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...
Chunky Salsa said:
The party that has stated their absolute unwavering zeal to bring in almost 6 million browns a year and give them all our money, is a worse threat to the country than the party that will just maintain the current pipeline of poop.
Click to expand...
I think a big part of Overly's point is Farage's lot getting in and betraying the voters or being ineffectual is going to do more damage to the cause they claim to champion. Which is true. Much like having years of people reluctant to actually carry out Brexit did a lot of damage to that vote.
 
Morethanabitfoolish said:
Fair points. But the Greens would destroy the country and if you think they've above bringing in laws that would stop parties like Reform or Restore even being allowed to exist you are missing a lot of what they are currently up to.
Click to expand...
"would" being the operative word.

Morethanabitfoolish said:
Also the Greens will get their mandate if they got in just like Labour did with what they have rolled out since their latest appointment to power. It doesn't matter if it's not what the country wants, if elected they would ride roughshod over any semblance of restraining laws because they will never get this chance again.
Click to expand...
As I said in my original post, based on polling, the one thing @Made In Wales was right about - there's a realistic chance of Reform getting a very significant majority that would let them push through anything they want, would let them disregard the dissenters that Nige hasn't managed to purge yet, and claim they're what people want even as they sell everyone out from under them. I just can't see the Greens - even in the low probability they won, having a large mandate. Their victory would be an open declaration of war between the Marxist-Islamists and everybody else. Whilst Reform would be "our side" and pull the rug out from under the nationalist movement in this country.

I've been quite explicit on why I think Reform are the greater danger and why I want to actively avoid giving them any more ammunition against Restore, which every vote for them is.

Morethanabitfoolish said:
True. But what makes any of that not applicable to the Greens?
Click to expand...
Because I'm not talking about selling out the country, I'm talking specifically about selling out the nationalist movement and Right Wing in this country. You've obviously read this as "selling out the country". That's not what I wrote. Greens would be an external blow to the Right and to Nationalists. We are still at the point that the Right can take that blow and punch back. Reform would be... not a punch. It would be the movement sitting down in the ring corner and stopping fighting. Reform are NOT the Right nor the Nationalists. And if these groups appoint or allow Reform to be their leadership or speak on their behalf, the fight goes out of them. All the energy, all the anger, is just used by Farage to further advance Uniparty goals. It goes to giving him an even bigger mandate to pretend that he's giving people what they want.

You know Environmentalists? And how they're different to environmentalists? The latter being people who want rivers not polluted and species not wiped out. And the former being giant NGO lobby groups who want to champion wind farms and trans rights and solidarity with Palestine? And you're aware how every one of the latter ends up finding all their energy and money somehow magically transforms into Greta Thunberg's flotilla or new subsidies for ground dehumidifying bird killing machines instead of clean water? Well Reform is the Right's version of that.


Morethanabitfoolish said:
They sold out their party's underlying principles to chase certain voting blocs just as much as Reform did, their only defence is they have been doing so for longer.
Click to expand...
I refuse to play "which lizard I want to get in". You're playing to lose if you do that. We've seen what seven decades of this does to the country. You can play to win, you can play to lose slowly or you can play to lose quickly. The trick is to convince people the choice is only between the latter two.

In this case, the voting to lose slowly, is actively working against Restore because as I said at the start, the single and only argument Reform have against Restore is "you'll split the vote". Every single vote for Reform is a tiny boost to give legitimacy to that argument. Voting Reform now with the intent that maybe you'll swap later is counter-productive. By doing so you are actively making your chance to swap later less likely. You're being herded.

Morethanabitfoolish said:
Greens if elected would not have any reason to have even a shred of restraint.
Click to expand...
Of course not. No party does. There are no good parties, only parties that you can constrain how they behave and parties you cannot. Greens, in the imo low chance they did win, would be and are more so than a likely much stronger Reform government would be.

No party ever gets in and does what they promised because they promised it. Or very rarely. They do it, if they do it, because the electorate still has them in a position to punish them if they renege. As I said, in the unlikely event of an actual Green majority which would be shaky and energise nationalist sentiment across the country, I would take that over a dominant Reform which would likely to be strong and defuse any nationalist sentiment and kill it long term.

Perhaps I can put this even more simply: What will determine the direction this country takes, is the level of engagement and anger and passion of the people. The Greens cannot kill that. At least not any time soon. Reform can hurt it severely though. You think the government is the ultimate power in this country, that's the difference. But the government is filled with cowards. The Civil Service is filled with cowards. As all the Islamists know and prove repeatedly in this thread, unity and anger determine government policy. If nationalists and the Right want a future, they cannot throw away their unity and anger with Farage and Reform and see the whole movement dissipate,

EDIT: Yes, @Morethanabitfoolish , that is my point that you say in the follow up post. We don't have to agree, I just like to make sure any disagreement is not based on misunderstanding. I believe you get my point.

Chunky Salsa said:
The party that has stated their absolute unwavering zeal to bring in almost 6 million browns a year and give them all our money, is a worse threat to the country than the party that will just maintain the current pipeline of poop.
Click to expand...
It's not a worse threat. Because a threat, in the sense of a danger, is a product of likelihood and outcome. Having a piano fall on my head is a worse outcome than having a mugger jump me and punch me in the back of the head, but the latter is the greater danger.

Anyway. I'm done for the night. I feel anything more is just me repeating my arguments.
 
Overly Serious said:
I just can't see the Greens - even in the low probability they won, having a large mandate
Click to expand...
A majority of any kind is enough. The Greens have been purging their ranks of wrong thinkers for a while now and if elected no matter how insane the policy they will push it through. The wrong-thinkers who said trans women are not women were evicted, now their ranks are those who say ramming a synagogue is not violence and there is no dissent. I pass by the Green stands across the country and I made a point of bringing up things like the Kirk murder in its aftermath and their consensus is we need more of that.
Overly Serious said:
"would" being the operative word.
Click to expand...
"would" is the operative work when I said they'd destroy the country?
Do you think I meant "could"?
Overly Serious said:
Greens would be an external blow to the Right and to Nationalists. We are still at the point that the Right can take that blow and punch back. Reform would be... not a punch. It would be the movement sitting down in the ring corner and stopping fighting. Reform are NOT the Right nor the Nationalists. And if these groups appoint or allow Reform to be their leadership or speak on their behalf, the fight goes out of them. All the energy, all the anger, is just used by Farage to further advance Uniparty goals. It goes to giving him an even bigger mandate to pretend that he's giving people what they want.
Click to expand...
True. But, and this point ties into the next one-
Overly Serious said:
Because I'm not talking about selling out the country, I'm talking specifically about selling out the nationalist movement and Right Wing in this country. You've obviously read this as "selling out the country". That's not what I wrote. Greens would be an external blow to the Right and to Nationalists. We are still at the point that the Right can take that blow and punch back. Reform would be... not a punch. It would be the movement sitting down in the ring corner and stopping fighting. Reform are NOT the Right nor the Nationalists. And if these groups appoint or allow Reform to be their leadership or speak on their behalf, the fight goes out of them. All the energy, all the anger, is just used by Farage to further advance Uniparty goals. It goes to giving him an even bigger mandate to pretend that he's giving people what they want.
Click to expand...
-the Greens getting elected is the end of the fight. They have openly stated that they will champion terrorists over the general populace, pass laws that would allow the population of (for example) Palestine to move in (at the tax payer's expense) and vote in people like their current rulers, ban criticism of their politicians, ban political parties they do not like, jail people not toeing the line, rewrite the curriculum of schools so children are brainwashed from entry to the party line and more shit that, pardon the Godwin's law, would make the Nazis stand up and applaud people carrying on their methods of ruling.

They do not intend to allow the fight to continue, the Greens will politically murder those they can and allow actual murder of those they cannot.

A Green government under someone like Polanski? They'd jail politicial opponents, let their lunatics run riot (and they have a lot of lunatics at the moment) while stopping the police from even trying to investigate and ensure that every penny of public spending went exclusively to solidifying their position.

Farage is a disgusting little weasel who should be drowned in a barrel of shit and there is a genuine risk from Reform getting the oxygen they no longer deserve. But given the choice between empowering an enemy who will kill me and one who will torture me I know which one I get a second chance at.
 
Last edited:
Baby Preston update. The jury was discharged on the 23rd and the trial is being restarted. The official reason is that one of the jury couldn't cope with how horrible everything was. The reality is that evidence was introduced that implicated the social workers involved with the case as being hopelessly biased towards the defendants, which was deemed to prejudice the jury as it was a separate prosecutorial path. The social workers were in a WhatsApp group together with the adoptive couple, colluding to discredit the foster mother and any other witnesses or evidence against the defendants, and prior to the trial as well, to deny the foster parents any access to Preston that might have revealed evidence of abuse. Every photo of the child presented to the foster parents was from behind, meaning his face wasn't visible. The last video of him crawling showed he had a broken arm. The prosecution is seeking further charges based on the evidence presented when the trial resumed.
 
Heinrich Maneuver said:
Death penalty. Include the social workers too.
Click to expand...
We have room on the helicopter.

On a different subject, found this pic of four inhabitants of Wales. If you print this out and put it in your window it will keep evil spirits away.

1777956766407.png

Ya, the UK is beyond fucked, better get over here.
 
teriyakiburns said:
The social workers were in a WhatsApp group together with the adoptive couple, colluding to discredit the foster mother and any other witnesses or evidence against the defendants, and prior to the trial as well, to deny the foster parents any access to Preston that might have revealed evidence of abuse.
Click to expand...
Apparently the WhatsApp group was called "Team Preston" but can't find any news articles on it.
The adoption of a baby boy who died while in the care of his prospective adoptive parents was supervised by social workers from Oldham Council, a court has heard.

Preston Davey, who was 13 months old at the time of his death, was set to be adopted by Jamie Varley, 37, and John McGowan-Fazackerly, 32. The youngster died after being taken to Blackpool Victoria Hospital on July 27, 2023.

The two men are now charged with a number of offences. On Monday (April 20), prosecutors told a trial at Preston Crown Court was told how the baby boy was ‘routinely ill-treated, sexually abused and physically assaulted’ before he was murdered.


Mr Varley is accused of murder; sexual assault of a child under 13; inflicting grievous bodily harm; five counts of child cruelty; and further counts of making, taking and distributing indecent images.

Mr McGowan-Fazackerley is accused of causing or allowing the death of a child; two counts of child cruelty; and sexual assault of a child under 13. Both men, of Chandlers Way, Grimsargh, Preston, deny all charges and their trial is expected to last six weeks.


On Tuesday (April 21), the prosecution alleged Preston was sexually assaulted and smothered by Varley on the afternoon of July 27 2023 and died later that day.

Today (April 22), jurors in the trial were told that Nicole Blythe, a social worker from Oldham Council, was the supervisor for foster parents Sandra and Paul Cooper.


The Coopers have been foster carers for 27 years and cared for baby Preston from June 2022 until he went to live with Varley and McGowan-Fazackerly the following April.

Ms Blythe gave a statement, which was read out by the prosecution, that introductions began with the prospective adopters in March 2023. "Sandra and Paul said it was ‘the best introduction they had ever done’," jurors were told.

Jurors then heard from witness Amy Shepherdson, a family-finding social worker with Oldham Local Authority who was Preston's adoption social worker. Once care proceedings were completed she became the allocated social worker for Preston, the court is told.

Ms Shepherdson had responsibility for visits to the foster carers home to get a picture of what it was like to care for Preston, that his health needs were being met and development was typical for his age. This was to ‘get a sense of Preston to find the right family', she says.

She says: “Preston was a beautiful little boy who completely lit up the room. He was doing really well in terms of his health and development. He was an extremely well liked little boy. That shone through in the way his foster carers spoke about him, which meant he was making incredible progress.”


Mrs Sheperdson said Preston had some dairy intolerance and had to be in hospital but other than that he was 'a well little boy'. He wasn’t a particularly good sleeper during the night and Sandra spoke about what she did to get him back to sleep and the comfort and reassurance he needed, she says.

Once a care plan was endorsed, Ms Shepherdson created a profile of Preston to share with prospective families and explore what might be a good fit for him. She worked with a colleague who would be a social worker for the prospective parents.

Jamie Varley and John McGowan-Fazackerley were one set of prospective parents and Ms Shepherdson arranged a meeting between them and the foster carers for February 13, 2023. The first meeting, between the foster carers, potential adopters, social worker and Preston, took place at Ash Tree Farm.

“The interactions were very natural. You got the sense they (John and Jamie) had been around children previously and knew how to interact with them.”

The process then began to move towards the adoption panel. John and Jamie had already been approved as potential adoptive parents and on March 9, 2023, the match between them and Preston was approved.


Ms Shepherdson wrote an introduction plan to ensure everyone was aware of roles and responsibilities in the transition process. The first meeting took place at the Coopers' house.

Preston was ‘happy to have people to entertain’ when his ‘Daddies’ were introduced to him at the Coopers house, she said.

There were several introductions over the week beginning March 23. The social worker visited again on 28th and observed the dads were more ‘hands on’ while Sandra was still present.

Mrs Shepherdson told the court: “Everyone was in agreement that it was going well. The purpose is to see if John and Jamie were getting a good sense of Preston’s routine and how to care for him, and they said they were.

"Sandra and Paul were to get a sense of how the introductions were looking with John and Jamie and everyone said it was going well.”

The court was told that the next introductions were to take place at John and Jamie’s home at Staining Road, Blackpool. Ms Shepherdson confirmed she was not present for those meets but would take an interest.

Throughout these visits Mrs Cooper would stay nearby ‘on call’. The social worker created a WhatsApp group called ‘Team Preston’.

Ms Shepherdson visited on April 3, 2023, Preston’s official move day. She says he had slept overnight. Sandra was there, as planned, and no concerns were raised about it being the right time for Preston to move. His sleep was raised but from that day Preston lived at Staining Road.

The trial continues.
Click to expand...
 
Morethanabitfoolish said:
Apparently the WhatsApp group was called "Team Preston" but can't find any news articles on it.
Click to expand...
It's unlikely you will, while the trial is ongoing. Hearing this from someone who knows the foster parents. The social workers may be facing a separate prosecution, but there's no firm info one way or the other and the media isn't currently touching it. It's possible they're not reporting it to avoid tainting the replacement jury.
 

I saw this and just thought it was really weird and depressing. The chap seems to have deleted his twitter and Instagram accounts as far as I can see, but he's linked to this other page;


Which seems to exist just to... Get as many Africans and Muslims across the channel into the UK? I just turn a blind eye to this stuff, but it's kind of shocking to see such a concerted effort put into it.
 
teriyakiburns said:
The social workers were in a WhatsApp group together with the adoptive couple, colluding to discredit the foster mother and any other witnesses or evidence against the defendants, and prior to the trial as well, to deny the foster parents any access to Preston that might have revealed evidence of abuse.
Click to expand...
WTAF? When I thought that it was a case of the social workers being hesitant to report abuse concerns about two gay men I understood it. Not forgive it, because it's a little baby relying on you for protection, but understand it. We live in a cultural/political climate where an accusation of homophobia would most likely destroy your career if not multiple aspects of your personal life, so a reticence to speak up is understandable.

But to fucking collude in a cover-up? To seemingly vilify the foster parents and punish them for their very correct concerns? In an issue this fucking serious?
 
the printer is outo fink said:
WTAF? When I thought that it was a case of the social workers being hesitant to report abuse concerns about two gay men I understood it. Not forgive it, because it's a little baby relying on you for protection, but understand it. We live in a cultural/political climate where an accusation of homophobia would most likely destroy your career if not multiple aspects of your personal life, so a reticence to speak up is understandable.

But to fucking collude in a cover-up? To seemingly vilify the foster parents and punish them for their very correct concerns? In an issue this fucking serious?
Click to expand...
There's something deeply broken about the social "care" system in Oldham. They colluded with the paki rape gangs and they're still covering up child abuse today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom