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.

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:
How on earth is this happening when they have such a huge majority of MPs?
It's likely because they have that huge majority. The PLP is fractured into opposing factions, who would be more cooperative (and easier to control) if Labour's majority were smaller. With this large majority, the factions within the party are large enough to function as pseudo-parties in their own right, which is why I've previously talked about Labour being three parties in a trenchcoat. The Starmer loyalists are a rump of a similar size to the Tories, or possibly even smaller. There's also a large contingent of Corbynite/Momentum loyalists, and a contingent that aligns broadly with gender-crit, anti-"woke", and anti-islam/immigrant positions, though that's a more nebulous group. There's some overlap between them, but the boundaries are fairly well defined, giving these two outsider groups significant leverage over the cabinet. The rebellion over the benefits reform bill came from the corbyn-aligned group, for instance.

I believe they have a larger or equivalent majority as Tony Blair.
They do, but the party was more unified under Blair. Starmer styles himself as an inheritor of Blair's legacy, but he has all the personality of a snot-stained handkerchief and none of Blair's preternatural ability to convince people to go along with his ideas (some of which was admittedly because he'd set Prescott on anyone who refused).
 
Which nog or paki are they going to put on it?
If I had to put money on it, I'd say a reference to Windrush would be the most likely, even if it isn't a person, as I don't think there were any noteworthy individuals from among the deportees, I can definitely see them sneaking the ship itself onto the design somewhere. For the actual portraits though, I actually think a queer is more likely to feature than an ethnic, at least for now.

However, while I don't think they'd be so bold as to do so now, one person who I'm convinced the Bank of England will try to get on a bank note at some point in the next few years is William Henry 'Abdullah' Quilliam. Who for those unaware was a wealthy Victorian man who converted to Islam in the 1880's, founded the UK's first mosque as well as the Association of British Muslims, and also attempted to undermine British foreign policy in Sudan and the Ottoman Empire, a trend among the British upper middle class that must seem all too familiar nowadays.
 
Last edited:
Where were you when the Chancellor of our great country was brought to fucking tears by her own job?
Could you imagine being given her job?

"Cut spending and balance the budget, but also increase spending too whilst you're at it? Also, before you ask: no you can't touch benefits, make them harder to apply for, nor can we put a lid on immigration to lower the number of new applicants."
"Also you can't openly float the idea of raising taxes. Well, until we do so anyway last-minute to surprise everyone. You'll be shouldering most of the blame for that, if you don't mind."
"Also: increase investment and spending in our non-existent economy. No, we can't lower taxes or cut money from elsewhere; your plans must also exclude the richest and poorest from being affected. Try starting with people's savings?"
"Also could you find somewhere in the budget to house all illegals coming over on boats? The Conservatives had them in nice hotels, let's just continue that policy outright - wouldn't want to piss off the occupants after all. Deportations? You know we rely on their cousins for votes, we can do a silly thing like that just to lower costs over the long-term, you're thinking like an economist, not a politician silly billy. Speaking of which we need to install that fence around the Lords, feeling a tad unsafe as of late."
"Thanks, love."
1751462245178.webp
 
:really:Why do they even have parliament anymore? Everyone knows the Pakistanis, Syrians, and Afghans with manchettes really run the UK. :story:
 
Twelve gazillion hours in Photoshop, by the way.

Didn't even need to touch up her eyes because they've already got their shit royally fucked up.

I'm amazed she didn't cry sooner after being made the personal scapegoat of:
- Killing thousands of pensioners due to the winter fuel payments
- Decimating the private business sector
- Driving up costs for every single person, including the people who verbally assault you whenever you show up to an MP's surgery
- Taking money away from the disabled

