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.

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.
 
I'm not going to bother posting the many, many articles across all media about the poor refugees freezing in tents in Manchester since the council just won its bid to be allowed to move them on. I am however going to archive this BBC article which shows they couldn't find a single woman to interview.

And in totally unrelated news why don't we do free cash for the homeless in Manchester? Oh sorry, UBI.
Academics and campaigners have claimed a new basic income pilot in Greater Manchester could “end absolute poverty” in the city region, starting with people experiencing homelessness – if it gets the green light from mayor Andy Burnham.
UBI Lab Network and Northumbria University experts have proposed a new basic income pilot for Greater Manchester. The model lays out how a £1,600 a month payment to create an income floor nobody could fall below would boost wellbeing, send poverty rates plummeting and tackle unemployment.
The group sent the proposal to Burnham on Monday (10 February) after he signalled his intention to launch a basic income in the region in his manifesto for re-election last year. The Greater Manchester mayor has also previously pledged to make the case for a basic income with the Treasury.
Alison Hawdale, co-founder of UBI Lab Manchester, told the Big Issue that Manchester’s devolution deal and the “imagination” of the city makes it the perfect place to develop the idea.
Greater Manchester is a proud and dynamic part of the world, and for hundreds of years its famously creative citizens have shown themselves to be resilient, resourceful and forward-thinking,” added Hawdale.
“But we have chronic problems around poverty, homelessness, mental health and crime which have not gone away, despite decades of action from local and national government, community groups and business. It’s time to try something new.”


A universal basic income has proven unpopular in Westminster with critics arguing that it is expensive and does little to boost employment and the economic inactivity that Labour has been struggling to shift.
But the idea’s champions argue giving everyone a universal payment and using the tax system to recoup money could be a better alternative to a growing benefits bill.
The idea is untested at national scale but there are existing pilots in the UK.
The Welsh government is currently operating a two-year study with more than 500 care leavers while there was a proposed basic income pilot in East Finchley and Jarrow in London.
In both trials, participants earn £1,600 per a month with no strings attached while academics test what it means for their lives. Results from both trials are currently under wraps.

Meanwhile, the Scottish government has been developing a minimum income guarantee for some time. Academics argued that a basic income was more efficient than a minimum income guarantee as it is provided first then taxed rather than being topped up when peoples’ income falls below a threshold.
Basic income campaigners in Manchester have also looked to international examples to shape the proposal.
UBI Lab Manchester hosted an event with Mark Donovan, founder of the Denver Basic Income Project, last February. Donovan is currently running a pilot project in Denver involving homeless people, paying $10.8m (£8.7m) to over 800 people so far.
Donovan told attendees how the interim results of the pilot showed that homeless people receiving a regular and unconditional income were able to make significant positive changes to their lives, thanks to the financial security offered by the basic income.
“The time has been now for a long time,” Hawdale told the Big Issue.
“During Covid, we definitely pushed it because the idea of furlough is not that far from the idea of a basic income.
“Why it is gaining a lot of traction at the moment is because of AI. When I first came into this a few years ago to shout about ‘the robots are coming’ it didn’t get you anywhere, but since ChatGPT basically there has been an explosion of interest in there just might not be the jobs.”

Now campaigners want Greater Manchester to be the next test bed, starting with hundreds of people experiencing homelessness in the city region.
Campaigners hope the cash would help provide people the financial security that could provide a platform to turn their lives around.
The pilot would run over two years, and would see each individual participant – not household – receive £1,600 per month. The cost for this would be £7.68m for 200 recipients, or £3.84m for 100 recipients.
The experts said the costs to run a pilot could be raised through a combination of central government support, public donations, reallocated service funding from the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and support from philanthropic organisations.
They also hope this will convince Burnham, who has vowed to make the case for the idea with Keir Starmer’s government, to take the idea to the Treasury.
The Labour government has targeted a shift towards prevention in its bid to reduce homelessness. Ministers have said they will spend £1bn tackling homelessness and rough sleeping in the next year with a significant increase in spending on prevention.
Burnham has launched a “Housing First philosophy” in Greater Manchester, designed to use more preventative approaches to tackling homelessness and poverty as well as boosting wellbeing.
He wrote in his 2024 re-election manifesto: “The evidence from our Housing First pilot is that, if you set people up to succeed, the vast majority will and, in turn, that saves money on crisis provision in other public services.
“For this reason, we believe the logical next step, after the success of our Housing First pilot, is to bring forward a basic income pilot, as suggested by Compass. This would fit well with our new Live Well concept and would test whether a different, more preventative way of supporting people would lead to better use of public funds.”
The paper submitted to Burnham on Monday – titled Basic Income for Greater Manchester: Plans for a Feasible, Affordable and Popular Pilot – insisted a basic income could help further efforts to prevent people falling into crisis.
Campaigners previously met with the mayor to make the case for a basic income ahead of his re-election last year.
One of the report’s authors, Eliott Johnson, a vice chancellor’s fellow in public policy at Northumbria University, told the Big Issue that focusing on people experiencing homelessness in Manchester offers the chance to show a “proof of concept” for the idea.
But, ultimately, he sees the need for a basic income to be much more universal.
“I think in that post-pandemic, we have a complete sea change in opinion about what we need to provide everyday people,” said Johnson.
“Suddenly, people who never considered that they might have to rely on the welfare system were exposed to it. So we’re in a completely new world.
“I think one thing about Manchester and the devolution deal it has is that it enables quite significant progressive policy making potentially to be made. And I think Andy Burnham understands that.”


Then a quick screaming rant by Louis Chilton about JK Rowling. Always good the Independent gives a home to the insane.
Call it Harry Potter and the Cursed Casting Process. It has been nearly two years since Warner Bros announced the development of a lavish new TV series adapting JK Rowling’s fantasy novels, and there’s yet to be a single actor confirmed. This week, it was reported that John Lithgow (Dexter) is set to take on the role of Professor Dumbledore, the elderly wizard previously played on screen by the late Richard Harris, Michael Gambon, and, in the abortive prequel saga, Jude Law. Names such as I May Destroy You’s Paapa Essiedu have also been bandied around, reportedly in the running to play the oily Professor Snape. It’s easy to see why actors might be drawn to Harry Potter 2.0: it’s lucrative, high-profile work, a TV show that YouGov polling suggests four in 10 Britons will watch. But make no mistake: this new series should have every sensible actor running for the hills.
Even if you leave aside the biggest and most intractable reason actors should steer clear of Potter – namely, Rowling – there are countless grounds why signing on would be a dicey proposition. For one, the previous adaptation (the eight-part Potter film series, which ran from 2001 to 2011) was beloved by fans, and remains, for many, definitive. If you’re an actor cast as Snape, for instance, and Alan Rickman’s career-defining performance is your yardstick, it’s going to be impossible to measure up. That producers will be hoping Potter runs for seven seasons – one per book, each corresponding to a school year at Hogwarts – only makes the project less appealing; it is a major commitment for most of the cast, one that will define an entire chunk of their professional lives.
The main reason actors should be avoiding this new series, though, is a simple, moral one. Rowling, the creator of Harry Potter and an executive producer on the new show, has over the past few years devoted much of her time to sharing anti-transgender rhetoric on social media. She has become the de facto face of the anti-trans movement in Britain, and is, as a result, reviled by many trans people, queer people, and straight people with compassion for and awareness of the struggles facing the trans community. Several members of the Potter film cast, including Daniel Radcliffe and Emma Watson, have distanced themselves from Rowling’s views and affirmed their support for trans rights; the series offers the chance to reframe the legacy of Potter on screen with a cast whose very involvement will constitute a tacit endorsement of Rowling.
It’s worth noting that it isn’t just some purely symbolic problem. As well as using her considerable public platform to proliferate anti-trans views, Rowling has donated large sums of money to organisations seeking to restrict trans rights through legislative change. This TV series will be making Rowling, already roughly a billionaire, richer, and to work on this project is to be complicit in it. The older cast – actors such as Lithgow, was he indeed to take on the role of Dumbledore – will rightly shoulder the most criticism from LGBT+ circles. It is easier to make excuses for the younger cast members, the series promising as it does a huge amount of exposure, as well as what’s probably the biggest paycheck of their career. But it’s nonetheless a moral compromise, and, for many people outraged by Rowling, will tarnish their reputations going forward. Even on a practical level, the issue creates myriad complications: the ethics of the project will be discussed widely and repeatedly when the series comes out, and actors will face questions, criticisms and scrutiny for their involvement. Who wants that? (The “exposure”, too, is fickle and illusory: just look at the careers of Radcliffe, Watson and Rupert Grint – all of whom struggled to find their creative footing in the wake of Potter’s success.)
There’s another thing to consider. The original Harry Potter films featured a nearly entirely white cast. Rowling’s source material faced criticisms, too, on ethnic grounds, particularly concerning stereotyping in characters such as the explosion-loving Northern Irish student Seamus Finnigan, bookish Asian pupil Cho Chang – whose name, many have suggested, is a careless mashup of different origins – and the avaricious hook-nosed goblins running the banking system, which many have read as antisemitic. (Asked once on X (Twitter) whether there were in fact any Jewish students at Hogwarts, Rowling issued a much-mocked five-word reply: “Anthony Goldstein, Ravenclaw, Jewish wizard.”) Rowling and others have disputed some of these criticisms in the past, and the author has suggested that prominent characters such as Hermione were written without a specified racial identity. It’s almost certain that the new Harry Potter series will feature more diversity than the original, and will likely cast people of colour in some of the major previously white roles, as the stage show Harry Potter and the Cursed Child did when casting a Black actor as Hermione. But what this means, in practice, is that it will be actors of colour who are used as the face of the project, who will go out on press tours and are held to account for Rowling’s opinions.

