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.

 

[BongoMongo]

What’s the average price for a pint up north these days? I went to some pub in London and cost me nearly £8 for a camden hells lager lmao.

I can get a pint of local ale and a large packet of peanuts with change from a fiver.

 

[EddyRooney]

"Strong men have lots of words but no plan." - Badenoch

Ah yes. But black women can't drive.

The more she opens her mouth, the more I don't want to vote Conservative ever again. It's like she's a covert agent for Reform, knowing exactly what to say to push me towards them. I'd agree with her that conservatives are the guardians of Western civilisation. But note that is a lower case "c" and that is a very important difference in the meaning of the word. Conservatism yes, not the Conservatives.

 

[BongoMongo]

Is anyone else finding it a little bit challenging to be optimistic about stuff or to see any sort of hope in all of this clusterfuckery?

The scope and scale of Muslims consolidating their power over stuff is vast and only getting worse. None of the parties can be relied on to do anything concrete about it all. I can honestly see a situation where in a few years they'll have enough power to start forcing through legislation to enact a Sharia state.

It all feels extremely hopeless just now.

 

[Otterly]

Strong men have lots of words but no plan." - Badenoch

Then they aren’t strong men. Let the strong men bring the plan then? the last thing the UK gov wants is us coalescing around a strong man. Or woman. They’ve been derailing anyone with a plan for a long time. Even truss was undermined for sensible budgets and discarded, imagine what they’d do to anyone actually capable of leading us out of this mess.
If a strong man was was given the job he’d be sharpening the spikes on London Bridge, and I don’t think any of them would enjoy what followed.

 

[JesusChristDenton]

This isn't incompetency, it's a fucking whitewash. They're hiding something. The fact that that dude said it could 'take years' is a big red flag for me. They don't want a repeat of what happened last Summer, because I think those riots really shit up those in power. I think they're concerned that this might redpill some normies about immigration, and that maybe, just maybe, diversity isn't the strength they tell us it is.

It really wouldn't shock me if the reason Starmer is acting so unhinged about Ukraine is because he's desperately looking for anything to distract the populace. And if that distraction means potentially escalating a major conflict, then he'll happily do it.

 

[BongoMongo]

It really wouldn't shock me if the reason Starmer is acting so unhinged about Ukraine is because he's desperately looking for anything to distract the populace. And if that distraction means potentially escalating a major conflict, then he'll happily do it.

Oh he absolutely is. It worked a treat in 2022 to distract people from "COVID". He desperately needs something now to get people to stop asking questions about that murdering cunt from Southport.

 

[FedPostalService]

With regard to the Axel Rudakabana thing, and the UK police's supposed inability to retrieve his search history, nothing about that is believable.

There are fat cops in Frogballs, Arkansas, that are able to run a check on people's laptops and shit and retrieve that information, they just give it to the nerdiest guy they can find in the precinct and he can bring it back in about ten minutes - I watch EWU and shit, I've literally seen them do it. I refuse to believe that Scotland Yard, with all of their resources are somehow unable of do that.

This isn't incompetency, it's a fucking whitewash. They're hiding something. The fact that that dude said it could 'take years' is a big red flag for me. They don't want a repeat of what happened last Summer, because I think those riots really shit up those in power. I think they're concerned that this might redpill some normies about immigration, and that maybe, just maybe, diversity isn't the strength they tell us it is.

They want this forgotten and memory holed. They did everything they could toavoud this going to trial.

Is Kemi Nignog really the best the now castrated Tories have to offer? Where's the good ole' Eton boys that are supposedly superior?

The Eton boys will be in the City of London earning six to seven figures. You’d have to be retarded to want to be a Conservative MP at this point.

 

[>IMPLYING]

Is anyone else finding it a little bit challenging to be optimistic about stuff or to see any sort of hope in all of this clusterfuckery?

The scope and scale of Muslims consolidating their power over stuff is vast and only getting worse. None of the parties can be relied on to do anything concrete about it all. I can honestly see a situation where in a few years they'll have enough power to start forcing through legislation to enact a Sharia state.

It all feels extremely hopeless just now.

Reform's Tice wants deportations. Farage says it wouldn't work but he might change his tune considering how effective and popular it is in America and if enough of his voters and party members clamour for it. I always reiterate that all of this shit got the way it is in the past 30 years, so it's just a period of pure shit, but I still think we can emerge from it squeaky clean. I think if we get Labour out and get pressured by the Americans, I think we'll have a good decade come the 2030s.

 

[Karen of Human Resources]

It really wouldn't shock me if the reason Starmer is acting so unhinged about Ukraine is because he's desperately looking for anything to distract the populace. And if that distraction means potentially escalating a major conflict, then he'll happily do it.

It would make a lot of sense. The irony would be this is a political play straight out of Thatcher's handbook.

The Argentines did not just suddenly decide to land troops on the Falklands. For years, decades even, before they put men on the ground Argentinia had been sending ships to circle the land, and the British Navy in turn would appear and the dictator of the day would call his boys home.

Thatcher, by total coincidence I'm sure, decided not to send the navy for their regular stand off at the very same time when she had an approval rating of 27% in early 1981. It was only after this that Galtieri, spurred on by his own need for a win at home, thought that after those talks in the 70s maybe Britain didn't want to fight over the land. With the benefit of future knowledge this is hilarious, because 27% was the lowest approval score ever recorded for a prime minister. 27% was catastrophic, beyond belief that someone so widely disliked nonetheless could maintain office.

War is a tried and true way to raise those figures. Where Starmer seems to be going wrong is those figures only stay up if you win something. I can't see Ukraine providing anything tangible for the electorate here.

 

[Kier Starmer]

It's so strange, the more Tice speaks, the more I like him and the more Farage speaks the more of the tool he seems. Tice seems to understand what the British people want but Farage is blinded by ego and his paymasters, who the fuck they are I don't know but they are clearly Muslim. I would not mind him leading Reform and Lowe as Deputy because they seem to at least co-sign each other. Farage wants other things and the no deportation for me was a deal breaker.

As for Starmer, the man is absolutely fucking insane and stupid. Zelensky is going to back out of peace talks (he never wanted peace in the first place). Z will back out and then go with Europe and escalate, there are issues on his side though the Ukrainians actively wanting out and dissertation is very high currently. The British media won't say it because anything outlining the truth about Ukraine's growing losses is viewed as pro-Russian. Sadly war is not like gender idealogy and cannot be manipulated so easily but the media are hellbent on it.

I am not going to lie my anxiety in terms of the political sacrifices Starmer is doing make Thatcher's look positive. Since 2002 and Blair the population's reaction to war in Europe has not been positive and if Starmer thinks this will pump his numbers then he is a fucking mongoloid. There is a light in this but the generals of the UK military need to be concise and lay out that the UK cannot fiscally do this. Reeves is very quiet too with the broadsheets demanding her to go. Oddly, the media seem to be rejecting Starmer as a whole. It is such a weird environment currently.

 

[teriyakiburns]

War is a tried and true way to raise those figures. Where Starmer seems to be going wrong is those figures only stay up if you win something. I can't see Ukraine providing anything tangible for the electorate here.

The difference is, as you are rightly implying, there was a tangible connection between the electorate and the Falklands. It was "our people" vs "the enemy". Ukraine, whatever position you might take on it otherwise, is a foreign nation facing off against another foreign nation, which can't generate the sort of emotional support necessary to boost Labour's polling in the event of an intervention. The most comparable situation is the NATO intervention in the Yugoslavian civil wars. NATO intervention was generally seen as a good thing in the UK to begin with, but the prolonged involvement with little obvious gain, coupled with endless misery porn from the media, quickly eroded support. It's possible to attribute at least some of the record low turnout at the 2001 election to the UK's participation in the Balkans conflict.

Farage is blinded by ego and his paymasters, who the fuck they are

That would be the multiple pensions he's acquired and doesn't want to risk losing.

Oddly, the media seem to be rejecting Starmer as a whole. It is such a weird environment currently.

Rayner is anonymously briefing against him and Reeves. I reckon she'll go for the leadership pretty soon.

 

[Otterly]

I feel very sorry for the average Ukrainian. I work with a few, some had their family apartment bombed and people hurt and I feel for them. I also think we have no business sending troops in. We aren’t the size of the USA and even they don’t want to play world police any more.
Starmer repulses me. His hideous little blinky piggy eyes and that smug vacant look. He’s an utter tool.
I want the Southport case open and the full truth.

 

[FedPostalService]

It's so strange, the more Tice speaks, the more I like him and the more Farage speaks the more of the tool he seems. Tice seems to understand what the British people want but Farage is blinded by ego and his paymasters, who the fuck they are I don't know but they are clearly Muslim. I would not mind him leading Reform and Lowe as Deputy because they seem to at least co-sign each other. Farage wants other things and the no deportation for me was a deal breaker.

Reform should do what Five Star Movement did in Italy were their founder is like a figurehead in the party and doesn’t lead it.

M5S is a bit of a joke now but it was started by a comedian called Beppe Grillo as a protest against the establishment and free from their.

Their own rules bar Grillo from standing for elected office (he has a convinction for manslaughter and the party he started won’t stand candidates with criminal records) so he just chills in the background being funny.

Farage should be like him without killing someone with his car.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

RE: Ukraine war and UK troop involvement,

I don't see Starmer sending troops to Ukraine as him wanting an immediate numbers boost or to ride the coattails of war to high popularity figures. I think, for once, he is being smart and playing the long game for popularity.

The 'European Army' is a decades-old idea that has never come to fruition. The closest it came was when France, without Aircraft carriers, and Britain, without Aircraft, decided to join forces, on paper, whereby we build the aircraft carrier and the French land on it. We were going to have a joint UK/France Squadron, alas, it never happened.

Anyway. Starmer has made it clear that he wants back in the EU. What better way to curry favour with the EU than send UK troops alongside French ones (what a coincidence!) to do what amounts to be a security role. Make no mistake, there will be no war or conflict once the peace deal is signed. It will just be a demonstration of "look, the EU can secure its own borders".

Starmer will sign an agreement to reverse Brexit, without reversing Brexit officially, using some double-speak and propaganda like "Brexit has failed, the NHS is crumbling, prices are high and the country has open borders and is flooded by niggers".

TL;DR - Starmer will send troops to Ukraine, to win favour with the EU so that he can reverse Brexit and win loads of support from the champagne socialists within his party.

 

[>IMPLYING]

RE: Ukraine war and UK troop involvement,

I don't see Starmer sending troops to Ukraine as him wanting an immediate numbers boost or to ride the coattails of war to high popularity figures. I think, for once, he is being smart and playing the long game for popularity.

The 'European Army' is a decades-old idea that has never come to fruition. The closest it came was when France, without Aircraft carriers, and Britain, without Aircraft, decided to join forces, on paper, whereby we build the aircraft carrier and the French land on it. We were going to have a joint UK/France Squadron, alas, it never happened.

Anyway. Starmer has made it clear that he wants back in the EU. What better way to curry favour with the EU than send UK troops alongside French ones (what a coincidence!) to do what amounts to be a security role. Make no mistake, there will be no war or conflict once the peace deal is signed. It will just be a demonstration of "look, the EU can secure its own borders".

Starmer will sign an agreement to reverse Brexit, without reversing Brexit officially, using some double-speak and propaganda like "Brexit has failed, the NHS is crumbling, prices are high and the country has open borders and is flooded by niggers".

TL;DR - Starmer will send troops to Ukraine, to win favour with the EU so that he can reverse Brexit and win loads of support from the champagne socialists within his party.

I think there's merit to the idea, however the EU as a whole isn't united behind the idea. Poland, Germany and Spain are against it whilst France, and Sweden support it. One would have to familiarise oneself with the factions within the EU itself to deem how this would benefit Starmer in hoping to re-join it. I think Starmer is just trying to appear strong and assert the UK's place on the world stage in reaction to the US sidestepping the rest of Europe in negotiating a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia. I also think it's an attempt appeal to what he imagines conservatives would approve of I.E. showing strength against a foreign power, more of a push towards the centre and being a moderate rather than the Leftists within the party. Labour won the election due to apathetic conservatives and I think this move posturing is an attempt to show he's 'strong' and try to court the tory vote essentially, as come election time he can point to his commitment to stationing troops in Ukraine as him being committed to defence and standing up to foreign powers.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

I think there's merit to the idea, however the EU as a whole isn't united behind the idea. Poland, Germany and Spain are against it whilst France, and Sweden support it. One would have to familiarise oneself with the factions within the EU itself to deem how this would benefit Starmer in hoping to re-join it. I think Starmer is just trying to appear strong and assert the UK's place on the world stage in reaction to the US sidestepping the rest of Europe in negotiating a ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia. I also think it's an attempt appeal to what he imagines conservatives would approve of I.E. showing strength against a foreign power, more of a push towards the centre and being a moderate rather than the Leftists within the party. Labour won the election due to apathetic conservatives and I think this move posturing is an attempt to show he's 'strong' and try to court the tory vote essentially, as come election time he can point to his commitment to stationing troops in Ukraine as him being committed to defence and standing up to foreign powers.

That's a fair look at the situation but I don't believe that the EU isn't in lockstep with a European army. Some countries being 'against' it just means "we want X before we do it", not that they are morally or principally against the idea of one army.
Germany will want to lead the army, or have the biggest say at the table. Unfortunately for them, Britain is the one of, if not the best war-strategists in the world. Our army may be small and gay but there is no-one who understands the enemy and the battlefield better than the British.

Starmer can win over the conservative voters that he wants to win over, the same faction that elected a black, white-hating woman as their leader. A return to the EU will keep Starmer safe politically, while winning back the voters that wouldn't vote for him, be it through apathy or disapproval.

 

[Kier Starmer]

I disagree on the point of our military, I think it has had its time in the sun and is in disrepair. It has been neglected for decades because the government would LARP as mini America and send billions worldwide on pointless shit whilst exploiting its own populace to a people who wish to spread a religion that kills Christianity and to not live in a shit hole desert.

@teriyakiburns You could probably sense I was going to write about Rayner and yes I think she and Cooper are feeling out the feeling of his little declaration and go for the throat. I think next week Trump will snub him and they will both set the gears in motion. I think they are going to get Starmer's cronies to turn so he cannot make a cabinet and be forced to resign.

At this point he has no real wriggle room, he has cabinet ministers who are inept and a country bracing for massive economical strain because he did not vet his Chancellor (fucking wild). Reform continues to undermine Labour because it has a message they are terrified of that resonates with the native populace and I feel a lot of Tories will defect there too.

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

Rayner is anonymously briefing against him and Reeves. I reckon she'll go for the leadership pretty soon.

The eternal answer to "how could it possibly get worse?" I honestly dread Rayner getting in, that some rags continue to brandish her working class background as a defence for her behaviour makes me wish the journalists in question were kicked to death by chavs.

 

[BongoMongo]

The eternal answer to "how could it possibly get worse?" I honestly dread Rayner getting in, that some rags continue to brandish her working class background as a defence for her behaviour makes me wish the journalists in question were kicked to death by chavs.

Rayner is batshit insane and has no place having authority or dominion over anything, and her "working class credentials" are no more thatn: Getting spunked up as a single teen mother: getting a council house, which she purchased and sold for a vast profit, the circumstances of which are so vague there is obviously something more fishy than Abbots minge going on there: got a menial job, in a work place with significant Union presence: sucked and fucked her way through the union management, to get herself in a good position.

She hates her past, she hates herself, and she projects that hatred onto the working classes, and god-almighty-forbid she is ever in a position to have some power, because she'll be gunning for the working classes, especially anyone a bit sick of mass immigration, and the mass dick sucking of the muslims that Labour have been practising for decades.

Oh and she's ginger.

 

[Chaos Theorist]

Rayner is batshit insane and has no place having authority or dominion over anything, and her "working class credentials" are no more thatn: Getting spunked up as a single teen mother: getting a council house, which she purchased and sold for a vast profit, the circumstances of which are so vague there is obviously something more fishy than Abbots minge going on there: got a menial job, in a work place with significant Union presence: sucked and fucked her way through the union management, to get herself in a good position.

She hates her past, she hates herself, and she projects that hatred onto the working classes, and god-almighty-forbid she is ever in a position to have some power, because she'll be gunning for the working classes, especially anyone a bit sick of mass immigration, and the mass dick sucking of the muslims that Labour have been practising for decades.

Oh and she's ginger.

She sounds like Diane Morgan if she had brain damage