reevescry.webp
 
It's likely because they have that huge majority. The PLP is fractured into opposing factions, who would be more cooperative (and easier to control) if Labour's majority were smaller. With this large majority, the factions within the party are large enough to function as pseudo-parties in their own right, which is why I've previously talked about Labour being three parties in a trenchcoat. The Starmer loyalists are a rump of a similar size to the Tories, or possibly even smaller. There's also a large contingent of Corbynite/Momentum loyalists, and a contingent that aligns broadly with gender-crit, anti-"woke", and anti-islam/immigrant positions, though that's a more nebulous group. There's some overlap between them, but the boundaries are fairly well defined, giving these two outsider groups significant leverage over the cabinet. The rebellion over the benefits reform bill came from the corbyn-aligned group, for instance.
This is what a modern leftist government looks like. It's smaller weaker groups banding together to form a large group so they can take power. None of their goals align and most are in opposition of each other. The Anti-White Party has been elected and now they are breaking down because the war is over.

What changes to the benefits bill have been approved? The Lords still need to throw most of it out. The only good thing was enabling switching between benefits and work without automatically losing the benefits.

@Crunkie posted the thread in community happenings. Prepare for idiots.
 
Briton Ferry Labour councillor said 'what are we going to do about all the black people' coming to town:

Archive: https://archive.ph/8Dnrk

Dopey Diane Abbott brands IDF the ‘Jewish Defence Force’. There's now calls for Labour to remove whip from MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington for ‘the latest in her long line of anti-Jewish offences’:

Archive: https://archive.ph/Xtrgi
 
Dopey Diane Abbott brands IDF the ‘Jewish Defence Force’. There's now calls for Labour to remove whip from MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington for ‘the latest in her long line of anti-Jewish offences
I throw the word around a lot on the farms, but Diane Abbott is by far the dumbest nigger in British politics. All the stupid shit she does and has already done, she still somehow remains an MP. Is it because she is black? I can't imagine a white MP getting away with the same.
 
'She was crying over an unrelated personal matter.' Bollocks. If Reeves was upset about something else then there was plenty of opportunity to duck out of PMQs. The 'personal matter' is that she now knows she is fucked. She will not last beyond the Budget. Either she resigns before then or the fallout from what she will now have to announce will do it for her.

All the stupid shit she does and has already done, she still somehow remains an MP. Is it because she is black? I can't imagine a white MP getting away with the same.

That and longevity. Starmer tried to quietly ease her out of the door at the last election - she made a fuss and he had to relent otherwise she would have run as an independent and won her seat.
 
Prosecutors consider further charges against Letby

Prosecutors are considering bringing further charges against Lucy Letby following the deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at hospitals where she worked.
"As always, we will make that decision independently, based on the evidence and in line with our legal test."
Yet, they ignore:
Earlier this year her legal team, led by barrister Mark McDonald, submitted an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), which has the power to refer cases back to the Court of Appeal for a full hearing.

The application contained a report from a panel of 14 international experts in neonatology and paediatric care.

After reviewing evidence heard at Letby's trial, panel members concluded that they believed no babies had been deliberately harmed.
Last month former Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt said Letby's case should be "urgently re-examined" due to what he called "serious and credible" questions raised by the expert panel.
Letby, originally from Hereford, has always maintained her innocence.

She has lost two separate bids to challenge her convictions at the Court of Appeal.
🤔
In an unrelated development, Cheshire Police on Tuesday announced that three former senior managers at the Countess of Chester Hospital had been arrested on suspicion of gross negligence manslaughter.
Unrelated? It's just coincidence that new charges are looking at being applied to a woman who 14 international experts and 2 high-up government officials say is innocent.


The hospital Letby worked at was Countess of Chester Hospital.
From the Wiki

From 2015 to 2016 the trust cancelled urgent operations 37 times – the highest number of any NHS trust in England.
The same time that Letby was allegedly(?) murdering kids.
On 15 June 2022, the BBC published an article stating that the Care Quality Commission inspection found that the maternity unit was unsafe with problems in adequately trained staff and suitable equipment they also found that in 2021 there five patients had major haemorrhages after giving birth at the hospital, resulting in a need for unplanned hysterectomies.<a
The problems still haven't been fixed.

