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
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.
 
  • Informative
  • Horrifying
  • Like
Reactions: Glowing In The Streets, Elwood P. Dowd, Alrakkan and 16 others
Click to expand...
Chunky Salsa said:

Fucking instantly. Exactly as people said it would happen. The bill is the thin tip to let in the wedge of trying to convince the vulnerable in society to kill themselves. Inks barely even dry and they already want it made easier. Ghouls.
Click to expand...
Of course they do. It’s not just a slippery slope, it’s Teflon coated. ‘A panel of experts.’ Ffs who is an expert on killing people?
The WhatsApp messages show the total contempt for the public they’re supposed to serve. I don’t give a shit if they’re mocking dianne abbot, but to be bold enough to wish death on your constituents is despicable. All these people hate us.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Midwit, Howslans, -Jack- and 15 others
Otterly said:
Of course they do. It’s not just a slippery slope, it’s Teflon coated. ‘A panel of experts.’ Ffs who is an expert on killing people?
Click to expand...
Social workers and psychiatrists apparently.

Anyway, I think we could all do with something lighter. Let's have a look at the ballard of Speech Debelle
Mercury Prize-winning musician Speech Debelle has been ordered to pay Arts Council England nearly £10,000 in costs after claims by the former relationship manager of alleged harassment and persecution by ACE colleagues were judged to be groundless by an employment tribunal.

Debelle, real name Corynne Elliot, had claimed that a number of separate incidents of microaggressions, harassment and bullying led to work-related stress and anxiety and her eventual resignation from the role in August 2021.

But at a hearing in October 2023 a judge ruled in ACE’s favour, dismissing the claims as “unreasonable”.

Following an application by ACE to claim back some of the costs of the case from both Elliot and the legal firm that represented her – Graceland Solicitors – as there was “no reasonable basis” for the claims, employment judge Garry Smart ruled in the funding body’s favour.

Elliot has been ordered to pay ACE £9,870 in costs while the claim for costs against Graceland Solicitors was rejected.

​

Setting out his reasons for the decision, employment judge Smart said it was clear to the panel that Graceland advised Elliot that her claim was weak and she should withdraw it, and also highlighted the potential for costs consequences if she failed to withdraw it.

“Discrimination allegations are damaging to people emotionally, physically and reputationally. After all, any serious allegations are unpleasant and can result, even if the allegations has been disproven beyond any doubt, in the accused becoming stigmatised just as much as the accuser might be,” he said.

“Discrimination allegations suggest the individual accused is in some way immoral, which can be incredibly hurtful, upsetting and can result in real physical and financial harm for an individual.”

“Allegations of discrimination can result in people losing their jobs, livelihoods and personal relationships.

“It is therefore an exceptional case when a claimant brings discrimination claims knowing that they were not discrimination at the very time the events happened and before the claim was raised, which the claimant has done here.”

​

ACE, whose lawyers had previously said the costs claim was a “matter of integrity”, said it had been seeking £40,000 in costs – £20,000 each from Elliot and her legal firm.

Elliot told Arts Professional that during the hearing the legal firm that initially represented her offered to pay ACE £20,000 but the offer was refused because it would have involved no contribution from her, a claim ACE denies.

“There was some back and forth over telephone with one of the suggestions from ACE being that I pay as little as £1,000 and Graceland pay £19,000 which I declined,” Elliot said.

“Myself and [my] legal team made no offer of payment at all. Because I was not willing to pay anything, which would have been an act of submission on my behalf, they refused the offer.



“This [is] a shameful display of why ACE care only about their public image and do not take their ‘responsibility as custodians of taxpayers’ money seriously, as they have previously claimed.

“This is further evidence of the campaign against me as someone who spoke up.”

She added that she stands by her claims.

“Racism cases are notoriously difficult to prove, especially against a large institution like ACE with a very expensive and aggressive legal team,” she said.

“Despite the case not going as I had wished, I hope more people will come forward and that ACE actually listens and learns in order to make their working environment less harmful for their employees, as well as ensuring that the public funding they are provided is fairly distributed without bias.”

An ACE spokesperson said: “The unanimous judgment of the tribunal was that the claims against Arts Council England should be dismissed, and that Arts Council England staff acted professionally and appropriately.”

“We take our responsibility as custodians of taxpayers’ money seriously and therefore, based on the exceptional comments of the judge on the merits of Arts Council England’s case as the claimant, we sought to recover a proportion of our legal costs, both from the litigant, and from the firm of solicitors who initially represented her.

“The above account [of discussions in relation to settling the costs claim] is inaccurate, and does not reflect conversations that were had at the time.”
Click to expand...
Sounds fairly dull right? Oh no, the reason behind this case, that she blames on racism, is because she was using a company card for her own convenience.
A Mercury Prize-winning rapper has been ordered to pay Arts Council England £10,000 after suing them for race discrimination - because they asked her to repay them for takeaways she bought on her work card.
Corynne Elliot, known as Speech Debelle, claimed the organisation was 'bugging' her for asking for four months' worth of food and taxi journeys she had paid for with a procurement card.
As part of her case, the 41-year-old also told an employment tribunal that being asked to talk about her knowledge of hip-hop culture was harassment.
After her case was dismissed, the charity sought to recover their legal costs from Miss Elliot and her solicitors, saying it could have been up to £40,000.
In June this year, she setup a fundraiser to 'raise awareness and case costs' which only saw 60 people donate £1,273 out of the £5,000 goal.
However, she has now been ordered to pay £9,870 with an employment judge declaring that bringing these discrimination allegations was 'dreadful and unacceptable' behaviour.
EJ Garry Smart said: 'Discrimination allegations are damaging to people emotionally, physically and reputationally, after all, any serious allegations are unpleasant and can result, even if the allegations have been disproven beyond any doubt, in the accused becoming stigmatised just as much as the accuser might be.'
Miss Elliot won the Mercury Prize in 2009 for her debut album, Speech Therapy, and a remix of the lead single 'Spinnin' was an official anthem for the London 2012 Olympics.

Since then she has released two more critically acclaimed albums, Freedom of Speech and Tantil Before I Breathe as well as appearing on Celebrity Masterchef.

The tribunal, held in central London, heard that Miss Elliot started working for Arts Council England as a relationship manager in August 2017.

It was there that she started the Black Influencers Masterclass and Programme which helped artists of colour to access funding.

In December 2020 the charity began trying to recover money from Miss Elliot for unauthorised use of her procurement card.

This was due to the fact that over a period of four months she had used the work card to pay for takeaways, taxi journeys and a driving license renewal, the tribunal heard - but she claimed she had been using the wrong card in her Apple Pay wallet.

She tried to claim the discrimination began in late 2019, after her performance at work had been questioned, but an internal grievance process did not uphold her claims.

In November 2019 when a senior manager, Claire Toogood, asked to meet with Miss Elliot about some time critical work she had not done.

At the time, the rapper was speaking to another relationship manager when Ms Toogood 'politely interrupted' their conversation to tell the rapper she was ready to meet - and Miss Elliot asked for 10 minutes.

Then, during the meeting Miss Elliot tried to get another colleague to write the letters and when Ms Toogood said this was not possible she laughed at her before 'abruptly' leaving the meeting.

Miss Elliot told the tribunal that Ms Toogood's behaviour was an example of 'violence against diverse people' and that she had been 'hostile and angry' during the meeting.

However, EJ Smart concluded that the interaction had nothing to do with race and that Miss Elliot 'did not genuinely believe' this was discrimination.

The rapper also claimed that her line manager, Huey Walker, knew about wider racism concerns at the arts organisation and did nothing about them.

This was based on text messages in 2019 between Mr Walker, who is mixed race, and Natalie Pryce who told him that she had heard there was a 'division' in the music team between black and white employees and that people thought she was 'doing no work'.

Mr Walker said they would discuss it tomorrow and Ms Pryce responded that it was 'sad' they had to work harder to 'appease the white members of the team'.

EJ Smart found that Miss Elliot did not know if any action had or had not been taken after these messages and that they were not direct discrimination against the rapper.

Two years later, in 2021, Miss Elliot alleges that during a one to one meeting Mr Walker told her she needed to 'prove her worth' to employees who believed 'black staff don't work'.

She argued that this was Mr Walker conducting racism 'on behalf of' Arts Council England.

However, he said there was a discussion about Miss Elliot proving herself but that it had nothing to do with race.

EJ Smart said he was 'not persuaded' that Mr Walker had said 'black staff don't work' and that this conversation could not be linked to the 2019 comments.

Miss Elliot also claimed that she had been harassed when her co-worker, Chole Brooks, said at a 2018 away day that she was 'disappointed' Miss Elliot wasn't there because she wanted to learn more about hip-hop music and culture.

The rapper told the tribunal that she viewed this as being asked to do more work because of her race.

The tribunal found this was not a 'reasonable' view because it was not a requirement to do more work just an 'expression of desire' to talk to Miss Elliot about her specialism.

Lastly, she also complained about an 'insulting and unsolicited' email sent while she was on sick leave, the way her occupational health assessments were handled and a lack of support from her manager.

These were all dismissed by the tribunal.

In August 2021 Miss Elliot resigned from Arts Council England and her employment ended the following month.

An Arts Council England spokesperson said: 'The unanimous judgment of the tribunal was that the claims against Arts Council England should be dismissed, and that Arts Council England staff acted professionally and appropriately.

'We take our responsibility as custodians of taxpayers' money seriously and therefore, based on the exceptional comments of the judge on the merits of Arts Council England's case as the claimant, we sought to recover a proportion of legal costs.'
Click to expand...
Also archiving an Independent article where they swallow everything she sprouts with the credulity of children.
 
  • Lunacy
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: GloJojo, Howslans, ApeBass and 3 others
claimed the organisation was 'bugging' her for asking for four months' worth of food and taxi journeys she had paid for with a procurement card.
These people get work credit cards actually paid by work?? Us plebs have to have it linked to our own accounts and claim the expenses back.,,
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: GloJojo, Midwit, Howslans and 5 others
News in the I paper today that MPs pay may go up to 94k plus expenses. I'm not even allowed to write to mine any more for telling them that there are no legitimate refugees or asylum seekers in this country.

Ahh, Labour. Whose reaction to facts they dislike has always been ramming their fingers in their ears and pretending they don't exist. Not saying the Tories are any better but my one down south was a good sort who would make time for anyone so long as there were no threats or shouting involved.

We get what we deserve from public servants and what we've got is absolute dreck, in my case a persistent failure, parachuted in with no connection to the local area. I can only assume they're connected to someone somehow and we're owed a favour.
 
  • Like
  • Horrifying
  • Informative
Reactions: Midwit, Howslans, Amin Yasister and 8 others
Otterly said:
These people get work credit cards actually paid by work?? Us plebs have to have it linked to our own accounts and claim the expenses back.,,
Click to expand...
It's Arts Council England, they're a charity. The way you use it would make the large amount of cases like this one with charities much less common.
 
BongoMongo said:
Ahh, Labour. Whose reaction to facts they dislike has always been ramming their fingers in their ears and pretending they don't exist. Not saying the Tories are any better but my one down south was a good sort who would make time for anyone so long as there were no threats or shouting involved.

We get what we deserve from public servants and what we've got is absolute dreck, in my case a persistent failure, parachuted in with no connection to the local area. I can only assume they're connected to someone somehow and we're owed a favour.
Click to expand...
Tories run off of the "were sorry~" model of government and will at least acknowledge things when called out about it, if anything actually comes of that is a different story. Labour has always actively ignored the fact people despise them or do not want the policy their forcing in. Just look at Blair and Brown as an example (no specifics because I'm lazy).

Also when I take power and become the new warlord of the British isles, every public servant will be hung,
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: Vesperus, Howslans, Seventh Star and 7 others
To the surprise of no-one Sam Kerr beat the facts.
Chelsea striker Sam Kerr has been found not guilty of causing racially aggravated harassment, after calling a Metropolitan Police officer "stupid and white".
A jury at Kingston Crown Court cleared her in relation to an incident in Twickenham, south-west London, on 30 January 2023.
Ms Kerr, 31, said she was "antagonised" by officers after she was taken to a police station by a taxi driver following a dispute.
The Australian international, who made the comments to PC Stephen Lovell, did not deny using the words "stupid and white" but denied it amounted to a racial offence.
Ms Kerr was cleared by the jury after it deliberated for four hours.
She gave a thumbs-up to her legal team before leaving the courtroom with her fiancée, West Ham midfielder Kristie Mewis.
In a statement following the verdict, Ms Kerr thanked her supporters, family and friends, and said she could now "finally put this challenging period behind me".
"While I apologise for expressing myself poorly on what was a traumatic evening, I have always maintained that I did not intend to insult or harm anyone and I am thankful that the jury unanimously agreed.
"I am fully focused on getting back on to the pitch and look forward to an exciting year ahead for me and my family."


The trial heard Ms Kerr and Ms Mewis had been out drinking when they were driven to Twickenham Police Station by a taxi driver who complained that they had refused to pay clean-up costs after one of them was sick and that one of them had smashed the vehicle's rear window.
After the verdict, Judge Peter Lodder KC said: "I take the view her own behaviour contributed significantly to the bringing of this allegation.
"I don't go behind the jury's verdict but that has a significant bearing on the question of costs."

During the trial, Ms Kerr said she regretted the way she expressed herself but added: "I feel the message was still relevant".
She denied using whiteness as an insult and claimed: "I believed it was him using his power and privilege over me because he was accusing me of being something I'm not.
"I was trying to express that due to the power and privilege they had, they would never have to understand what we had just gone through and the fear we were having for our lives."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9d5nw4l41vo
It can now be reported that Ms Kerr's legal team attempted to get the case thrown out at a preliminary hearing, arguing there had been an abuse of process by crown prosecutors.
Ms Kerr's lawyer Grace Forbes said the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had violated its own guidance, adding that a "loophole" in the victims' right of review scheme was used to justify prosecution proceedings a year after the alleged offence.
During the trial, it was put to PC Lovell that he only provided a statement alleging that Ms Kerr's comments had caused "alarm or harassment" after that decision.
In his first statement to the CPS, the officer made no mention of the "stupid and white" comment having an impact on him, the jury was told.
A second statement from PC Lovell was provided in December 2023, mentioning the alleged impact.
He read a section of the statement to the court, which said the comments made him "shocked, upset, and (left) me feeling humiliated".
The charge was authorised later in December 2023, almost a year after the incident.
Click to expand...
 
  • Lunacy
Reactions: GloJojo, Hoplixe, Howslans and 2 others
It's really not unusual for charges in the UK to be levied for crimes that aren't seen as urgent much further down the line. Either years after they took place, unless the specific crime has a limitation of proceedings on it, or adding it on while dealing with a more serious or easily proven allegation. Things can take years to get to trial in the UK, unless of course you're a facist who has upset dearest leader and true son of the red dawn.

Crimes against non-persons...Sorry, I mean "People the mob don't care about" or "People who are expected to take it" like Police usually take even longer.

I'd wager that if "It happened a year ago" was a way to get out of being charged, 90-95% of offences would never make it to trial. Her defense is literally nonsensical, especially when the current regime acknowledges the courts are overrun and can't keep up.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Midwit, Otterly, Hoplixe and 3 others
Karen of Human Resources said:
I'd wager that if "It happened a year ago" was a way to get out of being charged, 90-95% of offences would never make it to trial. Her defense is literally nonsensical, especially when the current regime acknowledges the courts are overrun and can't keep up.
Click to expand...
There was also the fact that originally she was due to get charged for the damages to the taxi but eventually paid for it. Likely the police saw minimal need to do her for anything else till that was sorted.

It's a court approved "this is acceptable because of who the offender is" but given it was a jury trial there's a finite degree to which I can get angry at the system. If a jury wants to reward an entitled footballer acting out while pissed then so be it.
 
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: Hoplixe, Amin Yasister and Karen of Human Resources
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back