms Adams for alleging that she was transphobic and acknowledged that:

• ERCC's decision that Ms Adams had misconducted herself was wrong
• Ms Adams was motivated by a wish to act in the best interests of centre users
• Nothing Ms Adams did constituted bullying or harassment
• ERCC had harassed and discriminated against Ms Adams because of her protected gender critical beliefs

A ruling in May said the decision to launch a disciplinary process against Ms Adams was because the centre’s management wanted to “make an example” of her because of her views.
Ms Adams has maintained her belief that those using a rape crisis centre should have a choice over who they receive support from on the basis of sex, and that sex is binary and "everyone is either male or female at that level".
Those beliefs clashed with the views of Mridul Wadhwa, the centre’s chief executive and a trans woman, who has since resigned from the role.
The tribunal also ruled the centre must refer victims of sexual assault to Beira’s Place, where Ms Adams now works.
Beira’s Place is a women’s refuge established by author JK Rowling. It does not hire or provide services to trans women.
ERCC previously sent Ms Adams a letter in September saying it apologised for the stress and discrimination she faced at ERCC.
However, Ms Adams argued this was not satisfactory, as it did not clear her name publicly.


The tribunal centred on a disciplinary process that began after Ms Adams sought clarity on how to respond to an abuse survivor who wanted to know if a support worker who identified as non-binary was a man or a woman.
Some people who do not consider themselves to have a solely male or female gender identity describe themselves as non-binary.
The tribunal found that the investigation should not have been launched and “was clearly motivated by a strong belief amongst the senior management and some of the claimant’s colleagues that the claimant’s views were inherently hateful".
Allegations of misconduct were upheld, but no action was taken. Ms Adams then chose to resign.
Rape Crisis Scotland has launched an investigation into ERCC.
The judgment said Ms Wadhwa appeared to believe that Ms Adams was transphobic.
It said that Ms Wadhwa was “the invisible hand behind everything that had taken place.”
In his judgement, judge McFatridge said the disciplinary process used against Ms Adams was “reminiscent of the work of Franz Kafka” - the 20th Century writer whose works were often characterised by nightmarish and confusing situations.

Edinburgh to start shipping its homeless to the neighbouring regions. The funniest bit about this story is they apparently were already doing so to provide extra room for Taylor Swift fans.

https://archive.ph/RCQOg

Some homeless people in Edinburgh could be moved out of the city as part of a plan to stop the use of unlicensed temporary accommodation before the end of the month.
City of Edinburgh Council has provided hundreds of rooms in hotels and B&Bs as temporary accommodation in response to soaring demand since the Covid pandemic.
The change of these properties into primary residences, as opposed to being for guests only, means they are legally required to be licensed as a house of multiple occupation (HMO).
But around 650 homeless people live in accommodation without a HMO licence and council officials trying to rehome them said about 10% of them could be temporarily moved outside of Edinburgh if they don't find enough spaces by 30 November.

Derek McGowan, Service Director for Housing and Homelessness at the City of Edinburgh Council, said the city had been offered about 70 external properties, mostly in neighbouring local authorities and none more than 50 miles away.
He said he didn’t think there would be a need to use them but added “we need to plan for it”.
He said: “I would say I’m confident at the moment there will be a place for everyone affected by this to stay.
“Predominantly what we’re trying to do is use our [housing] stock on a temporary basis, but whatever else licenced and suitable accommodation in the city we can find, we can use.
“The contingencies are there, if there is a need to use accommodation outwith the authority area we would make sure we are transporting people there and that would be on a short-term basis, as short as possible, so we can bring them back to the city and put them in our housing stock.”

Breaking the law​

The initial decision to significantly increase the amount of unlicensed temporary accommodation available was taken at the start of the first Covid lockdown in 2020.
At the time, inspections of all the properties were made to ensure the safety requirements were met and landlords in breach of the rules were requested to register for an HMO licence.
Around 30 landlords did not do this and the council now plans to stop paying the unlicensed providers of HMO properties in early December.
This has been driven by the cost of the arrangement amidst soaring demand but also the fact the City of Edinburgh Council is committing a criminal offence by paying operators who did not comply with its own health and safety licensing requirements.
The council is also in breach of its HMO licensing duty by maintaining to support homeless households in some unlicensed properties.

