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...
Time for news.

Firstly one of the periodic ones from the I Paper to remind everyone why whenever they hear it quoted as a source they should laugh.

Asylum seekers could join people receiving unemployment and disability benefits as well as students who would qualify for free TV licences under a government shake-up of the BBC.
The radical proposals unveiled by Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy, as she set out her vision for the funding of the BBC from 2028, could see millions of people qualify for free licences while wealthier households potentially pay more.
The Government was considering “further targeted interventions to support household budgets”, the policy paper said.


It said ministers will look at following elements of the German template, where concessions are given to those “who receive social benefits and to some students”.
Under the German TV tax, called Rundfunkbeitrag, households pay €18.36 (£16) per month to support public service broadcasting, regardless of whether they watch ARD, ZDF or listen to Deutschlandradio, the country’s equivalent channels to the BBC.
The system offers numerous concessions with exemptions for people receiving unemployment benefits and students who get state funding.

​

Those with disabilities may pay a reduced fee or nothing at all, along with senior citizens and people living in nursing homes.
Asylum seekers are also included in the categories of those who do not pay the charge.

But former BBC Director-General Greg Dyke said he feared giving free licences to millions of people claiming benefits as well as students would leave the BBC with a drastically reduced income.
“It’s important that the BBC is properly funded,” he told The i Paper. “You have to do it in a way that the BBC doesn’t lose money or gets at least as much money as it gets now. Other people would probably have to pay more to cover the concessions.
“The licence fee is an unfair tax because it’s a universal flat rate charge and fewer people are paying it, so you have to do something.”
He added: “My solution to the licence fee is to pay it out of government funds. But it can’t be the government of the day that decides the level. There needs to be a cross-party parliamentary committee or an independent body to set the fee.”

​

Those aged 74 or over and receiving pension credit through either themselves or a partner are currently entitled to a free TV licence. Individuals who are blind, living in care homes or watching only black and white televisions are also eligible for discounts.
It remains unclear which benefits would be linked to free or discounted TV licences under the Government’s proposals. But if, for example, the seven million people claiming universal credit were to receive free licences – currently £174.50 – it could amount to a blackhole of around £1bn for the BBC. However, this assumes that all universal credit claimants are current licence fee holders.
“A free TV licence [for those receiving universal credit in addition to pension credit] would reduce cost-of-living pressures on almost three in 10 UK households,” said Deven Ghelani, founder of Policy in Practice.

“More importantly, it would limit often aggressive enforcement practices on people who may be struggling to put food on their table.”
The UK government is highly unlikely to exempt all those who get free licences under the German system, though, as it is not proposing to replace the licence fee with a household tax in the same way.

​

Ministers have ruled out funding the BBC from general taxation, saying they feared it would make the corporation subject to political pressures.
Peter Bazalgette, the leading TV executive and former chairman of ITV, said there were merits in the German example.
“Broadly I like the German system of having businesses and organisations paying the licence fee as well as private households. It seems to me that, say, £175 a year, is a small ask of them to invest in the value of trusted news (in a mad internet world), local culture and the talent for the Creative Industries.”
He echoed concerns that giving free TV to all those on benefits and students would leave the BBC with a shortfall.
Bazalgette told The i Paper: “There’s some logic to it but too many concessions in the licence fee system will reduce the quantum possibly rather too much.”

A BBC insider said the corporation could see benefits in offering students free licences.
“Young people are the hardest for the BBC to reach. If they get into the habit of watching the BBC at university, then they are more likely to be converted into licence-fee payers when they leave college. And the BBC will have their sign-up details.”
But free TV licences for asylum seekers would be a controversial move, particularly at a time when the Government is trying to clamp down on the number of people coming to Britain.

​


Although making every household pay a charge, regardless of whether they watch the BBC, has been ruled out by ministers, some campaigners believe it is worth reconsidering.
Colin Browne is chair of the Voice of the Listener and Viewer (VLV) charity, said: “There is general agreement that if the licence fee is to continue as the main method of funding the BBC going forward, it needs to be made more progressive. The challenge will be to do this in a way that doesn’t reduce overall revenues for the BBC.”
Click to expand...
I really do hate every single source supporting the BBC in this article.

BBC overhauls the editorial committee in the wake of the Tump stuff - to ensure the chairman is no longer part of it so won't have to resign when they do the same shit again.
The BBC has announced a shake-up of a key editorial committee following criticism of how the broadcaster handled concerns about the editing of a Donald Trump speech and other issues.

An internal review, published on Friday, said BBC executives did not act "quickly or decisively enough following the discovery of the misleading edit of a speech by President Trump in a Panorama programme".

The row over the edit sparked the resignations of the BBC's director general and head of news last month, and led to a multi-billion dollar lawsuit from Trump.

BBC chairman Samir Shah said changes to the BBC board's editorial standards committee would "ensure swift, appropriate and transparent action is taken to address editorial issues as effectively as possible, whenever they occur".
The committee will no longer include the BBC chairman, though. That means the revamped panel will not be headed by Shah, who came in for criticism for his handling of the recent crisis. It will also no longer include the BBC's head of news.

However, board member Sir Robbie Gibb, a former Downing Street director of communications whose role at the BBC has come under scrutiny, will remain, and will be joined by two fellow non-executive directors.

Changes will be made to "clarify and focus" the committee's remit and set out a "robust and transparent approach" to tackling editorial concerns, such as those about the Panorama episode, and doing so promptly.

BBC board member Caroline Thomson carried out the review, and will be the committee's new chairwoman.

​

Concerns about the Panorama edit and other editorial issues, including coverage of the Israel-Gaza conflict and trans issues, came to light last month in a leaked internal memo.

A review of the issues it raised was also published on Friday, and concluded that guidelines for BBC journalists on the use of editing should not be changed despite the Panorama row.

The BBC's current editorial guidelines say editing "must never be used to give the audience a materially misleading impression of events".

The BBC's director of editorial complaints and reviews, Peter Johnston, said: "I was asked to look at the editorial guidelines on use of editing. I do not believe any changes are required, but we will ensure these lessons are reinforced."

Mr Johnston said the Panorama edit was the "key unresolved issue" from the leaked memo, and that action had been taken to address the other concerns.

The BBC has previously apologised for an "error of judgement" that meant the documentary gave "the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action" during his speech on the day of the Capitol riots on 6 January 2021.

Earlier this week, the BBC said it would defend itself against a lawsuit filed by Trump, who said the Panorama episode amounted to defamation and violation of a trade practices law.
Click to expand...

Guardian title - "new report finds asylum seekers not widely abusing modern slavery laws."
Reality - "asylum seekers abusing modern slavery laws but because a thinktank claims it's less than 50% the Guardian will try to justify it"

Asylum seekers are not abusing the modern slavery system in a widespread manner, according to a report from a centre-right thinktank that undermines statements from successive home secretaries.
The report from Bright Blue finds limited evidence that asylum seekers are falsely claiming to have been the victims of modern slavery to stay in the country, despite several home secretaries blaming the system for stopping them deporting more people.

The findings also suggest that promises by the current home secretary, Shabana Mahmood, to change modern slavery rules will have limited success in reducing the number of asylum claimants. She is expected to set out her proposals early next year.
The authors, however, do suggest a new system focused on earlier detection of modern slavery as a way to eliminate the limited amount of abuse that they say does occur.

The founder and executive chair of Bright Blue, Ryan Shorthouse, said: “The Home Office thinks the modern slavery referral system is being abused because it allows people to stay in the country a bit longer. But while there may be some abuse, we are sceptical that it is widespread.”
Theresa May brought in the modern-day slavery rules in England and Wales in 2015, when the then home secretary established a formal mechanism to assess potential victims of slavery and human trafficking.
The number of people referred to the system has climbed steeply since, from just over 3,000 in 2015 to more than 19,000 last year.
Recent home secretaries have blamed the asylum system for the rise, accusing claimants of seeking to be classified as victims of modern-day slavery to avoid being deported.
They point to the fact that some of the nationalities most commonly referred for assessment under trafficking rules are also those that form the bulk of asylum claims. British nationals make up the largest group being evaluated for modern-day slavery, followed by people from Albania, Vietnam and Eritrea.
Mahmood has accused asylum seekers of making “vexatious, last-minute claims” after the high court blocked the deportation of an Eritrean man who was due to be flown to Paris but said he was a victim of trafficking.
She has promised to rewrite the UK’s modern slavery rules, but Bright Blue’s report suggests that doing so may not have the desired impact on asylum numbers.
It points out that no asylum seeker can demand to be assessed, but can only be referred by third-party organisations, with 97% of claims coming via public bodies such as Border Force, police authorities, local authorities and the Home Office itself.
The report found that 90% of those referred were assessed to have reasonable grounds for being classified as victims, suggesting the vast majority of cases were not vexatious.
Nor are the vast majority of those found to have been subjected to modern-day slavery granted leave to remain in the UK. The classification more often leads to compensation and only temporary permission to stay.
The authors suggest the government should train statutory first-responder organisations such as the Home Office and Border Force to detect signs of trafficking and slavery more quickly. Once that is done, they say ministers could ban those in detention – who will have already been assessed by those organisations – from being referred at all.
A Home Office spokesperson said: “Modern slavery referrals are rising. This is why the home secretary announced reforms … to identify vulnerable people and stop misuse.
“The statement fundamentally reforms the approach to illegal migration, making Britain a less attractive destination for illegal migrants and harder for people to block their removal from this country.”
Click to expand...
For those wanting to play the game why yes, Bright Blue is funded by Opens Society Foundations AKA Soros. But the Guardian says it is centre right so you're meant to listen to its recommendations Conservative voters!
 