Former head of nursing says she believes Letby is innocent

A former top nurse at the trust where Lucy Letby carried out her crimes has said she believes the former neonatal nurse is innocent.
Ms Rees, in October 2024, told the Thirlwall Inquiry that she initially felt that consultants who raised the alarm about Letby were doing so because of a “personal issue”.
“The one person that knows her nursing team is the manager or the unit manager — not a consultant that visits a couple of times a week,” Ms Rees said.
Ms Rees made a public statement in August 2023, when she said Letby was “convincing”, “calculated” and that she had deceived her.

Asked about this statement by the Sunday Times, Ms Rees said she made it on the advice of her lawyers, and that she regretted doing so.
Is this nurse clout chasing? Possibly. But why did lawyers tell her to say Letby was guilty?



Since Letby, The CoCH has been through several CEO's, including one who was bullied out of her position and is currently suing them for a lot of money.


Here is the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health report from 2016 - Letby says this report proves her innocence. In the report, which was commissioned due to high child mortality rates, it states that two of the clusters of unexplained deaths were under-reported. That 10 of the 13 deaths weren't input into the DATIX incident reporting software that the NHS use to log near misses and deaths, because the trust said they were "expected deaths". The report admits that it never received a definition for what "expected deaths" were and assumed the definition.

There's a rabbit hole here that extends beyond Letby. The current board that runs CoCH is made up of members from Liverpool Heart and Chest. The consultants names hired to investigate the deaths in 2016, and the consultants names who accused Letby of killing kids, hasn't been disclosed. If it has, I can't find it, and I would be interested in seeing if they're the same name or team.

Here's some observations

Jeremy Hunt was Health secretary during these deaths - he was hated for his cuts to the NHS and refusal to give pay rises, while lambasting Donald Trump for having privatised healthcare and not an NHS style system. Why would a career snake like Hunt, who is responsible for those deaths, say Letby is innocent, at the risk of taking on responsibility for those deaths? Wouldn't it be beneficial to keep quiet or lay the blame on Letby?

Capita owned 3 of the major agencies recruiting for under-staffed wards, of which, CoCH was one of them. According to the report, the top echelons were not understaffed, and paid £125k+ a year, yet the lower ranks were.

Those who worked with Letby say she didn't have the emotional capacity to harm, as she was too soft when anyone was hurt. With one ex manager told to purger herself as advised by her lawyer.

Neonatal deaths were classed as "expected deaths" to keep the number of deaths low, until they got too large and external consultants were brought in to investigate what was going on.

Here's what I think happened:

The top managers were fully staffed and purposely kept the Tier 1 and Tier 2 positions understaffed. They then called in Capita, who charged 49% higher for the costs of agency workers than hiring other nurses. Some of that extra profit was bunged the way of the managers. Unfortunately, the agency workers, who are predominantly brownoid, started killing kids due to lack of hygiene, ability or because they don't care.
Rather than losing the contract for the entire NHS, causing a political shit storm of immigrants killing kids, every one kept quiet, hiding deaths and fudging numbers until it became too obvious. At that point, a scapegoat was required; Letby. Consultants were paid to come in and blame the nurse who would be easy to blame - without making them brownoid, and possibly to cover-up for their report in 2016 that wasn't acted upon.
CEOs were shuffled out and as one grew a conscience - or found out by mistake, what had happened, she went to blow the whistle, only to be fired, dragged over the coals and financially ruined.

I would post this in the Letby thread, but I can't be arsed with 100 posts of "hur dur, en aych ess bad" by some fat, retarded yank.
 
What
Where were you when the Chancellor of our great country was brought to fucking tears by her own job?

This is front page on the BBC, her sour face that looks like Dot Cotton licking piss off a nettle. Being brought to tears by your own job after a humiliating week of about 5 u-turns is incredible.

Of course, the Treasury put out a statement saying it was a "private matter". How on earth is this happening when they have such a huge majority of MPs? Incredible political incompetence on show here.

View attachment 7588482

Full video, this needs to be archived:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=ECU-Veuyaec
Local archive of why women shouldn't be in these positions of intense power:
Rachel Reeves cries during PMQs as Starmer refuses to say her job is safe [ECU-Veuyaec].webm
What an utter joke of a fucking country, you could get a more ordered, respectable conversation in a brothel's basement.

Also
>WHEN
>A
>BLACK
>WOMAN
>SPEAKS!
 
If Reeves was upset about something else then there was plenty of opportunity to duck out of PMQs.
So they've now changed the question from: "Why is Reeves crying?" to "Why did you insist Reeves attend PMQs when she had a serious personal matter?".

Politicians are like children, just accept their lies and press for more and they slip up after no time at all.
 
Twelve gazillion hours in Photoshop, by the way.

Didn't even need to touch up her eyes because they've already got their shit royally fucked up.

I'm amazed she didn't cry sooner after being made the personal scapegoat of:
- Killing thousands of pensioners due to the winter fuel payments
- Decimating the private business sector
- Driving up costs for every single person, including the people who verbally assault you whenever you show up to an MP's surgery
- Taking money away from the disabled

View attachment 7588622
So much of this shit, which has generally infected most countries, is a symptom of short-termism. Every single one of those issues can be solved with implementing a policy/solution that will take time to see yields, but since people don't see the benefit to it right now it may as well not have happened. We saw this in 2011, where Nick Clegg didn't want to fund the creation of a nuclear power station because it would take until the next decade to be ready, meaning our energy price issues can be attributed by a decision taken 14 years ago with no foresight. Well, no foresight for the people. You see, there's no guarantee that the LibDems would be in charge by then, so they don't want the other party taking credit for lowering energy prices and decreasing their party's chance of winning in that ensuring election, so they put a stop to it.

We saw this in reverse semi-recently to a negative end, where Labour got the blame for the Online Safety Bill despite it being introduced by the Tories - this is the only thing they might consider when implementing shit, whether it'll backfire and they get the blame or it'll succeed and they'll get the credit.

Most of these problems can be fixed implementing things that'll take time.
Nuclear power plants: high up-front costs, long time to start up, huge benefits where energy is concerned. Cheaper electricity = cheaper cost of living + business operation = more disposable income for people and more profit for businesses = more consumer spending and more business expansion and investing.

Removing great swathes of people: Via implicit targeting (ban of certain cultural practices considered abhorrent) or cash incentives (when numbers are lowered, pay the rest to fuck off), will take time for hundreds of thousands or millions upon millions to leave, but you decrease the number of welfare recipients, lower house prices, potentially see the closure of many unprofitable businesses opened to serve malicious ends allowing more legitimate ones to fill the vacuum - ones which actually provide jobs to people outside their in-group.
Boyz 'N The Hood even admitted to this shit decades ago: these people prioritise keeping their money within their communities, no wonder Reeves can't find the supposed trillion not being spent or recirculated in the wider economy — they're keeping it to themselves.

Deport 12 million people.

All that aside: problem is, the system encourages extreme short-term gains in order for the leading party to secure their position by building up a list of "wins" that come anchored with negative consequences in the future.

This is what a modern leftist government looks like. It's smaller weaker groups banding together to form a large group so they can take power. None of their goals align and most are in opposition of each other. The Anti-White Party has been elected and now they are breaking down because the war is over.

What changes to the benefits bill have been approved? The Lords still need to throw most of it out. The only good thing was enabling switching between benefits and work without automatically losing the benefits.
Labour encourages consolidation of smaller, left-wing parties under their umbrella for as much support possible (it also defangs a lot of smaller left-wing parties too, nothing like the BSW in the UK) which they inevitably fall into bickering; also allowing unions to vote directly in their leadership process makes other, non-union-backed parties appear illegitimate.

It's ironic that the right-wing seems more capable of unity and cross-party co-operation than the Left, which you wouldn't think would be the case but the precedent in history and modern times is so consistent that I'm wondering if they're aware of it too implicitly but are just waiting for the ripe opportunity to stab each other in the back.

Lowe's "Restore Britain" is sort of emblematic of that. It's meant to be a way for multiple right-wing parties, groups and people to come together to co-operate and push issues they feel similarly about, all differences aside. Meanwhile Labour literally can't vote along party lines for something because it's slightly contentious and it ended up making Reeves cry. There was less disunity over Brexit with the Conservatives than Labour with this one bill.
 
Starmer is a limp wristed faggot who will now U-Turn on getting rid of Reeves because people will call him a misogynist, and he's too much of a people pleaser to stick to any fucking decision.
 
View attachment 7588322
I had to look up what that word meant.
Prior to decimalisation our currency was based around the number twelve. Twelve pennies in a shilling. 60 pennies to a crown. 240 pennies in a pound. This actually falls out much more naturally. Want to divide pounds into three? Into six? Into five? Into ten? That's 80p, 40p, 48p, 24p respectively. They're called factors. There are 2,3,4,6, 12 are all factors of 12 and because you're dealing with a multiple of 12 and 10 (240p in a pound), 5 and 10 are all factors as well. And I'm not sure what the mathematical term is but 8 is a semi-factor as well, being an easy multiple of the factor 4. Maths is easier with pre-decimilised currency. But it can sound harder because people think multiplying and dividing by 10 is easy. Well so it is, but most of the time in real life you're dividing by other things. People in England had been working fine with non-decimilised currency since 700AD. Then some midwits in the 1960's managed to push through a change to basing everything around the number 10. And why did they push this? For better integration with International trade. Yes, even back then globalisation was making things worse.

Thus concludes my little rant.

A topic of small talk ("Oof, hot innit?") has been overblown into this weird non-issue
I paid 27 quid for a nice fan that does the job on the weakest setting and will serve a purpose beyond this slight bout of 25c+ heat.
The key thing I look for in a fan is that it is quiet. I have a nice deep bucket like one what is supposed to create a tubular vortex of air which you can direct how you like. Seems to somewhat do that, but the main thing is it goes like a distant sigh.

I really wish we had an equivalent version of "it's so Joever".
The End is Kier?
 
Does anyone else absolutely despise how they behave in the lower house?

They shout and jeer back heckle and it's all a gigantic pissing contest. They act like what they are- boorish, spoiled,coddled Private school cunts.

Like for fucks sake you are there,elected by the working population, on our tax money, earning nigh on 100k a year, plus expenses ( did you know while we are being reamed by an unregulated private dental sector in order to access what should be basic health care,those bastards can claim their private dental care back on expenses as it's seen as "essential" to them being able to work? Last time I checked there's no difference between their teeth and ours; why are we paying?) they're acting like primary school aged shitheads involved a fucking slap fight.

The absolute lack of decorum is a fucking offense to every single one of us.
 
Starmer is a limp wristed faggot who will now U-Turn on getting rid of Reeves because people will call him a misogynist, and he's too much of a people pleaser to stick to any fucking decision.
Assuming he considers political shit and isn't just treating this like a job he can't wait to be done with, there's a couple of considerations to take into factor:
1. Does getting rid of her make him appear "weak", and thus give greater cause for him to resign/no-confidence'd?
2. Does it make him look bad for firing a woman who, at least rom a cursory check of the BBC, has had her crying face put all over the place?
|> Will she resign of her own volition or be offered to resign to save face? And will people suspect him of pressuring her to do so regardless of whose choice it was?
|> Will people (like you said) take her leaving as being a result of sexism on Labour's behalf? Will this influence Labour's future party leader considering they've never had a woman in charge before?
3. Would he be saved in the eyes of the electorate if he fired the woman who is supposedly responsible for all the recent financial woes? Or will he just piss off the Leftists (the people he most probably shares some circles with) and the backbenchers for doing so?
|> Would the backbenchers approve of his decision, seeing her as the sole enemy in their desire for welfare and benefit expansion and thus give Starmer a second chance? Or would they disapprove regardless of their personal thoughts because they want Starmer out?

I think Starmer would probably hope for a resignation of her own volition. Seems the least likely to cause headaches since at best people can only suspect she was pressured into a resignation, not pushed into one.

Edit: My formatting didn't carry over.
1751466382512.webp
 
Back
Top Bottom