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...
FuckedOffToff said:
Interesting article in the Telegraph today, explaining the uniquely awful anti-homelessness law the SNP, (Nicola Sturgeon's bright idea) passed in Glasgow that has turned the city into the worst hit city in the country for boat people.
This gift link removes the paywall , and allows you to see the comments
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/834e0b39b4f46c5b

@Made In Wales Theres a bit with John Curtice talking about the political fortunes of the parties at Holyrood next year, I've put it under the spoiler for you

Still, the stakes are high ahead of the Scottish Parliament elections next May. Labour’s revival north of the border has stalled. “It would sound deluded to deny it’s going to be tough,” Reid says. “But if anyone can turn it around, it’s Anas [Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader].”

The SNP, though weakened, retains support in the mid-30s. But the real story might be Reform, which is now polling at around 20 per cent. “If the 2026 elections are broadly in line with the polls, independence will again be confirmed as the main divide,” says the historian Dr Stephen Davies. “It’s the Quebecification of Scottish politics”: nationalist parties dominate, even without the prospect of a referendum.

Prof Curtice suggests that Reform’s rise could even keep the SNP in power by fracturing the Right-leaning vote, but Kerr disagrees. “Nigel Farage isn’t seen as controversial anymore, and public resentment is mounting.” Immigration, he insists, now eclipses independence in voters’ minds. In his Shettleston ward, Saltires signify not separatism but defiance against open borders. He scoffs at how the SNP now blanch at the blue and white of St Andrew. At how a movement built on nationalist sentiment can now recoil at it. Swinney has said he “won’t have it redefined by anyone else”.
Click to expand...
Interesting that the piece talks about a well-worn path of a flight to Tunisia (from elsewhere in Africa), then various safaris through Europe to get to the U.K.

Real refugees would stop at the first safe place they get to. Tunisia is safe. All of Europe bar Ukraine is safe. But no, these ‘refugees’ and ‘asylum seekers’ just had to come to the U.K. Some of them even paid £8000 to do so, oh no! Then they could’ve saved that money to set up a new life for themselves in safe Tunisia, couldn’t they?

But no. It’s not just housing and bennies, it’s the fact that Brits are a soft touch for these people. They can scam, work shit jobs on the side that are only available to speakers of their own language, build their own little enclaves that don’t interact or assimilate at all. And once they get any semblance of legal status, they bring over family - all of their family, then friends, who go missing or claim asylum themselves.

It’s too late now. Once a flow of migrants from a country has a settled base in a new place, the flow only grows. Unless something horribly dramatic happens in the new country, or unless the home country rapidly improves (that’s why the Poles are going home), there’ll be more and more of them.

I don’t care what fucking status they have, anyone who wasn’t born in the U.K. should not be given any form of social housing. Fuck off. That housing stock should be for struggling Brits, and no-one else.

Why is this country seen as one big charity? What’s so wrong with stopping that and looking after our own? How can it be ‘racist’ when it covers all foreign nationals of all skin colours and faiths? Easy demonisation doesn’t change the reality.
 
BongoMongo said:
On the other hand, Remploy often placed people in work who were wholly unsuitable for it. I had to, more than once, as a student, tard wrangle people who couldn't safely use anything more than a butter knife, who had hospitality jobs. It was bloody impossible.
Click to expand...
I now some stories about Remploy. They were maniacs.

They had a massive turnover in staff as everyone in leadership was fucking nuts. Totally utter fucking bonkers.

Didn’t they go bust after losing all their free money or did they just scale things right back?
Lord Denning said:
Am I being schizophrenic or is it blatantly obvious that most jury trials are being abolished to make it easier for His Honour, Judge Aziz Malik to convict Big Baz for the indictable offense of being a bit racist in Greggs, and give him the maximum penalty, without that pesky jury getting in the way?
Click to expand...
We know there is collusion between police, prosecutors, and judges.

If the establishment hadn’t realised that the tranny stuff was never going to sit well with the public what do you think a judge would have done to Graham Lineham? He’d be guilty on all counts and in prison right now.

There is a concerted effort from the establishment to destroy the life of Joey Barton of all fucking people for the crime of saying women’s football is shit. Do you think he’s got a fair chance in front of a judge or is it straight to the gulag for him next time he’s a sperg on Twitter?

There is massive collusion between the police, prosecution, and judges. We know this. We say this in Scotland (albeit under the Scots Law system) with the weird treatment of Count Dankula.

This is pretty terrifying.
 
Duane Dibbley said:
The last time the magna carta was ignored was by a king called Charles who lost his head.
Click to expand...
Trying to not history sperg here, but whilst an important document people really overstate the actual legal importance of the Magna Carta.

Not only was it annulled pretty much after it was signed (the king cried to the pope that he had been forced to sign it under duress) but there’s been no real reference to it in English Law since the 16th century.

The Burgers love it for some reason, probably because they don’t have a history of their own they have to steal some of ours and LARP on it.
NeverCopeAgain said:
I think this budget is going to be great, a great meltdown.
Click to expand...
I’m going to go try and be in the gym whilst it’s going on so I don’t fed post.

My big hope is that is causes a massive rebellion within the Labour Party and Starmer is pretty much forced to call an election to get the authority to do half of it. Which he will lose.
 
FedPostalService said:
Trying to not history sperg here, but whilst an important document people really overstate the actual legal importance of the Magna Carta.

Not only was it annulled pretty much after it was signed (the king cried to the pope that he had been forced to sign it under duress) but there’s been no real reference to it in English Law since the 16th century.

The Burgers love it for some reason, probably because they don’t have a history of their own they have to steal some of ours and LARP on it.

I’m going to go try and be in the gym whilst it’s going on so I don’t fed post.

My big hope is that is causes a massive rebellion within the Labour Party and Starmer is pretty much forced to call an election to get the authority to do half of it. Which he will lose.
Click to expand...
Lol, rebellion in Labour. Not gonna happen. This fuckshow is going to happen at the behest of the backbenchers.
 
Russian Bot #5361 said:
What the government is basically proposing is to extend the sentencing powers of Magistrates (basically volunteers from the community that give their time to form a sort of judicial jury comprised of three magistrates or lay justices, where they hear arguments from both sides, decide on guilt, and then decide on sentence) from 1 year — which used to be 6 months about a year and half ago — to two years, so that more crimes that are triable either way (crimes that can be tried in either the Magistrates or Crown Court) can be handled fully in the Magistrates Court.

As well as this, they propose the creation of a new court called the Crown Court Bench Division (CCBD), which would hear cases that are likely to result in a sentence of 5 years or less, and would sit between the Magistrates and Crown Court. This court would not have a jury, meaning the vast majority of crimes would be under its remit, and cases would be heard by a Trial Judge (an actual legal professional & full judge) and two Magistrates (literally anyone from the community, mostly old people, that volunteer their time).
Click to expand...
Are they just trying to implement Japan's system?
1764152909902.png
 
FedPostalService said:
Not only was it annulled pretty much after it was signed (the king cried to the pope that he had been forced to sign it under duress) but there’s been no real reference to it in English Law since the 16th century.
Click to expand...
The importance of the great charter is that it set a precedent, that the king's powers are not absolute, which subsequent charters relied on for their own legal weight, and which makes it the ancestor of much of England's constitutional structure. The problem is when you get people like the chartists, who seemed to believe it was a fully-fledged constitution in its own right, rather than a list of complaints by a bunch of barons, and who ascribe to it all sorts of powers that it just never had.

The thing is, people did learn about the charter and all of its dowwstream effects in schools until the 1960s. The teaching of English history mostly ender under the reforms of Wilson and later Heath, and never really made its way back into the curriculum as anything other than an overview of the second world war and how terrible British imperialism was.
>IMPLYING said:
Are they just trying to implement Japan's system?
Click to expand...
In the sense that they're trying to implement a shitty knock-off of civil law, yes. A civil law system is much more amenable to the sort of technocratic government people like Starmer desire.
 
>IMPLYING said:
Are they just trying to implement Japan's system?
Click to expand...
From a quick scour on Wikipedia, it seems the use of lay justices and inquisitorial panels have been quite common historically all throughout Europe, and in truth, most of the world. So if anything this would be a strange return to form to the old antiquated system of the UK's judiciary. What drives me crazy is the sheer number of government shills that have cropped up on reddit and other social media, highlighting the benefits that this type of system of would have over a jury. Total redditor death.
 
Duane Dibbley said:
Hold on, hold on, hold on. Let's just take a second here to discuss something serious.

Are the UK government proposing that an officer of the law can arrest me for public order offences or hate speech laws, send me court and have me jailed for up to 5 years, with no evidence or appeal?
Without exaggeration, is that the proposal?

How is that different from Stalinist purges using the court system to send people to Gulags? Again, without hyperbole, drama or exaggeration. Someone talk sense to me here.
Click to expand...
Yes, but don't worry, Ahmed who arrived 2 days ago and has already raped 10 women will get a jury of his peers.
 
An interesting thought.
They're not going to come out and say it - because it would be a full admittance that it's a piece of toilet paper that's solely enforced when they personally agree with the outcome - but, this new legal system may be fully ECHR-kosher.
Have they EVER complained about our magistrate courts?
 
surely it makes more sense for "petty" crimes to be debated by our peers, but murderers rapists and kidnappers go straight to jail? Or will that just result in precious browns being locked up more therefore cant do it?
Lammy just called Bill Cosby a childhood role model for christs sake, the mans a retard.
 
Coolio55 said:
I'm not going to stan for Cosby but he was really fucking funny
Click to expand...
Im sure back in't day people liked him, but in today's day and age- during Epstein and former Prince Andrew and rapey blacks- to admit ol' Cosby is your childhood role model shows a complete lack of social awareness and retardation that makes you wonder if his IQ is even double digits. It's like being a Lost Prophets fan, no need to admit to it.
 
Russian Bot #5361 said:
From a quick scour on Wikipedia, it seems the use of lay justices and inquisitorial panels have been quite common historically all throughout Europe, and in truth, most of the world. So if anything this would be a strange return to form to the old antiquated system of the UK's judiciary. What drives me crazy is the sheer number of government shills that have cropped up on reddit and other social media, highlighting the benefits that this type of system of would have over a jury. Total redditor death.
Click to expand...
The wariness is that Labour are doing it. Hell, I'd be wary if any government in the year 20XX suddenly implemented this sort of judicial reform. Every party is suspect, every individual is untrustworthy, and the capability of government to carry out the reform effectively is unlikely.

Politicians/governments copy what's perceived to be popular elsewhere. Behind every proposed policy is some politician seeing it was passed somewhere else with applause or a lack of pushback so they commit. Digital IDs? Passed in Estonia 2003, nobody gave a shit so that'll mean Britons will also not give a shit, especially 22 years after the idea was first raised in a British political context and now everybody knows what "online" actually is now. Assisted dying? The Canadians passed it, and their government is still in power, so the people actually support it then? The Chinese seem alright with their great firewall, maybe that means it'll actually be popular if we introduced one here? Lack of competency + lack of enthusiasm = straight up lifting policy from abroad. Blair was an evil cunt but given he disappeared from participating directly in politics and is living on an ex-politician subsidy (i.e. admin/diplo role in some NGO) (he might legitimately get to be the leader of Gaza if things simmer down lmao) he might've been checked out less than a year as PM.

Part of the reason things went shit for us because we copied what was (apparently) successful elsewhere without accounting for our actual domestic situation. The thing people are worrying about with this system is only an issue because we're not homogenous, not high-trust, and not low on non-serious crime. Rather than fix the former two, the intent is also to redefine what a non-serious crime is so low-value thefts and non-lethal assaults just result in a slap on the wrist. Cutting corners off a square so it slots (badly) into a circle basically.
1764157926830.png
I think they really want to have anything less than 5 years result in fines and/or some limited individual restriction as opposed to prison since it can save on costs or even result in a source of revenue.
78k backlog? £1000 is a typical fine for a non-serious offence. You're looking at £78 million in change from that backlog if you let them all off with a slap on the wrist. Nice chunk of change. Better than spending that and more on imprisoning them. Though that's merely greedy, dangerous, but pragmatic, which is far from the mind of Lammy, who gave Chagos away for no reason other than fee-fees.

The intent from Lammy here as I see it is to get as many "youths" off for stabbing offences as humanly possible. Threatening with or carrying a knife in the UK carries a minimum sentence of 6 months, so that goes to these courts. The maximum for stabbing someone without killing them (grievous bodily harm) is 5 years, but not the minimum, meaning a lot of stabbers could potentially be dealt with swiftly and with velvet gloves under this proposal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom