UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

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

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

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

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


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

View image on Twitter


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

#VEGANsausageroll thanks Greggs
2764.png


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


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

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

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

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

View image on Twitter


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

The hype got me like #Greggs #Veganuary

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It should be noted that Piers Morgan and Greggs share the same PR firm, so I'm thinking this is some serious faux outrage and South Park KKK gambiting here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Click to expand...
Chunky Salsa said:
Absolutely. We did a load of hikes, the landscape is beautiful. We broke down halfway - pothole ate a wheel and smashed it to fuck - but even being stranded, it was so picturesque that we didn't give a shit. John O Groats is crap unless you're doing the 140 mile hike though. Loch Ness was breathtaking. Well worth it, and only about £400.
Click to expand...
I've been up to Loch Ness, it is beautiful and caught me off guard with just how nice it is. It's a proper nice part of the world up there. I'm glad to hear you had a good time. Touching major grass like that uplifts the soul.
 
Bog-standard Poster said:
I understand those words on their own, but put together, none of it makes sense to me, and I'm ok with that.
I appreciate the effort of the write-up, but I'm going to stay happy in the ignorance.
Click to expand...
The British far-right is quite an interesting rabbit hole to go down. At first it looks like there's this vast and scary network, then you realise it's just the same dozen guys falling out over gay drama and constantly starting new groups.

Since the only people who really write about it are ex-police, journalists, and left-wing activists, any history them is really overblown and makes them look big and important. 5 guys will meet up in a pub twenty years ago, form a group, then fall out because one ordered a pint of Guinness, then never speak ago, and there will be articles talking about them like they are still a vast army only held at bay by the brave actions of anti-fascist activists.

Just be careful what links you click if you do go down it one day.

An example is Combat 18. A supposed deadly terrorist network with links to loyalist paramilitary groups and an international neo-Nazi network, when it was just a bunch of bored Chelsea fans and a Special Branch handler talking to his German police equivalent and a bunch of their bored hooligans. They had a fucking website, for gods sake. What sort of clandestine terror network has something that whois.com will identify a senior member of?

The British far-left is kinda the same but there's much more rape.
 
FedPostalService said:
The British far-right is quite an interesting rabbit hole to go down. At first it looks like there's this vast and scary network, then you realise it's just the same dozen guys falling out over gay drama and constantly starting new groups.

Since the only people who really write about it are ex-police, journalists, and left-wing activists, any history them is really overblown and makes them look big and important. 5 guys will meet up in a pub twenty years ago, form a group, then fall out because one ordered a pint of Guinness, then never speak ago, and there will be articles talking about them like they are still a vast army only held at bay by the brave actions of anti-fascist activists.

Just be careful what links you click if you do go down it one day.

An example is Combat 18. A supposed deadly terrorist network with links to loyalist paramilitary groups and an international neo-Nazi network, when it was just a bunch of bored Chelsea fans and a Special Branch handler talking to his German police equivalent and a bunch of their bored hooligans. They had a fucking website, for gods sake. What sort of clandestine terror network has something that whois.com will identify a senior member of?

The British far-left is kinda the same but there's much more rape.
Click to expand...
The far-right is a meme. If there was a far-right in this country, the lispy, paki-loving lefty uni-students and transfags would be getting their skulls stoved in.

Imagine a tranny or fat danger hair soyboy threatening an 80's skin head :story:
 
FedPostalService said:
The British far-right is quite an interesting rabbit hole to go down. At first it looks like there's this vast and scary network, then you realise it's just the same dozen guys falling out over gay drama and constantly starting new groups.
Click to expand...
And they all act like cunty 15 year old schoolgirls. It'd be funny if it weren't so fucking sad.

Bog-standard Poster said:
. Careful with catching yellow fever.
Click to expand...
Never ask:
- A woman her age.
- A man his wage.
- A white nationalist the ethnicity of his girlfriend.
 
FedPostalService said:
The British far-left is kinda the same but there's much more rape.
Click to expand...
I think they prefer "seizing the means of reproduction", comrade.

Thing with the far right in this country is that the press/security services/hope not soap have been effective enough that just being accused of being far right means your job, family, home, it's all in jeopardy. So the faces of any movement right of the Tories end up being those with nothing to lose.

Like you say, there's also the issue of them being a bunch of infighting fannies who are incapable of background checking anyone, doesn't inspire confidence in Homeland that they had a BBC-crazed lady boy as a rep.
 
A-Logato said:
"Hey young people who voted for us! Remember when we said we would make it easier for you to find a home? Well fuck you, were giving it to Abdul!"
~Lots of love from the labour party
Click to expand...

It was actually started by the Tories with a law to have 1 immigrant per 200 natives in every council district in the country.

It's just more proof of blue wef then red wef swapping seats in parliament.

Chunky Salsa said:
Yeah that's probably right.
To change the subject, I did the NC500 recently; absolutely beautiful place Scotland is.
Click to expand...
Did it in the 00s.
How was midge country? I'm a west coast fan been up the west coast 3 times since then pure adventure/fun with hitch hikers each time. The east was speed camera'd up even back then. Did you hit up sango bay/ ullapool? Is the lejog book still on the bar in that creepy pub at John O'groats? If so did the guy in the Sinclair c5 with a trailer ever finish?

My sincerest apologies for being a double posting faggot
 
A Lib Dem suggestion I agree with? Quick, bring me my fainting couch!
The Liberal Democrats are calling for fines of up to £1,000 for "headphone dodgers" who play loud music and videos on public transport.
Current railway byelaws already ban many forms of anti-social behaviour on trains and at stations, including using equipment to produce sound without permission if this annoys others.
However, the Lib Dems want to change the law to explicitly ban playing music and videos out loud from a phone on trains and buses in England.
A Department for Transport spokesperson said: "There are already strict rules in place to prevent anti-social behaviour on public transport, including possible fines of up to £1,000."
The government is also introducing further measures to tackle anti-social behaviour on buses, including mandatory training for staff on how to respond to incidents.
The idea has cross-party support, with some Labour and Tory MPs previously suggesting similar measures.
However, without government support the Lib Dem proposals are unlikely to become law.

https://archive.ph/o/yiCV8/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-54931645
A survey of more than 2,000 UK adults for the Lib Dems, conducted by Savanta, found 38% had experienced people playing music out loud often or sometimes.
Some 54% of people would not feel comfortable asking someone to turn down their music on public transport, the findings suggest.
The figure was higher for women (63%) then men (46%).
The Lib Dems said they would try to amend the Bus Service Bill, which is currently making its way through Parliament and is due to be debated by peers next week, to introduce the changes.
The party said it also wanted existing railway byelaws to be amended to make clear playing music and videos out loud from a phone counts as unacceptable behaviour and should be punishable with a fine of up to £1,000.
It said this should be accompanied by a national publicity campaign, including posters on train platforms and at bus stops.
Currently passengers who breach bylaws can be removed from trains or stations, with a maximum fine of £1,000.
Existing regulations also allow passengers to be removed from buses if they play sounds which are likely to annoy others.
Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokeswoman Lisa Smart said: "Far too many people dread their daily commute because of the blight of anti-social behaviour - and headphone dodgers playing loud music on buses and trains are some of the worst offenders.
"Whether you're heading to work, taking your kids to school, or simply trying to enjoy a moment of peace, everyone deserves to feel safe and respected on public transport."
She added: "It's time to take a stand for the quiet majority who just want to get from A to B in peace."
Conservative shadow transport secretary Gareth Bacon said: "Playing loud music on public transport may seem like a small thing, but it speaks towards a growing tolerance of anti-social behaviour that chips away at public civility."
He added that the Conservative Party supports "common-sense reforms like this" but "any new byelaws must be backed by stepping up enforcement - something the Liberal Democrats' plan fails to deliver".
Reform UK and the Green Party have been approached for comment.
Click to expand...

Luckily the Greens remain consistent.
Interim guidance on single-sex spaces is "ill-considered and impractical" and should be withdrawn, the Green Party has said.
The guidance, issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), followed the UK Supreme Court's ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex under the Equality Act.
In places like hospitals, shops and restaurants, trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use women's facilities but they should not be left with no facilities to use, the guidance says.
Green Party co-leader Carla Denyer told the BBC the guidance puts trans people at risk of discrimination, while Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey said there were questions over how it would be enforced.
Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden said the "logical consequence" of the Supreme Court ruling and EHRC guidance was that "people use the facilities of their biological sex".
Asked if the government would ban trans people from using changing rooms or toilets they wish to use in its own buildings, he told the BBC: "In reality, when you say ban, am I going to be standing outside toilets? I'm probably not.
"There isn't going to be toilet police but that is the logical consequence of the court ruling and the EHRC guidance."
The UK government has welcomed the Supreme Court ruling, saying it brings "clarity" for women and service providers.
A spokesperson added: "We will review and update policy wherever necessary to ensure it complies with the latest legal requirements."
Last week the Supreme Court found the terms "woman" and "sex" in the 2010 Equality Act "refer to a biological woman and biological sex".
This means, for instance, that transgender women, who are biologically male but identify as women, can be excluded from women-only spaces.
As part of the judgement in the case brought against Scottish ministers by the group For Women Scotland, Supreme Court judge Lord Hodge stressed that the law still gives protection against discrimination to transgender people.

https://archive.ph/o/5mjEC/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cglx1zg93j0o
Carla Denyer, co-leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, said the interim guidance, which was published on Friday following the Supreme Court ruling on 15 April, was "rushed and ill-thought out".
"It's been really obvious that they have not listened to trans people," she told BBC One's Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme.
She added that the guidance put trans people at risk of discrimination, especially in workplaces, and "seems to fly in face of the strong tradition of tolerance we have in Britain".
The Green Party said in a statement that the guidance was likely to cause "distress" to the trans community as well as "further confusion to employers, businesses and service providers" .
It is calling for the guidance to be withdrawn "until the EHRC can produce something more thought-through which takes into account the voices of all those affected".
Denyer questioned what should happen if trans people are not allowed to go to the toilet of their gender or their birth sex.
The guidance also states that in some circumstances the law allows trans women (biological men) not to be permitted to use men's facilities, and trans men (biological women) not to be permitted to use women's facilities.
When asked to clarify this, the EHRC pointed to a section of the Supreme Court ruling stating that trans men could be excluded from women's facilities "where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken" in the context of a women-only service.
However, the guidance says where possible mixed-sex toilets or changing facilities should be provided, with lockable rooms intended to be used by one person at a time, in addition to single-sex facilities.
Denyer also raised concerns that for lesbian associations or venues which wanted to include trans women, the advice appeared to say they would not be allowed to.
The guidance states that "a women-only or lesbian-only association should not admit trans women (biological men)", while "a men-only or gay men-only associations should not admit trans men (biological women)".

Sir Ed also told the programme lots of people were confused and anxious about the guidance, for example over which toilet a trans man (biological woman) should use.
The Lib Dem leader said his party accepted the Supreme Court ruling but there needed to be more debate in Parliament to reach a clear solution that "respects people's rights".
The EHRC, which enforces equalities law and provides guidance to policymakers, public sector bodies and businesses, is expected to launch a two-week consultation to seek views from those affected in May.
The watchdog is then aiming to provide an updated code of practice to the government for ministerial approval by the end of June.
A spokesperson for the EHRC said: "The law is as set out in the Supreme Court's very readable judgment and is effective immediately.
"Employers, service providers and others with duties under the Equality Act must follow the law and should take appropriate specialist legal advice where necessary.
"But we know many people have questions about the consequences of the judgment and what it means for them, which is why we issued this [guidance] in the interim."
The spokesperson added: "We remain committed to promoting equality and tackling discrimination in all its forms."
Click to expand...
In better news cyclists who kill might finally face the same punishment as motorists who do.
Cyclists who kill pedestrians by dangerous cycling could face life imprisonment in England and Wales under new amendments to the crime and policing bill.
The offence of causing death by dangerous cycling would be brought into line with driving laws under amendments tabled on Thursday, the Department for Transport said.

Dangerous or reckless cycling is usually punished with a maximum two-year jail term. The amendments renew a planned change of the law under the Conservatives that was derailed by the general election.
Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, plans to close a loophole whereby reckless cycling was caught under legislation dating back to the 1860s.