To achieve its goal of ending the unlicensed HMO arrangement, the council has suspended applications for social housing.
EdIndex, the Edinburgh housing portal used by homeless individuals to bid for council houses, allows people to get on a waiting list for longer-term solutions.
Empty homes are usually advertised online but the site has been temporarily paused due to “unprecedented pressures”.
Non-essential repairs have also been paused until January to prioritise work to get more unoccupied or void homes back into use.
Mr McGowan said around 174 of these void council homes had been brought back into use in the past few week and around 120 more spaces for homeless people will be made available if current unlicensed providers’ applications to get HMO licences are granted in the next week.
The senior council official said the local authority is also working on another "commercially sensitive" arrangement to try and address the unlicensed HMO issue.
In May people presenting as homeless in Edinburgh, who were not already in temporary accommodation, were sent out of the city due to huge demand for hotel rooms created by Taylor Swift concerts.

 

[AnOminous]

More specifically it's the ones who spent the time/money/effort to get here legally who are absolutely sick of all the border hopping faggots causing shit and giving them all a bad name.

There's nothing people hate more when they jumped through all the hoops and did everything properly, than those who get treated like saints for breaking ALL the laws and on top of that, draw down heat on them, the ones who actually played by the rules.

Laws are meaningless, empty garbage if you don't punish the people who don't follow them and ALSO reward those who do.

 

[missnaptime]

There's nothing people hate more when they jumped through all the hoops and did everything properly, than those who get treated like saints for breaking ALL the laws and on top of that, draw down heat on them, the ones who actually played by the rules.

Laws are meaningless, empty garbage if you don't punish the people who don't follow them and ALSO reward those who do.

sorry to rant, or if this is off topic; this was the only applicable thread/mention i could find that was reasonably on topic to my gripes.

Spoiler: spergy shitty angry rant below about illegal us immigrants

my friend is currently trying to move to the states from the uk because she's marrying an american; and they've had to hire a lawyer so she can legally get a visa since her esta has maxed out. it's that much of a fucking ballache. she's been waiting to start this process for almost a year. its genuinely so much of a bureaucratic mess.

it made her fiance a single issue voter (ish) regarding the us presidental election, and i can see why. if i had the opportunity to, i would have voted the same in the us election. she's been getting more and more conservative as she experiences the struggles of the immigration system - and its made the both of us bitter, more frustrated, and angry.

i don't want to stay in the uk. i have hardly any relatives alive here, and with the job i do, it just objectively pays better and gives me far better prospects if i go stateside. one of the biggest hurdles is not my qualifications, not my experience, not my fucking education - but getting into the country with means of sponsorship from an appropriate employer or otherwise via a green card a-la marriage. why should we, law abiding citizens who want to contribute to american society and be a part of it, pay our taxes, never have even had so much as a parking ticket, have to struggle this much to enter the country legally and with good means and reasons for doing so, yet pablo can just skip the border no problems asked and get his dicked sucked with benefits from the us government?

my friend's fiance has recommended me to try and scope for a husband for that sweet sweet green card - but that makes me feel sick to do. I want to meet someone i want to marry because i love them, not because of a necessity for legality, let alone for something as binding as a marriage. i don't want to shop for marriage - that feels sick. even if its 10x more difficult for me to enter legally, i would rather struggle and fight for my right to become an american citizen than do that. it feels like a betrayal against my principles.

i really hope every single one of those illegal fucks get deported, shot, fucking thrown into the sun, ad infinitum. i cannot stand them. they make my blood boil. i really, honestly do. it makes me sick that she has to suffer, shill out thousands of dollars for a lawyer, has to spend her time fretting about this, when she has done nothing wrong and simply wants to marry the man she loves. i just want to build an honest life and contribute to public good and get fair recompense for it.

 

[isalaide]

Send all the jakeys to West Lothian. No one will be able to tell the different between a jakey and a normal resident there. When the Proclaimers sang "Bathgate no more" it was actually a regeneration plan