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.

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:
You win/fight a 1v1 war in the past century against a country that actually had a navy?
Or wasn't just another country's insurrection/rebellion?
View attachment 7504675
1749948952194.webp
Na, we've just been sailing around and pushing everyone's shit in for minor inconveniences to remind them of their total irrelevance, same as the Royal Navy used to do back in the good old days. At least until Jutland where you faced someone who knew what they were doing, unlike the Argies.
 
View attachment 7504797
Na, we've just been sailing around and pushing everyone's shit in for minor inconveniences to remind them of their total irrelevance, same as the Royal Navy used to do back in the good old days. At least until Jutland where you faced someone who knew what they were doing, unlike the Argies.
>Iran
...and afterwards they developed time travel frankenstein radio controls to blow up the USS Liberty 20 years beforehand
 
Isn't this like the 5th one this month or something? There has been a ton of house fire stories as of late.
Wait for the names, are the victims British or "British"? I won't be surprised if the BBC starts spamming us with every house fire that effects white people now because people were starting to notice.
 
Isn't this like the 5th one this month or something? There has been a ton of house fire stories as of late.
I keep noooticing and I'll keep posting them.

Starmer says we've sent more jets to the mid-east. Does anyone know which base they've been deployed to? There's only one base I know of out there, post-afghanistan, and it's a long flight to Iran.
 
Cyprus would be a good bet.
Good shout, but is that the mid-east? It's a helluva sortie to get to Iran. I know there's Al udied near Doha, that's a yank base we used to fly out of during DS2. Other than that there was Afghanistan but I don't think the talibannies will be letting us go there anytime soon.
 
Good shout, but is that the mid-east? It's a helluva sortie to get to Iran. I know there's Al udied near Doha, that's a yank base we used to fly out of during DS2. Other than that there was Afghanistan but I don't think the talibannies will be letting us go there anytime soon.
Maybe set up there and if Iran kicks off move to Saudi bases along with other friendly Arab nations bases who hate the Iranians more than Jews.
 
Maybe set up there and if Iran kicks off move to Saudi bases along with other friendly Arab nations bases who hate the Iranians more than Jews.
That makes sense. I wonder which side we will be on? The Suadis are jews though, for all in tents and purr possies.
 
Please be Alan Carr, I cannot fucking stand the man. Nails on chalkboard.

I feel the same way about Richard Fucking Osman.

His books are shit as well.

Actually more horrific than you describe.

This is a better description.
It’s a replacement to asbos.
Rev your car to hard and the police can seize it without warning.
Tell me you've never been to Bradford without saying you've never been to Bradford.

His nibs doesn't live in Bradford but is covered by the council and the PSPO. Neighbor of his,not a paki btw just a boy racer,has been done under it and rightly so.

Boy racers are absolute cunts and we cannot penalise them hard enough.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Respect Orders are now a thing in the cUK.
Ah, the new "Non-crime hate incidents."

@>IMPLYING 's helpful summary gives me the same red flags as ever from this stuff. Criminalises widely and will be enforced specifically as people often point out about our laws, the wide range of people with that authority means it's going to be abused to heck and back.

Expect it to be a Tory talking point and when they are next in nothing will be done about it.

Did anyone see Darren Jones getting called out on Question Time because he wrongly claimed that most of the vermin in small boats are women in children?
BBC even did a news article about it. In which they quoted his statement that Reform were wrong about 90% twice.


A row has erupted after a senior minister said the majority of people crossing the English Channel in small boats he had seen were "children, babies and women".
Treasury minister Darren Jones and Reform UK's Zia Yusuf clashed on the BBC's Question Time over the age and sex of people making the journey.
Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called on Jones to apologise for saying something that was not true.
But the minister later said he had been referring to what he had seen on a recent visit to Border Security Command in Dover.
He added: "Of course the overall majority of people arriving illegally on small boats are men - but not 'north of 90%' as Reform claimed."

In the first three months of 2025, there were 6,420 small boat arrivals where the age and sex of the person was recorded, according to Home Office figures.
Of these, 81% (5,183) were adult men.
In the same period, of the 531 child arrivals (aged 17 and under), 427 of them were male and 104 female. There is no further age breakdown, so we don't know how many babies were amongst them.
In the whole of 2024, 76% of small boat arrivals, where the sex and age are known, were adult male.
In the Question Time exchange on Thursday, Jones said: "Let me tell you, when you're there on the site, seeing these dinghies put together by these organised criminal gangs, which are clearly not safe.
"And when you see that the majority of the people in these boats are children, babies and women… you have got to take note."
At this point in the debate, Jones was interrupted by Yusuf, who claimed more than 90% of those who cross the Channel in small boats are adult men.
"That's not true," Jones said.
Yusuf and BBC presenter Fiona Bruce asked Jones to clarify if he disputed the 90% figure.
"I'm saying it's not true," Jones said.
He then added: "When there are babies and children put into that position by human trafficking gangs who are coming across the Channel with skin burns from the oil in those boats, mixing with the salt sea water, I would ask any of you to look at those babies and children and say go back where you came from."
He said the government could take a "humanitarian response" whilst tackling people-smuggling gangs without politicising the issue.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch called for Jones to apologise, saying: "We're not going to have any trust in the government or politicians if people can't believe what it is they are saying.
"So I think Darren Jones should absolutely retract his remarks and apologise."
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage argued what Jones had said was "simply not true".
"Another clueless Labour minister," Farage posted on social media.
Jones hit back in a post on X, saying: "Of course the overall majority of people arriving illegally on small boats are men - but not 'north of 90%' as Reform claimed.
"On Question Time, I shared a story from my visit to the Border Security Command about a dinghy that arrived mostly carrying women, children and babies who had suffered horrific burns.
"I'm happy to clarify this given how this is now being misrepresented".

Another Labour member with dodgy financials.
The home of a former lord mayor of Leeds has been seized by the UK law enforcement agency responsible for tackling organised crime and drug trafficking.

The National Crime Agency (NCA) won a High Court battle with Abigail Marshall Katung over the rights to the house on Sandmoor Drive in Alwoodley.

The house had been previously owned by a businessman who was suspected of money laundering offences. He handed it over in 2020 as part of a deal with the NCA.

Labour councillor Mrs Katung, who was not aware of the accusations made against the home's former owner, said she would appeal against the decision.
During the court hearing, Mrs Katung said she had entered into an agreement with the previous owner to buy the house in 2015.

Mrs Katung said she had paid him about £400,000 of the contracted £1m purchase price, but the remaining sum was never provided.

The court heard the majority of the funds were sent from Nigeria, where Mrs Katung was born, to the UK using an informal money transfer service which she described as the "black market", although she said it was not illegal.

On 6 June the High Court ruled, despite the payments, Mrs Katung had no legitimate interest or right to the property, which will now be transferred to the NCA.

In his ruling Mr Justice Jay said there were "telling omissions" from Mrs Katung's evidence, adding that he was "not satisfied that she was a particularly reliable witness".

In a statement Mrs Katung said her account was "consistent".


Rob Burgess, head of asset denial at the NCA, said a "substantial sum would be returned to the public purse" following the ruling.

Mrs Katung said she had made "full disclosure" of the ruling prior to it becoming public knowledge, adding: "Whilst this is dreadfully upsetting to me and my family, I have not sought to hide away.

"I want to continue to represent my constituents, it is the most satisfying task I have ever undertaken and it is a complete privilege to be able to do so.

"I recognise that enquiries will have to be undertaken in order to preserve public confidence in the political system in which I operate. I will cooperate with that process fully and unreservedly."

Mrs Katung became Leeds' first lord mayor of African descent when she took over the ceremonial role for a 12-month term in May 2024.

She has lived in the city since she came to the UK to study at the University of Leeds in 2000 and has represented the Little London and Woodhouse ward since being elected in 2019.

A spokesperson for the Labour Party said an internal investigation into Mrs Katung was taking place.

A Leeds City Council spokesperson said they were unaware of case, adding: "We are currently examining the High Court judgement and are unable to comment further at this time."

Faith school unlawfully separating boys and girls
A 'financially challenged' faith school trust has failed to replace teachers who have left in the last year and is struggling to keep up with maintenance, creating an unsafe environment, according to Ofsted inspectors.


They also ruled that the private Abu Bakr Al-IhsaanAcademy in Palfrey, Walsall, was separating boys and girls from age 11 without being registered to do so. This broke discrimination laws.


The issue had been subject to two prior warnings from the regulator and failure to rectify the issue was a symptom of 'inadequate leadership', they found.


Proprietor Mohammad Luqman, in a brief comment, said the trust had operated in the same way for over 20 years and that inspectors had 'got it wrong'.

The school, which charges annual fees of £4,800 to £5,160, has shed over half of its staff in the last year but no new staff had been recruited, said inspectors.



At times the heating did not work in all areas of the school 'because of financial shortages', the report added.

Basic fire checks have also not been carried out and the report also noted toilets were 'unsuitable and pose a risk to pupils’ health and safety' while 'exposed long nails and screws' were found sticking out of walls.

The trust operates a mixed lower school for younger pupils but then segregates boys and girls from age 11 without being properly registered as single-gender settings, says the regulator.

The inspection focussed on the girls' school, which was previously rated 'good'.

It was rated 'requires improvement' for the quality of education and its leadership and management were 'inadequate'.


But it was rated good for behaviour and attitudes, personal development and early years provision.

It also fails to meet all independent school standards.

A total of 173 pupils attend the school.


Inspectors found: "There is currently no capacity in the leadership of the school - as a result, the school is regularly left without any senior leaders on site for significant amounts of time during a school day."

On the flip side, the inspectors found that staff are "ambitious and aspirational for their pupils, including pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). Adults are committed to helping pupils to do their best."

They found that pupils behave well in lessons and around school and are 'welcoming, friendly and work hard.'


They added: "Pupils are proud of their school and enjoy attending. Staff foster a sense of belonging, resulting in pupils and adults speaking of the school as a ‘family’."

The school also helps pupils learn about values such as tolerance, respect and diversity. "They understand and respect people from different backgrounds and faiths - pupils say, ‘we are all on our own journey, without judgment’.

Behaviour and attitudes, personal development and early years provision were all rated 'good', with praise for the 'strong' Reception provision and for fostering strong relationships between staff and pupils and the school and families.


Attendance is high and children with SEND do especially well.

But because of staff shortages, the quality of education, previously rated good, was deemed to 'require improvement' while leadership and management was 'inadequate'.


The Abu Bakr Trust runs a nursery for children up to four, a primary for children aged five to eight, separate girls' and boys' schools for 11-16s, a madrassah for around 2,000 pupils up to 16 and a masjid providing Salah facilities for over 1,500 worshippers, adult classes and alima classes as well as a range of services for the community.

It says it includes the only girls' Islamic high school in the Black Country.

Inspectors wrote: "The school is acting in breach of its registration and is separating pupils by sex, which amounts to unlawful discrimination.


"This had been explained to the proprietor during two previous inspections.

"However, at the time of this inspection, this practice continued and the proprietor had not acted to rectify the situation."

They also found that around half of staff, including senior leaders, have left the school since the last monitoring inspection last May, 2024, 'resulting in significant staff shortages' without new staff appointed.


"The proprietor has not set a clear strategy for holding themselves and staff to account. They have not ensured that there is adequate financial support and have failed to meet their statutory obligations to ensure the health and safety of pupils," they found.

"Some areas of the premises, such as some toilets, are unsuitable and pose a risk to pupils’ health and safety. Other areas pose a risk of injury due to a lack of maintenance."


This included 'exposed long nails and screws sticking out of walls that could pose a risk to children'. The school has also failed to comply with statutory fire regulations and there has never been an appropriate fire risk assessment carried out.

Schools are subject to the provisions of the Equality Act. It is perfectly lawful to operate single sex schools, with correct registration, and there are plenty across the West Midlands that are girls' or boys' only.


However, if a school is registered for mixed genders, like Abu Bakr Al-Ihsaan, it is subject to strict rules.

Government guidance states: 'Any separation of pupils of either sex that denies them the choice or opportunity to interact socially, or to interact in an educational setting, with pupils of the other sex is likely to involve subjecting the pupils to a detriment because of their sex. This will be direct discrimination and will be unlawful.'

'This applies even if done for religious or other bona fide reasons and even if the quality of the education provided to boys and girls is the same.' The exceptions permissible include for competitive sporting activities and certain PHSE classes, while toilet and boarding facilities can also be gender-separated.

Parts of the south are paying people to pretend to be police and patrol their neighbourhoods. Because, despite what continues to be claimed, "police" presence does deter crimes
We are driving at speed through the green hills of rural Hertfordshire. Through the passenger seat window, large elegant houses flash by. Each front lawn is neat, each hedgerow well-kept. It looks like England from a storybook - but this part of the country is actually on the frontline of a relatively new (and some might say divisive) approach to crime prevention.

In the driver's seat is Robert, a guard employed by Blueline Security. His car is painted with blue and yellow stripes, meaning it looks a lot like a police car. Inside there's a walkie-talkie, a first-aid kit, and a Belgian Malinois dog called Bella (given similar training to a police dog, I'm told).

But Robert - who wears a bullet-proof vest and carries a pair of handcuffs - is careful to point out that he is not a real policeman.

"The more keen eye will realise that this isn't a police car," he says as he flicks his indicator. He points out that they follow the regulations on vehicle markings designed to distinguish police cars from other cars.

"But it looks similar enough where criminality will see it at a distance and think, 'Let's maybe not go there'."


Blueline is one of a handful of "private policing" firms that have emerged in recent years. It has operated mostly in wealthy enclaves of southern England since 2019 and, for a fee, its team of ex-police or ex-army guards can patrol villages, looking for burglars and car thieves. Robert, in fact, spent 14 years working in the police force.

Various similar businesses have sprung up around the UK in recent years, including My Local Bobby, which was founded in 2016 and now has almost 150 security guards, as well as a fleet of cars.

According to some customers who spoke to the BBC, this fills a gap left by the real police, who they claim they no longer trust to turn up promptly to a 999 call in their villages.

To residents who can afford these firms, they are a "lifeline", as one customer tells me. But to others, they represent an affront to the values on which British policing was founded; a step towards a country in which the wealthy get better access to law enforcement than the poor.

One former senior figure in the Metropolitan Police says she fears the emergence of a "two-tier society".

So, with pressures on real police growing, is there room for private firms to help ease the load - or do so-called "private bobbies" blur the lines between police and profit?

The firms offering "private policing" that I've spoken to say that demand for their services has risen.

According to a paper published last year by criminologists from the universities of Sheffield and Brunel, the UK's private security industry grew substantially between 2008 and 2021, with an increase in revenue and in the number of licensed security guards.

And, according to the Home Office, the number of real police officers in England and Wales fell most years from 2009 onwards, reaching a low of about 122,000 in 2017 - before ticking back up, to about 147,000 last year.

The study's co-author, Dr Matteo Pazzona, a Senior Lecturer in Economics at Brunel University, describes a shift in policing from the "public to the private" realm. Whilst most UK security guards work in shops and other businesses, his data does also signal a rise in the sort of residential work carried out by private firms, he says.

There are lots of reasons why the security industry might have grown over this period. But David Spencer, a former Detective Chief Inspector at the Metropolitan Police, thinks that private firms could be filling the gaps left by police.

"If you've got money and you don't feel that the police are effective, then it's no surprise if you decide to use your resources to keep your family safe," he says.

Until the 19th Century, protection from crime was largely a privilege enjoyed by the rich. Wealthy people employed "thief takers" to guard their property, whilst ordinary folk had to make do with volunteer watchmen, who focused on the more basic task of keeping order.

That changed when Sir Robert Peel, a Tory prime minister, started London's Metropolitan Police - Britain's first modern, professional force funded from general taxation.

He instilled in the force several principles that can still be reeled off from memory by many constables today: being visible in the community; treating members of the public equally, regardless of wealth or social standing - and perhaps more important than all: policing with trust.

Now, some worry that trust is being undermined.


Most burglaries and car thefts go unsolved. A YouGov survey from last month found that 50% of adults in Great Britain held "not very much confidence" or "no confidence at all" in their local force - up from 42% in 2019.

The government's police inspector, Andy Cooke, said in a report in 2023 that confidence in police "hangs by a thread" (although his report last year noted some improvements).

Mr Spencer, who is now head of crime and justice for the centre-right Policy Exchange think tank, says demands on police time have risen dramatically. Online fraud has shot up in recent decades, and police have recognised the need to tackle issues that were once considered "private" (like domestic abuse and sexual violence). And police resources are failing to keep up pace, he says.

This, he thinks, helps explain the interest in so-called private police.

Laura (who didn't want to share her full name) signed up for private security to patrol her road a few weeks ago, after a spate of burglaries in the area. She lives in rural Hertfordshire with her husband and one of her three children.

She already had CCTV installed and, on the night that her neighbour was burgled, it showed a gang of masked men sitting on her garden chairs. "You can see them looking at the camera, and they've seen it's zoomed in on them. And then they went."

Her neighbours held a meeting; about 40 households decided to subscribe to a private firm. Each pays £1,500 per year. In return, guards patrol the area daily. Laura says she can call a guard at any time.

"I don't think we can afford to be confident that [the police] would get here in good time," she says.

However, private guards have no more power than a member of the public. The aim for many is not to catch or restrain criminals but to act as a deterrent.


Jamie Strickland, a former soldier who founded Blueline, stresses that he does not regard his business as a replacement for the police and argues that even a perfectly-resourced force would struggle to reach remote areas of the countryside.

"The police can't be everywhere all the time," he adds.

But a spokesperson for the National Police Chiefs' Council says they remain "resolutely committed" to attending the scene of crimes, and that all English and Welsh police forces now aim to attend a property following every burglary report.

They added that private firms "should not replace or supplement police and it is for properly trained officers to intervene when a crime has been committed".

The question, though, is whether so-called private police firms signal the emergence of an unfair two-tier system, in which the wealthiest can pay to be better protected from crime.

This is a concern for Parm Sandhu, a former chief superintendent at the Metropolitan Police who left the force in 2019 and has since written a book about her experiences of prejudice.

"If you're living on a council estate, you cannot afford to pay for policing," she says. "Does that mean you deserve to be burgled, sexually assaulted, or mugged? No you don't."

She argues that the correlation between falling police numbers and an expanding private security industry signals something "totally wrong".

Andy, who also lives in rural Hertfordshire, near Laura, and employs a private security firm, has his own feelings on this. "I look at it and say, 'It's £1,500 a year, I'm lucky I can find that,'" he says.

But he argues that not everyone who uses the service is wealthy. "You watch the CCTV [of burglaries], you feel worried for your family." The expense, he adds, is worth it for that reason.

Still, doubts remain.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1mgkd93r4yo
Ms Sandhu points out that the police-like appearance of some of these security firms could be confusing. "If you've got somebody who's under the influence [of] drugs or alcohol, they will look up quickly and think, 'Oh, this is a police officer'," she says. "It's really important to have that differential between police officers and security guards.

"Members of the public [could] go to them thinking they're talking to police officers, and take their advice."

Which raises the question of what, exactly, private guards can do. The companies I speak to are clear that their staff can restrain somebody they suspect to be a criminal, only in the same way that any member of the public can, a power commonly known as a "citizen's arrest".

And it comes with risk. Under English and Welsh law, a citizen's arrest can only be used for an "indictable" offence - a serious crime tried at the Crown Court. You cannot use a citizen's arrest for a lesser "summary" offence (tried at the magistrates' court).

In the heat of the moment, it may be difficult for a guard to judge the difference - and if they get it wrong, they could be guilty of a crime themselves.

There are also questions about accountability. Police forces are inspected by the Government's Inspectorate of Constabulary; if a serious complaint is made against a constable, it will be investigated by an independent regulator.

Few such tools of accountability exist for private firms - other than having their licence revoked by the Security Industry Authority.

But Martin Gill, a criminology professor and the director of Perpetuity Research, a security consultancy, points out that in shopping centres and hospitals, the "majority of policing is undertaken by private police forces" (in other words, security guards). Most of them, he argues, do a "very good job".

In his view, when a private firm starts operating in a residential area, the local police force should engage.


The founder of My Local Bobby, David McKelvey, says he now has a "good relationship" with police forces, after a rocky start. "There was a lot of reticence [from the police] in the first place, but now they're starting to see the benefit of [our service]," he claims.

He would like police to work closer with firms. "At the moment, there's a reticence still within policing to sharing information [and] intelligence. Often that information is absolutely vital for us to do our job."

The College of Policing has said police forces should only share intelligence under strict circumstances.

Ultimately, the sort of work carried out by 'private bobbies' is a tiny fraction of the real police work carried out across the country. But whether more residential communities will in future opt for the private model depends largely on whether the police are able to restore public confidence, says Mr Spencer of Policy Exchange.

"If it doesn't, then I think it's inevitable we will see more people […] turning to private providers," he says.

Back on the road with Robert, midway through his patrol, his radio buzzes. A customer has called: a horse is loose and wandering in a country lane. Within minutes, he has driven there and helped return it to its field.

It's not quite Starsky & Hutch, Robert concedes, but it's an insight into the sort of work they do. And yet, he admits, there are limits.

He recalls one shift, on an April night this year, when he drove along a country road in his patch and saw a car that looked like it was being used for drug dealing.

"If they've had drugs and they're behind a wheel, that's a summary offence - I have no power to deal with it," he says.

Instead, he sat in his car and called the real police.
 
They also really like underaged girls. Strange that Labour are going after their voting base like this.
It's starmer's pathological need to treat everything as a prosecution case and enforce the rules, like some sort of fucking Karen high on his own farts. He can only put people into two groups: guilty and not yet caught.

ASBOs were scrapped for a bloody good reason.
 
It's starmer's pathological need to treat everything as a prosecution case and enforce the rules, like some sort of fucking Karen high on his own farts. He can only put people into two groups: guilty and not yet caught.

ASBOs were scrapped for a bloody good reason.
What is the pint of these when they won't send them to prison unless they post on the internet that they disagree with the government?
 
RE: boy racers. There's a difference between boy racer and car enthusiast. The former ruined a hobby for the latter. In Cannock in the West Midlands, they have article (58? 67? fuck if i remember) where any modified car can be seized and destroyed without question, without appeal and without warning. I only got away with it because I wasn't from round there and was told not to come back by the rozzers.
 
What is the pint of these when they won't send them to prison unless they post on the internet that they disagree with the government?
You answered your own question.

In Cannock in the West Midlands, they have article (58? 67? fuck if i remember)
Section 59 of the police reform act 2002. Another Blair special, which lets the police seize cars and then auction them (per regulations drafted by the home secretary under section 60) to make a shit-ton of money. Most police forces have applied a narrow interpretation of the law as written, but there's a couple that absolutely take the piss. Staffs and West Midlands in particular.
 
This makes me sore. Lot a read of shit in primary school of my own volition (Horrible Histories) that transferred over to me reading other stuff. A lot of books are shit nowadays and children's books are arguably worse. Optimally you'd find a book you would enjoy reading personally and just read it to your kid, so long as you don't read out loud any potential swears and some such. The Hobbit, a book fine to be read at any age by anyone, was written to entertain children under the age of 12. So toss that Hungry Hungry Caterpillar out (as sacrilegious as that may be) and just go for something high fantasy (stay away from quasi-historical fanfiction like Game of Thrones) and get stuck in (My niece fell into a fit of giggles whenever I emphasised "monkey" during the opening chapters of Children of Time). It is imperative you hold off on giving your child any sort of tablet or phone to play on during their early years so they don't immediately get their attention span fried, or so I imagine. That being said, I got interested in history and thus started reading stuff like Horrible Histories because my dad sat young-me on a computer and let me play Rome: Total War.
I think the biggest issue is that the older generations from young parents up to boomers have almost all lost the art of reading from how online platforms. And people tend to pass on what they are passionate about. some intentionally and some from children imitating what they see.

Whilst I don't think he and his friends have colossal sway over the electorate/discourse, I hope they don't get to the point where they tell their audience to not vote for Reform (at least without offering a viable alternative), or even worse, tell people to vote Conservative again assuming Lowe joins them between now and 2029.

I think i'd lose the plot if they did that. Reform might not be perfect but we need to take each stepping stone. Get reform in and if nige isn't tough enough then take the next step and get the right person in but you are on the right path for once.

Talking about people who might be okay but might actually be a problem, i get a lot of Tommy Robinson tweets put my way by the algorithm. What do you guys think of him? I just don't trust a guy that is that pro-Israel. How the fuck can he not know about the Jewish involvement in mass immigration to the West?

Edit:ignore what i just said about tommy robinson. was just on /pol/ and stumbled on a thread full of photos of him in mossad tshirts. lmao. explains a lot
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom