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.

 

[femboy fart huffer]

They just cannot go five minutes without trying to attribute some piece of English culture to fucking foreigners.

Ahh yes the classic indian popadom. They're normally topped with cheese and bacon?

 

[Dr J]

Reform and Nigel won't actually do any of it, whereas Lowe will actually follow through.

Lowe has massive 'Man in the arena' syndrome. If you actually think that Lowe is actually going to follow through on any of his policy positions, I've got a bridge to sell you

 

[teriyakiburns]

Lowe has massive 'Man in the arena' syndrome. If you actually think that Lowe is actually going to follow through on any of his policy positions, I've got a bridge to sell you

Yes yes, he's a politician, they're always performative cunts. The difference between Lowe and, to pick an entirely random example, Peter Jenrick, is that Lowe is very obviously participating in Parliamentary business rather than engaging in stunt politics. He doesn't just rock up to the chamber and make a grand speech every few weeks. He's in Parliament nearly every day, sitting on committees, participating in debates, and advocating on behalf of his constituency.

It is necessary to be sceptical about the motivations of politicians, especially if, like Lowe, they come from a finance background. However, there's a line between healthy scepticism, which is engaged and will demand accountability for failure to live up to expectations, and dooming, which is just giving up before you've even started.

 

[Dr J]

Yes yes, he's a politician, they're always performative cunts. The difference between Lowe and, to pick an entirely random example, Peter Jenrick, is that Lowe is very obviously participating in Parliamentary business rather than engaging in stunt politics. He doesn't just rock up to the chamber and make a grand speech every few weeks. He's in Parliament nearly every day, sitting on committees, participating in debates, and advocating on behalf of his constituency.

It's not about grandstanding or making grand speeches. Simple truth is that Lowe, like many in his position, doesn't know or doesn't seem to appreciate the scope of what it would actually take to implement the changes he's talking about. The Civil Service would never go along with what he's proposing. So he'd have to fire a lot of them. If he did massively cull the career Civil Service he'd likely meet resistance from the courts, and good luck getting rid of them. He'd also need a big majority, which just isn't going to happen.

The system is incredibly resistant to being changed. This is good when the system is healthy, but the system is corrupt, which means that it's even more resistant to being changed. The same is true of every Western democracy. Look at what happened to people who actually tried to change the EU to actually work for people. Look at what happened, what keeps happening to Trump. Look at Dan Bongino. He talked shit for years from his radio talk show about wanting to clean up the FBI. So Trump appoints him Deputy Director. And it turns out, funnily enough, that the FBI doesn't want to be cleaned up, and the job is a lot harder than Bongino would have let people believe, from his radio talk show. So what does he do? He ends up resigning.

If you gave Rupert Lowe power, he'd probably end up the same way

 

[Chunky Salsa]

It's not about grandstanding or making grand speeches. Simple truth is that Lowe, like many in his position, doesn't know or doesn't seem to appreciate the scope of what it would actually take to implement the changes he's talking about. The Civil Service would never go along with what he's proposing. So he'd have to fire a lot of them. If he did massively cull the career Civil Service he'd likely meet resistance from the courts, and good luck getting rid of them. He'd also need a big majority, which just isn't going to happen.

The system is incredibly resistant to being changed. This is good when the system is healthy, but the system is corrupt, which means that it's even more resistant to being changed. The same is true of every Western democracy. Look at what happened to people who actually tried to change the EU to actually work for people. Look at what happened, what keeps happening to Trump. Look at Dan Bongino. He talked shit for years from his radio talk show about wanting to clean up the FBI. So Trump appoints him Deputy Director. And it turns out, funnily enough, that the FBI doesn't want to be cleaned up, and the job is a lot harder than Bongino would have let people believe, from his radio talk show. So what does he do? He ends up resigning.

If you gave Rupert Lowe power, he'd probably end up the same way

While doomerish, this is also largely true. The government is infested with parasites that do not want to lose their jobs. He needs to do what Tony Blaire did, and build his cabinet and his civil service departmental overlords long before he gets into government. He needs to act like Beria and prepare lists of who is going, who is firing them, how he will do it. Because the government currently is structured towards destroying the country, looting the assets and liquidating the people. It needs to be restructured away from that, and it needs to have systems built into it that will viciously oppose reformation back to the current paradigm should he even win.

 

[femboy fart huffer]

If you gave Rupert Lowe power, he'd probably end up the same way

>probably
I will take Lowe's probably over the tories or labour or Farage's definitely any day.

 

[Dr J]

The government is infested with parasites that do not wan to lose their jobs

It's more than that. Anyone who's ever watched Yes, Minister or Yes, Prime Minister knows that the implementation of almost all government policy is down to the Civil Service. These are the people we talk about when we talk about 'The Deep State'. People hear 'Deep State' and they think they're a bunch of lizard people, but they're not. What they are is basically just a bunch of career civil servants who've served and outlasted both sides of the aisle, and they exist in practically every Western Democracy. Their job is basically to make so that people don't rock the boat too much. Our government would function exactly the same way, in practical, every day terms, no matter who ran it, whether it was Labour, Tories, Lib Dems, Reform or the Greens.

This is sometimes good in practical terms, because it means some radical nutjob can't just come in and handicap the country. But it also means that it's very difficult to correct course and right the ship when we're steering ourselves into a cliff.

Again, you see it in America. Remember when Barack Obama wanted to close Guantanamo Bay? The main reason it didn't happen was because the civil servants who would have been in charge of implementing it basically said 'Yeah, not doing that'. Also happens a lot in Britain. Remember when the Tories wanted to deport all the rubber boat crossers to Rwanda? Again, our civil service in charge of implementing that basically said 'Yeah, not doing that'. So it stalled until I think the courts got involved and shut it down completely.

 

[Otterly]

It's more than that. Anyone who's ever watched Yes, Minister or Yes, Prime Minister knows that the implementation of almost all government policy is down to the Civil Service.

Then scrape them out like a gourd. Or the whole thing just dies. We have to do something drastic to right this place.

 

[Dr J]

Then scrape them out like a gourd. Or the whole thing just dies. We have to do something drastic to right this place.

I agree. But it will be difficult. Nobody ever appreciates just how difficult it will be until they've actually taken power and are in a position to do things. It's hard to change a system that doesn't want to be changed.

 

[Rival]

It's more than that. Anyone who's ever watched Yes, Minister or Yes, Prime Minister knows that the implementation of almost all government policy is down to the Civil Service. These are the people we talk about when we talk about 'The Deep State'. People hear 'Deep State' and they think they're a bunch of lizard people, but they're not. What they are is basically just a bunch of career civil servants who've served and outlasted both sides of the aisle, and they exist in practically every Western Democracy. Their job is basically to make so that people don't rock the boat too much. Our government would function exactly the same way, in practical, every day terms, no matter who ran it, whether it was Labour, Tories, Lib Dems, Reform or the Greens.

This is sometimes good in practical terms, because it means some radical nutjob can't just come in and handicap the country. But it also means that it's very difficult to correct course and right the ship when we're steering ourselves into a cliff.

Again, you see it in America. Remember when Barack Obama wanted to close Guantanamo Bay? The main reason it didn't happen was because the civil servants who would have been in charge of implementing it basically said 'Yeah, not doing that'. Also happens a lot in Britain. Remember when the Tories wanted to deport all the rubber boat crossers to Rwanda? Again, our civil service in charge of implementing that basically said 'Yeah, not doing that'. So it stalled until I think the courts got involved and shut it down completely.

This is probably the easiest democracy to make such changes to migration in.

 

[Otterly]

I agree. But it will be difficult. Nobody ever appreciates just how difficult it will be until they've actually taken power and are in a position to do things. It's hard to change a system that doesn't want to be changed.

It will be incredibly difficult. But it is possible.
The longer all this carries on the more extreme the methods that will need to be used to fix it become. The system is breeding it’s own destruction, because one day it’ll be so bad that ordinary people will understand what’s needed and put someone in charge who will fix things, as brutally as is needed.

 

[femboy fart huffer]

I agree. But it will be difficult. Nobody ever appreciates just how difficult it will be until they've actually taken power and are in a position to do things. It's hard to change a system that doesn't want to be changed.

And Lowe seemingly has the balls to actually try and create that change unlike the others that will happily go along with it as long as they get their 100k a year for the rest of their lives.

Yes I too would love to roll out the guillotine and cannons but well we don't have any fucking steel mills to manufacture either of them anymore so Lowe's the closest shit to that I can see as something reasonable and plausible.

 

[Dr J]

And Lowe seemingly has the balls to actually try and create that change

All I've seen from Lowe is that he has the balls to say what Farage won't, because Farage is too busy trying to be a politician.

Let's see what Lowe actually does with some power. Whether he actually gets things done or he just talks shit

 

[Rival]

All I've seen from Lowe is that he has the balls to say what Farage won't

I think that matters a lot more than you think it does. Something something overton window.

 

[femboy fart huffer]

All I've seen from Lowe is that he has the balls to say what Farage won't, because Farage is too busy trying to be a politician.

Let's see what Lowe actually does with some power. Whether he actually gets things done or he just talks shit

Yea other than the whole thing with the grooming gangs where he said he would do something and did it despite the entirety of westminster not only refused to look at but actively covered up. Idk to me that's a bit more than 'just' talking. Not to mention the foi stuff and distributing the information that no one else wanted to and once again actively tried to cover up and so on.

He has the balls to say shit. He has shown to at least somewhat be dedicated to and competent at following through on that. Farage has done neither and instead is flopping around trying to create tory2.0 and u turns on the reasons reform were ever popular harder than kier u turns.

 

[Dr J]

I think that matters a lot more than you think it does. Something something overton window.

Well, I go back to Trump. Trump was willing to say things that a lot of people felt but no mainstream politician actually dared to say, and it resonated with people. He won the 2016 election. But when it came time to actually implement policy, that was a completely different ballgame. One that he wasn't necessarily completely suited for, he didn't know DC and he didn't know how things worked (when they worked).

 

[femboy fart huffer]

Well, I go back to Trump. Trump was willing to say things that a lot of people felt but no mainstream politician actually dared to say, and it resonated with people. He won the 2016 election. But when it came time to actually implement policy, that was a completely different ballgame. One that he wasn't necessarily completely suited for, he didn't know DC and he didn't know how things worked (when they worked).

Trump was an outsider with little actual knowledge of the system.

Lowe is literally an active mp.

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

The other thing to recall when talking about all of this is that the collusion goes well beyond the government. The Establishment are the media, the charities, faith leaders, non-profits, employers and more.

 

[Dr J]

Lowe is literally an active mp.

Which is actually a point against him. Because he's career politics and part of the system he's less likely to think outside of the box in terms of solutions. He's also less likely to be independently wealthy enough to be able to finance his own campaign

 

[femboy fart huffer]

Which is actually a point against him. Because he's career politics and part of the system he's less likely to think outside of the box in terms of solutions. He's also less likely to be independently wealthy enough to be able to finance his own campaign

So basically we need someone who is an outsider and financially independent but also has insider knowledge and experience to do something as radical as treat illegal immigration as something illegal? He's already doing things outside the box, that's why he's popular.