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:
Why didn't the French get rid of Macron a few years ago?
Literal and open cross-party collusion in 2024 legislative elections where the entire Left and centre-left formed a single party/alliance, the entire Centre and Centre-right formed a single party/alliance, all with intent of keeping Le Pen and the NR out. They stood down candidates in seats where they threatened to split the vote, withdrew candidates after the first round so votes going to them would go to a more popular centrist or leftist, so despite getting the most overall votes the NR still remained the 3rd largest party in the legislature like before. If NR had won they wouldn't have kicked out Macron yet (unless they no confidence'd him) but they'd basically make him a lame duck until the next election. What occurred in that election was unprecedented and it was done with the sole aim of delaying the NR from getting into power. The post-WW2 democracies seem purpose-built to delay a turn to the right by giving the party in power a chance to assuage them, but when they do fuck all it makes the system pointless in its design and makes the inevitable right-wing turn all the more potent for it.
Put them in a detention centre indefinitely. With the most basic conditions. Let the world know. Let it be a deterrent.
It's kind of cruel to suggest, but 74 people died crossing the channel in 2024. Now, those people died on accident. However, in being cruel to be kind, if we simply shot a handful who tried to cross, then fewer overall may die as a result in the long-term. Instead of "those people died in a tragic accident, it won't happen to us", it's now "the British government are intentionally killing people who try to cross illegally, we shouldn't risk it", which may result in fewer attempted crossings and thus fewer deaths. People are still crossing the border illegally in the US because the risk-reward is too balanced in favour of reward. If we turn up the risk substantially, pull all the way back on the reward, it may stop the crossings entirely.

10/15 tops
 
He is indeed and he is being very based, I don't give a fuck about Epstein. I go over there for 6 weeks of the year, and it is already noticeable. In TX, a lot of Mexicans have gone back because ICE will fuck you up. The economy is solid, and hell, my other half can buy a home, and it is substantially cheaper than rent. Now, Trump is targeting the Indians and the Chinese; that is fantastic in my book. Both races only exist as a literal incarnation of the "can I borrow your homework" meme.
 
not even for a crafty wank,
Crafty wank? All these women have the chest of a thirteen year old boy - no tits to be seen. Sad, really

Edit:

He is right. If you're being invaded you don't tell the invaders your security plans. If there is a real plan here telling people what it is before it's put in place weakens it. There probably isn't, but this is the right thing to do if there is.

No. No no no. In this situation our plans should be very public, and very easy to understand: "WE WILL SINK YOUR BOATS", "YOU CANNOT STAY", "FUCK OFF, WE'RE FULL". I can understand the need for discretion if this were a war and some kind of covert military operation, but this is about discouraging migration. We want them to know.
 
Last edited:
He is indeed and he is being very based, I don't give a fuck about Epstein. I go over there for 6 weeks of the year, and it is already noticeable. In TX, a lot of Mexicans have gone back because ICE will fuck you up. The economy is solid, and hell, my other half can buy a home, and it is substantially cheaper than rent. Now, Trump is targeting the Indians and the Chinese; that is fantastic in my book. Both races only exist as a literal incarnation of the "can I borrow your homework" meme.
I know I'm speaking from a Burger-centric point of view, but with what Trump's doing - it's possible the winds of change could blow over to the Isles.
 
I meant the plan to send them to Rwanda. If you read the actual bill, around section 9 it states that for every person we sent, we got one of theirs back who had complex medical needs that they couldn't account for in their shithole.
Fair enough. All parties have and will continue to fail immigration on purpose because that's the plan.
Russia is taking in 1 million indians and Japan are taking in thousands of kurds.

Someone is pushing the shit, subhuman races on every nice space on the planet.
 
Why was a five foot and a bit girl who looks like she’s built like a sparrow sent to arrest a bloke who had attacked someone? I’m not even saying this as a criticism of the officer herself - she tried. But ffs the guy had already attacked someone with potentially lethal force (a headbutt is not trivial.)
Back in the day police were all big lads, and they’d fuck you up. Now we’ve got slight young women sent to arrest violent men and they’re not even allowed to use force on them. The perps should have been put on the floor and given a brisk going over by her majesty’s finest.
I know people here arent a big fan of the police, but they are an essential part of law and order, and they should be able to be physically intimidating when arresting violent criminals. If you’re a violent mohammedean who has been brawling you should expect to get a kicking from the plod.
Instead we’ve got small women getting broken faces, police not allowed to lay a finger on genuinely dangerous men, or facing an inquiry every time they draw a weapon, and coppers sent to arrest women for praying outside abortion clinics. I would love to know what the more old school rank and file think about all this. Make it make sense.
 
Tonight a mate was telling me Riga is nice. Might want to book your holidays while it's still cheap and before it becomes Paris/Londonistan 2.0
Slavland is the last bastion of whitey. Try as they might to fill the place with brownoids, they get ran out of town by the gypsies, who may be a plague on other countries, but just like a cat, they don't shit on their own lawn.
 
