UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

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

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.

 

[Just a boring name]

I used to be pro death penalty when I was younger, and maybe i've gotten soft in my old age because I don't agree that any man has the right to end another mans life.

From a moral perspective, the state can't outlaw murder while sanctioning murder.
Giving that power to any government never ends well, as it just turns into state justified genocide.

From a religious perspective, who are you or I to play God? Some religions may try and justify it, poorly, and end up tripping over themselves.

The only way, in my opinion, to sort out the murderers and have deterants is to let mother nature sort it out; airdrop those sentenced to death back into the jungle. Afterall, they have broken the rule of man, not nature. Exile them away from the society of man back in to the domain of nature and allow darwinism to take its course.

That's actually quite a good point you've made. You could use the jungle (added animal attack bonus) as you mentioned, or maybe have another kind of extremely inhospitable environment such as the coldest, emptiest sections of the earth to just plop them onto?

 

[Duane Dibbley]

I get what you're saying. But this is the same. Dropping someone in a jungle is still causing their death. Just because a tiger did it instead of a prison employee it doesn't change the fact that your actions directly resulted in a man dying.

I'm not causing their death, there is no guarantee they will die, they could survive and thrive in that environment, many men have for thousands of years. It's not about taking a life, it's about...

The only job is to remove those who do not belong in society from society as quickly and humanely as possible.

...This. Removing them from manmade society, of laws and rules they chose to break, according to the free will that God bestowed upon man. Once that person has been removed from that society, and IMO those who cannot abide by the law of man, do not get to be rewarded by living amongst men, as their lawlessness is akin to animalistic behaviour on a lower par than primates, then justice is done. The consequence of acting upon animal urges is to live with and like the animals.

The punishment shouldn't be suffering, pain, lashings, thumb-screws or death, it should be the swift removal from society and permanent exile from the arena of man.

What is more moral and correct, leaving someone to starve or die of illness and be attacked by animals over a long period of time, or to instantly end their life without suffering?

If they starve or die of illness, what is immoral about that? They chose to forgo the invention of man when they committed acts that spit in the face of a society built to provide such safeties.
If I, or another man, puts a bullet in the head of another man, that is immoral as we are using societal creations to punish a person who no longer has the right to societies creations.
I don't want to sound like a bender with the "societal construct" bollocks, it's straightforward to me; if you want to live among men, live as man. If you want to chimp out, then go play with the chimps.

 

[Made In Wales]

Perhaps it is @femboy fart huffer but, let's face it, it would be a vote winner.

Other parties talking about 'muh reparations' whilst Reform UK one up them all and say 'fair enough, we hear you, here's a grand for everybody and we'll fund it from axing the green taxes.'

'Free gibs? I LUVS DAT NIGEL!'

Imagine the shit-show that would happen if the Left dared criticise Nigel for it... 'YAW'S RAYCIST!'

#BLM

British Lives Matter

I await the memes of Black Youths going 'We's only makin' plans for Nigel...'

 

[2 Faces 2 Colours]

Perhaps it is @femboy fart huffer but, let's face it, it would be a vote winner.

Other parties talking about 'muh reparations' whilst Reform UK one up them all and say 'fair enough, we hear you, here's a grand for everybody and we'll fund it from axing the green taxes.'

Yeah, but where does the money the government gives come from? This just feels like it would be another COVID relief bill, and I don't want to have 2022-level inflation ever again.

 

[Duane Dibbley]

and I don't want to have 2022-level inflation ever again.

You won't because they've fudged the numbers. Inflation is worse now than 2022 and isn't slowing down.

Mega rich supermarkets have come out today and said if they get taxed, they will put their prices up. Tesco, one of the biggest whinging bitches in the sector, are complaining it will hit profits, despite their newest forecast predicting higher-than-expected profits of £3 billion. Won't someone think of the poor millionaires.

We have commie-style price fixing under the guise of inflation, nudge nudge wink wink.

 

[Made In Wales]

Yeah, but where does the money the government gives come from? This just feels like it would be another COVID relief bill, and I don't want to have 2022-level inflation ever again.

From not paying Green New Deal Taxes, axing the BBC and cancelling our debts.

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2021/06/21/why-we-do-not-have-a-covid-debt-crisis/

Whilst I'm not a fan of this guy's politics, he does know his political beans.

The Covid debts have already been paid off as of 2021, therefore we can reduce prices and tax:

https://neweconomics.org/2021/06/we-dont-need-cuts-to-pay-back-pandemic-debt

Okay, it's lefty-sourced, but if it can be fact-checked then the black-hole of Rachel Reeves isn't as big as she makes out.

If we want to stop Government debt, then we can either cut wasteful spending (what do you know, we has DOGE units!), promote economic growth (reduce taxes), sell off Government properties/assets which aren't needed or necessary and default, restructure or delay payments. A global cancellation of debts hurts nobody in the long run.

We say no to funding bollocks like Common Purpose type projects, invest in areas where we are sadly lacking (the military, emergency services, national infrastructure, manufacturing) and quitting NATO and not paying 5% of our GDP to the killing machines.

Even the Libs, Corbyn Party and Greens are now coming around to realise that NATO and even the UN are nothing more than talking shops and are doing nothing for global peace and security.

Want some more money, then we also axe Foreign Aid spending and defund UK Aid until and unless we know that any help sent will help countries and not be spent on Lesbian Operas in Lesotho.

Also we introduce a flat rate of 15-20% tax maximum, you are taxed once and once only for an item (be it a home or a new pair of jeans) we encourage growth and development and ban crony capitalism.

Reform UK would send money where it's needed and not where Soros wants it to be spent (with any luck he'd be rotting in a cell too with the rest of the NWO freaks).

I'd not be surprised for Tesco, Morrison's etc. to say 'we're going into administration' around the time of the budget - that would be a hammer-blow for Reeves and Labour. They're going to have to work out a way of getting Burnham in as PM but can't do so before the Budget...

 

[femboy fart huffer]

I'm not causing their death, there is no guarantee they will die, they could survive and thrive in that environment,

This is just trying to create plausible deniability. We both know that none of these people would survive in these environments. We know that the vast majority of these people would die in those environments. Otherwise you would have said drop them in the Chinese plains or something. Even the people that do live in the jungle still use modern technology, even the fucking andaman islands use metal spears from metal that we gave them. We know they would die you just don't want to feel responsible for that. I see what you just said as the equivalent of giving a prisoner a revolver with all cylinders loaded and forcing them to play russian roulette, that's not causing their death, sometimes the gun jams, they could survive that.

The punishment shouldn't be suffering, pain, lashings, thumb-screws or death

The problem is that by exiling someone you will create suffering and pain. You cannot deprive someone of modern inventions and it not cause suffering, look at the people that live in the jungles in seasia, they're covered in boils and rashes and a fair few of them have necrotic flesh from infections. That's my problem. We both want these people gone. I see your solution as creating unneeded suffering. Yes, people can survive in the jungle or whatever. But a key part of that is that they don't do it alone or without tools and training. Even the most remote societies there's a massive difference between those people and the average man in terms of survival skills. These people grew up in that environment, we did not. We both know how to create fire in theory but do you think you could actually do that? I know that without any tools I would probably starve before I could do anything.

If they starve or die of illness, what is immoral about that? They chose to forgo the invention of man when they committed acts that spit in the face of a society built to provide such safeties.

They didn't choose that. You decided to deprive them of that. You made the choice to deprive them of manmade inventions which lead to their death. I made the choice to deprive their brain of blood which lead to their death. Your actions resulted in their death and suffering, mine did too, I just see mine as causing less suffering.

How about we meet in the middle. I will enact the divine mandate of the king and state as chosen by God if the prisoner chooses. If they choose the firing squad then go ahead. If they want to be dropped in the jungle then they can. I would simply rather kill someone that force them to go through constant suffering.

 

[James X Maxwell]

Enough Zopiclone to kill an elephant

 

[SirCliveSinclairdabbing]

Here’s a take on death sentence. Just stick them in a car with the exhaust plumbed into the blower.
Painless, reusable (stick a tarp on the seat) and you could go on tour with it. Just imagine it, live from the Trafford centre that twat who blew up a concert gets to meet his maker!!!!

 

[Duane Dibbley]

This is just trying to create plausible deniability. We both know that none of these people would survive in these environments. We know that the vast majority of these people would die in those environments.

It's not plausible deniability. It's a just punishment to match their crime. How many violent murders are over quickly?

The problem is that by exiling someone you will create suffering and pain.

Not pain and suffering meted out by man. Man makes a society, a murderer choses not to live by the rules of that society, so they live by the rules of the wild. What happens after that is consequences of free will.

They didn't choose that. You decided to deprive them of that.

They deprived themselves of that when they brutally stabbed kids. Let's not lose sight of our aim here; to deter and punish violent murderers.

I would simply rather kill someone that force them to go through constant suffering.

And I would not want to live in a society where man decides who lives and who dies based on rules he invented. Murders for me, not for thee, is not a power another man should wield in a fair and just society.

I will enact the divine mandate of the king and state as chosen by God

Charles I used that line and lost his head.

Here’s a take on death sentence. Just stick them in a car with the exhaust plumbed into the blower.
Painless, reusable (stick a tarp on the seat) and you could go on tour with it. Just imagine it, live from the Trafford centre that twat who blew up a concert gets to meet his maker!!!!

But the carbon emissions!!!

 

[Brahma]

So essentially they were invited into the country to work

Were they?

Like formally, by the government of the day?

There's so much rhetoric about it, it's never been straight in my head

 

[Duane Dibbley]

I'd not be surprised for Tesco, Morrison's etc. to say 'we're going into administration' around the time of the budget - that would be a hammer-blow for Reeves and Labour. They're going to have to work out a way of getting Burnham in as PM but can't do so before the Budget...

Going off memory here so I'm going to round the number up.
Pre-2019, Tesco were hitting ~£150 million a year profit. There were news articles how their new CEO had made a massive profit increase the year they came to power, pushing profits to a record ~£250 million a year.

After COVID?
£1 billion a year profit. All the while crying about high inflation. They fucking caused it.
Since high inflation of 2022?
£2.5 billion in profit.

They're profiteering cunts who will never see administration because they're preying on those who need the food. Making so much money out of basic, survival requirements like food or water is inhumane and the CEO's should be tried in the European Court for Human Rights Violations.

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

Were they?

Like formally, by the government of the day?

There's so much rhetoric about it, it's never been straight in my head

Broadly speaking in the post war period much of Europe was trying to replace worker shortfalls. The UK tried to attract workers from in Europe rather than outside of it with an active preference for those but the actual specific Windrush ship arrivals came from British colonies. It was after that initial one where various government campaigns targeting the people outside of Europe began.

The Windrush ship was 1948. The Windrush scandal they were challenging arrivals who entered before 1973. Over that 25 years many of those who came were directly encouraged to do so which is why I have a degree of sympathy. Now whether or not this stems from the NGO equivalents back then flexing their muscles is not so easy to tell. But I'd be unsurprised.

 

[Tom Nook's Gloryhole]

So nogger jogger got caught in Finsbury Park.

If he argues that he didn't actually know he was on the run this could present a bizarre legal case where the taxman might owe him a five figure compo package.

 

[SirCliveSinclairdabbing]

So nogger jogger got caught in Finsbury Park.

If he argues that he didn't actually know he was on the run this could present a bizarre legal case where the taxman might owe him a five figure compo package.

Not if the prison guard goes on the run and the jogger has to find him.

 

[Inquisitor_BadAss]

Reform UK should say that they will give £1000 to each person in the UK, as either compensation for Windrush or the way they were shoddily treated during Covid, if elected as the next Government.

Seriously, this wouldn't bother me, can always cancel debts/green taxes/the BBC whatever.

Make it a one off non-taxable gift - Lenny Henry would be spinning on the floor weeping.

They could always increase the personal allowance by £1000 rather then hand out money we don't have, It's been frozen at the current rate for way too long imo.

 

[Tom Nook's Gloryhole]

They could always increase the personal allowance by £1000 rather then hand out money we don't have, It's been frozen at the current rate for way too long imo.

Ludicrous take, if anything the personal allowance needs abolished. Every year I'm squeezed harder for simply doing better than minimum wage work while highlighter girlies pay practically no tax.

 

[Big Judge Cock]

Broadly speaking in the post war period much of Europe was trying to replace worker shortfalls. The UK tried to attract workers from in Europe rather than outside of it with an active preference for those but the actual specific Windrush ship arrivals came from British colonies. It was after that initial one where various government campaigns targeting the people outside of Europe began.

The Windrush ship was 1948. The Windrush scandal they were challenging arrivals who entered before 1973. Over that 25 years many of those who came were directly encouraged to do so which is why I have a degree of sympathy. Now whether or not this stems from the NGO equivalents back then flexing their muscles is not so easy to tell. But I'd be unsurprised.

There was no worker shortfall, in fact there were so many demobbed soldiers it was the other way round.

They got wind of an opportunity to come here as the passport rules were being changed, and the government of the time reckoned they'd fuck off home eventually.

Unfortunately everyone is taught the modern lies and isn't aware of this, despite it being available to read in many places, for example https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-windrush-myth/

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

There was no worker shortfall, in fact there were so many demobbed soldiers it was the other way round.

They got wind of an opportunity to come here as the passport rules were being changed, and the government of the time reckoned they'd fuck off home eventually.

Unfortunately everyone is taught the modern lies and isn't aware of this, despite it being available to read in many places, for example https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-windrush-myth/

Spectator one largely focuses on the initial Windrush travel which is indeed not as a result of a demand for people from outside of Europe. I believe that one specifically it came down to them offering cheap travel on the ship and a bunch of people going, "might as well give it a go." It was only subsequent government policies that started actively trying to source them.

In all honesty calling it the Windrush scandal does seem like an attempt to claim it was all entirely justified and in demand after the fact despite that one in fact being one of the first to receive major pushback. History revisionism at its finest.

 

[FedPostalService]

There was no worker shortfall, in fact there were so many demobbed soldiers it was the other way round.

They got wind of an opportunity to come here as the passport rules were being changed, and the government of the time reckoned they'd fuck off home eventually.

Unfortunately everyone is taught the modern lies and isn't aware of this, despite it being available to read in many places, for example https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-windrush-myth/

The governments between 1948 and 1971 actively encouraged immigrants from the commonwealth to come.

Whilst there weee a lot of men demobbed there was also a lot of men fucking killed. It was a way to plug gaps in the labour market and the start of the “that job isn’t good enough for a white man, pay peanuts and get a monkey to do it” which slowly ramped up to ruin things for British workers (especially retarded ones.)

The Speccy is overreaching.