Campaigners have welcomed the new legislation. Matt Briggs, whose wife, Kim, 44, was killed by a cyclist nine years ago, told the Telegraph: “After losing Kim in 2016, I began campaigning the following year to have these laws enacted.
“The use of the ‘wanton and furious’ charge for so many cases has been inadequate and archaic.
“I’m absolutely delighted that this Labour government has followed through with our calls for new legislation.

“This isn’t just a victory for me and my family, it’s also a victory for all the families who have worked tirelessly through their unbearable tragedies to have these laws changed.”
The amendments have been criticised by some cyclists. Chris Boardman, the former Olympic cyclist and national active travel commissioner for England, said the new laws could prevent people from cycling.
Labour has promised “unprecedented levels of funding” to encourage more people to cycle as it aims to meet its net zero targets.
A DfT spokesperson said: “Dangerous cycling is completely unacceptable, and the safety of our roads is a key priority for this government.
“The government is proposing new offences and penalties for dangerous cycling, updating legislation that is over 160 years old, to ensure that the tiny minority who recklessly disregard others face the full force of the law.
“These are being brought forward as part of the crime and policing bill and will be debated in due course.”
Click to expand...
 
Morethanabitfoolish said:
With your caveat in mind you are getting a well deserved rainbow because it will be 100%
Click to expand...
I'll throw the spearchuckers a bone here, dey culcha of being loud, obnoxious, rude arseholes, has been culturally appropriated by chavs and middle-class cockends wanting to be black. Just like wiggas in the 00's, except instead of wearing trousers around their knees, and shittily rapping, they're "i can't breefing" and being social parasites.
 
Bog-standard Poster said:
Neo nazis becoming the police so they can be nonces and nancies would be pretty funny.
Click to expand...
You might laugh, but I have a good mate who is tight with senior coppers for professional reasons. Post Wayne Couzens, mate asked a most senior copper how the fuck people like Couzens and the absolute TIDE of shit that is washing up in the police in the last decade - and honestly, the amount of shit that is coming to police tribunals and discipline is fucking unbelievable, it's turned into the last days of the Night Lords recruiting from Nostramo - are getting in.

Most high cop lord replied: they aren't allowed to do the home visit, home check, any more. He said that that visit, where you got a right good look around the house and spoke to the wife and kids without the prospective copper around, and all that, was much much more effective that it appeared in terms of shaking out nutters, wife beaters, obvious pervs etc etc.

Sounds like it needs to come back.
 
Feathers McGraw said:
Good news everyone! Serco has announced the towns where they will be housing migrants across the UK at the taxpayer's expense. https://archive.ph/v0QlL

Keep your eyes peeled for an influx of doctors and engineers lurking around nearby schools.
Click to expand...
Looks like the midlands gets it the worse. I guess I can expect Stratford to look like Birmingham in the coming years. It sucks because the few times I've been to Warwickshire, the ethic percentages are pretty good outside the tourists you see in the summer.
Bog-standard Poster said:
imagine thinking immigrants are working, let alone taking jobs.
Ironically, the most classist group is the bottom of the ladder benefit scrounge who won't work in a warehouse, or flip burgers, or clean roads because it's below them.
Click to expand...
I know a few people that work in warehouses/delivery that have been booted and replaced with jeets. These companies never even outright fire you, they just make working for them a living hell until you resign.
 
Jason_Cruiser said:
I know a few people that work in warehouses/delivery that have been booted and replaced with jeets. These companies never even outright fire you, they just make working for them a living hell until you resign.
Click to expand...
One of the most damaging lies we’ve told ourselves as a country is the “they’re doing the jobs no one wants to do.”

I used to do these jobs people look down on over the holidays when I was a student and the reason it was attractive to me was they were easy to get and paid well despite just needing the skills of turning up on time and lifting heavy things.

I actually took a massive pay cut when I switched to office temping for entry level office jobs to build my CV up.

If a job is unappealing pay more. If someone won’t work pay them no gibbs.

It’s weird how it’s became a right wing dog whistle to say that we shouldn’t be importing labour to depress wages but here we are.

Let’s hope for a firery yet peaceful summer that we’re all smart enough to watch and not take part in to scare some sense into the establishment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom