UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • 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:
Queer's autism/lawyer background might be the only thing keeping him in. As long as he has no legal reason to quit, he will stay. He doesn't understand the question because he had breakfast this morning.

The Home Office is banning fucking everyone, it seems. Dominik Tarczynski, Polack MEP, has been denied a Visa to enter the UK to come and attend the march happening on Saturday. This brings the march ban up to 6 prominent speakers, including that crazy Latina.
This is what communism looks like in the 21st century. I have just been denied entry to the UK in order to speak at the largest patriotic event in Europe.Starmer will be sued by me. Not the government, not the Home Office but Starmer personally. Once you lose the next election, communist, we’ll meet in court!
Tommy @TRobinsonNewEra , this communist cannot silence millions, nor can he take away their right to vote! UNITE THE KINGDOM!

David/Zack Polanski has admitted to not living on the canal boat and dodging council tax. Fine, whatever. But now his neighbours are getting double checked by the council and it seems none of them are happy that Polanski snitched on the boaters code of 'don't ask don't tell' when it comes to council tax. Funny that the types who scream about 'we need more tax' never goddamn pay it. Think of all the free school dinners that tax could have paid for Zack!!

Man shot dead by police in Bedford after an armed standoff. Im tired. Archive's fucked https://news.sky.com/story/man-shot-dead-by-police-in-bedford-13542713
 
Last edited:
Since it looks like Kier might not be long for this world, let's try to remember some of the best moments of his PMship :)
What the fuck is that clip of him 'boxing'? We had a punching bag in our school gym that people would use when the weather and circumstance gave us no other option than to use the gym. That is worse than what we did. That's not boxing he looks like a drunk guy reaching for the light switch.

But hey. His dad certainly did make one world famous tool. We can agree on that at least.
 
They clearly don't know how to ride a moped properly and are taking advantage of some loophole where you're allowed to ride a moped while "learning" for a test they never intend to take.
You can ride up to 125cc on a provisional with a CBT certificate, though the market is fucked for them thanks to the uberjeets jacking up demand. Looking at over two grand for a CBR125 (I'm fat and need the power) which is approaching what I paid for my car.
 
Last edited:
I wonder what exactly does Jess Phillips mean by "we could make this possible on every phone and device in the country"...?

View attachment 8995244
They've already discussed this, it's the idea of device level processing of images (including selfies you take), videos, videocalls and livestreams so if some AI detects nudity it's blocked unless you submit your government ID and link your device to yourself.

iOS 17 onwards now supports this as a feature, although it's currently opt-in. They (as in TPBP in general, the Tories proposed the Online Safety Bill) are really keen to remove online/device level anonymity and encryption, and also find a solid use case for AI.
 
They've already discussed this, it's the idea of device level processing of images (including selfies you take), videos, videocalls and livestreams so if some AI detects nudity it's blocked unless you submit your government ID and link your device to yourself.
Okay listen, I have a better strategy. You just don't give kids phones? Like there is no reason for them to actually have them. Like sure, you've gotta be a tard to take nudes of yourselves but kids are tards and this is why they don't have the power of legal consent.

And if public safety about "what if they get lost" is such a concern, idk bring back these?

1778611385305.png
 
Okay listen, I have a better strategy. You just don't give kids phones? Like there is no reason for them to actually have them. Like sure, you've gotta be a tard to take nudes of yourselves but kids are tards and this is why they don't have the power of legal consent.

And if public safety about "what if they get lost" is such a concern, idk bring back these?

View attachment 8995543
Or give them a dumb phone? Like a totally old school Nokia
 
Okay listen, I have a better strategy. You just don't give kids phones?
This is unpopular with much of the electorate as it requires calling them bad parents who need to take responsibility (and the media will lay it on thick with some bereaved mother whose kid died of a TikTok challenge, who will call you an evil monster for saying this).

It's also unpopular with politicians who want to end encryption and anonymity to better control you, and don't really care about children, but will use that angle to claim you're on the side of the nonces if you don't support them doing this.
 
the media will lay it on thick with some bereaved mother whose kid died of a TikTok challenge, who will call you an evil monster for saying this.
For those unaware the Archie's Army thread covers a fine example of this
It's also unpopular with politicians who want to end encryption and anonymity to better control you, and don't really care about children, but will use that angle to claim you're on the side of the nonces if you don't support them doing this.
It was one of the slimier moves Labour has pulled in their short time in.
 
Or give them a dumb phone? Like a totally old school Nokia
Or parents could show the slightest bit of interest in what their children are doing online and offline, educate themselves on the dangers young children face online and the technological options they have to help keep them safe, and ensure their children know they don't have the right to digital privacy.
 
So here's the funny thing with android phones for kids. You can have an app on the parents' phone that completely controls a child's linked phone. You can turn off every app except for basic calls and texts, and even with that you can turn the phone off for everything but emergency calls on whatever schedule you like. So at bedtime, until morning, through school hours, whatever you want.

Until the child is thirteen. After that the child has to agree to allow parental controls, and can turn them off whenever they want. The most the parent gets is a notification that their still very young child has decided they're old enough to have free access to the phone. Thirteen is Google's policy and they hold to that unless the family is in a country with different laws. In Ireland, for example, parents keep full control until their child is 16. But in the UK, the government is happy to defer to Google.

Obviously, if a parent is setting a phone up for their child, they can lie about the date of birth and state their child is several years younger, but most people aren't even going to be aware that children are deemed to have this autonomy over their phone usage just as they reached the most dangerous age possible for social media. A nine year old is safer than a thirteen year old in many ways online, because a thirteen year old is more likely to be able go meet someone who has groomed them. All that to say, that if the British government gave even the first shit about the safety of children online, the first thing they'd do is make it so parents can totally lock down their children's phones until the age of 16-18.
 
All that to say, that if the British government gave even the first shit about the safety of children online, the first thing they'd do is make it so parents can totally lock down their children's phones until the age of 16-18.
Well. No. They wouldn't, not the first thing by a mile. If the government gave a shit about children they would make it impossible to walk out of a court with a guilty conviction for child sex offences with nothing more than a suspended sentence. They would make rape actually punished and would actually investigate the grooming gangs. There's no point trying to prevent grooming and rape if there's no punishment for when it does happen because they'll just keep trying until they work around that prevention.

Parental controls on phones is maybe like step 10 at the earliest.
 
Well. No. They wouldn't, not the first thing by a mile. If the government gave a shit about children they would make it impossible to walk out of a court with a guilty conviction for child sex offences with nothing more than a suspended sentence. They would make rape actually punished and would actually investigate the grooming gangs. There's no point trying to prevent grooming and rape if there's no punishment for when it does happen because they'll just keep trying until they work around that prevention.

Parental controls on phones is maybe like step 10 at the earliest.
Fair. I guess my point is that this would be really, really easy to do if protecting kids online was something they had any interest in whatsoever. But we all know that their push to protect kids, is about controlling adults and stopping us from free discussion.
 
So a new party won big, how will the UK manage to disappoint this time? (Just not optimistic)
In the local elections. This is kind of the equivalent of municipal/county elections in the US.

Reform has already had to suspend 6 councillors and more than a few have acknowledged they were paper candidates (agreed to run but didn't think they'd win, so are unprepared).

Our locals can be a bit of a bellwether, but not to the same extent as midterms. Reform councils also tend to do badly as they'll talk a big talk and then flail from shitty candidates (e.g. the ones who said they'd scrap DEI officers only to discover there weren't any, or the ones who said they'd end ten minute cities/low traffic neighbourhoods and then discover they didn't have any). Also because they learn most councils are nearly bankrupt from spiralling statutory obligations like social care and cuts to central funding, so they can't just fix the potholes now they're in charge.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom