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...
Such threat, such danger, still managing to instruct solicitors from deepest darkest Kabul though? :story:
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c20pd5035vyo/https://archive.is/V4dL2
Thousands of Afghans whose personal details were leaked but who were not evacuated to Britain are not expected to receive any compensation.
The Ministry of Defence (MoD) will "robustly defend against any legal action or compensation", a spokesperson told the BBC, adding that these were "hypothetical claims".
The MoD will also not proactively give small payouts to people whose lives were put in danger after the February 2022 leak, the Times reported.
The names and details of more than 19,000 people were leaked, with many Afghans now saying they fear retribution from the Taliban.
The spokesperson added that an independent review, known as the Rimmer review, commissioned by the Defence Secretary John Healey found: "It is highly unlikely that merely being on the spreadsheet would be grounds for an individual to be targeted."
This week, Healey announced the lifting of a super-injunction that made it illegal to both publicise the leak and refer to the existence of the court order.
That came after the completion of the Rimmer review, which concluded: "There is little evidence of intent by the Taliban to conduct a campaign of retribution against former officials."
The largest lawsuit is being prepared by Barings Law, a firm that has more than 1,000 Afghan clients, according to The Times.
It is unclear how many of those clients are currently in Afghanistan.
The leak occurred when an unnamed official emailed the spreadsheet outside of the government team processing Afghan relocation applications and it made its way into the public domain.
Knowledge of the leak only emerged in August 2023, when the names of nine people who had applied to move to the UK appeared on Facebook.
One of those affected by the leak is Ahmed - not his real name - who worked for the British military in Afghanistan and was brought to the UK for his own safety.
He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he discovered on Tuesday that his own family members, who have remained in Afghanistan, were on the list of leaked names.
His relatives are "moving home to home" and "keeping low profiles" to protect themselves, he said.
He dismissed the idea that compensation could make amends, adding: "The first thing we need from the government, and [are] expecting - they should swiftly take action and bring our families to Britain or to a third country where they feel safe."
He added it was a "distressing and worrying situation" for the family.
The Taliban leadership continues to face international isolation due to its human rights abuses, especially those targeting women. Russia is the only country that recognises the current Afghan government, and the British embassy to Kabul has remained close since the Taliban takeover in 2021.


An Afghan man who had been turned down for relocation was responsible for sharing the names on Facebook, and was offered an expedited review of his application in return for taking it down, the BBC reported last week.
More than 100 British officials, including members of the special forces and MI6, were compromised in the same data breach.
Since the withdrawal of international troops from Afghanistan, more than 36,000 Afghans have moved to the UK. Of those, more than 16,000 individuals were deemed to have been at risk from the leak, the MoD confirmed to the BBC.
The government has so far spent £400m on the scheme to relocate Afghans.
But the total cost of relocating all Afghans is expected to rise to around £5.5-£6bn, according to the government.
I really do not :like: the phrasing here, it implies the ones who did get shipped over will get paid out, this is fucking bullshit pure and simple.
 
teriyakiburns said:
Even if you take it as given that there are genuine paragons of virtue among them (which I have to, I think, because my old GP fits that mould), it doesn't change the calculus. The "good ones" make up only a tiny fraction of the total population, to the point that they only even appear if there is a very large population of dregs to accompany them. This means, absent some system that only allows "good ones" to enter the country, the presence of even a small number of those supreme gentlemen is by itself an indication that you have a serious problem.
Click to expand...
As somebody's son said ( that to my mind sums it up perfectly ) -

“If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you, would you take a handful?”

The difference is when the public have refused them every time, we've been fucking force fed them by traitors.

the rat said:
Rory has such an empty look in his eyes it's so fucking creepy.
Click to expand...
You would have to be dead inside to have been a member of either of what were the main party governments. To look yourself in the mirror and know you've sold your fellow countrymen out for gold...I couldn't do it. It's like being a human rights lawyer, someone who for profit has fought for the invaders against the British people....Look at the current "leader" of the government, doesn't dream, has no feelings, doesn't understand human emotions.
 
Because we have a generation coming through who thinks that choking a woman is part of normal sex. I'm sure you can see why that's dangerous, given most men can't even gather the self control to pull out when they say they're going to.

We've already got a generation that thinks anal sex is a prerequisite of a healthy sexual relationship and that they can just stick it up there with no prep as that's what they' ve seen on xhamster

At least gay porn usually explains that a bucket of lube and a douche is required to make it work without causing prolapse or fissures!
 
GooseDisrupt said:
Because we have a generation coming through who thinks that choking a woman is part of normal sex
Click to expand...
It is and have you met modern women? Choking them out in bed is the better alternative to DDTing them in the kitchen when they flip out over retarded shit because they've never been told no.

GooseDisrupt said:
We've already got a generation that thinks anal sex is a prerequisite of a healthy sexual relationship and that they can just stick it up there with no prep as that's what they' ve seen on xhamster
Click to expand...
Skill issue for men that are shit in bed. What's next, you want to give them instructions on how to be good lovers? Nuts to that. I'm against giving retarded men 'journo mode' difficulty levels when it comes to sex.
Natural selection and all that.
 
femboy fart huffer said:
Just for research purposes, does the choking have to be a hand around the neck? Let's say that someone was to choke on say a thick green gas, is that now also banned?
Click to expand...
The arteries either side of the windpipe. As soon as they go limp, stop.
Blood clots are still likely at this stage which is why it’s banned and is no longer even considered reasonable force..
 
Whoopsie Daisy said:
It is and have you met modern women? Choking them out in bed is the better alternative to DDTing them in the kitchen when they flip out over retarded shit because they've never been told no.


Skill issue for men that are shit in bed. What's next, you want to give them instructions on how to be good lovers? Nuts to that. I'm against giving retarded men 'journo mode' difficulty levels when it comes to sex.
Natural selection and all that.
Click to expand...
Next thing, women will be made to have fanny tattoos pointing out where the clitoris and labia are.

If they have spotty arse cheeks, they'll have the directions there but in braille.
 
Whoopsie Daisy said:
Why this particular porn? It hasn't damaged as many people as gay porn has. So what gives?
Click to expand...
"Muh violence against women."
The same motive for banning face sitting porn and the like. Anything that can be perceived as sexually violent gets banned. Since the kayfabe is on "protecting young girls", they just chucked another sort of porn on the block.
 
Last edited:
>IMPLYING said:
"Muh violence against women."
The same motive for banning face sitting porn and the like. Anything that can be perceived as sexually violent gets banned. Since the kayfabe is on "protecting young girls", they just chucked another sort of porn on the block.
Click to expand...
Censorship of anything they can because they want to feel powerful and porn is easier to go after.
They'll ban anything to 'protect young girls' except the grooming gangs.
 
Whoopsie Daisy said:
Why this particular porn? It hasn't damaged as many people as gay porn has. So what gives?
Click to expand...
A moral panic by third wave feminists in their 20’s who seem to only have one night stands with the worst type of men possible because they remind them of their dads and think all men like to choke women.

I don’t like choking porn but since two consenting adults can choke the fuck out of each other whilst they’re banging I see banning this as retarded. Plus everyone watching porn used a VPN now so this is useless.
 
Whoopsie Daisy said:
Why this particular porn? It hasn't damaged as many people as gay porn has. So what gives?
Click to expand...
"Straight sex bad, gay sex good!"?

:thinking:

(Maybe they aren't getting to outright banning all straight porn yet, but they're banning the more extreme kinds first?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom