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.

 

[Chunky Salsa]

I must once again tap the sign that says "Unless he is physically removed by force, he will not leave office. You cannot shame or pressure or compep this faggot into leaving without threat of force" People need to understand that we are occupied. Not governed, occupied.

 

[Kane Lives]

Starmer has forced Sir Olly Robbins, permanent undersecretary to the foreign office, to resign over the mandelson scandal. This is after Starmer forced the FCO to approve Mandy's appointment, in spite of his failing background checks. Starmer claims he had no idea that Mandelson failed vetting.

If my watching of Yes, Minister was any guide, wouldn't that piss off the Civil Service since one of their boys got fired over Starmer's mistake?

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

Starmer has forced Sir Olly Robbins, permanent undersecretary to the foreign office, to resign over the mandelson scandal. This is after Starmer forced the FCO to approve Mandy's appointment, in spite of his failing background checks. Starmer claims he had no idea that Mandelson failed vetting.

Guardian brought up the possibility of Robbins going under the bus yesterday.

https://archive.ph/2TTeH

Who in the Foreign Office decided to grant Mandelson clearance despite the UKSV recommendation?​

The answer is not known – but an appearance by Robbins before the foreign affairs select committee may offer some clues. Robbins said the “vast majority” of vetting reports were “relatively straightforward”, adding: “Ones that require more senior judgment, and potentially a discussion about managing and mitigating risks, are escalated appropriately.”

Robbins declined to say if Mandelson’s appointment had been “escalated” in this way. Sir Chris Wormald, who was at the time cabinet secretary, gave evidence at the same hearing. He said the developed vetting process would typically culminate in a report that was received by a “line manager – in this case, that would be Sir Oliver – and then a decision is taken on whether the relevant level of security clearance is to be granted and what mitigations, if any, are required”.

That would suggest that the decision came from Robbins, who was then just weeks into his role as permanent secretary. Is that true? If so, given the magnitude of the decision, did he consult or inform Wormald, David Lammy, who was then foreign secretary, or anyone at Downing Street, such as Starmer or his then chief adviser, Morgan McSweeney? And were any mitigations of risks identified by UKSV sought before the body’s verdict was overruled?

Late on Thursday, Downing Street released a statement saying that “neither the prime minister, nor any government minister” was aware that Mandelson was granted developed vetting against the advice of UKSV. Friends of McSweeney said he did not know either.

Looks like the person who'll be investigating what could possibly have happened around Mandelson's vetting is involved with another of Labour's big humiliations recently, having just gotten done. Complete with the parents delivering threats through their lawyers about what's been found.

https://archive.ph/YxNUx

A retired high court judge is expected to review Peter Mandelson’s vetting process and the wider national security vetting system.
The review, commissioned by Downing Street, comes after a Guardian investigation revealing that security officials decided Mandelson should not receive developed vetting clearance, but were overruled by the Foreign Office to allow him to become US ambassador.

The disclosure on Thursday led to the resignation of Olly Robbins, the top official in the Foreign Office, and increased pressure on Keir Starmer, amid claims from the prime minister and other Cabinet colleagues that no ministers were aware Mandelson had failed vetting.
According to multiple sources, the government plan to appoint Adrian Fulford to lead a formal review of the vetting process. Discussions were under way earlier this week on the terms of reference, which are yet to be completed.


Starmer says it is ‘staggering’ and ‘unforgivable’ he was not told Mandelson failed vetting – video
Fulford, a former appeals court judge, has recently finished chairing the inquiry into the knife attack at a children’s dance club in Southport two years ago. He sits as chair of the security vetting appeals panel, which has powers to reconsider failed applications for security clearance.

Mandelson’s failed application for developed vetting clearance did not go to the panel as officials in the Foreign Office employed the rarely used power to overrule the recommendation from security officials in United Kingdom Security Vetting (UKSV).
That decision has led to fury and confusion in Whitehall over whether Robbins, only weeks into the role of Foreign Office permanent secretary, would have unilaterally overruled UKSV. Without clearance, Mandelson would not have been able to take up his role as ambassador in Washington, risking embarrassment to Starmer who had selected him as a political appointee.
Since the Guardian’s revelations, ministers have announced they had suspended the right of the Foreign Office and other departments to overturn UKSV recommendations.
A further review of the national security vetting processes is expected to be under way soon. Darren Jones, the chief secretary to the prime minister, said on Friday morning that he had asked for an “urgent review” into any other decisions to overrule UKSV recommendations.

Jones said this urgent review would form part of a “broader, independent review of the vetting process” which he was due to announce. The Cabinet Office did not respond to questions about whether the government would commit to publishing Fulford’s terms of reference or the findings of his review.
In February, Jones indicated in statements to parliament that the review of the national security vetting system would ensure government can “learn the lessons from the policy and process weaknesses related to Peter Mandelson’s case”. He also told MPs that the government would changing the security vetting processes for other political appointments, including ambassadors.
Jones said: “In cases where the role requires access to highly classified material, the selected candidate must have passed through the requisite national security vetting process before such appointments are announced or confirmed.”
The government may hope that such changes will avoid a repeat of the problems surrounding Mandelson’s political appointment, where the security vetting process only began after he had been publicly announced by Starmer as his pick for the ambassador in Washington.

 

[BongoMongo]

Can someone explain to me in tard and "I'm so fucking sleep deprived" friendly terms why Sweden is able to deport migrants who sod about, but we can't, but we're both shafted by ECHR? Make it make sense

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

Can someone explain to me in tard and "I'm so fucking sleep deprived" friendly terms why Sweden is able to deport migrants who sod about, but we can't, but we're both shafted by ECHR? Make it make sense

They're not deporting them yet.

And also Keir is pulling a Tony and trying to tether us to EU legislation no matter what (Torygraph article so bias applies)

https://archive.ph/kxutl

Parliamentary sovereignty is the epitome of British democracy. Voters elect their Members of Parliament, who answer to them in the ballot box at general elections. Parliament authorised the referendum, by which MPs outsourced the decision as to whether the United Kingdom would leave the European Union. They voted to leave.
I have campaigned inside and outside Parliament to regain our sovereignty since 1986. I created, with magnificent colleagues, the Maastricht Referendum Campaign in 1993. It was backed by Margaret Thatcher, who became its Patron. The Foundation I created then has been renamed this year to the “United Kingdom Sovereignty Foundation”.
My long years of campaigning have been focused on challenging the decision to join the European Community in 1972 by a small margin of votes in Parliament, and without asking the voters in a referendum. The European Communities Act 1972 subjugated our sovereignty to all laws and all rulings of the European Court of Justice.
From 1972 to the passing of the Withdrawal Agreement Act 2020, not one word or comma of EU laws was rejected or amended by the UK Parliament. The Commons became a rubber stamp for the EU Council of Ministers – meeting behind closed doors and making decisions by majority vote, and with no transcript, unlike our daily Hansard – across an ever-increasing swathe of policy.

Within a few days of the referendum, Keir Starmer had the nerve to call for a second referendum. This undermined the democratic decision of 17.4 million voters. Now he and his Cabinet are deliberately further undermining this decision with their “Reset Bill” that betrays our recovered sovereignty.

This Reset Bill would create a new constitutional framework for a relationship with the EU. It would impose a constantly evolving process of uncompetitive convergent dynamic alignment, like an EU amoeba, assimilating our laws with those of the failing European Union.
Despite the mendacious propaganda being generated by the Government and rejoiners, our trade with the EU has not been undermined by our departure. It is the Chancellor and the Prime Minister who undermine British economic growth and stability with a range of economically disastrous policies. They misrepresent the benefits of leaving, to excuse themselves from their failures.
This reset has been hatched in secret since the 2024 general election. Within 20 days of that election, they abolished, without debate in one line, the European Scrutiny Committee empowered to hold them publicly to account. Under successive Conservative and Labour chairmen it had, since 1972, investigated and reported on all European lawmaking. All this subterfuge was done with fewer Labour votes in the 2024 election than Jeremy Corbyn in 2019.
The Government has indicated that the UK laws they plan to align with the EU will ultimately be adjudicated by the European Court. Most egregiously, the laws will be made by statutory instrument via an autocratic procedure aptly named after Henry VIII, not by primary Acts of Parliament. This is reminiscent of aspects of the European Communities Act 1972 which led to our undemocratic subjugation and the rubber stamping of EU laws.
Henry VIII measures will preclude amendment and even a guaranteed vote. Casualties of the Reset Bill will include British fishermen, and our economic independence and competitiveness including bioscience, agricultural technology, cultivated proteins, gene-editing and AI itself, with increasing energy costs through the new energy-emissions trading scheme and through increased immigration via the youth mobility scheme.
For those who suggest this Henry VIII procedure was used when we left the EU in 2020, it was justifiable because our democratic self-government had been undermined by the European Communities Act 1972. Short of repealing at a stroke all existing EU enactments up to 2020, the removal of EU laws which were imposed by that 1972 Act could reasonably be done in a similar way.

Since leaving the EU, the UK has escaped no less than 13,000 EU laws and our £15bn annual contributions. It is breathtaking to hear the President of the European Commission and Keir Starmer recently justify this disgraceful reset as being a triumph of democratic values. It is exactly the opposite, with our paying billions for the privilege.
We shall fight the monstrous deceit of this reset in every forum available to us, from the grassroots through to Parliament, courts and the media.

 

[Otterly]

Can someone explain to me in tard and "I'm so fucking sleep deprived" friendly terms why Sweden is able to deport migrants who sod about, but we can't, but we're both shafted by ECHR? Make it make sense

They won’t deport anyone. It’s all to chip away at the legal system that provides real protections for people. As an example, one of the reasons Sweden didn’t go full retard during Covid is that the constitution cannot be suspended unless in times of war. So lockdowns? Nope, there’s a thing called ‘allemansrätten’ which is basically a right to roam. It’s used to give people access to nature be a use swedes are decent people and will just go pick chanterelles and shrooms, then leave no litter, but that stops you locking people down.
Loooooots of insinuation that that should be amended to ‘war or public health crisis.’
One of the big problem with swedens laws is that they have this situation where a lot of stuff doesnt even have a law about it, because nobody thought it was needed. Because by and large swedes behave like humans (despite severe country level autism.) so they get hit with these gangs and stuff and there’s no law they can use to crack down on them. They haven’t needed laws specifically targeting terrible stuff because they just didn’t DO any of it.
Ever seen ‘Fargo?’ That’s it in a nutshell - the utter havoc that’s caused when a nice, decent community is hit by psychos, who just destroy everything around them.
But of course, it’ll get misused,it always is. More laws rarely is a good thing

 

[teriyakiburns]

Can someone explain to me in tard and "I'm so fucking sleep deprived" friendly terms why Sweden is able to deport migrants who sod about, but we can't, but we're both shafted by ECHR? Make it make sense

Because the ECHR isn't the problem. The problem is that it was incorporated into British law by the Human Rights Act, specifically in a way that forces every organ of the state to consider "human rights" before anything else, and allows English courts to directly rule on human rights cases in ways that no other court in Europe is capable. Sweden's judicial system doesn't have the same power to rule on human rights cases (combination of less legal authority over human rights and quirks of the system in general), so those cases have to be taken to strasbourg, which is a much more onerous proposition and takes a significant amount of time. Here, human rights lawyers can file routine paperwork in any magistrate's court and get a ruling at the next sitting.

They're not deporting them yet.

They won’t deport anyone.

They're deporting some, but it's not necessary to deport when people leave voluntarily. This is from 2024, about 2 years after SD gained a large enough representation in the riksdag to play kingmaker with the government. The emigration has only accelerated since then, through a combination of paying people to leave, actually deporting failed asylum seekers, and reducing immigration by making the country less desirable for immigrants to begin with.

All of this is available to us the moment a government repeals the human rights act. Much of it is available to us already, which just proves that the government doesn't actually want to fix things.

 

[LaxerBRO]

View attachment 8870311
Your+flame+smells+like+office_7ff854_13132790-HD-AV1.mp4
Those poor sods don't even have an indoor swimming pool

 

[F40PH]

What is Rupert Lowes deal, how exactly does his party differ from Reform?

Rupert Lowe is genuine, and Restore is an actual British ethno-nationalist party that wants to mass-deport people who do not belong in Britain and execute those who murder our women and children. Nigel Farage is a grifting cunt, and is allowing foreign nationals to run on behalf of Reform. Not really hard to understand. Vote Restore, my fellow Britoids.

 

[teriyakiburns]

Nearly 160,000 uninsured cars seized on UK roads

Article starts with the claim that cost of insurance is why people are skipping it, which is probably true in some cases, but it buries the lede a little.

Hot spot areas include Birmingham, which has five out of the top 15 postcodes in the UK for accidents involving uninsured drivers.

The Birmingham postcodes which account for the five hot spots are B25, B18, B66, B21 and B35.

These postcodes are all majority jeet. muslim, hindu, or sikh doesn't matter. They're also hotposts for sectarian gang violence.

They even admit it later on:

Hayley Sutcliffe, from the MIB, said: "It's a diverse area so people coming into the country might not know the laws and the legislation of the Road Traffic Act.

"We need to raise awareness around when people need to have the correct level of cover of insurance."

I guarantee a good half or more of these seized cars are owned by non-natives.

 

[LaxerBRO]

I must once again tap the sign that says "Unless he is physically removed by force

Sounds like a good time all around!

Article starts with the claim that cost of insurance is why people are skipping it, which is probably true in some cases, but it buries the lede a little.

Should I tell your Labour Party about how California uses tax payer money to subsidize car insurance for illegal aliens?

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

I guarantee a good half or more of these seized cars are owned by non-natives.

Be fair.

Many of them won't be owned by the people driving them.

 

[pwnest injun]

If my watching of Yes, Minister was any guide, wouldn't that piss off the Civil Service since one of their boys got fired over Starmer's mistake?

Any chance that Olly and the Civil Service snake pit have the necessary dirt to start a game of smear the Keir?

 

[Otterly]

Why the Fuck am I here trying to cram in a quick read of the Farms whilst speed-eating breakfast before starting work in a few minutes from 7am to 5pm and living in worse conditions than these people? Why should I do what I do instead of just going and putting my feet up or going for a nice walk? Why?

Because you have integrity and think that working hard and being honest and conscientious is a good thing?

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

Any chance that Olly and the Civil Service snake pit have the necessary dirt to start a game of smear the Keir?

That game is ongoing but if they had enough to stop the firing it would not have happened.

 

[femboy fart huffer]

Those poor sods don't even have an indoor swimming pool

No it's not a waste of money the government simply had no choice but to splurge on buying the most expensive hotel to shove these non contributing parasites in to. Comfort is incredibly important don't you know. What do you mean the council house wait list? What do you mean it takes months to get repairs or pest control in? No silly that's not the government's fault, that's the council and the government can't do anything about those.

Glad to see the classic 'chuck on a hi vis and blab' tactic still works. And glad half of the infrastructure in this country is secured with locks that can be opened by slapping them or by the most basic picking attack in literal seconds. And that most construction vehicles are all keyed the same and you can just buy a master set of keys and steal literally anything. I'm glad we take our internal security as seriously as our border security. Wouldn't want any hypocrisy from the government, would be very unexpected especially this one.

 

[Unyielding Stupidity]

Have the ladies thought about arming themselves with a cup of seed oil with about five lemons squeezed in and about a small container of cayenne pepper in like a coffee cup?

It's not a weapon per se but is enough to temporarily blind the paki so he can be beaten with canes.

That's a pretty bad idea from a legal perspective. The courts can just argue that if you had the ability to prepare something to physically defend yourself, you also had the ability to just avoid the encounter with touchy-feely Abdul outright, and you could potentially get done for assault.

Or a really big dog.

I'm feeling lazy today, just put your own favourite "you just know" comment here.

 

[femboy fart huffer]

I'm feeling lazy today, just put your own favourite "you just know" comment here.

White girls fuck dogs but I'd fuck a dog over a goat or a child any day. Every time I look at a white woman with a big dog I think 'that's a cute dog and that woman is probably pretty caring and a nice person' and the idea that white girls fuck dogs is pushed by misogynistic faggots that just hate women and zoophiles wanting to normalise fucking dogs instead of anything real.

 

[LaxerBRO]

That's a pretty bad idea from a legal perspective. The courts can just argue that if you had the ability to prepare something to physically defend yourself, you also had the ability to just avoid the encounter with touchy-feely Abdul outright, and you could potentially get done for assault.

Did Britain ever have Civis Britanni Sum?


How does a nation go from this to not being able to protect yourself from molestation on your own native lands?

What's disturbing is not only do you apologize and forbid even pepper spray the leaders seem deadset to slowly make it worse.

Hell, have the people I speak to about self defence from the UK are terrified of pepper spray as it can be used against them not seeing the criminal already can use a wide variety of means to disorient their victims.

Its so sad and disgusting, some of the most pathetic people I have spoken to are those that will lay down or even kill themselves when faced with an overwhelming force (e.g. Jews against the Nazis) instead of actually wanting to fight back.

It's a shame to see a nation with a victim cuck mentality.

 

[femboy fart huffer]

How does a nation go from this to not being able to protect yourself from molestation on your own native lands?

There is a difference between what the law says and what people think. As with everything. The whole 'judged by twelve than carried by six' type shit. We're English. We have fucking never agreed with what the faggots in power tell us to do, that's why we've spent the last millennia beheading them every other year until recently.