It’s frankly rather ridiculous that a book series about the magical adventures of a boy wizard has become such a political minefield. Many of the people who watch this new series will be oblivious to the discourse around its creator, to the ways she is hated and feared by so many marginalised people in the UK. But that doesn’t make it any less real. It’s a minefield of Rowling’s own making, and it’ll be the cast who have to navigate their way through it.
 
I'm not going to bother posting the many, many articles across all media about the poor refugees freezing in tents in Manchester since the council just won its bid to be allowed to move them on. I am however going to archive this BBC article which shows they couldn't find a single woman to interview.
https://archive.ph/GEbpS
That BBC article, near the end, states:

"The hearing heard the camp had become a "revolving door" where new refugees moved in after previous residents were housed by authorities".

So are the authorities doing something or not something in housing the  deserters refugees?

Also, why is a Romanian a refugee?
 
That BBC article, near the end, states:

"The hearing heard the camp had become a "revolving door" where new refugees moved in after previous residents were housed by authorities".

So are the authorities doing something or not something in housing the  deserters refugees?

Also, why is a Romanian a refugee?
They're housing those they can but there's a finite amount of housing and an infinite number of invaders.

As to the Romanian guess it comes down to whatever NGO devised excuse was used.
 
I just got in from my 4 night shifts in a row. Saw a new series of Unforgotten on ITVX, thought, oh, will stick an episode on to unwind with my brew and fish finger butty. It shows a group of young, fighting age men in a container entering the UK illegally. Immediately binned it off and stuck on an episode of A Touch Of Frost instead.

Anything which shows or presents such behaviour in any way or manner other than condemning it can absolutely and categorically go fuck itself.
 
Maybe if you wanted to lose 3lb via a torrent of liquid shit?

Is The Vale pub still open in Glasgow? The one near the train station that's not Glasgow central? I had a good night in there once enjoying Sahara Nuts and a Guinness or three. I've not seen that particular bar snack sold anywhere else since.
No, in a horrific act of vandalism they made it a site office when they were doing up Queen Street Station and now it’s an information office. You could go in there once every few years, see the same people, and they’d remember you and have a laugh. It was a great pub.
 
And in totally unrelated news why don't we do free cash for the homeless in Manchester? Oh sorry, UBI.
I think UBI is a great idea in principle, but I know it will never be implemented properly. Especially in this country, where all the funding would be sucked up by layers of administration and management, while the process to receive it would be so opaque as to render it impossible to actually get paid. And then they'd tax you on it anyway, even if you never saw a penny.
 
Maybe if you wanted to lose 3lb via a torrent of liquid shit?

Is The Vale pub still open in Glasgow? The one near the train station that's not Glasgow central? I had a good night in there once enjoying Sahara Nuts and a Guinness or three. I've not seen that particular bar snack sold anywhere else since.
https://www.saharanuts.co.uk/
>hot nut dispenser
 
  • Winner
Reactions: BongoMongo
How long before our tiny hatted friends go absolutely apeshit at Labour for allowing Gazans to claim mass asylum here
(((They))) support this. They get to kill two goyim birds with one stone; they get to deport the Palestinians from the lands they stole, and get to further their goals of exterminating white people to bring about the demonic entity they worship known as Moloch (that they falsely claim is god).
 
Won't somebody think of the poor widdle councillors?!? Link/Archive
it's almost like people don't want these traffic claiming measures that councils force upon them

BBC said:
The BBC has talked to those living in the camp, many of whom struggled to speak English
More economic rocket fuel to keep our line going up
BBC said:
The Greater Manchester Law Centre had tried to fight the order and argued that the council had not complied with its statutory duties to care for those in the camp under homelessness law and instead referred people to support charity Mustard Tree.
Deport them with the other useless eaters

On the one hand I feel sorry for people running away from war but then again we had 2 big wars a while ago and everybody didn't just turn tail* at the first sight of a Panzer coming over a hill.


except France
 
Nothing concrete, so take it with a subreddit's worth of salt, but the rumours flying around right now are that Reeves will be tendering her resignation next week.
Do you believe that the first domino is about to fall and that the purge has begun?
 
Yeah, I keep bumping into that soon, I assume some people in Westminster put it out. I keep hearing though her replacement is Yvette Cooper which is horrifying. I assume it is down to a few things;
  1. Trump meeting next week is a show of strength and somewhat connected to Vance's jabs about the UK. We need them onside and Starmer knows if he pisses off the Americans a significant portion of the Labour moderates and of course put him in a very dangerous line for no confidence which of course Raynor can then initiate because of her strong core. This also empowers Cooper who is viewed as one of the only credible members and seemingly involved in this secret cous with Raynor.
  2. The reshuffle - A reshuffle was supposed to happen last week but was stopped because Reform leading the polls consecutively. A reshuffle would have given them more strength. A reshuffle this early is unheard of I only know a few occasions of it happening but it was due to external forces.
  3. Protection from the cous and sacrificial lamb- Starmer knows a cous is coming as Angela has said it will happen secretly but not when. He is trying to galvanize but I think it is all but futile, this is too transparent of a move to use her as a sacrifice but it does not address the other problems.
The issue is an insane left-wing government got in when the population is centre to center-right. The only solution is an election and though I think the outcome would be a coalition with Reform and the Tories, it's a much better one. Even globally Labour as a government has no place and this is where I think Trump will urge William and Charles to call for one. The Royals have always had the mantra of keeping onside with the Americans and Elizabeth understood this masterfully (I miss her). William is going to be an envoy to Trump which I think he has done to influence and all too well you cannot reason with Labour they are mostly insane. I only somewhat respect Raynor for being so forward-thinking, that bitch watched House of Cards. There is a lot of infighting currently and I think Labour are done after this personally. I think a snap election is coming whether they like it or not.
 
Back