Jason_Cruiser said:
Is there a single supermarket that's not full of brown people? I swear even the more bougie-White ones like M&S are full of browns these days.
Click to expand...
Browns in Sparks don't put the tongs back in the fucking bakery. Just leaving them strewn about over the pretzels. There's HOLDERS for them you retard.
 
Morethanabitfoolish said:
Guardian title - "new report finds asylum seekers not widely abusing modern slavery laws."
Reality - "asylum seekers abusing modern slavery laws but because a thinktank claims it's less than 50% the Guardian will try to justify it"
Click to expand...
Don’t start me. Britain’s ‘modern slavery act’ stuff is a joke, in part because it defines slavery in a different way to other international bodies (EU, UN etc), which has the effect of drastically underestimating the amount of human trafficking for the sex trade (amongst other things). With the police in England & Wales refusing to do anything about any form of the sex trade now, there’s a huge market for women (and kids) brought into Britain as the hands off approach by law and politics means massive profits for pimps, agency & website owners etc. I’m sure it’s all perfectly above board and health & safety compliant work, NI and income tax paid and everything, yep. No trafficking here, nothing illegal, it’s work like any other, just keeping people off benefits guv.

it’s almost impossible for women to get help as victims of human trafficking, and any help is aimed squarely at women from abroad. The system completely ignores British women (and kids) who get trafficked internally in Britain. Guess they don’t matter.

Unsurprisingly the official govt figures now show more men than women are trafficked. Into where and why? Who knows. What jobs or industries need hundreds or thousands of illegal men? Curious, though, to see this ‘investigation’ finds all those men aren’t taking the piss out of a system that’s been designed seemingly perfectly for them to abuse. Strange how that’s worked out, isn’t it?
 
UselessRubberKeyboard said:
Don’t start me. Britain’s ‘modern slavery act’ stuff is a joke, in part because it defines slavery in a different way to other international bodies (EU, UN etc), which has the effect of drastically underestimating the amount of human trafficking for the sex trade (amongst other things). With the police in England & Wales refusing to do anything about any form of the sex trade now, there’s a huge market for women (and kids) brought into Britain as the hands off approach by law and politics means massive profits for pimps, agency & website owners etc. I’m sure it’s all perfectly above board and health & safety compliant work, NI and income tax paid and everything, yep. No trafficking here, nothing illegal, it’s work like any other, just keeping people off benefits guv.

it’s almost impossible for women to get help as victims of human trafficking, and any help is aimed squarely at women from abroad. The system completely ignores British women (and kids) who get trafficked internally in Britain. Guess they don’t matter.

Unsurprisingly the official govt figures now show more men than women are trafficked. Into where and why? Who knows. What jobs or industries need hundreds or thousands of illegal men? Curious, though, to see this ‘investigation’ finds all those men aren’t taking the piss out of a system that’s been designed seemingly perfectly for them to abuse. Strange how that’s worked out, isn’t it?
Click to expand...
Selling sex isn’t illegal in the UK, if you solicit on street corners or form a brothel you’re in trouble with the police, but if you want to sell that sweet bussy of yours you are free to do so.

This is actually the safest approach for women as most other approaches, including the Scandinavian Approach the the SNP keep harping on about just lead to a lot more dead women.

Personally, if you want to take cock for money then I don’t see how it is either my business or that of the state. Whilst I don’t like it it doesn’t mean I should put anyone’s life in more danger.

Pimps I’d like to see hanged from lampposts though.

Also the wood chipper for anyone who goes near kids goes without saying.

I often wonder about the stories of trafficked women. I’d bet most of the time they were prostitutes in their own countries and become victims who thought they were honestly coming for a secretary job and are now suddenly slaves as soon as they think the police will deport them.
 
Last edited:
I'm funny about Christmas, as I know from first hand experience people can be grieving over it, or that maybe it's not a good time for them. I don't like this mentality of shitting on people who aren't feeling festive. Maybe they're not a Grinch; perhaps they're grieving?

That said, anyone who wishes me a happy Christmas gets the same in return. Not a happy holiday or festive period. A happy fucking Christmas.

I know I'm the exception, not the rule,but the Christmas my gran died was the absolute worst and I wanted to cry at anyone wishing me a happy one. So, I keep quiet unless someone brings it up, but then they do I'm so appallingly festive, I practically spaff tinsel.
 
Otterly said:
Funny thing I noticed this week: nobody western will say the word Christmas at work. It’s all ‘winter holidays.’
So on a call with my Japanese team (lovely people) and they wished us all a very merry Christmas and everyone recoiled and wished them a happy winter break. Which I don’t think they even have, and you could hear the polite confusion coming down the line (but boss, I wished them a merry Christmas is this not thecorrect form? Did I do wrong!?)
Same pattern repeated all over - nobody will say Christmas. it’s like they’re afraid.
The company was recently plastered with Diwali and Eid wishes by the way.
We used to enjoy these little pre holiday calls with each other - we’d talk about each nations holidays and what the rituals and food and practices were and enjoy learning a bit about each other. All that is now gone. It’s very sad. I used to really enjoy working with people from across the world because they were good people and it was nice to collaborate with them. Now it just seems like everyone’s so afraid of offence, and I cannot help but think this is entirely deliberate.
Click to expand...
My attitude to all of the above neatly summarised:

1766405751091.png
 
Mixed news from Auntie and the People's Channel:


University threatened with legal action after protest at academic's talk




Major incident declared over canal 'sinkhole' on Wales-England border




New Salford Rugby League team granted Championship status




TV presenter used to dread Christmas Day with her abusive ex




* Swansea Tesco shoplifter gets his comeuppance as repeat offender set to spend Christmas in prison

* Salisbury Evri delivery driver sacked after large number of parcels mysteriously disappear

* 'Here we go again!' Eamonn Holmes despairs at resident doctor strike amid warning of 'more issues' in the new year

* 'Beyond silly!' Free speech chief lambasts museum for claiming Santa Claus is 'too white'

* Keir Starmer met with boos from ITV Royal Variety Performance crowd as comedian mocks PM: 'He's in trouble'

* Keir Starmer sued after taxpayer-funded Civil Service officials seen marching in Pride parade

* 'Continues to be proved wrong!' Keir Starmer handed scathing assessment as Google issues free speech warning

* Reform threatens to take Keir Starmer to court over 'plot to snatch control of Nigel Farage's flagship council'

* Keir Starmer's OWN adviser admits Labour has no coherent social mobility plan

* Wes Streeting suggests Britain should join EU customs union in defiance of Keir Starmer

* Jeffrey Epstein framed Charles's comments on divorce alongside picture of Diana in his wardrobe

* Royal Family join forces with Battersea Dogs and Cats Home for Christmas message

* Channel 4 under fire as it plots Alternative Christmas Message marking 'a really great year' for fascism with host Jimmy Kimmel

@Tom Nook's Gloryhole I see your Paul McCartney and raise you an XTC:

 
Tom Nook's Gloryhole said:
When I'm King, anyone caught not enjoying Wonderful Christmastime by Paul McCartney will be hung, drawn and quartered.
Click to expand...
Bruh, that's genuinely one of the worst Christmas songs. It's so mind numbingly repetitive.

The true best Christmas song is clearly Driving Home for Christmas. Cozy af, and uniquely British in that I'm fairly sure other countries don't sing about cheerfully sitting in traffic jams.

I TAKE A LOOK AT THE DRIVER NEXT TO ME
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom