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.

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:
You're not driving a bus for a living if you're smart.
They earn decent money for what it is and they dont need to be rocket surgeons but there’s a need for common sense. That seems lacking.
Why aren’t there the dangly roof-hitter arches installed near these bridges? I went into a car park at an airport last week and before you go in is an arch, the solid part of it is too high to damage but it has dangling heavy ish pipes on chains so that if you’re heading towards it in too high a vehicle you’ll get hit by them.
 
Seriously tho but wtf is it with chinks atm. Its like they're tryna outdo pakis in terms of noncery
China number one

Theives is launching an inquiry into who leaked her budget as 'an unusually high number of measures were leaked, including that an increase to income tax was under consideration.' How does one tell her it was likely the entire fucking department leaking to the media.
 
The BBC's latest history docudrama got a write up in the Grauniad. The Pajeet journalist reviewing it particularly liked the talking heads describing the fall of Rome as being down to Rome's suspician of immigrants.


She compared it to the stuffy 1969 series Civilisation, fronted by Ken Clarke who in her words was a 'tory politician in a trilby and tie'. Mixing up the 1980's era politician Ken Clarke with the art historian Kenneth Clarke

The Grauniad of course quitely edited it, leaving it for other to point out that she'd obviously never watched Civilisation which rivals 'The Great War' in being a tv documentary milestone.

Here's Stephen Fry doing a 2 minute introduction for it.


A few years back the Guardian and academics like Mary Beard tried to rubbish civilization as being too focused on the 'great man' idea of history and dismissive about various barbarian tribes. Mary Beard and David Olusoga even did a 'sequel', which nobody watched.

Now the guardian gets some ignorant jeet to write an article rubbishing a tv series she obviously never watched.

Here's the unedited extract.

jreview.jpg
 
Yeah, about that...
In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
The British government, no matter who is running the show there, just can't stop itself from fucking around and trying to oppress its citizens. Parliament, the King... the boot must be applied.
 
Question, fellow Brits. Do you think a minimum wage job should carry legal responsibilities that could result in fines?

I've always found it pretty warped that a minimum wage cashier aged 18 could get a £4k fine for selling alcohol to someone who didn't prove ID. I get the shop fine that's basically a big push to fire the kid, but adding a criminal layer and another fine always seemed weird. Like I get it if someone working minimum wage did something out of the job description, like stabbed someeone in Greggs but it feels like there should be some level of leniency considering how low paid they are.

I just find it strange how train junction mechanics and foremen who work on train lines get paid an absolute premium because if they fuck up they can be done for manslaughter, but a kid can fuck up after working through their break and that's a criminal record that's essentially fucked their life over before it's started.
 
Question, fellow Brits
Do paid drivers deserve points for carrying a load that puts them over their license weight for work?
Yes.

In your example that’s why we have the ask 25 scheme. So people won’t be offended if they’re clearly over 18 but not clearly over 25, it allows the employee to be cautious.
 
Do you think a minimum wage job should carry legal responsibilities that could result in fines?

I've always found it pretty warped that a minimum wage cashier aged 18 could get a £4k fine for selling alcohol to someone who didn't prove ID. I get the shop fine that's basically a big push to fire the kid, but adding a criminal layer and another fine always seemed weird.
Really depends on the job and circumstances of the fuck up and how dangerous it is. Fines for selling underage really varies- could be a genuine 'I thought he was over 25 he had a full beard' and then Paki shopkeepers who sell to young girls. I guess this is why criminal trials should have a jury of our peers to decide the specifics of a situation before a sentence is handed down (and I wish we could get jury nullification in this country but alas)
 
China number one

Theives is launching an inquiry into who leaked her budget as 'an unusually high number of measures were leaked, including that an increase to income tax was under consideration.' How does one tell her it was likely the entire fucking department leaking to the media.
Morgan McSweeney.

He is under orders to get both her and Starmer out.

One of the unluckiest bridges to be bashed in in Sargonland:

 
Last edited:
Question, fellow Brits. Do you think a minimum wage job should carry legal responsibilities that could result in fines?

I've always found it pretty warped that a minimum wage cashier aged 18 could get a £4k fine for selling alcohol to someone who didn't prove ID. I get the shop fine that's basically a big push to fire the kid, but adding a criminal layer and another fine always seemed weird. Like I get it if someone working minimum wage did something out of the job description, like stabbed someeone in Greggs but it feels like there should be some level of leniency considering how low paid they are.

I just find it strange how train junction mechanics and foremen who work on train lines get paid an absolute premium because if they fuck up they can be done for manslaughter, but a kid can fuck up after working through their break and that's a criminal record that's essentially fucked their life over before it's started.
That’s a really good point. Avoiding PL I have had jobs were I’ve risked massive fines and even being barred from working in that industry again if I broke certain laws, but currently I can’t think of any that would get me in bother (unless it an actual regular crime.)

I could probably wrack up a few large fines for the business too and resign to avoid that showing up in a reference too, yet spotty 18 year old me could have got a criminal record and a life destroying fine for serving a 17 year old a pint.
 
In certain civil service jobs you can cause massive damage through fuck ups, but you, as an individual, can be completely indemnified and immune from personal prosecution. Must be nice...
 
I've always found it pretty warped that a minimum wage cashier aged 18 could get a £4k fine for selling alcohol to someone who didn't prove ID.
The onus should be on the shop, but as already mentioned that’s what think 25 is for. It’s deniability, sorry I have to ask everyone etc.
I was still getting carded in my thirties, so it works. I don’t think it’s should be such a high fine for an employer unless you can show they were deliberately supplying at scale
 
As an American I tried Greggs for the first time when I was in Glasgow last month, and I can't see Brits' obsession with it as anything but stockholm syndrome. Yeah it's cheap, unlike everything else there. But why tf can they not keep the pastries hotter than barely above room temperature?? My "steak bake"? ice cold. My "sausage role"? who knows what sort of parasite I may have contracted from that apparently raw pink and mushy "meat" wrapped in that goysloppa mass produced dough.

Edit: I've been informed they avoid vat by claiming their food is not served hot. Please do not tell me a tax avoidance scheme is the reason for this.
 
As an American I tried Greggs for the first time when I was in Glasgow last month, and I can't see Brits' obsession with it as anything but stockholm syndrome. Yeah it's cheap, unlike everything else there. But why tf can they not keep the pastries hotter than barely above room temperature?? My "steak bake"? ice cold. My "sausage role"? who knows what sort of parasite I may have contracted from that apparently raw pink and mushy "meat" wrapped in that goysloppa mass produced dough.
A question for the group:

Why is 'Greggs the Bakers' factually incorrect?
 
Back
Top Bottom