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...
Ordinarily I would laugh at you for having no constitution to reign in your little penal island.

But that yellow crinkly paper did fuck all for us.
 
Ped Xing said:
Ordinarily I would laugh at you for having no constitution to reign in your little penal island.

But that yellow crinkly paper did fuck all for us.
Click to expand...

It has, though. It doesn't stop overreaching cops or incompetent or malicious prosecutors entirely, but on Cuck Island, the highest court Count Dankula could ask said what was done to him was completely legal there.

There is nothing remotely similar in the United States. The Supreme Court, whenever it addresses these issues, shoots down garbage cases like that every time it sees them.
 
AnOminous said:
It has, though. It doesn't stop overreaching cops or incompetent or malicious prosecutors entirely, but on Cuck Island, the highest court Count Dankula could ask said what was done to him was completely legal there.

There is nothing remotely similar in the United States. The Supreme Court, whenever it addresses these issues, shoots down garbage cases like that every time it sees them.
Click to expand...

That is because Europe as a continent has never really had any absolute right to freedom of expression in the same way that burgerland has. Even the much vaunted ECHR with its crowing about protecting human rights and so forth still effectively has only one absolute right and that is a ban on torture by the State. Everything else can be stomped all over inasmuch as it is necessary and proportionate. But while your case about how your article 10 rights are stomped by a conviction for posting wrongthink on social media is wending its way through the Courts, you are still fined or imprisoned, and because necessity and proportionality are ambiguous concepts there's little scope for judges at first instance to be able to chuck cases like Dankula's early on. Justice delayed is justice denied and so forth.

(Also, Dankula was convicted in Scotland and Scots law is a fucking trash fire of awfulness. There's a reason that Jolyon Maugham and his anti-Brexit lawfare primarily went ahead in Scotland because he knew that their Courts would be more sympathetic to that sort of thing.)
 
Ginger Piglet said:
That is because Europe as a continent has never really had any absolute right to freedom of expression in the same way that burgerland has. Even the much vaunted ECHR with its crowing about protecting human rights and so forth still effectively has only one absolute right and that is a ban on torture by the State. Everything else can be stomped all over inasmuch as it is necessary and proportionate.
Click to expand...

I'm also quite simply not impressed with how weakly it's worded in the first place even with the other "lol none of your rights matter if something is more important because we arbitrarily say so at any time" escape clauses.

Clause 1 giveth:

Article 10 – Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
Click to expand...

And Clause 2 taketh away:

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Click to expand...

All the First Amendment does is starkly state what the government is forbidden to do:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

This is just much better even if case law has taken away some of this, too.

Article 10 is pure trash and nearly meaningless in the form that it's in. It just means whatever they think today and on Thursday it could be anything else.

That said, that's the EU, which the UK is leaving. The UK's own case law is much better as constitutionalism than the garbage that comes out of the EU and the UK would be better, at least from a freedom of speech but probably from other standpoints as well, to continue with the common law tradition spanning centuries until now.
 
AnOminous said:
That said, that's the EU, which the UK is leaving.
Click to expand...

Afraid not. The ECHR is separate to the UK and the Human Rights Act 1998 basically transcribed the text of the ECHR into national law because fuck you.

The Human Rights Act needs reworking. It really is a shitshow. Mealy mouthed mess of legislation. Then again, its intent was arguably to restrict human rights by giving the State something that can be written round or pointed to as an abdication of responsibility. This is why you have messes like Dankula on one hand and the inability to deport foreign criminals because their right to a family life might be infringed.

Speaking of which, while everyone's been distracted with the plague, the Supreme Court has come out the woodwork to say that extraditing the ISIS Beatles to the US is unlawful because they might face execution and it would infringe their human rights.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-52034646

I don't see what the problem is, frankly. Yes, our extradition treaty with the US is flawed because it makes it harder for us to extradite US citizens charged with offences here (Anne Sacoolas the vehicular homicidaire springs to mind) but to be fair my understanding of the US death penalty is that it takes bloody ages to get someone from the Court to the needle because of the layers of mandatory appeals and reviews and so forth before the execution warrant can be given and signed. Hence you have condemned prisoners sitting on death row for decades in some cases. I honestly think that the mental anguish of spending years of uncertainty as to whether they'll meet the 72 Virginians or not in some shitty concrete box is justified, and then giving them the grand prize of the rest of their life in that box would be more punishment than a quick martyrdom.
 
AnOminous said:
It has, though. It doesn't stop overreaching cops or incompetent or malicious prosecutors entirely, but on Cuck Island, the highest court Count Dankula could ask said what was done to him was completely legal there.
Click to expand...

Actually it's worse than that, Dankula was convicted in Sheriff Court, which is below the High Court which would deal with serious criminal or civil cases (with a jury). Dankula was then refused leave to appeal, withe the reason stated that his offence was so clear cut.

In reality what most likely happened, was there was a backroom agreement that the High Court and Court of Session didn't want to have to rule on it, and make the entire Scottish legal system into any more of a worldwide laughing stock than it already was.

Something that was barely reported was that the Judge had a go at Dankula's legal team in his closing remarks, because unlike most UK solicitors they didn't just put on a bit of theatre to keep their client and most importantly the Judge happy, they actually fought the charge.
 
Can someone outline to me the meaningful differences between Scots law and the rest of the UK's law?
From what I remember, It's more fair (Stupid shit nicola added notwithstanding) with better laws on divorce and rape trials and dankula would have had exactly the same outcome had he been tried in the rest of the uk.
 
Coolio55 said:
Can someone outline to me the meaningful differences between Scots law and the rest of the UK's law?
From what I remember, It's more fair (Stupid shit nicola added notwithstanding) with better laws on divorce and rape trials and dankula would have had exactly the same outcome had he been tried in the rest of the uk.
Click to expand...

In Scotland you can be arrested for carrying a fucking potato peeler under its offensive weapons act. In fact someone was

D4F8E38F-2ED3-4FDF-A686-F00C2C771C8D.png

Rebuild Hadrians wall now!
 
Inquisitor_BadAss said:
In Scotland you can be arrested for carrying a fucking potato peeler under its offensive weapons act. In fact someone was

View attachment 1203747

Rebuild Hadrians wall now!
Click to expand...
Uh huh. That'll get you done in the rest of the UK too. (There are no specific differences in the Offensive Weapons act in Scotland except relating to antique guns)
Talking about knives, in Scotland you only have to be 16 to buy "Domestic" knives (Kitchen knives etc.) instead of 18 everywhere else.
 
Ginger Piglet said:
Afraid not. The ECHR is separate to the UK and the Human Rights Act 1998 basically transcribed the text of the ECHR into national law because fuck you.

The Human Rights Act needs reworking. It really is a shitshow. Mealy mouthed mess of legislation. Then again, its intent was arguably to restrict human rights by giving the State something that can be written round or pointed to as an abdication of responsibility. This is why you have messes like Dankula on one hand and the inability to deport foreign criminals because their right to a family life might be infringed.

Speaking of which, while everyone's been distracted with the plague, the Supreme Court has come out the woodwork to say that extraditing the ISIS Beatles to the US is unlawful because they might face execution and it would infringe their human rights.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-52034646

I don't see what the problem is, frankly. Yes, our extradition treaty with the US is flawed because it makes it harder for us to extradite US citizens charged with offences here (Anne Sacoolas the vehicular homicidaire springs to mind) but to be fair my understanding of the US death penalty is that it takes bloody ages to get someone from the Court to the needle because of the layers of mandatory appeals and reviews and so forth before the execution warrant can be given and signed. Hence you have condemned prisoners sitting on death row for decades in some cases. I honestly think that the mental anguish of spending years of uncertainty as to whether they'll meet the 72 Virginians or not in some shitty concrete box is justified, and then giving them the grand prize of the rest of their life in that box would be more punishment than a quick martyrdom.
Click to expand...
HRA 1998...another Blairite creation. When in doubt, you can almost always trace any garbage back to him.
 
Slimy Time said:
HRA 1998...another Blairite creation. When in doubt, you can almost always trace any garbage back to him.
Click to expand...
As much as I hate Blair, the political landscape was fucked even before he was made prime minister.
The video nasties were fucking stupid and the criminal justice act was a direct succesor. (Notice how in all UK weapons laws they specifically ban "Ninja" weapons instead of them being under one of the other generic blanket bans). The telecommunications act 1984 was also stupid.
Dunblane also (((happened))) before Blair and it's very interesting how all communications between the UK and the UN relating to it have been sealed forever because apparently they can't use a marker to blank out the names of the victims' families.
 
Coolio55 said:
(Notice how in all UK weapons laws they specifically ban "Ninja" weapons instead of them being under one of the other generic blanket bans).
Click to expand...

Oh, that one drives me bonkers. Long, dangerous sword with straight blade? Legal. Long, dangerous sword with curved blade? Restricted - because that's a katana and that's a "ninja" weapon. Keep in mind this is the country that deleted a scene from the old TMNT movie where Michaelangelo swings around a string of sausages like nunchucks because it might turn British children into ninjas. And dubbed over the cartoon's theme song to make it Teenage Mutant HERO Turtles. It's like the whole Brutish Government got their entire education from Dr. McNinja comics and believed it.

I didn't know that about the Dunblaine documents being sealed. That's very interesting.
 
Ginger Piglet said:
Speaking of which, while everyone's been distracted with the plague, the Supreme Court has come out the woodwork to say that extraditing the ISIS Beatles to the US is unlawful because they might face execution and it would infringe their human rights.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-52034646

I don't see what the problem is, frankly.
Click to expand...

I don't either and I've never seen it result in any particular injustice. In the case of Gary McKinnon, that harmless autistic hacker, it would have served no just purpose to allow the feds in the U.S. to make some kind of monkey on a stick example of some guy whose main crime was embarrassing military idiots with shitty security. He caused no actual harm and would have been seriously harmed because autists would not fare in U.S. prison.

I'm glad that the whole idea of having prisons where rape and abuse of the most harmless and nonviolent of inmates is considered just a normal thing that is part of the punishment and if we can't fix that, we shouldn't expect more civilized countries to honor our extradition requests of utterly harmless lolcows like McKinnon.

And similarly, the death penalty is useless, convoluted, inhuman and honestly I see no reason why some death 20 years from now or at some ridiculously distant time after absurd legal proceedings is somehow more just than just locking someone up forever. Even if I were a fan of the death penalty I wouldn't see anything particularly wrong about refusing extradition, at least from countries that can be expected to actually punish the criminals. If it's Pakistan or some shit, flatten the prison they're holding them in but that's different.

Trig.Point said:
In reality what most likely happened, was there was a backroom agreement that the High Court and Court of Session didn't want to have to rule on it, and make the entire Scottish legal system into any more of a worldwide laughing stock than it already was.
Click to expand...

They seem to think people watching around the world will make such fine distinctions.

The world sees someone criminally prosecuted for a joke and views the courts there as an absolute joke. This will be remembered forever and is on their permanent record.
 
Coolio55 said:
As much as I hate Blair, the political landscape was fucked even before he was made prime minister.
The video nasties were fucking stupid and the criminal justice act was a direct succesor. (Notice how in all UK weapons laws they specifically ban "Ninja" weapons instead of them being under one of the other generic blanket bans). The telecommunications act 1984 was also stupid.
Dunblane also (((happened))) before Blair and it's very interesting how all communications between the UK and the UN relating to it have been sealed forever because apparently they can't use a marker to blank out the names of the victims' families.
Click to expand...

Blair build his career on things like that. In fact, you could argue that his defining moment was following the murder of James Bulger when he started shrieking about how society is unworthy of the name. That, Hungerford, Dunblane, and "halo" cases like that where he and his could virtue signal about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime while encouraging short sentences for lesser violent and acquisitive offences and fines and community punishments (short sentences are IMO completely pointless because they have no punitive value and no opportunity to engage in any meaningful rehabilitation; all prison sentences should be two years at the minimum and if you can't justify that come up with a suitably rigorous community sentence that is actually followed up.)
 
Ginger Piglet said:
Blair build his career on things like that. In fact, you could argue that his defining moment was following the murder of James Bulger when he started shrieking about how society is unworthy of the name.
Click to expand...

Blair was a ludicrously phony politician and makes American politicians like Bill Clinton look like models of sincerity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom