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...
Kier Starmer said:

He knows, I think the White House called Number 10 after and scalded him. It is laughable that the UK, France, and Canada believe they can bully Trump into recognising Palestine, which is insane level shit that only WEF ponies can concoct because they are always that deluded.

They are panicking now because their USAID revenue stream is dust and all 3 countries will have to go with the begging bowl to the IMF. Strangely, it is the 3 countries that the IMF has flagged for risk, and all 3 have been destroyed by the WEF's multiculturalism ideals.

This and the legal cases with Apple and WhatsApp, too. WhatsApp essentially told Yvette to fuck off, like Apple did, and appear to be merging their case. The issue for Yvette is, Apple is a very, very liquid-rich company, unlike Microsoft, and the UK legal system is not. If they lose, they will. The UK could pay billions in damages. They should settle, repeal the bill, and accept the hit, but they won't. There is a strange coordinated effort in online censorship in Europe and migrant rich countries. My personal opinion is that this is the WEF's final gambit before imploding because all the organisations linked to them were heavily funded by USAID. We are now seeing the true damage. These are not the moves of people who HAVE power, but ones that are CLINGING to power.
Click to expand...
The AntiWhite Governments of Europe needed the US to function. That’s no longer available.
 
Kier Starmer said:
We are now seeing the true damage. These are not the moves of people who HAVE power, but ones that are CLINGING to power.
Click to expand...
I disagree. What power rivals them? We're voting reform hoping they will change things but it's a long shot and it's not a true alternative. Their system can collapse but they've still done so much damage to everything that they're still going to hold power without the head of the snake. USAID dried up but London is still full of foreigners and there is no shortage of oil money for the invaders to rely on. There's no shortage of ways for terrorists to get into the country unvetted. We're so deep into this hole you don't need the head for the body to keep going. Foreigners here will help other foreigners and they will get funded by third world Muslims with infinite money from oil.

Even if the current uniparty loses power and European politics become more right wing. There's still the problem of democracy and a population out breeding you 10 to 1. Unless we get a radical right wing party who's willing to remove all the foreigners and ban birth control we're still going to be in a mess. I know how crazy it sounds and how the women will react but birth control is screwing our birth rates and as long as it's the de-facto thing for women we're not going to fix that problem.
 
Last edited:
Kofi Drinka said:
I disagree. What power rivals them? We're voting reform hoping they will change things but it's a long shot and it's not a true alternative. Their system can collapse but they've still done so much damage to everything that they're still going to hold power without the head of the snake. USAID dried up but London is still full of foreigners and there is no shortage of oil money for the invaders to rely on. There's no shortage of ways for terrorists to get into the country unvetted. We're so deep into this hole you don't need the head for the body to keep going. Foreigners here will help other foreigners and they will get funded by third world Muslims with infinite money from oil.

Even if the current uniparty loses power and European politics become more right wing. There's still the problem of democracy and a population out breeding you 10 to 1. Unless we get a radical right wing party who's willing to remove all the foreigners and ban birth control we're still going to be in a mess. I know how crazy it sounds and how the women will react but birth control is screwing out birth rates and as long as it's the de-facto thing for women we're not going to fix that problem.
Click to expand...
Funny you say that, since it's being discussed more and more how the Middle East and Africa have fallen below replacement level and are only gonna go further down.


What I'm hoping for here is that this trend has some kind of knock-on effect on the ones infesting the UK.
 
