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.

 

[Coolio55]

What's that rustling in the bushes? I'm sure it's not a tiger, don't be a coward and check it out.

Could be a pipe2pipe bushman.

 

[>IMPLYING]

A major issue throughout Europe, but particularly in the UK, that has to be addressed is that the judiciary have effectively bullied their way into a position of superiority over the legislature. By greatly overreaching on their authority to interoperate legislation they are regularly pushing the intended scope and meaning of particular laws and acts far beyond the realms of what they clearly intended, and are doing it so shamelessly and beyond adorably that I'm starting to think even the globohomo neo-lib governments are getting a bit pissed off with them.

But the important thing to take from this is that with both the judiciary and the Civil Service being infested with dedicated ideological fanatics, it won't be enough to just vote in a nationalist party and sit back in smug glee. No, there will have to be a serious conversation on the independence of the judiciary and CS, as while I'm still not entirely comfortable with the idea of shackling them, I can't deny the reality in front of me that they could well be beyond reform otherwise.

I think giving them less protections from being dismissed and streamline firings would be a good start. In America Trump was able to fire whole swathes of people on ideological grounds. In the UK just to fire 1 civil servant, you need an investigation, just cause for a disciplinary hearing (overseen by a judge who is also likely ideologically Lib) and if the judge rules the servant as being in the wrong, being dismissed is just one of many punishments the judge could decide to bestow. One could do what Trump did, and put them on 'paid leave' and simply hire people to occupy the now empty slots. Expensive but might be worth it in the long term if you can get it reformed all in one term.

 

[isalaide]

I can't find it anywhere now but there were a few pieces on the Lady Chief Justice bitching and moaning that ser keith and baddienoch shouldn't dare critique the sacred judiciary, as if the "supreme court" isn't some americanized ballcocks imposed on us by "people" who hate us and want us to suffer.

The former fucking Director of Public Prosecutions should know not to comment on a matter that is still sub judice. Absolute basic shit, that. He should not be goaded by the ape in lipstick hooting across at him into behaving like he doesn't know any better.

 

[BongoMongo]

The former fucking Director of Public Prosecutions should know not to comment on a matter that is still sub judice. Absolute basic shit, that. He should not be goaded by the ape in lipstick hooting across at him into behaving like he doesn't know any better.

There's a lot of things that man should know,but you only have to hear him flapping his gums for 30 seconds to realize he's hardly got anywhere based on his cognitive abilities.

He is absolutely not the sharpest knife in the drawer but let's face it, the nogs and Asians have raided that...

 

[curbside2]

 

[Krokodil Overdose]

I think giving them less protections from being dismissed and streamline firings would be a good start. In America Trump was able to fire whole swathes of people on ideological grounds. In the UK just to fire 1 civil servant, you need an investigation, just cause for a disciplinary hearing (overseen by a judge who is also likely ideologically Lib) and if the judge rules the servant as being in the wrong, being dismissed is just one of many punishments the judge could decide to bestow. One could do what Trump did, and put them on 'paid leave' and simply hire people to occupy the now empty slots. Expensive but might be worth it in the long term if you can get it reformed all in one term.

Maybe I'm wrong here, but as I understand it the law in Bongland is whatever Parliament says it is. Why can't an appropriately inclined Commons just pass a law saying "the Prime Minister can dismiss any civil servant without cause or recourse by telling them to 'get stuffed.' This Act is not justicable."?

 

[isalaide]

Maybe I'm wrong here, but as I understand it the law in Bongland is whatever Parliament says it is. Why can't an appropriately inclined Commons just pass a law saying "the Prime Minister can dismiss any civil servant without cause or recourse by telling them to 'get stuffed.' This Act is not justicable."?

Parliament can't declare anything 'not justiciable'. The courts are His Majesty's, not some prime minister's to bar us from. The fucking rule of law requires that the actions of the administrative branch of the government be subject to binding oversight by the judiciary. The ability to petition the sovereign for equitable relief against his government or against fellow subjects is the fucking bedrock of such constitutional settlement as the UK has. 'lol no courts 4 u, luv the prezident 4 lyfe' is some fucking banana republic shithole behaviour. We are white people and this is a white country, it obeys white norms. White people have laws.

 

[Krokodil Overdose]

Parliament can't declare anything 'not justiciable'. The courts are His Majesty's, not some prime minister's to bar us from. The fucking rule of law requires that the actions of the administrative branch of the government be subject to binding oversight by the judiciary. The ability to petition the sovereign for equitable relief against his government or against fellow subjects is the fucking bedrock of such constitutional settlement as the UK has. 'lol no courts 4 u, luv the prezident 4 lyfe' is some fucking banana republic shithole behaviour. We are white people and this is a white country, it obeys white norms. White people have laws.

So Parliment can suspend elections but cant tell the Harry Potter cosplayers to step off? God you people are goofy. Courts who "serve" a vestigial powerless monarchy and comprise a kinda-sorta-but-not-really second branch of government with no accountability (who even appoints these drag show rejects?)

 

[Chaos Theorist]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...fuses-reveal-number-deportations-halted-echr/

 

[FedPostalService]

So Parliment can suspend elections but cant tell the Harry Potter cosplayers to step off? God you people are goofy. Courts who "serve" a vestigial powerless monarchy and comprise a kinda-sorta-but-not-really second branch of government with no accountability (who even appoints these drag show rejects?)

You have an elected temporary king

 

[Mound Dweller]

The former fucking Director of Public Prosecutions should know not to comment on a matter that is still sub judice. Absolute basic shit, that. He should not be goaded by the ape in lipstick hooting across at him into behaving like he doesn't know any better.

Courts are a meme that only ever serve to make things worse and always have been not once ever has a judicial system been a force for actual goodness that wasn't meant to be the lawmakers job in the first place, "binding oversight" is rubbish that isn't worth the vellum it's scrawled on so long as MPs and the like have the opportunity to wring their hands and shrug "courts says so"; total chancellery death.

 

[close]

Y'all getting mad at Bog Standard, but he said he'd come back WHEN the fighting starts, not after it's over. Sounds to me like he's lost faith in the whites to have the testicular fortitude fight the brown horde, rather than not wanting to fight himself.

 

[Mound Dweller]

Steve Job's ghost cucked out which means all the rest shall soon follow, end-to-end encryption is dead, sure does feel good knowing what a VPN is;
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgj54eq4vejo/https://archive.is/6JLOm

Spoiler: Apple pulls data protection tool after UK government security row

Apple is taking the unprecedented step of removing its highest level data security tool from customers in the UK, after the government demanded access to user data.
Advanced Data Protection (ADP) means only account holders can view items such as photos or documents they have stored online through a process known as end-to-end encryption.
But earlier this month the UK government asked for the right to see the data, which currently not even Apple can access.
Apple did not comment at the time but has consistently opposed creating a "backdoor" in its encryption service, arguing that if it did so, it would only be a matter of time before bad actors also found a way in.
Now the tech giant has decided it will no longer be possible to activate ADP in the UK.
It means eventually not all UK customer data stored on iCloud - Apple's cloud storage service - will be fully encrypted.
Data with standard encryption is accessible by Apple and shareable with law enforcement, if they have a warrant.
In a statement the Home Office said: "We do not comment on operational matters, including for example confirming or denying the existence of any such notices."
In a statement Apple said it was "gravely disappointed" that the security feature would no longer be available to British customers.
"As we have said many times before, we have never built a backdoor or master key to any of our products, and we never will," it continued.

• How does encryption work?

The ADP service is opt-in, meaning people have to sign up to get the protection it provides.
From 1500GMT on Friday, any Apple user in the UK attempting to turn it on has been met with an error message.

Existing users' access will be disabled at a later date.
It is not known how many people have signed up for ADP since it became available to British Apple customers in December 2022.
Prof Alan Woodward - a cyber-security expert at Surrey University - said it was a "very disappointing development" which amounted to "an act of self harm" by the government.
"All the UK government has achieved is to weaken online security and privacy for UK based users," he told the BBC.
"It was naïve of the UK government to think they could tell a US technology company what to do globally," he added.

What did the UK ask for?​

The request was served by the Home Office under the Investigatory Powers Act (IPA), which compels firms to provide information to law enforcement agencies.
Apple would not comment on the notice and the Home Office refused to either confirm or deny its existence, but the BBC and the Washington Post spoke to a number of sources familiar with the matter.
It provoked a fierce backlash from privacy campaigners, who called it an "unprecedented attack" on the private data of individuals.
Two senior US politicians said it was so serious a threat to American national security that the US government should re-evaluate its intelligence-sharing agreements with the UK unless it was withdrawn.
It is not clear that Apple's actions will fully address those concerns, as the IPA order applies worldwide and ADP will continue to operate in other countries.
In its statement, Apple said it regretted the action it had taken.
"Enhancing the security of cloud storage with end-to-end-encryption is more urgent than ever before," it said.
"Apple remains committed to offering our users the highest level of security for their personal data and are hopeful that we will be able to do so in future in the UK."
The row comes amid growing push-back in the US against regulation being imposed on its tech sector from elsewhere.
In a speech at the AI Action Summit in Paris at the beginning of February, US Vice President JD Vance made it clear that the US was increasingly concerned about it.
"The Trump administration is troubled by reports that some foreign governments are considering tightening the screws on US tech companies with international footprints," he said.

Great wooden(fire)wall soon?

 

[Kier Starmer]

I can confirm even for Apple users under ADP it is turned off. The level of rage and disgust I am feeling currently is unfathomable. Our forebears with actual ideals and dignity would be horrified at this outcome. This goes so beyond the pale for free speech.

 

[isalaide]

Courts are a meme that only ever serve to make things worse and always have been not once ever has a judicial system been a force for actual goodness that wasn't meant to be the lawmakers job in the first place, "binding oversight" is rubbish that isn't worth the vellum it's scrawled on so long as MPs and the like have the opportunity to wring their hands and shrug "courts says so"; total chancellery death.

The legislature formulates the laws.
The judiciary applies the laws as written to facts brought before them. This involves questions of interpreting the law as written to give effect to the legislature's intention in making the law.
This is how statutory interpretation works.
The legislature cannot by its very nature decide individual cases. There is no substitute for the role of the judiciary in any even partially functional system of government.
I know you know this. Chimping out about the existence of the rule of law is fine in the US politics thread, since they're having some kind of mass deathmatch to find the biggest literal retard there, but come on, we're not doing that here. We have achieved civilisation. We have the rule of law. Debating what the law on any particular issue should be is a fruitful and interesting discussion, but scrawling 'muH aNArchy In tHE Uk NOW' is low effort shitposting. We have the threads about our American cousins for that.

 

[Mound Dweller]

I know you know this. Chimping out about the existence of the rule of law is fine in the US politics thread, since they're having some kind of mass deathmatch to find the biggest literal retard there, but come on, we're not doing that here. We have achieved civilisation. We have the rule of law. Debating what the law on any particular issue should be is a fruitful and interesting discussion, but scrawling 'muH aNArchy In tHE Uk NOW' is low effort shitposting. We have the threads about our American cousins for that.

That depends entirely on how you consider the legitimacy of any government post 1066.
Rule by lawyers was a mistake, the silywigs shouldn't be interpreting shit they ought to determining guilt and assessing evidence and all that other procedural crap that "law" is supposed to be for, determining application of gov policy? That is the rightful dominion of the government, any obstruction of this is heresy IMO but that's a whole other matter.

 

[FedPostalService]

That depends entirely on how you consider the legitimacy of any government post 1066.
Rule by lawyers was a mistake, the silywigs shouldn't be interpreting shit they ought to determining guilt and assessing evidence and all that other procedural crap that "law" is supposed to be for, determining application of gov policy? That is the rightful dominion of the government, any obstruction of this is heresy IMO but that's a whole other matter.

I don’t think you realise the country you are wishing for would be far more terrifying than the rainbow police state we are in now.

 

[EddyRooney]

BBC attempts to cram as many of its favourite topics into one story as it can

A teenager obsessed by murder wanted to carry out a mass shooting at his own school in Edinburgh.

Spoiler: Full story

A court heard how the boy "idolised" the killers behind the Columbine High School massacre in Colorado in the United States in 1999, which saw 12 students and a teacher murdered.
He repeatedly spoke about doing the same at his own secondary school - describing the "Doomsday" when he would "clear it out".
But a large-scale police probe was sparked in the summer of 2023 after a social media photo of him at school in full combat gear and carrying an imitation gun caused panic among pupils and parents.
The boy, who also held racist and pro-Nazi views, had already been referred to a UK-wide programme designed to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism.
The now 17-year-old appeared in the dock at the High Court in Glasgow.
He pleaded guilty via his defence KC Shelagh McCall to a breach of the peace and a charge under the Terrorism Act.

Military tactical vest​

The crimes spanned between June 2022 and July 2023.
The teenager, who cannot be identified due to his age, had his bail revoked by judge Lord Arthurson pending sentencing next month.
Ms McCall KC told the court: "This is a vulnerable young person. He has mental health difficulties.
"He is a transgender person - that would need to be taken into account."
Prosecutor Greg Farrell told how, on 20 June 2023, the boy had turned up at school wearing cargo trousers and carrying a military tactical vest and helmet.
Mr Farrell: "He was later seen at the school carrying an imitation firearm while wearing the vest and helmet.
"A photograph was circulated on social media. It was taken and published without his knowledge.
"The image provoked a considerable degree of fear and alarm among pupils and parents.
"Police were advised by a parent who saw the image."

Officers went on to discover that the boy had a TikTok account which had footage of him in black combat clothes as well as a skeleton mask.
Mr Farrell: "One piece of commentary referenced school shootings."
The teenager was immediately suspended.
Police, however, went on to take statements from other pupils who knew the boy.
Mr Farrell: "They provided information that the boy had exhibited a variety of alarming behaviours over a period of time.
"The greatest concern was the suggestion he had divulged to various people a desire to carry out a school shooting similar to that which had taken place in 1999 at Columbine High School in Colorado in the USA."
Classmates recalled how the boy "spoke excitedly and with considerable enthusiasm" when he talked about Columbine and other school shootings.
He "sympathised" with the pair behind it - Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris - and would copy how they had dressed.
One girl said he "idolised school shooters in America".
Mr Farrell said: "In November 2022, he told her how he would go about carrying out a school attack.
"He explained that he would start on the second floor and that he would 'clear it out' using guns.
"He would then move downstairs continuing to shoot until police arrived, at which point he would turn the gun on himself."

'Fed-up being bullied'​

The boy described a possible mass shooting at his school as "Doomsday".
He was said to be so "interested" in Columbine that he stated he wanted to change his name "in an act of homage" to Klebold.
Mr Farrell said: "One pupil told police that the boy wore the same black trousers, trench coat, cap worn backwards and circular glasses as favoured by one of the Columbine pair.
"He often made comments that he 'looked like a school shooter'."
The boy told another classmate that he would "place a bomb in every second classroom".
He would then shoot people as they fled the building.
The boy told one girl he met online that he wanted to carry out a shooting as he was being bullied and was "fed-up" being there.
The teenager was stopped by police under the Terrorism Act as he returned from holiday with his family on 9 July 2023.

A number of his electronic devices were seized. There were various files on a mobile phone with some about "homemade" firearms and poisons.

The court heard he had 65 videos of Columbine and had added music which appeared to "glamourise" the mass killing.

He had recorded another clip of him at his own school which seemed to "mimic the actions" of the American shooters.

Police also seized a journal in which the boy had made various sinister remarks.

The hearing was told the teenager had twice previously been referred to the Prevent counter-terrorism programme while at school due to concerns but that he had "engaged" with the police.

The court heard a more recent concern was flagged up by the college the boy now attends of him allegedly remarking that he was "annoyed at getting caught".

Judge Lord Arthurson ruled not to continue bail while sentence was deferred for reports.

The boy is expected to be sent to a secure unit for young people or what was described as a "place of safety".]

1.School shooter ( sadly no mention of knives )
2.Sweaty sock
3.Racist, pro-Nazi ( regrettably doesn't mention Far Right, but this is implied - must try harder )
4.Terrorism and Prevent
5.Mental Health
6.Transgender
7.Tik Tok

This story would be good for BBC Bullshit Bingo. Other than it not mentioning the kid's views on global warming, it seems to feature everything.

 

[isalaide]

That depends entirely on how you consider the legitimacy of any government post 1066.
Rule by lawyers was a mistake, the silywigs shouldn't be interpreting shit they ought to determining guilt and assessing evidence and all that other procedural crap that "law" is supposed to be for, determining application of gov policy? That is the rightful dominion of the government, any obstruction of this is heresy IMO but that's a whole other matter.

The application of the law to the facts established is a completely indivisible part of establishing guilt. To establish whether you have done something that the say Anti-Pants-Shitting Act of 2025 prohibits, the court has to be satisfied that what the statute actually prohibits covers what you actually did. It has to be satisfied that although the statute explicitly criminalises a shart, since all the court has found evidence for was a skidmark, that the statute intended to also criminalise skidmarks as well as sharts by the wording 'allowing matter from the rectum to discharge upon the underwear or clothing'. It is not fucking possible to apply law to IRL facts without some kind of interpretation of the law happening.
I think I must just be explaining this badly since what you're suggesting is literally impossible. Lord Sales gave a lecture on statutory interpretation a while back, I've found a copy online and the link is here and that explains better https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/speech_lord_sales_240919_1e4f3f8d1f.pdf
I am not actively trying to be a wanker but reading 'opinions' on A&N that amount to 'the only acceptable solution is something that the base fabric of reality would not allow' is fucking tiresome and generally not in your wheelhouse as I recall, so it is quite likely we are not talking about the same thing. I see this thing about 'the courts shouldn't interpret the law' flung around but it's mostly by retards who would also argue that water shouldn't be wet. I do not consider you one of these benighted individuals so I think we are probably not talking about the same specific issue?

 

[Almighty Space Duck]

I can confirm even for Apple users under ADP it is turned off. The level of rage and disgust I am feeling currently is unfathomable. Our forebears with actual ideals and dignity would be horrified at this outcome. This goes so beyond the pale for free speech.

For now mine is still on.

There has been mention of a grace period before some kind of forced deactivation happens but no specifics.