UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

https://news.sky.com/story/row-over-new-greggs-vegan-sausage-rolls-heats-up-11597679

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

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.

 

[Sieg1888]

I don't think the petition is going to get 3 million signatures in time.

Because if it did, we finally get the NEW choice of immigration and Israel first, or immigration and Israel first (but we swear we'll stop the boats, Goys!).

 

[6MillionCoofs]

>Can't legalise cannabis because it may (it won't) kill you.
>Legalises dying.
>

Canadian MAID counts for 4.6% of all deaths this year. In 2027, MAID will be offered to those with mental illness. Who defines mental illness? The same system who will give you MAID.

Worst thing is, what the mentally ill want change frequently. Even the ones that say they want to die frequently do not actually ever want to die. It’s always ‘i want to fie because no one is giving me the help they all say I need and I can’t take it wnymore’

In short, offering them death would undoubtedly come ynder abuse and break several laws.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

Worst thing is, what the mentally ill want change frequently. Even the ones that say they want to die frequently do not actually ever want to die. It’s always ‘i want to fie because no one is giving me the help they all say I need and I can’t take it wnymore’

In short, offering them death would undoubtedly come ynder abuse and break several laws.

Here's the rub; the mentally ill, by definition, cannot legally agree to anything, because they're mentally ill.
Who signs off the papers saying they can die? The parents who no longer want to tard wrangle, the siblings and children of the dementia-riddled, purse-clutching rich relatives and the Serial-killers-in-white-coats parading as Dr's who will sign their death warrant with ZERO oversight.

Mengele and Shipman would be licking their fucking chops right now.

 

[QE65]

Because if it did, we finally get the NEW choice of immigration and Israel first, or immigration and Israel first (but we swear we'll stop the boats, Goys!).

A reminder that these petitions rarely have any impact based on popularity alone. There was a petition to revoke Article 50 back in the Brexit days that got over 6 million votes but had zero impact. This one is likely to be no different.

The Wikipedia article lists the petitions by popularity if anyone is interested in similar examples.

 

[AssignedEva]

A reminder that these petitions rarely have any impact based on popularity alone. There was a petition to revoke Article 50 back in the Brexit days that got over 6 million votes but had zero impact. This one is likely to be no different.

The Wikipedia article lists the petitions by popularity if anyone is interested in similar examples.

They're just a pressure valve. The response from Government is always "thanks for the feedback, but no". If they get to the debate threshold, the Opposition might try and use them to score political points, but journalists usually only bother clipping PMQs for soundbites and the outcome is always "thanks for the feedback, but no". I can't think of a single petition that had any meaningful impact whatsoever, because there's nothing binding the Government to take them seriously.

 

[Chunky Salsa]

They're just a pressure valve. The response from Government is always "thanks for the feedback, but no". If they get to the debate threshold, the Opposition might try and use them to score political points, but journalists usually only bother clipping PMQs for soundbites and the outcome is always "thanks for the feedback, but no". I can't think of a single petition that had any meaningful impact whatsoever, because there's nothing binding the Government to take them seriously.

There are only two actual ways to make the government stop doing something.
1) Fuck with their money
2) Fuck with their power.

Normal people cannot do either. If everyone who signed this petition instead went and refused to pay taxes, or smashes a traffic camera, or even just marched around outside Downing Street calling the PM a cunt, it would have maybe done something.

 

[Otterly]

There are only two actual ways to make the government stop doing something.

Well, there is a third, but {metposting}

 

[QE65]

Some good news at last. A decision has finally been made in parliament, with an indefinite ban on the prescription of puberty blockers to minors.

“The Cass review made it clear that there is not enough evidence about the long-term effects of using puberty blockers to treat gender incongruence to know whether they are safe or beneficial. That evidence should have been established before they were ever prescribed for that purpose. It is a scandal that medicine was given to vulnerable young children, without proof that it was safe or effective, or that it had gone through the rigorous safeguards of a clinical trial.”
— Wes Streeting.

Major respect to Streeting for this. One of the good ones.

 

[6MillionCoofs]

1) Fuck with their money
2) Fuck with their power.

We can do both. We just never do. There’s a reason why everyone is like ‘man, I wish someone would come along and do something different.’

 

[EddyRooney]

Plans to fundamentally alter the British justice system

The backlog in courts handling the most serious crimes in England and Wales has reached an unprecedented high and is likely to rise further still.
Some 73,000 trials were unheard at the end of September, around twice the figure in 2019.
In some cases, victims reporting serious crimes such as rape won't see suspects tried for four years.
The figures come as ministers announce a major courts review which could lead to the end of jury trials for many crimes.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) figures reveal that the Crown Court backlog at the end of September was up 10% in a year.
While there are signs that judges and courts dealing with the most serious crimes have been able deal with cases more quickly, the backlog is growing because the police and prosecutors are charging more crimes than there is capacity to deal with.
A quarter of all trials listed in the three months to the end of September had to be pushed back. Delays can be caused by problems including too few prosecutors, defence lawyers, judges or available courtrooms.

Review to look at creation of intermediate courts​

The review of the future of criminal courts, announced alongside the figures, will see Sir Brian Leveson, a former top judge, look at the case for creating "intermediate courts" between the magistrates and judges in Crown Courts.
In 2001, the then-Labour government was urged in a similar review to introduce a middle tier of courts which would deal with a range of offences that are too complex for community magistrates, but not so serious that they should involve an expensive jury trial.
One idea is that a jury could be replaced in many middle-ranking cases by a single district judge and two community magistrates.
The MoJ also said that Sir Brian would consider whether magistrates should have a broader remit to deal with more cases, potentially including increasing their sentencing powers.
Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood said: "The scale of the Crown Court crisis inherited by this government is unprecedented. Despite the efforts of judges, lawyers and court staff, we simply cannot continue with the status quo.
"In many cases, victims are waiting years to see their perpetrator put before a judge, and we know for many victims, justice delayed is as good as justice denied.
"We owe it to victims to find bold, innovative approaches that will speed up justice, deliver safer streets and send a clear message to criminals that they will quickly face the consequences of their actions."
Sir Brian's report is expected to land on ministers' desks around the same time as a parallel review of sentencing of offenders.
If both reviews recommend major changes, and ministers accept those ideas, they would represent the most significant changes to the criminal justice system in a generation.
The Magistrates' Association has welcomed the review, saying that the 2001 proposals for an intermediate court had been "sensible ideas".
Mark Beattie, the association's chair, said: "Magistrates are highly trained, already deal with over 90 per cent of criminal cases and stand ready and willing to help in the recovery of the justice system, to ensure swifter justice for victims, witnesses and defendants."
But Mary Prior KC, chair of the Criminal Bar Association, which represents barristers who are central to Crown Court cases, said that the Leveson review - the second the judges has carried out in a decade - had to address how much cash was available for justice.
She said: "The announcement of yet another independent review of the justice system should include what that will cost from the limited justice budget and a clear understanding that it will not fix the current problems for the victims of crime, those accused of crime and the horrific delays in the Crown Court.
"Action and investment into the criminal courts system is needed now."



This is deeply, deeply worrying for a myriad of reasons.
Originally proposed under the Blair government ( alarm bells ringing yet ? ) - this suggests fundamental changes to the criminal justice system, altering the power balance within the system, increased magisterial influence, increased political influence and an obstruction to the right of a jury trial by one's peers.
This looks like the entrance to a really slippery slope. As with everything under Labour it's being proposed as a logical solution to a legitimate problem, but what are the underlying consequences of this reform ?
It looks to me like the usual insidious agenda is bubbling under the surface here - a constitutional reform that will diminish the individual's rights versus the state.
Theoretically this gives more power to the Lord Chief Justice, the person who appoints magistrates. The appointment of the Lord Chief Justice is made by His Majesty The King on the advice of the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor following the recommendation of an "independent" selection panel chaired by Helen Pitcher OBE, Chair of the Judicial Appointments Commission. So the person appointed by the Prime Minister appoints the magistrates, who will then decide the outcome of more trials......so further influence in the judicial system by the legislature.

This has made relatively minor news today, but could have far reaching consequences for all of us. One would almost think this was planned....release this whilst screaming headlines dominate about the poor little girl that was murdered.

 

[Mound Dweller]

Plans to fundamentally alter the British justice system

>Magistrates
>Highly trained
lol, lmao even. Magistrates are notorious dimwits because the 50 odd weirdo who actually volunteers for that stuff tends to be of a certain social phenotype.
All you have to do is reinstate the Ealdorman (me) and the horror will end.

 

[Chaos Theorist]

Anyone who says this should be pushed into the ovens for being retarded. Doubly so for using a term like boomer.
The 'anti-boomer' propaganda is pushed by governments to get the yewf and mid-life adults to want to kill their elderly, often well-off, relatives, which relieves the burden on the state.

First they came for the biddies and I said nothing because I wasn't one.
Then they came for the retirees and I said nothing because I wasn't one.
Then they came for me and everyone else was an inbred niggerpaki offspring and were too retarded to speak.

The majority of baby boomer pensioners are absolute knobheads in this country

 

[Rusty Metal Skull Gun]

I can't think of a single petition that had any meaningful impact whatsoever, because there's nothing binding the Government to take them seriously.

Probably the Chartists, but that's going back a bit. The road pricing petition of 2007 managed to kill that policy stone-dead.

If everyone who signed this petition instead went and refused to pay taxes

I keep e-mailing Payroll telling them that I don't want to pay income tax any more, but for some reason they never listen.

 

[ChefKiss]

I'll be the asshole and say I really don't care about foreigns dying. Nor would it bother me to send them back. Good on the ones that go back of their own choice; but they shouldn't be here anyway; they have no claim to come here, and I don't care if they all die. I get why they won't agree, but I also don't care about that either.

and I'll be the nice but reasonable person who says, I do care but not as much as I care about my own people. I'm happy to be giving and generous when we have plenty, the strong should help the weak and all that but when you're freezing grannies to death to save a few million while plowing billions into various foreign entities? No, fuck off, you're parasites and you're killing the host and if you don't care then why should anyone care about you?

 

[6MillionCoofs]

Plans to fundamentally alter the British justice system

Have they tried getting rid of the migrants?

 

[Marvin]

There are only two actual ways to make the government stop doing something.
1) Fuck with their money
2) Fuck with their power.

Normal people cannot do either. If everyone who signed this petition instead went and refused to pay taxes, or smashes a traffic camera, or even just marched around outside Downing Street calling the PM a cunt, it would have maybe done something.

You could always shoot them in the face.

 

[Chunky Salsa]

You could always shoot them in the face.

That's 2).

Hard to have power when you're dead.

 

[Marvin]

That's 2).

Hard to have power when you're dead.

If you're gonna make an omelet, you've gotta break some eggs.

 

[FedPostalService]

That's 2).

Hard to have power when you're dead.

Did Bike Chad make excuses like that?

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Rachel Reeves has announced (archive) that department budgets will now, as a matter of course, have to be submitted for scrutiny to a panel of "external experts" (read: mostly former banking executives). This comes less than a week after Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden suggested that the government should function "more like a startup", before recommending a "test-and-learn" approach to reforming public services.

Gee, it's starting to look to me like this "Plan for Change" is little more than a smokescreen for corporate-approved managerialism. I'm sure that's what everyone voted for, right guys?