Kofi Drinka said:
I know how crazy it sounds and how the women will react but birth control is screwing out birth rates and as long as it's the de-facto thing for women we're not going to fix that problem.
Click to expand...
If you want the women onside, and the married men onside, you aren’t getting rid of birth control. And even the unmarried men - no birth control means the easy availability of sex will stop immediately. Even within marriage, women want to space children out. Having a baby a year isn’t a lot of fun after a few years, you get worn out. You really want a marriage with only reproductive sex?
It’s naive to think that without fixing anything else everyone will magically marry to get access to sex and breed. The birth rates are down because of a psychological and physical disease due to overcrowding and despair.
People breed like rabbits during times of expansion, and that often follows war when resources and space are freed up. If you got rid of thirty million people, and made the economy boom and people cheer the fuck up and feel hopeful, you’d get your baby boom.
We need mass scale repatriation, and a purge of the ruling structures like Whitehall, etc
 
Otterly said:
If you want the women onside, and the married men onside, you aren’t getting rid of birth control. And even the unmarried men - no birth control means the easy availability of sex will stop immediately.
Click to expand...
I don't care if "women are onside" or not. The problem has to be solved and birth control puts the plug in birth rates. It does harm in other ways but that's the main one. Women will go along with whoever is in charge either way. So their options are right wing white government or sharia law. Either way, that's the only futures this country has and neither of them are going to give women the freedom they have now. Birth rates will go up to prevent extinction or because Muslim men won't allow their women to use birth control.

The idea that we have to appease people is a sickness. We have to fix our problems and our birth rate is a problem. If it's not fixed we're all dead. So save the "poor women won't be able to fuck casually any more" speech and start with the "Sluts are vile creatures and we need to restore marriage and the family" speeches instead. Because the later has to happen or our way of life is extinct along with us.
 
Kofi Drinka said:
Birth rates will go up to prevent extinction
Click to expand...
This "line go up" thinking is why we're in this situation to begin with. The British Isles were already massively over-populated in the 70s and the population was beginning to shrink by the mid 80s as a natural response to that. It should have been allowed to continue. Population would have shrunk slowly, stabilised, and started to grow again towards the end of the 21st century. Instead, successive governments have pursued constant, perpetual population growth in order to ensure a constant, perpetual increase in GDP, which meant importing foreign labour. Literally none of these people would be here, if not for this belief that population must always increase.
 
Kofi Drinka said:
We have to fix our problems and our birth rate is a problem. If it's not fixed we're all dead. So save the "poor women won't be able to fuck casually any more"
Click to expand...
We do have to fix the birth rate. We dont do it that way, because not fixing anything else means nobody wants to breed. You’ve got to clean the tank first. You fix the birthrates by creating space to expand into - and a clean environment. Chuck out the invading hordes, and make people want to breed again.
Kofi Drinka said:
Sluts are vile creatures and we need to restore marriage and the family"
Click to expand...
Are those sluts fucking themselves? No men involved whatsoever? The babies come mainly from family oriented people who are already on board with wanting children, but who are constrained by space and economics.
we are not some kind of Saudi hell state (yet) where women are kept as breeding cattle. Even places like that are seeing fertility drops because the same sickness is everywhere - its density. Even rural areas, the availability of rhe web creates an artificial sene of being connected to millions. Nobody’s birthrate is going up without space to expand into and a bit of hope for the future.
Most couples I know wanted more children. The usual trap is thus;
- you have to go to college to get a decent job, and maybe graduate study
-now you’re mid twenties
-you’re responsible so you want to get married first.
-and you want a house or flat as well so you save up a while to get married and get a stable home, little starter flat or whatever. Now you’re very late twenties
-you get married and have a baby.
-you want another baby, but oh… you’ve gotta work, because house prices and so you need childcare and it’s 1500 quid a month out of post tax income so you run the numbers and you can have another baby but only when this one is our of nursery in reception or almost there. So you wait longer than you wanted and then have another baby. Now you’re 34.
-repeat. You’d really like three kids but you can’t ford two in nursery at once and maybe you can wait another couple of years but now you’re late thirties and that’s kind of tiring. A lot of couples just don’t have the children they want because the whole system is set up to make responsible people breed later, and less.
How do you fix that? Have countries who banned birth control had massive population booms? I don’t think they have. The places that pay people to breed aren’t either, there is something profoundly wrong with us as a species
If you want babies you have to create an environment where the responsible people CAN have 3 plus children and a mum at home and still pay the rent on a small home. Nobody wants to fix things to get is back there because that makes the line not go up.
 
@Kofi Drinka You're wrong on this. Successful societies are not R-Strategy animals. We're not rats. And much as you believe in superiority of the Whites there's no magic in the DNA that makes White people maintain successful societies when population exceeds the ability to manage it. Your posts sound like "In order to defeat the Bradford, one must sometimes become the Bradford". Britain as one giant Bradford is not what I wish to see.

The environment needs to change. People are smart enough to have kids when the opportunity to raise them properly is available. The way nations compete is not a giant tug of war. Britain at its height dominated India and swathes of Africa despite being outnumbered literally thousands to one. Because Britain had a successful society that could produce capable individuals and organise them to best effect and wildly over-populated countries that struggled with basic infrastructure, masses of uneducated people and resource management, could not.

If we all end up settling this by a giant tug of war and a hundred miles of rope, then I'll concede you were right and it was an issue of not having enough people. But until that happens, raw numbers are just not how societies compete. Even if it ends up in war, it comes down to organisation, logistics, morale and technology more than numbers.

People just aren't willing to have kids because they're depressed, over-worked, cramped up and feel they can't afford to raise them properly. Don't change any of that and just add more kids - wont produce the glorious racial army you dream of, trust me.
 
Overly Serious said:
e. But until that happens, raw numbers are just not how societies compete. Even if it ends up in war, it comes down to organisation, logistics, morale and technology more than numbers.
Click to expand...
That's not true. Germany was considered to have the best army in the world and it lost to Russians sending so many bodies the Germans ran out of bullets to fight them. The Russians are famous for this tactic and it worked against an other wise superior force.
Overly Serious said:
People just aren't willing to have kids because they're depressed, over-worked, cramped up and feel they can't afford to raise them properly.
Click to expand...
That's bullshit though. Most of us have a grandparent who were poor and still had multiple kids and raised them well. They made do with what they had and made it work. Which is the attitude we need to get back to instead of "I can't buy Jimmy a new iPad every year so I'm not ready to be a parent". Birth control lets you constantly put off having kids until it's too late instead of having children and getting on with it like we did throughout our history. We currently live in a homosexual society where reproduction is divorced from sex and consequences of sex. So all the stunted people who would grow up and mature if they were made into parents instead play Nintendo all day and end up building Lego kits in their parents bed room.

Life needs consequences or people never grow.

There are major issues with hormone based birth control getting into the water and how it impacts women taking it. It's not just a turn off pregnancy thing. It impacts their personalities, their decision making, their partner selection. It's nasty stuff we use for hedonism with no consequences. And if people have to use condoms to fuck instead of taking a pill then fine. Birth control is a bad solution to a non-problem.
 
Last edited:
Kofi Drinka said:
That's not true. Germany was considered to have the best army in the world and it lost to Russians sending so many bodies the Germans ran out of bullets to fight them. The Russians are famous for this tactic and it worked against an other wise superior force.
Click to expand...
Lets just ignore the whole OTHER front where Germany was fighting Britain, the USA, France at the same time and the fact that they had the Turks on their side. Unless you mean WWII in which case all the same except this time they were saddled with the Italians. And really you just prove my point - in WWII, Russia lost twenty-million people to the Germans. Is that really how you imagine the British people should conduct warfare? German forces on the Eastern front were a fraction of Russia's and were fighting on Russia's home territory for most of it. I say war today is rarely a game of raw number of bodies and your counter-example is Russia's colossal losses against a significantly smaller number of Germans? Poor choice.

Kofi Drinka said:
That's bullshit though. Most of us have a grandparent who were poor and still had multiple kids and raised them well. They made do with what they had and made it work. Which is the attitude we need to get back to instead of "I can't buy Jimmy a new iPad every year so I'm not ready to be a parent". Birth control lets you constantly put off having kids until it's too late instead of having children and getting on with it like we did throughout our history. We currently live in a homosexual society where reproduction is divorced from sex and consequences of sex. So all the stunted people who would grow up and mature if they were made into parents instead play Nintendo all day and end up building Lego kits in their parents bed room.
Click to expand...
People's grandparents were having multiple kids because huge numbers had been killed off in WWII and you could buy a house back then and get a job. The government conducted mass immigration programs precisely because the working class had too much power over employers and the property owning class. You want to see what deprived childhood with shitty education and no opportunities looks like, walk around any number of places in this country and you wont see this glorious restoration of England you hope for. You'll see hopelessness, poverty, multi-generational unemployed. And you want to force-accelerate that? Out of what - the idea that everyone is going to become some foot soldier in your envisaged race war? That's not going to happen.

Governments rarely fear the poor. It's the Middle Class who scare them because the Middle Class have the luxury of education and time to organise and self-inform. That's why they do whatever they can to try and drive a wedge between the Middle and Working class. For example by trying to abolish any sense of ethnic identity they have in common.

They're trying to do currently to the Middle Class what they did to the Working Class - undermine their power by importing workers. They simply couldn't do it until now because there weren't the people to import for those jobs. But Starmer has just signed a deal with India to import huge numbers to do so and set it up economically to advantage the immigrants.

I'm not arguing with you out of some naivety or ideological grounds. I'm saying that what you want wont work. Promote the nuclear family as much as you like - that's a good thing. But trying to alter the birth rate by reducing the amount of control people have over it, is not your path to that. If anything it would work against the nuclear family and send single-parent households through the roof.

Kofi Drinka said:
Life needs consequences or people never grow.
Click to expand...
I'm not hugely in favour of throwing babies at people in the hope they learn responsibility.


EDIT: Now maybe a return to the copper coil over the dodgy hormones of the pill might not be a bad thing.
 
Last edited:
teriyakiburns said:
This "line go up" thinking is why we're in this situation to begin with. The British Isles were already massively over-populated in the 70s and the population was beginning to shrink by the mid 80s as a natural response to that. It should have been allowed to continue. Population would have shrunk slowly, stabilised, and started to grow again towards the end of the 21st century. Instead, successive governments have pursued constant, perpetual population growth in order to ensure a constant, perpetual increase in GDP, which meant importing foreign labour. Literally none of these people would be here, if not for this belief that population must always increase.
Click to expand...
I think the real litmus test is Japan. Their replacement levels are shocking but they have no intent to drastically import a bomillion niggers to fix that, they're just holding tight and eventually the problem solves itself.

If a population shrinks you need less social services, you need less houses, you need less doctors, you need less police etc. It's possible to see that change coming 10 years away and slowly shape a country around that.

Whereas the UK has easily the most retarded method of fixing population demographics. We're growing in population year by year but also freezing the civil service, freezing police, freezing doctor and nurse hirings, freezing council numbers etc. Every single year more people are competing for the same level of houses and doctors and dentists and putting more pressure on every existing service there is. Yes I'm aware we're building houses, but DRASTICALLY under population growth numbers, and that's only counting official figures.

Which is another thing. If I'm an Indian student and come to the UK to study and then say I've left the UK when I haven't and instead work an underground job for 10 years, I'm invisible to UK statistics. I'm only going to be discovered when I'm hospitalised and the NHS is by rights required to save my life despite not putting a penny into the UK for 10 years.
 
Overly Serious said:
People's grandparents were having multiple kids because huge numbers had been killed off in WWII and you could buy a house back then and get a job.
Click to expand...
If you deport all the pakis and niggers you have a surplus of houses again. This is basic supply and demand.
Tom Nook's Gloryhole said:
I think the real litmus test is Japan. Their replacement levels are shocking but they have no intent to drastically import a bomillion niggers to fix that, they're just holding tight and eventually the problem solves itself.
Click to expand...
Japan is importing foreigners on mass. Weebs haven't paid attention to Tokyo lately if they think Japan is any better off than we are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom