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.

 

[Clem Fandango]

There is no reason they can't. You can't come up with one.

They must just prefer the salty spray in their face, huh?

 

[femboy fart huffer]

It's just easier and cheaper to do it by dinghy. If it wasn't easy, thousands of them wouldn't be coming across.

So why the fuck do you have a problem with deporting them to somewhere where they cannot just fucking cross by dinghy? Yes. Crossing by dinghy is quicker and easier, that is why we should put them somewhere other than within fucking dinghy range?

Maybe they'll come back within dinghy range. Then we just deport them again. Repeat until the desire to cross the entire fucking world to leech off of our benefits dries up. These people are leeches, they're not coming here with any real conviction, they are coming here because it is easy. If we make it hard then they fuck off. That's it. This isn't hard.

 

[SirCliveSinclairdabbing]

Would you lot please stop taking the bad faith arguments about Rwanda when we could be discussing how to inject concentrated capsaicin into trick or treat sweets?

 

[femboy fart huffer]

Would you lot please stop taking the bad faith arguments about Rwanda when we could be discussing how to inject concentrated capsaicin into trick or treat sweets?

Just give out those fancy sausages instead. Every human loves some nice cured sausage. Pure capsaicin is a powder anyway, literally just buy a pack of tangfastics and shake it in there.

 

[Made In Wales]

So why the fuck do you have a problem with deporting them to somewhere where they cannot just fucking cross by dinghy? Yes. Crossing by dinghy is quicker and easier, that is why we should put them somewhere other than within fucking dinghy range?

Maybe they'll come back within dinghy range. Then we just deport them again. Repeat until the desire to cross the entire fucking world to leech off of our benefits dries up. These people are leeches, they're not coming here with any real conviction, they are coming here because it is easy. If we make it hard then they fuck off. That's it. This isn't hard.

If ever elected to any significant level of authority in Wales, I'll just bury the cunts in a disused quarry or two.

They 'just disappeared one day.'

Anyway, not sure if it's been mentioned, but the Doncaster Helicopter crash has killed one and injured three people:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx203g3j416o

https://archive.ph/JPUAS

 

[oh no its pipkun]

They must just prefer the salty spray in their face, huh?

the west has programs to bring somali refugees to their countries. the most common way to for a skinny to make it to europe is through libya and turkey and landing in italy or greece. once in the EU its france to UK.

 

[Tragon Dirtle]

They must just prefer the salty spray in their face, huh?

I thought you said they weren't getting boats back from Rwanda?

It's not in bad faith, it's a genuine example of a party saying they'll fix immigration, people voting for them, and then not doing it. The same party members who have now joined Reform.

 

[Introvertigo]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/livestory/prince-andrew-to-lose-prince-title-and-longtime-home-9.6960522

Prince Andrew, is going to lose his Prince title and longtime home. Though, he will have a pension and a house in Sandringham.

 

[>IMPLYING]

The boat scrotes also have passports or we wouldn't keep hearing about how they're tearing them up and throwing them away, wouldn't we? It's possible to get false documents like visas.

I went on an autistic dive here.
Passport or no, if you claim you need asylum due to: violence, persecution, or conflict, then you can at least get your foot in the door. Then the courts have to process your claim, which given how burdened it is at the moment and given the fact that the asylum claim is typically processed in courts which also have to trudge through other claims too, you're looking at a potentially years long process that gives you, the asylum claimant, years of time to give yourself a more substantive claim to stay. If you came here on an asylum claim and have:
(1) Renounced citizenship, making you stateless, thus impossible to remove
(2) Started a family here, giving you a ECHR shield to prevent your leaving
(3) Have a repeat prescription on the NHS that you couldn't get at home thus it'd be considered "cruel" to remove you
You've basically assured your permanent stay here. The boat scrotes have all the means to make their temp-stay permanent, largely due to legislation passed in the 90s and 2000s alongside ECHR things and the presence of several groups who act on their behalf to assure their stay because they're entitled to a lawyer incentivising several groups to act on their behalf since the government will overpay for their services. I believe the lawyer entitlement was done in 2013 at the trade-off of making actually prosecuting illegals, but the system is so overloaded now and the law is so in the illegals favour (a largely Labour thing) that the past 35-40 of legislation regarding immigrant/refugee/asylum-claimant protections/assurances needs to be wiped out.

 

[Clem Fandango]

I thought you said they weren't getting boats back from Rwanda?

I asked why people in Calais were taking the boat at all if it were so simple to fly.

You even said

It's just easier and cheaper to do it by dinghy.

Which looks a lot like an admission that getting here from France is easier than getting here from Rwanda.

Which would mean that there is a "meaningful barrier" to reaching the UK from there compared to Calais.

This is just using your own words and assuming everything you've said is correct.

 

[Tragon Dirtle]

I went on an autistic dive here.
Passport or no, if you claim you need asylum due to: violence, persecution, or conflict, then you can at least get your foot in the door. Then the courts have to process your claim, which given how burdened it is at the moment and given the fact that the asylum claim is typically processed in courts which also have to trudge through other claims too, you're looking at a potentially years long process that gives you, the asylum claimant, years of time to give yourself a more substantive claim to stay. If you came here on an asylum claim and have:
(1) Renounced citizenship, making you stateless, thus impossible to remove
(2) Started a family here, giving you a ECHR shield to prevent your leaving
(3) Have a repeat prescription on the NHS that you couldn't get at home thus it'd be considered "cruel" to remove you
You've basically assured your permanent stay here. The boat scrotes have all the means to make their temp-stay permanent, largely due to legislation passed in the 90s and 2000s alongside ECHR things and the presence of several groups who act on their behalf to assure their stay because they're entitled to a lawyer incentivising several groups to act on their behalf since the government will overpay for their services. I believe the lawyer entitlement was done in 2013 at the trade-off of making actually prosecuting illegals, but the system is so overloaded now and the law is so in the illegals favour (a largely Labour thing) that the past 35-40 of legislation regarding immigrant/refugee/asylum-claimant protections/assurances needs to be wiped out.

I'm not arguing that labour haven't contributed to the current situation. I'm arguing that the current labour government are incentivised to fix immigration to stay in power, and that reform are full of the same people bringing the immigrants in now & in the recent past. They also need immigration to continue to get elected on the back of it.

 

[Otterly]

sympathise with the guy out of work and I think he should get help from the state - because it sounds to me that he wants a short term aid whilst he finds another job, not a lifestyle choice to ponce off others. That is where Britain is broken, our government helps the wrong people.

Some friends of mine both lost jobs in the last recession. They’d just used a chunk of their savings on something and then her mum got diagnosed with cancer so between three young kids, caring for her mum etc she struggled to find a new job. He was out of work for a few months. Entitled to nothing at all.
They nearly lost the house. Both of them hardworking people who were open to any job as a stopgap. They took a risk and ended up starting their own business. There should be a short term coverage for this sort of thing - most European countries have schemes you pay into each month amd then if you do lose a job you get money for a set period. Why don’t we do that?

Come on God, Starmer rentboy exposé in tomorrow's Daily Express

That would make my week

It's not a deterrent.

Perhaps we need to brand them on exit .

 

[Tragon Dirtle]

I asked why people in Calais were taking the boat at all if it were so simple to fly.

You even said

Which looks a lot like an admission that getting here from France is easier than getting here from Rwanda.

Which would mean that there is a "meaningful barrier" to reaching the UK from there compared to Calais.

This is just using your own words and assuming everything you've said is correct.

The conversation isn't about Calais, it's about Rwanda. I already said it was cheaper. You're changing the topic because you can't win on the original one. It being slightly harder doesn't mean it stops them, so it isn't a meaningful barrier - smugglers can smuggle through airports, and immigrants can pay through slave labour, the same way they do the boats.

Dumping immigrants in France doesn't place any meaningful barrier to re-entry, especially when - as we see - there is no enforcement if they actually return.

Meaningful barrier wasn't my words, it was @teriyakiburns, so I guess he can respond to you on what he meant by that.

 

[Tragon Dirtle]

Actual question for the thread: if Labour did stop illegal immigration 100% tomorrow. What other reasons would make you vote for Reform?

 

[pot of sneed]

Perhaps we need to brand them on exit .

I prefer them to be microchipped with tiny bombs that detonate should they ever dare touch British soil again.

 

[Clem Fandango]

The conversation isn't about Calais, it's about Rwanda. I already said it was cheaper. You're changing the topic because you can't win on the original one. It being slightly harder doesn't mean it stops them, so it isn't a meaningful barrier - smugglers can smuggle through airports, and immigrants can pay through slave labour, the same way they do the boats.

So sending them somewhere far away, where it is expensive to come back, doesn't qualify as a "meaningful barrier" ?

Please tell me what would qualify as a meaningful barrier, in your opinion.

Eta:

Meaningful barrier wasn't my words, it was @teriyakiburns, so I guess he can respond to you on what he meant by that.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I imagine he meant somewhere far away where it would be expensive to come back. You apparently disagree that Rwanda achieves that, so I want to know what you think would qualify as a meaningful barrier.

 

[Gian-Luca Caluga]

I prefer them to be microchipped with tiny bombs that detonate should they ever dare touch British soil again.

But then our beaches would be besieged by swarthy exploding men, like Robotron or something.

 

[>IMPLYING]

Again, I know you say any party, but you still managed to leave reform out. Why is everybody dropping the ball when it comes to defending reform and avoiding the subject?

Sorry to double post but it's got a rather simple answer: They haven't been in power yet. Farage, Tice, and Yusuf are the biggest drawers of suspicion when it comes to the party itself and you see scrutiny on them all the time. The hope is that the power not being as embedded in the system as Labour and the Tories means they'll actually be less rigid on certain policies and issues because they're not yet assured of their position enough that they can just coast on by on inertia. The main precedent for this mindset is Reform in late 2024 vs Reform in present, who've gone from, "Mass deportation isn't possible" to "We need all the illegals out and out now." Labour's attempts to shift rhetoric on immigration and spending at the top are stymied by their own party members and the status quo of Blairism (Neoliberalism with social spending and Marx-lite platitudes) causing friction with the more lefty components of the party. We saw a similar friction with the Tories post Brexit which came to a head with Truss' ousting.

Essentially: Reform haven't been in a position to fuck things up yet, even if internally their party is in as much of a strife-filled mess as the others and has contentious people in roles of power. Basically, give them a chance to fuck up whilst also ousting the two parties with a proven track record of fucking up.

 

[Tragon Dirtle]

So sending them somewhere far away, where it is expensive to come back, doesn't qualify as a "meaningful barrier" ?

Please tell me what would qualify as a meaningful barrier, in your opinion.

Again, all smuggling is funded through paying off through off the books work on the other side. How expensive it is to come back is determined by the smuggler. Meaningful barrier would be no way to access smugglers or transport.

@>IMPLYING I can understand this, but I can't agree with it, basically for the reasons I've already said - the've adopted a lot of tory party members, so why wouldn't they have adopted their inertia (or two-faced attitude to immigration). How are they different from the tory party now that they have several of the same members?

 

[femboy fart huffer]

the west has programs to bring somali refugees to their countries. the most common way to for a skinny to make it to europe is through libya and turkey and landing in italy or greece. once in the EU its france to UK.

Ok. And how do they get from the eu/france to England? Because it's not a fucking aeroplane it's a boat. How they get into europe doesn't matter because this is not the europe thread this is the English thread. I do not give a shit how they get into europe I give a shit how they get into England specifically because that is the only one we can do something about.

Sorry to double post but it's got a rather simple answer

It's simpler than that. Reform are the least worst. I do not like reform. I do not like Nigel. However. I fucking hate the tories and labour. I hate boris and kier and blair and bla bla bla. I do not want any of them. I do not want fucking politicians or kings. However I do not have a choice, I must pick one, therefore I pick the one that I hate the least. Which is reform. If I had it my way every single one of them would be swinging alongside all the illegal immigrants but we can't have that apparently.

no way to access smugglers or transport.

Yes I agree. We should start blowing up the boats and invade france to execute the gangs facilitating this. But until then getting them as far the fuck away as possible is best. Also you have been here almost two years, figure out how to not doublepost.