Why was a five foot and a bit girl who looks like she’s built like a sparrow sent to arrest a bloke who had attacked someone? I’m not even saying this as a criticism of the officer herself - she tried. But ffs the guy had already attacked someone with potentially lethal force (a headbutt is not trivial.)
Take it a step further. One of the officers involved was a firearms one, not certain if she was too. If she was though she would have been carrying a firearm.

At which point when a fellow with a foot of height and a lot of weight decides to haul off on her as well as an incapacitated officer we now also have an armed criminal as soon as he leans down and takes the gun off her.

Ultimately the current police force are largely meant to arrest people who comply. If they won't...well I suspect we're getting closer to seeing that every day. And if I was the average law enforcement I would be praying it was the dangerous far right when that happens because the Free Palestine mob have much less restraint.
 
Why was a five foot and a bit girl who looks like she’s built like a sparrow sent to arrest a bloke who had attacked someone? I’m not even saying this as a criticism of the officer herself - she tried. But ffs the guy had already attacked someone with potentially lethal force (a headbutt is not trivial.)
Back in the day police were all big lads, and they’d fuck you up. Now we’ve got slight young women sent to arrest violent men and they’re not even allowed to use force on them. The perps should have been put on the floor and given a brisk going over by her majesty’s finest.
I know people here arent a big fan of the police, but they are an essential part of law and order, and they should be able to be physically intimidating when arresting violent criminals. If you’re a violent mohammedean who has been brawling you should expect to get a kicking from the plod.
Instead we’ve got small women getting broken faces, police not allowed to lay a finger on genuinely dangerous men, or facing an inquiry every time they draw a weapon, and coppers sent to arrest women for praying outside abortion clinics. I would love to know what the more old school rank and file think about all this. Make it make sense.
Most of us support a local copper giving a bad kid a slap and sending him home to his father. We know if they were more violent it would be selectively.
 
Why was a five foot and a bit girl who looks like she’s built like a sparrow sent to arrest a bloke who had attacked someone? I’m not even saying this as a criticism of the officer herself - she tried. But ffs the guy had already attacked someone with potentially lethal force (a headbutt is not trivial.)
Back in the day police were all big lads, and they’d fuck you up. Now we’ve got slight young women sent to arrest violent men and they’re not even allowed to use force on them. The perps should have been put on the floor and given a brisk going over by her majesty’s finest.
I know people here arent a big fan of the police, but they are an essential part of law and order, and they should be able to be physically intimidating when arresting violent criminals. If you’re a violent mohammedean who has been brawling you should expect to get a kicking from the plod.
Instead we’ve got small women getting broken faces, police not allowed to lay a finger on genuinely dangerous men, or facing an inquiry every time they draw a weapon, and coppers sent to arrest women for praying outside abortion clinics. I would love to know what the more old school rank and file think about all this. Make it make sense.
We've been watching A Touch Of Frost lately. It makes me long for days when WPCs dealt with women, children and the elderly,there were minimum height requirements and they didn't dress like members of a paramilitary junta.
 
Suffer, pig.
>normmcdonald.jpg

Do UK police officers use those special holsters that are impossible to pull if you don't know the trick or is it
UK police generally don't carry. It was one of the Peelian principles, in opposition to the old, corrupt system of armed city watchmen; the police were unarmed public servants. If they need a gun, they would borrow one, with a receipt. It was a system that worked as long as the general public could carry arms.
 
Ultimately the current police force are largely meant to arrest people who comply. If they won't...well I suspect we're getting closer to seeing that every day. And if I was the average law enforcement I would be praying it was the dangerous far right when that happens because the Free Palestine mob have much less restraint.
The reality is this, no armed policeman is going to fire a shot at someone unarmed. We have tons of examples of armed police getting absolutely rinsed by their local police force and even threatened with a trial unless everything is 100% clean. The police are trying their hardest to pin anything they can on that armed guy who shot the guy driving directly at him simply because he wasn't armed.

Criminals have finally clicked that that means they can batter the living fuck out of one and they can't do shit. Notice how at no point did the attacker go for the gun, he knew fine well if he battered the policeman enough then he'd have to withdraw.

These people NEED punished exceptionally hard otherwise it sends a clear message to the UK that a guy carrying a gun is not a threat. He's not going to use it, you know he's not going to use it and he knows you know he's not going to use it.

That and armed police need more protections otherwise they're going to leave the force in droves. What's the fucking point of being paid barely more than a regular officer to then spend 4 years suspended when you make a life or death shot?
 
Honestly, you guys wouldn't have to worry so much about the sex or height of the local bobbys if you just deported all your browns.

A lot of ideas get bandied about in the Anglosphere about how to deal with certain demographics when the solution is pretty clear: Deport or Remigrate, then institute a whites only policy.
 
Back
Top Bottom