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."
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.
That would be because you guys are fucked and no possible solution exists at the local level I imagine. Anyone who takes charge of that mess is just committing to being in charge while it gets worse.
That would be because you guys are fucked and no possible solution exists at the local level I imagine. Anyone who takes charge of that mess is just committing to being in charge while it gets worse.
Case in point, @Betonhaus ’s post above. Just level the place and start again. Maybe we can make it one big prison, solving all our apparent sentencing ills and accommodation of illegals woes in one?
I think they're putting Bull in Makersfield, but that is so opticly retarded. Restore will clean sweep this. David Bull is a pro-immigration, homosexual. He even has a lisp; they could not put Zia there because he is a shitskin.
I listened to Tice on TalkTV earlier, and he was getting his shit pushed in over Farage's 5 million. He was saying that Reform is going to sweep Makersfield.
Jeets aren't stinky because they're unsterile. They're stinky because of the chemicals emitted from being unsterile. If you vaporise a jeet all that stink gets released at once into the air, they just can't make more after that point.
Video from 'AroundLiverpool' showing a migrant in Dovecot, holding a dead pigeon, to eat.
Around the 12th, Muzzies graffiti'd the war memorial outside St George's Hall with 'ALLAH' in white paint, which was also sent to AroundLiverpool. The lads from central.waste went down to sort it, St George's flag visible. Central waste are a company who have spent the last couple years cleaning up parks and road signs and graffiti in Liverpool, free of charge (PL when I was there the council did everything in their power to ignore them. All their videos cleaning up liverpool have countless 'fuck the council' comments). They have recently been cleaning graffiti off churches. I suspected central waste were somewhat left leaning, but perhaps things are changing. Idk what they are but he looks somewhat Nepalese to me ?
All this discourse on Palestine is fun when we come to look at the west in the modern light, especially when it comes to the Jewish migration to mandatory Palestine following the Balfour declaration and the establishment of it as a Jewish homeland. Now, the reason why there was to be a Jewish Homeland was primarily because of how there wasn't a Jewish state so there were a ton of different proposals all across the world with many different locations being selected as potential hosts such as Uganda.
And in so, when the Jews got there what did they want? Political institutions, the right of self determination. Which they did eventually build up support. This led to intergroup conflict amongst both Palestinians and Jews which was a pain for the empire to manage. This ultimately led to a breakdown in authority and so it happened that the UN had to take over to try and negotiate a conference. The Palestinians of course, did not choose to give anything up. They were the uncoperative ones. Granted, the leadership class of them came from the Nazis so there was that. The Mahdi and all.
The fun part of this discourse however comes from how we get a process of 1: Outgroups comes to a land, 2: they do not assimilate and instead create power blocks, 3: Intergroup conflict arises from the present groups and so on.
This is a common story, people do this wherever they go. You only need a minority of about 10% to rule over a group. After all, how did Islam spread from Arabia? How did it get to Indonesia? But I digress.
Palestine is a fun catch 22 because what people think about it says a lot about them. Why? Well, to put it simply it's because the Jews were invited to settle there and used political authority when they got numbers. In being permissive of Palestine then we must also be permissive of kicking out everyone who came over recently. For, we (the British) are the long term native group. Or well, we have been here longer than Palestine has been Muslim for example (that happened in the 600s).
Most people don't actually care for self-determination, they view Israel as a settler colonial project; in which case it is the right of those resisting to act. Israel is seen to have no right to the land because of it being European invaders (remember, only Europeans can partake in settler colonialism because eurocentric history. Just don't mention what happened to the Haga Sofia or anything else. Also don't mention anything going in Kashmir or any of India's other international objectives, Hindutva is a big no no. I'll talk some more on India later but I wish to focus on Muslims as a generalised group for immigrants now. It's just to simplify discourse).
Millions of Jews must go, but millions of Muslims cannot? Millions of Indians cannot? It's all illogical, and yes there has been violent force of terror used by immigrant communities which hey, gotta love Lehi's gang.
The problem of course is, that a lot of this view is redisposed to the view that only the west has been the big bad. Now, one may go "well, they were invited". The British mandate invited the Jews to it, Britain took the land through the right of conquest at the end of World War 1 against an equal power alliance. It was by the same right that the protectorate came under Ottoman rule after they repulsed the Egyptians in the 1800s. The British Government has near continuously ruled all the land that it has owned under the presumption that wealth can be extracted from it, and if it cannot then it must be shut down. Everything is a colony for the City of London and financier class. That is quite literally how the Empire operated, the industrial regions were in essence all companies for industrial produce.
It never mattered what the population was for the Imperial elite, what mattered is line go up. And it is really the same elitist mentality that rules over Britain from the ilks of the Private School, Etonian class and all those in their fellow schools. Papa needs to get his Rolls Royce somehow.
So now that we've got the specifics out of the way, let us return to civic nationalism and settler colonialism and how civic nationalism is a term that is woefully abused; and how now became a catchphrase to go "well they can believe what they want so long as they obey the rule of law", Which in the ideal, yes, but in practice does not happen because despite the optimism associated with liberal political beliefs (believing in an intrinsic goodness in man), that's just not how the cookie crumbles. There is a reason why Hobbes devised the rule of nature in the context of the English Civil War, or how Middle Earth was devised out of the horror of the Great War; and trying to create essentially an English version of Greek mythology.
I am probably in the rare case of people who would be in support of a more liberal border approach. I do agree with civic nationalism points. And I see more "open borders" to be a long term project. Civic Nationalism only works however when there are strong civic bonds within a society. The artificial "fundamental British values" program fails in this light. No wonder it came from Blairism in the 2002 education act. It is not fit for survival, purely artificial meant to reengineer society. This is stated to be the point of them.
Just reading it brings in the paradox of tolerance. It really is just illogical. I don't care about skin colour, I care about the sanctuary of people's and the essential vengeance being levelled against European nations by more populous groups. People all over hate European countries, believing they were exploited and owe something in response to colonialism. As again, the Empire was pretty colour blind only caring for the industrial and financial elite to profit from. The profits moved abroad and so Britain became focused on services. They had nothing to gain from Britain. Plus, Empire was a net loss. (also gotta love that Empire was apparently Europeans beating up people with sticks whilst they had guns, not realising Empire was inter European competition).
Long term border policy can only work when there is an equal, common playing field. The question is purely economical in nature. People move to opportunities to improve their livelihood. Just look at internal migration, people move all across the island to study. Poshos from the home counties will gleefully flock to both St Andrews and Edinburgh to study. Those being in Scotland. People from the north will commute or live in London for work. (I will not make a point on HS2 for now).
All this is to say, that migration is an innately human factor. And this is why it is so fundamental to stop people from less developed countries to so freely migrate. Especially when they expect to spread their cultural ideals and use it as a settler colony project. This is the policy of many countries, like India as well as Thailand who want to export Thai cuisine as a means of extending their influence. The Global Thai program calls it Gastrodiplomacy.
So there is both personal and government push factors. Just y'all wait until climate change kicks into high gear and people start claiming to be Climate refugees and that they cannot survive in Africa or India and billions of people want to make the treck believing there to be housing, places to live and so forth. I will return to social services when I finish my point on immigration and the economy.
Which yeah, all immigrants will form ingroups and seek political power. This lets me return to Israel and how Israel settled the land. This is a common occurrence throughout human history, and is a noted phenomena called "social sorting". People want to be with like minded people. This phenomena is really on display with social media, which you can really see just how effectively people will seek to sort themselves into groups. In the context of the real world, people will typically go for those who share the same values. The theory of the liberal project is grounded in optimism which does not survive .
And this really is the big problem facing the west as it is. The west is built up on democratic principles, it was the philosophical direction of the west having such a strong basis in Greek philosophy, and the development of political institutions like fuedalism as well as the Magna Carter, where the elites did not want to suffer under absolutism and wanted to be seen as peers. England beheaded their king before France and all. Pretty much everywhere else focused on monarchs. China? They were just entering the Qing dynasty. Iraq and the Arab Spring saw democracy be rejected. The Sahel is rampant with Islamists. Democracy doesn't really exist in India, it is primarily about how much money you can spend.
But when a country with 1.4 billion people, a country significantly larger than a bunch of other countries chooses to export it's people for not just remittance, but to build soft power and influence? India knows they can benefit from settler colonialism, the Middle East does. I know I have placed a large focus on Islam, and choose to not focus all too much on Hindutva but that too is the case. It is the natural course of human history. How can a country of 65 million (or something like that) be expected to keep its national identity when another nation decides "hmm yes saar, we must spread our influence and settle internationally"? India has a population higher than Europe, Canada and the US combined. The same with China (presuming the PRC doesn't inflate their population). Africa is going to be at the same point soon.
The economy is going to suffer a lot more as a result of immigration. Quality of life will determinate as they form groups to support each other get preferential treatment and build economic blocks, say with groups of 10 living together. This lets them get an extremely high household income as there are a plethora of earners. - As well as being brought into high tech jobs via selective ingroup hiring. Immigration and front end business (say fake repair shops) also suppress regional jobs that may offer actual repair services, a skilled profession as they will be inclined to think they are all fake scam jobs. There's so much more I could say if I actually planned this out, and wasn't awake typing this at 4am when I'm pretty drowsy.
I should also qualify that immigration is not the only thing fucking with the housing market, as well as other markets. It is stuff like Pension schemes as well as foreign investment schemes as a lot of pension money comes from the stock market. Which means the line needs to go up, and housing is inelastic meaning that its price is stable. However, immigration obviously makes prices go up. But so do pensioners and with an aging population the line goes double up. Immigration is not the cure. Especially when it puts pressures on other social services. Which become less efficient, (as well as other businesses) when there is insufficient English skills. But this is another point for another day.
And this is the joy of being an actual civic nationalist (in the context of Europe as a whole) in dealing with the modern day. It's a term that has been co-opted against any sensibility that it may have had in the past.
I think they're putting Bull in Makersfield, but that is so opticly retarded. Restore will clean sweep this. David Bull is a pro-immigration, homosexual. He even has a lisp; they could not put Zia there because he is a shitskin.
Not to mention, he's not even from Makerfield either. A big name with zero ties to the area.
You know he did a medical degree, but decided to be a telly presenter instead.
Maybe Restore Britain could actually win this.
When is the election?
Writing with spray paint is a lot different than writing with a pen. However a few social media comments suggested that it was not done by Muslims. I counter that they are fucking retarded and can't write on a good day. Have you seen how ugly the graffiti they leave around town centres is?
