UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
https://news.sky.com/story/row-over-new-greggs-vegan-sausage-rolls-heats-up-11597679 (https://archive.ph/5Ba6o)

A heated row has broken out over a move by Britain's largest bakery chain to launch a vegan sausage roll.

The pastry, which is filled with a meat substitute and encased in 96 pastry layers, is available in 950 Greggs stores across the country.

It was promised after 20,000 people signed a petition calling for the snack to be launched to accommodate plant-based diet eaters.


But the vegan sausage roll's launch has been greeted by a mixed reaction: Some consumers welcomed it, while others voiced their objections.

View image on Twitter


spread happiness@p4leandp1nk
https://twitter.com/p4leandp1nk/status/1080767496569974785

#VEGANsausageroll thanks Greggs
2764.png


7
10:07 AM - Jan 3, 2019
See spread happiness's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy


Cook and food poverty campaigner Jack Monroe declared she was "frantically googling to see what time my nearest opens tomorrow morning because I will be outside".

While TV writer Brydie Lee-Kennedy called herself "very pro the Greggs vegan sausage roll because anything that wrenches veganism back from the 'clean eating' wellness folk is a good thing".

One Twitter user wrote that finding vegan sausage rolls missing from a store in Corby had "ruined my morning".

Another said: "My son is allergic to dairy products which means I can't really go to Greggs when he's with me. Now I can. Thank you vegans."

View image on Twitter


pg often@pgofton
https://twitter.com/pgofton/status/1080772793774624768

The hype got me like #Greggs #Veganuary

42
10:28 AM - Jan 3, 2019
See pg often's other Tweets
Twitter Ads info and privacy


TV presenter Piers Morgan led the charge of those outraged by the new roll.

"Nobody was waiting for a vegan bloody sausage, you PC-ravaged clowns," he wrote on Twitter.

Mr Morgan later complained at receiving "howling abuse from vegans", adding: "I get it, you're all hangry. I would be too if I only ate plants and gruel."

Another Twitter user said: "I really struggle to believe that 20,000 vegans are that desperate to eat in a Greggs."

"You don't paint a mustach (sic) on the Mona Lisa and you don't mess with the perfect sausage roll," one quipped.

Journalist Nooruddean Choudry suggested Greggs introduce a halal steak bake to "crank the fume levels right up to 11".

The bakery chain told concerned customers that "change is good" and that there would "always be a classic sausage roll".

It comes on the same day McDonald's launched its first vegetarian "Happy Meal", designed for children.

The new dish comes with a "veggie wrap", instead of the usual chicken or beef option.
Click to expand...

It should be noted that Piers Morgan and Greggs share the same PR firm, so I'm thinking this is some serious faux outrage and South Park KKK gambiting here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Click to expand...
I kind of have a feeling they might basically copy the definition the US recently used in that executive order (based around large/small gametes). It seemed pretty solid and unambiguous. Maybe this will be one time being the USA's little lickspittle will pay off?
 
Meanwhile a Labour MP has been arrested for-oh you can guess
MP Dan Norris has been arrested on suspicion of rape, child sex offences, child abduction and misconduct in a public office.
The Labour Party says it "immediately suspended" the MP for North East Somerset and Hanham after being made aware of his arrest.
Avon and Somerset Police confirmed that a man in his 60s was arrested on Friday and released on conditional bail.
BBC News has contacted Norris for comment.
Norris, 65, was elected as the MP for North East Somerset and Hanham in 2024, defeating the Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.
He had previously been in Parliament from 1997 to 2010 representing the seat of Wansdyke.
The MP was a junior minister under Gordon Brown and was an assistant whip under Tony Blair.
Norris has also served as the Mayor of the West of England since 2021 but is due to step down ahead of May's local elections.
According to the West of England Combined Authority website, Norris previously worked as an NSPCC-trained child protection officer.
In a statement, Avon and Somerset Police said: "In December 2024, we received a referral from another police force relating to alleged non-recent child sex offences having been committed against a girl.
"Most of the offences are alleged to have occurred in the 2000s but we're also investigating an alleged offence of rape from the 2020s.
"An investigation, led by officers within Operation Bluestone, our dedicated rape and serious sexual assault investigation team, remains ongoing and at an early stage.
"The victim is being supported and given access to any specialist help or support she needs.
"A man, aged in his 60s, was arrested on Friday (April 4) on suspicion of sexual offences against a girl (under the Sexual Offences Act 1956), rape (under the Sexual Offences Act 2003), child abduction and misconduct in a public office.
"He's been released on conditional bail for enquiries to continue."
A Labour Party spokesperson said on Saturday: "Dan Norris MP was immediately suspended by the Labour Party upon being informed of his arrest.
"We cannot comment further while the police investigation is ongoing."
The suspension means Mr Norris, the MP for North East Somerset and Hanham, is also understood to have had the party whip suspended, meaning he is not able to sit as a Labour MP in the Commons.
Click to expand...
And a councillor has stepped down after Labour suspended him for unspecified reasons.
The Labour leader of Redditch Borough Council has resigned after being suspended by his party.

Councillor Joe Baker, who had led the council for 11 months, stepped down on Friday, citing personal reasons.

A West Midlands Labour party spokesperson confirmed he had been suspended, but would not comment further on the matter. Baker is now sitting as an independent councillor.

Another Labour councillor, Sharon Harvey, will serve as interim council leader until Redditch's annual council meeting on 19 May.
"As you can appreciate, I have no comments at this time," Baker said, after being contacted by the BBC about his suspension.

First elected in 2012, he is currently serving his fourth term as a borough councillor.

He became leader of the council in May last year, after Labour took control of Redditch in the local elections.

Following his suspension by Labour – which is also understood to have taken place on Friday - he is now sitting as an independent councillor for Batchley and Brockhill ward.

The party would not comment on how long the suspension would last.

In an email to all councillors on Friday, the council confirmed Baker had resigned his position "due to personal circumstances". But it referred all queries to Redditch Labour Party.

"In the interim Sharon Harvey will be stepping into the role, as per the constitution, until a new leader is elected at the Annual Council Meeting," the email stated.
Click to expand...
 
Clem Fandango said:
I kind of have a feeling they might basically copy the definition the US recently used in that executive order (based around large/small gametes).
Click to expand...
This is what I'm hoping for as well. It feels like we're in a prolonged drawing back from all the genderwoo nonsense, but there's still a lot of noise about supporting it all while the realignment happens.
 
teriyakiburns said:
This is what I'm hoping for as well. It feels like we're in a prolonged drawing back from all the genderwoo nonsense, but there's still a lot of noise about supporting it all while the realignment happens.
Click to expand...
Labour are torn but ultimately they owe their clout to Muslims along with Unions and Muslims are,for their litany of faults, based about gender.

If they get a ruling of women are whoever identifies as one I hope the mudslimes give them hell. Maybe they can be useful for once.
 
BongoMongo said:
Labour are torn but ultimately they owe their clout to Muslims along with Unions and Muslims are,for their litany of faults, based about gender.

If they get a ruling of women are whoever identifies as one I hope the mudslimes give them hell. Maybe they can be useful for once.
Click to expand...
It's weird that we're here because of abject cowardice, mainly by the Conservatives. Theresa May, desperate to be loved by Guardian readers, opened the doors wide open for all this.

I just want it to go away, Bong bros.
 
FedPostalService said:
15 minutes and we'll finally know what a woman is, lads! Exciting retarded times we live in.
Click to expand...
Came here to post about this too. I'm just following the BBC live updates for the simplicity of getting quick info.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cvgq9ejql39t (not worth archiving as live updates)

Judges have begun to give their ruling. Mumsnet on the edge of their seats...

EDIT: Forget all that - BBC seem to be behind on their updates, probably working out how to spin things. Mumsnet saying unanimous ruling coming down on the side of biology but saying trans people still getting treated as a protected group under law.
 
FedPostalService said:
15 minutes and we'll finally know what a woman is, lads! Exciting retarded times we live in.
Click to expand...
For top quality seething I recommend the Scotsman as they're posting articles for balance to present both sides of the debate.
YWNBAW
The Supreme Court will this week provide the solution to the gender ID question which seems to terrify so many politicians
It is a perfectly simple question but that doesn’t stop it from terrifying politicians.
As the pernicious effect of gender ideology has become clearer, countless elected members have struggled to provide a coherent answer to “What is a woman?”

Vanishingly few members of both the Westminster and Holyrood parliaments are prepared to state plainly that a woman is an adult human female. Instead, we’ve seen and heard many seemingly intelligent people squirm, evade and even lash out.


A woman, say a troubling number, is anyone who identifies as a woman, a circular argument that answers nothing; others cock their heads and explain that “it’s complicated”, even though it most certainly is not; a certain breed of politician – usually male – simply refuses to answer this “gotcha question”.



But the days of avoidance and equivocation are drawing to a close. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court in London will provide an answer to the question that sends so many politicians into a tailspin.
The feminist campaign group For Women Scotland (FWS) has sought a legal ruling on the matter over concerns about the impact on women’s rights of an ideology that says someone can change their legally-recognised sex simply because they claim to have done so.

Thanks to the campaigning of trans activists and the enthusiasm of politicians who haven’t given given the subject serious thought, we’ve seen trans-identifying men placed in women’s prisons, given access to single-sex changing rooms and refuges, and appointed to positions that the law states should be given only to women.

​


FWS has asked the Supreme Court to answer the question: “Is a person with a full gender recognition certificate (GRC), which recognises that their gender is female, a woman for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010?”
Regardless of the answer, the ruling will have explosive consequences.
If the Supreme Court states that a GRC does not change someone’s actual sex in law, then – across the UK – the madness of trans-identifying men in women’s spaces will come to an end. If, on the other other hand, the Justices decide that a GRC does in fact make someone a woman in the eyes of the law, that will be confirmed as the standard and the self-identification policies which have seen male sex offenders access women’s spaces will be confirmed as unlawful.

It is to be hoped that managers across the public sector will be paying close attention to matters at the Supreme Court. With the encouragement of SNP ministers, organisations across the country have ignored both women’s rights and the fundamentals of good safeguarding practice in order to accommodate the demands of men who wish to “live as” women.
Most recently, NHS Fife has been embroiled in a court action brought against both it and trans-identifying doctor Beth Upton by Sandie Peggie, a nurse of 30 years’ standing who, after complaining she should not have to share a changing room with someone born male, was suspended from work and subjected to a disciplinary procedure.
Ten days of hearings in February revealed deeply troubling details of the way in which Peggie was cruelly treated following a complaint from Upton, who defiantly (and wrongly) claims to be biologically female.
Because of the health board and Upton’s failure to produce necessary documents, the tribunal is on hold until July, at which time we will learn more about an organisation that appears to be utterly dysfunctional.

NHS Fife last week launched a bid to have members of the public excluded from the next round of hearings in Peggie’s case. This, the health board contends, is because of delays caused by non-journalists using an online livestream from the tribunal.
I contend it is because NHS Fife is run by fools embarrassed that their behaviour has been exposed by a group calling itself “Tribunal Tweets” which provides real-time updates of cases involving women fighting back against the misogynistic demands of trans activists.
Whether NHS Fife succeeds in its new mission or not, the Peggie case will dominate the Scottish news agenda at the height of summer.
Under pressure from some members – and spooked by polling that shows the majority of voters believe the Scottish Government’s failed attempt to introduce self-ID into law was wrong – Labour’s Anas Sarwar has said he stands with Sandie Peggie. He joins Conservative Leader Russell Findlay in the reality camp.

First Minister John Swinney, on the other hand, would very much like not to talk about it.
Swinney finds himself in a bizarre position.
Some allies of the First Minister insist he knows fine and well what a woman is. Unfortunately, as deputy to former FM Nicola Sturgeon, Swinney signed up to the SNP’s crusade to meet the demands of trans activists, so the government he now leads is on the opposing side to For Women Scotland when it comes to the question being considered by the Supreme Court.
If Justices rule on Wednesday that biological sex is key to women’s rights (and that a GRC is not a golden ticket into refugees and changing rooms) then FWS will celebrate a deserved victory.
If this is the outcome, I believe the First Minister will be relieved.

Swinney’s refusal to engage on this issue or to pay heed to the women outraged by the Scottish Government’s attempt to remove their rights has displayed a moral cowardice that continues to surprise me. A win for FWS on Wednesday would give him the cover of the law from which he can begin to untangle the mess created by his government.
A loss for FWS on the other hand, would make life even more difficult for a First Minister already struggling to defend his government’s position on women’s rights. Should the Supreme Court rule that a GRC genuinely makes someone a woman, then For Women Scotland will come roaring back.
And they’ll have the vocal support of voters from across the UK who know a woman is, quite simply, an adult human female.
Click to expand...
TWAW
Trans women are women. It’s a simple statement, an acceptance to let someone live as they are.
By Alexander Brown
Published 12th Sep 2021, 04:55 BST
Updated 12th Sep 2021, 19:18 BST


Yet for some reason, it is not a truth universally acknowledged.
Not a day goes by without a transphobic article being published, or a headline framed deliberately to attack a minority endlessly discussed and woefully unrepresented in the media.
I am mortified to see comfortable established commentators who consider themselves progressives take a stand against the idea of self identification.

And we’ve heard the arguments before.
They don’t know at that age. They’re just confused. Where do we draw the line?
But this is a generation that remembers Section 28 repeating the words of those who supported it. And much like those who backed that hateful law, I truly believe those opposing ID will look back in embarrassment.
Their opposition is not malicious but misguided, and it’s not too late to change.
Consider Theresa May, who previously voted against gay adoption, and against reducing the age of consent for homosexual acts.
The former Prime Minister educated herself, and now gets standing ovations at LGBT events for her stance on Gender Recognition.
These views do not have to be entrenched, it comes down to a simple question: ‘Will this thing I believe negatively impact the quality of life of someone completely innocent?’
I didn’t want to write this, and repeatedly weighed up the pros and cons of doing so.
There is the risk of mansplaining, arguing what womanhood is from my safe position of a cis white man.
But I can’t not, because to stay silent would be unacceptable in the face of the volume and power of the voices on the other side.
I don’t pretend to understand being trans, but you don’t need to have a shared experience to want other people's lives to be better.
Making things easier for a marginalised community is good and doesn't dilute the rights women fought for.
GRA changes nothing about access to spaces, that predates even the Equality Act, and same sex marriage didn’t redefine it between a man and a woman.
Feminism is intersectional and you don’t get to pick whose rights you support.
Concerns and the debates around age or spaces are questions that can be worked out, not stumbling blocks or reasons to oppose.
Self-ID laws for transgender people have been in place in Ireland since 2015, progress that has not led to the end of the world.
The country acted quickly, doing it before people could notice so there was no time to be upset.
And it’s not just Ireland, we are outflanked by the US on this, making us less progressive than a country that elected Donald Trump.
Much was made of the protests in Scotland, with as many as 350 people outside Holyrood last week.
That more than three-quarters of MSPs from four parties were elected on manifesto commitments to change the Gender Recognition Act was less discussed.
Scotland voted for reform, you cannot argue there is a majority for independence in the Scottish Parliament but then dismiss GRA. The public voted for it.
Trans women are women. Trans men are men. It’s a statement that will improve other people’s lives without detracting from yours.
Click to expand...
Edit - since it was mentioned Mumsnet over here looks to be around when the rulings were coming in


 
Last edited:
Prediction: There's going to be a ton of fedposting now on Twitter by nu-women and there will be zero investigation by the police.

Do we have a thread on this current happening?
 
FedPostalService said:
Prediction: There's going to be a ton of fedposting now on Twitter by nu-women and there will be zero investigation by the police.

Do we have a thread on this current happening?
Click to expand...
I doubt very much there'll be that big a fallout, though you are right that a lot of those posts will go ignored even when naming specific people they plan to kill.

I'd suggest finding a decent article, posting it in a separate thread and throwing any meltdowns in there. Probably not a full scale Happening unless some people go seriously off the rails. Also Mumsnet sometimes aggregates meltdowns so they might be a good place to glance at for fun.

There was mention Woman's Hour might cover it, I am not aware enough of when it airs on Radio 4 but if it's going to get done today someone doing a local archive of it might be worthwhile.
 
BBC reporting that the Supreme Court have ruled thus:

"The unanimous decision of this court is that the terms woman and sex in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex."

"But we counsel against reading this judgment as a triumph of one or more groups in our society at the expense of another, it is not."

"As I shall explain later in this hand-down speech, the Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, and harassment in substance in their acquired gender."



So uh, women still to suck tranny dick? But also now we know officially what we've always known? (until Parliament amends the Equality Act to outlaw such wrongthink).
 
I'm guessing the Labour party will continue to say fuck all about this. How much longer can they get away with not picking a side now the cultural tides are massively turning and Starmer's team is desperately trying to court working class voters?

Either way, massive congrats to Mumsnet staceys and to For Women Scotland. I will be parked on reddit today to witness the seething.
 
Morethanabitfoolish said:
I doubt very much there'll be that big a fallout, though you are right that a lot of those posts will go ignored even when naming specific people they plan to kill.
Click to expand...
Hopefully they're stupid enough to name the judges when they do as the establishment moves very swiftly with a very big stick when they are threatened. Enjoy male prison, stalker trannies.
Morethanabitfoolish said:
There was mention Woman's Hour might cover it, I am not aware enough of when it airs on Radio 4 but if it's going to get done today someone doing a local archive of it might be worthwhile.
Click to expand...
I speak Greek to god, violence to my enemies, and I do not listen to Women's Hour.
 
Pikanic said:
As I shall explain later in this hand-down speech, the Equality Act 2010 gives transgender people protection, not only against discrimination through the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, but also against direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, and harassment in their acquired gender
Click to expand...
The ruling is meaningless then. If we can’t directly and indirectly discriminate what does that mean? Is discrimination saying no you’re a man get out of this female space? Can we call them men without getting arrested? Why are wr putting legal protections on a sexual fetish?
It’s nice that our greatest legal minds have realised what a woman is, they must be very pleased they’ve reached the same level of sapience as lower animals who know with certainty….. but unless we can tell the pornsick predators to sling their hook we still aren’t safe. There is no such thing as ‘acquired gender.’ What does that even mean? How does the ruling differentiate gender and sex?
Until we get all the GRCs and the insane legal pretzels around them revoked it’s still the same mess. We need the ruling that goes
‘ men are men, women are women (biological definition) gender is a meaningless social construct and only sex matters’
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom