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.
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...
Yeah.... I'd rather not have even a tiny thought in the back of the doctor's head "Well if I can't save this guy, we can save 3 people in ICU with his organs" or whatever.

Organ donation should always be opt-in. It's fucking mine.
 
Ineedahero said:
Wonderful, this is the kind of next level shit I expect from the scifi dystopia of 2018. No longer content to merely work and tax you to death, the British government now demands your body after you die! ALL IS GIVEN TO THE STATE You might have thought to yourself one lonely night, how nice it will be, to die, and finally be rid of these authoritarian, twitter obsessed, Muslim pedophile ring enabling, chickenshit cunts - but not in England! In England you'll never be free, first they'll take your organs for transplants and then they'll take them for medical research and police investigations and then they'll demand to know why you won't sign up, coffins are really expensive anyways and what do you care, it's not like you're going to use it.
Click to expand...

I mean, you can always opt out. Nobody is forcing anyone to donate their organs; if you’re opposed to it all you need to do is mark a checkbox saying so. If you’re really that passionate about keeping your organs after death, you can take the time to mark a box.

I know people are worried about dystopian organ stealing (which is a valid concern) but several other countries have introduced the opt out instead of opt in model and things seem to be fine.
 
Cosmos said:
I mean, you can always opt out. Nobody is forcing anyone to donate their organs; if you’re opposed to it all you need to do is mark a checkbox saying so. If you’re really that passionate about keeping your organs after death, you can take the time to mark a box.

I know people are worried about dystopian organ stealing (which is a valid concern) but several other countries have introduced the opt out instead of opt in model and things seem to be fine.
Click to expand...
The problem is, now the onus is on the patient of their family to prove they weren't an organ donor, rather than the other way around. The default assumption would be that the person is an organ donor. So any 'back of the mind' stuff happens regardless of the individual patient having opted out or not.

Right now, they have to check, is this person an organ donor? If we don't see proof they are, then they aren't.
 
I'm registering (when it's introduced) to opt out myself and my children. Husband is already opted-in on the existing system.

It will still be wise to let your relatives know of your wishes.
 
Corbin Dallas Multipass said:
The problem is, now the onus is on the patient of their family to prove they weren't an organ donor, rather than the other way around. The default assumption would be that the person is an organ donor. So any 'back of the mind' stuff happens regardless of the individual patient having opted out or not.

Right now, they have to check, is this person an organ donor? If we don't see proof they are, then they aren't.
Click to expand...

The NHS has a centralised database system with the records of every registered patient in the UK, which can be accessed at all NHS hospitals/general practices in the country - in fact pretty much all the computers in the NHS are connected to it. All it would take is for the patient to contact the NHS (usually through their GP) to opt out, and it'll be updated on the records nationwide.

In the event of a death on of the first things the authorities would do is look at the medical records, so as to check if the deceased is eligible to be a donor (or if they're registered). This does of course rely on people opting out in their lifetime, so the real difficulty would be for those that didn't want to be a donor but for some reason or another never got the chance to opt out whilst they were alive.
 
This combined with the NHS is a gateway to unintended consequences. You have now incentivized the NHS to make the threshold of death in the ER a grayer fuzzier line in order to benefit more patients. It will lead to deliberately diminished levels of care for the critically injured in the ER, in order to fascilitate harvesting more resources for others. This is no longer a gift you willingly give, but something the State forcefully takes literally as you sit on the threshold of death. It gives the state and the Nationalized Medical system the calculation, "well this ones death benefits 3-5 other people". You are now nothing more than livestock to your government Brit's, no matter how noble or altruistic it looks on paper.
 
Aristophanes said:
The NHS has a centralised database system with the records of every registered patient in the UK, which can be accessed at all NHS hospitals/general practices in the country - in fact pretty much all the computers in the NHS are connected to it. All it would take is for the patient to contact the NHS (usually through their GP) to opt out, and it'll be updated on the records nationwide.

In the event of a death on of the first things the authorities would do is look at the medical records, so as to check if the deceased is eligible to be a donor (or if they're registered). This does of course rely on people opting out in their lifetime, so the real difficulty would be for those that didn't want to be a donor but for some reason or another never got the chance to opt out whilst they were alive.
Click to expand...
That's all nice and good. But the doctor attempting the double bypass might not have read that, as the patient's donor status is not yet relevant. But, since the default is organ donation, that's always in the back of the doctor's mind.

I'm not worried that my organs might get taken from me when I'm dead. I really don't care at that point. My worry is more that someone might be incentivized not to try their damnedest to keep me alive.

Sure, after I'm dead they find out I'm not a donor. Doesn't do me any good now though.

EDIT: Ninjad by someone saying what I'm trying to say more clearly. Read what he said instead, it's better.
 
Enough autism about how people will be treated in Accident and Emergency.

The decisions about what desperate measures will be taken to treat and resuscitate individuals are taken by their doctors, who do NOT go and consult their records or anyone else about their feelings about organ donation until after they have confirmed brain death.

The doctors in A&E have at this point absolutely no way of knowing whether your relatives will consent to cadaver donation, and they also don't care. The doctors treating you, a dying person, are completely different doctors from those who are involved in the transplant service and those who treat patients in need of transplant. The transplant service is set up so that donors and recipients do not find out each other's identities before or after transplant.

No doctor treating the seriously injured has any skin in the game. To suggest their treatment decisions are being influenced by a nebulous awareness of the existence of transplant patients is both desperately naive and divorced from reality. It is an outright accusation that no doctor has any form of ethics in their treatment of patients and for... some unexplanable reason, want to play organ swaps with strangers. NHS doctors are on a strict salary scale. Nothing you can do at work improves your pay. There is not some sort of "bonus" for having your patients donate.

The transplant service is a nationwide service to both increase the likelihood of matches, maximise the availability of organs, and directly to prevent the madder suggestions here that "bureaucrats" would somehow wish more patients to die to.... bring down the transplant waiting list or whatever the suggestion is. Organs that are donated by the family of a deceased patient in NHS Trust A can end up travelling to a recipient in NHS Trust B, C or D. NHS Trust A does not get any special payments, headpats or anything else for that. These organs do not affect your own waiting list in any meaningful way even if they do stay within the Trust, because transplant waiting times are not measured as a performance metric for obvious fucking reasons.

The UK transplant service bleeds money, is chronically short of organs because arseholes like me refuse to consider donation, and most people on the lists die before an organ match shows up. The lists are compiled strictly in order of clinical need. No amount of money, lifestyle factors, or anything else will get you moved up or down that list.

The idea that this endeavour is in any way equivalent to some sort of Logan's Run communist organ harvesting scheme is worthy of appearing on the David Icke Forums. The Farms are supposed to do better.
 
Fork Cartel said:
They might get utilitarian now they know it's the default is the point
Click to expand...

why would they do that?

A doctor's ethical and legal duty is to their patient, in front of them, right now, not to some hypothetical group of potential transplant patients. They do not have the ethical or legal framework to take a notion to distribute organs. They have a very clear ethical and legal duty to do everything possible and appropriate to care for and protect the life of the patient they are treating.
 
Fareal said:
why would they do that?

A doctor's ethical and legal duty is to their patient, in front of them, right now, not to some hypothetical group of potential transplant patients. They do not have the ethical or legal framework to take a notion to distribute organs. They have a very clear ethical and legal duty to do everything possible and appropriate to care for and protect the life of the patient they are treating.
Click to expand...

On paper, sure, you're right.
In practice, this is the same NHS that's had organ-harvesting scandals linked in this thread, and recently had a couple high-profile cases where they took parents to court to stop them from getting treatment for their children, because they determined that dying was in the patient's best interests. You can't expect the exercise of state power to just plug into something like medicine without consequences (for a less britbongy example, look at Medicaid billing practices. Good lord are those fucked up.)
 
Krokodil Overdose said:
On paper, sure, you're right.
In practice, this is the same NHS that's had organ-harvesting scandals linked in this thread, and recently had a couple high-profile cases where they took parents to court to stop them from getting treatment for their children, because they determined that dying was in the patient's best interests. You can't expect the exercise of state power to just plug into something like medicine without consequences (for a less britbongy example, look at Medicaid billing practices. Good lord are those fucked up.)
Click to expand...
Sorry, your real life actual example is irrelevant, UK doctors don't have subconsciousness and are perfectly ethical at all times.

But being less sarcastic, this exactly. Not only would it happen, it already does.
 
The Home Office has refused asylum to a Christian convert by quoting Bible passages which it says prove Christianity is not a peaceful religion.

The Iranian national, who claimed asylum in 2016, was told passages in the Bible were “inconsistent” with his claim to have converted to Christianity after discovering it was a “peaceful” faith.

The refusal letter from the department states the book of Revelations – the final book of the Bible – is “filled with imagery of revenge, destruction, death and violence”, and cites six excerpts from it.

It then states: “These examples are inconsistent with your claim that you converted to Christianity after discovering it is a ‘peaceful’ religion, as opposed to Islam which contains violence, rage and revenge.”

When contacted by The Independent, the Home Office said the letter was “not in accordance” with its policy approach to claims based on religious persecution, and said it was working to improve the training provided to decision-makers on religious conversion.

Lawyers and campaigners said the case demonstrated a “distortion of logic” and a “reckless” approach to asylum seekers’ lives, stemming from a tendency by the department to “come up with any reason they can to refuse” cases.

Nathan Stevens, the asylum seeker’s caseworker, tweeted: “I’ve seen a lot over the years, but even I was genuinely shocked to read this unbelievably offensive diatribe being used to justify a refusal of asylum.

“Whatever your views on faith, how can a government official arbitrarily pick bits out of a holy book and then use them to trash someone’s heartfelt reason for coming to a personal decision to follow another faith?”

The latest immigration statistics reveal an increase in the number of incorrect asylum refusals, with successful appeals against Home Office decisions up 5 per cent since 2015-16, now standing at 45 per cent of all of those that go to tribunal.

Legal expert Conor James McKinney, deputy editor of website Free Movement, said the case was a symptom of the Home Office’s tendency to “come up with any reason they can to refuse asylum”.

“You can see from the text of the letter that the writer is trying to pick holes in the asylum seeker’s account of their conversion to Christianity and using the Bible verses as a tool to do that,” he said.

“The Home Office is notorious for coming up with any reason they can to refuse asylum and this looks like a particularly creative example, but not necessarily a systemic outbreak of anti-Christian sentiment in the department.”

Sarah Teather, director of the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) in the UK, said the case was a “particularly outrageous example of the reckless and facetious approach of the Home Office to determining life and death asylum cases”.

She said JRS regularly encountered cases where asylum had been refused on “spurious grounds”, adding: “Some of these cases require more legal knowledge to recognise than this bizarre misquoting of the Bible, but as this instance gains public attention, we need to remember it reflects a systematic problem and a deeper mindset of disbelief, and is not just an anomaly that can be explained away.”

Stephen Evans, chief executive of the National Secular Society, meanwhile branded it “wholly inappropriate” for the Home Office to use “theological justifications for refusing asylum applications”.

He added: “Decisions on the merits of an asylum appeal should be based on an assessment of the facts at hand – and not on the state’s interpretation of any given religion. It’s not the role of the Home Office to play theologian.”

A Home Office spokesperson said: “This letter is not in accordance with our policy approach to claims based on religious persecution, including conversions to a particular faith.

“We continue to work closely with key partners, including the All-Party Parliamentary Group on International Freedom of religion and a range of faith groups, to improve our policy guidance and training provided to asylum decision-makers so that we approach claims involving religious conversion in the appropriate way.”
Click to expand...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ylum-refused-bible-not-peaceful-a8832026.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom