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.
 
Take homosexuality for example, a tolerant society goes :
"Yes, you are considered equal to heterosexuals under the law"
A little bit of a tangent but there's a key foundational difference in attitudes between modern West and other cultures and it is that in the modern West, a homosexual is considered something you are, in an intrinsic way, and elsewhere homosexuality is considered something you do and that your status as a homosexual follows from your action.

This is critical because it is the basis by which Western academics defend homosexuality because it backdoors (pardon the term) justification under the modern Western doctrine of no-one should be condemned for something that isn't their fault / who they are. If homosexuality is externally determined, one cannot condemn someone for being one. If homosexuality is determined by you doing homosexual things, that foundational requirement for tolerance is stripped.

Language has powerful influence on beliefs that often goes unobserved. Take the very word homosexuality. It encompasses both gay men and lesbians, etymologically. Yet to my observation, gayness in men and lesbianism in women are markedly different things and likely different causative factors. They're not even definitionally the same thing in absolute terms: One is an attraction to women and the other an attraction to men. That's a very fundamental difference which there is no key reason to say that in which sex it occurs outweighs in which direction it points. But "homosexual" is a word and it applies to both for etymological reasons and people think of the two together. I can think of few sex-related groupings that have less in common than gay men and lesbian women. Hell, even some Islamic scholars have said that lesbianism matters a lot less than male homosexuality. Lesbians have probably harmed themselves politically more in the long run than gained, by shackling themselves to the male gay rights movement.

It just bugs me how much political and cultural control can be gained by manipulating basic concepts and setting up the categories in advance. And your lines above are a good example of how that works. It is a (specifically modern) Western concept that allows for:
"Homosexuals and Heterosexuals should be treated equally under the law".

Go back even a hundred and fifty years or to another culture today and the underlying concepts would read:

"A person who does homosexual things should be treated equally as someone who does not do homosexual things".

Suddenly, the homosexuality is a behaviour that is external to the individual and is thus exposed and vulnerable to people saying "is the behviour good or not?"

Is that shift in underlying conceptions and language deliberate? That's another question.
 
I disagree, every party has limits and remember they want to keep their job at the end of the day. Again on their resume co-signing killing disabled people is not pretty good on your CV. There are accounts from numerous politicians where they have had to move or change their lives because people would heckle them and their families for things far less minor.

I am for welfare reform however the current proposed model is there CLEARLY to aid migrants, especially Muslims. Interbred children, child cap lifted and "looking for work". They are trying to make white people a supine group whilst fucking Ayaisha down the road pops out interbred children endlessly. I have not seen that observation yet, and I think I am correct. Look at the court changes, last year all this is loaded.

Now back to limits, Starmer did the NHS England scrapping off the cuff. He did not even take it to the cabinet and that is dangerous, no PM should be doing these things without consultation because to do that in a negative growth period has a severe cascade effect. His cabinet and backbench are seeing this now because he and Reeves announce shit but never think of the consequence and that not only from the eyes of MPs is terrifying but also for the public especially when it is with a child emperor.

Those kinds of decisions do not help at all in our financial state but also our culture. MPs are sensing the unrest and correctly trying to avert and prevent even Cooper has gone quiet as of late because she knows it's a pressure cooker. Believe it or not, some politicians do care I know this is a naive take but this is surprisingly a group of MPs who can tell it is a terrible idea. If it is with two-tiered intentions (it is), when people have noticed they will the unrest will be the final nail.
 
Hell, even some Islamic scholars have said that lesbianism matters a lot less than male homosexuality
Shades of Lunkashenko.
I disagree, every party has limits and remember they want to keep their job at the end of the day. Again on their resume co-signing killing disabled people is not pretty good on your CV.
You'd think so, but super wholesome chungus Canada went all-in on labunwerts lieben.
 
I disagree, every party has limits and remember they want to keep their job at the end of the day. Again on their resume co-signing killing disabled people is not pretty good on your CV. There are accounts from numerous politicians where they have had to move or change their lives because people would heckle them and their families for things far less minor.

I am for welfare reform however the current proposed model is there CLEARLY to aid migrants, especially Muslims. Interbred children, child cap lifted and "looking for work". They are trying to make white people a supine group whilst fucking Ayaisha down the road pops out interbred children endlessly. I have not seen that observation yet, and I think I am correct. Look at the court changes, last year all this is loaded.

Now back to limits, Starmer did the NHS England scrapping off the cuff. He did not even take it to the cabinet and that is dangerous, no PM should be doing these things without consultation because to do that in a negative growth period has a severe cascade effect. His cabinet and backbench are seeing this now because he and Reeves announce shit but never think of the consequence and that not only from the eyes of MPs is terrifying but also for the public especially when it is with a child emperor.

Those kinds of decisions do not help at all in our financial state but also our culture. MPs are sensing the unrest and correctly trying to avert and prevent even Cooper has gone quiet as of late because she knows it's a pressure cooker. Believe it or not, some politicians do care I know this is a naive take but this is surprisingly a group of MPs who can tell it is a terrible idea. If it is with two-tiered intentions (it is), when people have noticed they will the unrest will be the final nail.
I admire your optimism. This is not the first Labour government of my adult life. Nothing will happen. There will be a light tweaking at the edges of welfare reform, and the benefits will be cut.

There is no alternative. There is no fucking money, and if it became possible in a practical way tomorrow to pap out all second and third generation immigrants born here, there still wouldn't be any fucking money. This country doesn't make anything people want bar luxury goods, and it shot a number of its key service industries in the face.

Economic recovery requires the country to have enough power to get up off the canvas. The engine of economic growth in this country for thirty years has been consumer spending. No one can afford to go down the shops any more. The music has stopped and we don't have a chair to sit on.

The cuts to the welfare state model are going to be bloody, and yes, people are going to die in a way that is traceable back to these cuts. In the case of disabled people, this has already been happening for fifteen years. Never seen much about it in the media, eh, no you won't have and that's why I am confident people won't care it happens this time round either.

It doesn't matter if they should care. The reality is they don't, and politics is nothing but ruthless pragmatism. There's more votes in telling people Angela down the road who you hate is going to lose her Motability motor than talking shite about protecting the vulnerable.

There is not going to be a great race war in the near future. I used to think when I was young that people would finally get sick of various political positions and Do Something, too. I am older now and I realise no one in this country is going to do a fucking thing about anything unless it personally affects them. It is a thread throughout the history of the English. It's not changing now. Why the fuck would I risk all I have in life to go on a stupid demo demanding people born in this country be deported due to being brown when there is no chance whatsoever that that will happen. I won't because that would be retarded. Neither will anyone else who follows the same logic. Which means the great mass uprising is not going to happen because the masses will not rise up.

I'm not disrespecting you or your thoughts here, I just think you'll be sharply disappointed if you're getting your hopes up for anything to happen.
 
Poundland is most likely going into administration.
Jesus Christ, that's the most horrifying thing I've read in quite a while.
The vast majority of answers to all these problems is get a job or work harder and get a better job.
Because there aren't enough jobs to go around you dumb fucking nigger, doubly so with the massive amount of subcontinentals and balkanoids on work visas flooding the unskilled labour market.
super wholesome chungus Canada
Americans are much nicer than Canadians as a general rule, Canadians are just more polite.
 
I admire your optimism. This is not the first Labour government of my adult life.
Starmer isn't Blair, though. He doesn't have Blair's preternatural ability to bring disparate groups together and he doesn't have a Prescott in the wings, ready to punch anyone who dissents in the back of the head. Instead, he's got a backstabber as deputy and a party that has been fractured from the moment it won the election. A lot of those supposedly loyal MPs are sitting on razor thin margins and know that they will lose their seats at the next election if Starmer's, Rayner's, and Reeves' current plans are forced through. They only might lose their seats at the next election if they back a leadership challenge.

Labour leadership elections don't work like the Tories (where the 1922 committee typically signals to the leader that the back benches want him gone, and where the leadership election is initiated by the leader's announcement of a resignation). There's no requirement for the Labour leader to resign. Instead, the parliamentary party can nominate one or more challengers and initiate a leadership contest that way. Leadership elections will start informally with one or more prospective candidates informally touting for nomination support amongst the seated party.

I think it's unlikely we'll see a big cabinet revolt next week, but I am certain one will come soon, with more than one resignation on principle. I wouldn't expect Starmer to resign if a large part of his cabinet goes, because that's not in his nature; I would, however, expect one or more of those resigning to start canvasing for support among the party (assuming he or she hadn't already started before resigning) and for a leadership election to be triggered fairly soon afterwards.

The thing is, with this system, you don't even need a cabinet to resign. The PLP could spontaneously decide to nominate someone, and if they get past 20%, the leadership election will start. More than 20% of the party are loyal to Rayner rather than Starmer. Considering how she's being positioned in the recent leaks and stories about this cabinet blow-out, and assuming the fractures and tensions continue as they arey, I could easily see a leadership election kicking off in April or May without any resignations at all.

This is not a prediction, but merely speculation based on the current information.

Regardless, Starmer is not Blair. He won't be able to replicate Blair's grip on the PLP and he will be gone before the end of this term.
 
You have to remember too the world was completely different when Blair was elected, the internet barely existed in the UK. The nature of how people even communicate and express themselves is entirely different.

Starmer was elected with a weak majority not a strong majority like Blair. His cabinet too is littered with nobodies except Cooper who are politically inept but also have no experience in their cabinet position. Christ our Chancellor has 6 years on the phones at Halifax and thinks she is an economist. Fuck, our deputy's job was 3 years as a carer and thinks she is fit for the job. They also have no political acumen but most importantly as soon as they were elected they were unpopular.

Blair did not hit negative numbers til Iraq, Starmer was a week. People saw his cabinet and were like "is that it?"

Also, the UK has expected 900,000 so vacancies with lay offs coming thick and fast, Reeves is retarded.
 
900'00? That can't be the number, that'd be an economic nuke.
We've lost 12 billionaires and 10,800 millionaires within weeks of Labour coming to power, and likely more since.

This Government is literally devoid of a single person with the slightest comprehension of how to generate or retain money for anyone other than themselves personally. Kier might be a talented legal mind, I don't actually know, but declaring an unperson to be racist/far right/christofacist/transphobic etc until they throw money at you only works in the public sector.

We are not slowly becoming East Germany. We're already more than a third of the way there; only without the state services and more rape.
 
Checking in on the BASED trad muslims who will save our perverted Western societies from degeneracy.
View attachment 7093711
I wonder if there's a place on the internet — although I doubt it'd be in English — where older Muslims are lamenting the subversion and lack of faith in the younger generations, who are complaining that their faith, beliefs and communal pillars have been subverted and corrupted by Western influences and are regretting their move to the UK. Ultimately the fresh arrivals off boats and other immigrants will still hold strong ties to their faith and nation of origin, but it'd give at least some form of schadenfreude to see the shoe on the other foot in terms of seeing your cultural identity being gradually ruined.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tzeentch
I wonder if there's a place on the internet — although I doubt it'd be in English — where older Muslims are lamenting the subversion and lack of faith in the younger generations, who are complaining that their faith, beliefs and communal pillars have been subverted and corrupted by Western influences and are regretting their move to the UK. Ultimately the fresh arrivals off boats and other immigrants will still hold strong ties to their faith and nation of origin, but it'd give at least some form of schadenfreude to see the shoe on the other foot in terms of seeing your cultural identity being gradually ruined.
That was mid 00s when the poles arrived in bulk and Muslim lads were complaining about poles moving in 10 to a household (the plumbing was amazing).

I got asked to support a reform candidate last week who I'd supported before. I asked about the Lowe and Stafford takeover situations so I could stand at a doorstep and defend them. Not gonna hold my breath.
 
am for welfare reform however the current proposed model is there CLEARLY to aid migrants, especially Muslims.
I remember when they put a cap on how much money you'd get per child — I think it was under Boris? — and whilst there was pushback, it ultimately remains. You only get state help with two kids, no more. I think there's a certain cope-like approach to how one can read the government's actions and policies at any given time, where you can perceive something that might effect everyone negatively is actually an action taken against X-group, depending on how generous you're being. It's like how in Denmark they've banned 'face coverings', but which group of people have it as part of their culture/religion to cover their face? In the UK, which group of people are most likely to pop out more than two kids and thus claim more in benefits and are thus the reason why such a cap was introduced to begin with? I'm almost definitely giving too much credit to them, and implication that they are taking actions against Muslims and non-whites specifically is definitely cope, but I think it's something to consider.

These actions, whilst also making natives suffer as a result — one could also read the benefit cap on children as discouraging whites from having more kids if you're of the mind the government is malicious against whites/natives for example — are ultimately in reaction to the fact an overwhelming share of the burden is coming from non-natives who come here with family, never work, pump out inbred children, and eventually grow old and become a burden on the NHS. If people are coming here due to how generous our welfare system is, the government might be of the mind that cutting it will deter people from coming here altogether. Why come to the UK if you'll get more money being leech in France or Germany? If the people in this thread are aware of how much strain that the immigrants and Muslims are on the system, then the government likely is as well but due to modern sensibilities, delusion, or naivety in the hope meagre actions and cuts to how much money they receive can fix things, they can't take direct action to specifically target these groups. It does feel like it's only a matter of time though, as certain language becomes more and more acceptable in political discourse and faith in the older parties continues to crumble; actions to try and deter immigrants in the long term aren't going to help people who want something done now and are pissed off at how much money is being thrown at them just for existing. Even this year Labour tried putting forward a bill in an attempt to curb immigration, albeit one mired in tons of PR speak about how it's actually to protect the more vulnerable migrants and is still only tackling illegal immigration, but it's really too little too late.

The Tories and Labour are in a bind because assuming their actions aren't done out of maliciousness against natives, the free money and catering to these groups is essentially just PR to entice them into being a devoted voter-base — the Tories are still under the delusion, like the Republicans were in America until recently, that they can do anything to entice these groups to vote for them by catering to them, which is in part why Badenoch was elected I believe — but these groups are still a minority and even if you were you get every single one of them to vote for your party, if you piss of the majority, you're still going to lose. Despite their outward lack of action and strong adherence to Civnat sensibilities, they see where the wind is blowing and can do fuck all about it. Ironically their biggest hope is Farage, who effectively gatekeeps the political right.
 
Checking in on the BASED trad muslims who will save our perverted Western societies from degeneracy.
I remember being told by someone who worked in a hotel that because so many Muslim men visiting from abroad would order prostitutes, the hotel had to put in a policy that stated the guests would have to collect prostitutes themselves.
 

Ministers have left the door open to a humiliating U-turn on their highly contentious plans to cut benefits for disabled people, amid mounting uproar over the proposals across the Labour party.

Both Downing Street and the Department for Work and Pensions did not deny they were about to backtrack on plans to impose a real-terms cut to the personal independence payment (Pip) for disabled people, including those who cannot work, by cancelling an inflation-linked rise due to come into force next spring.

The plans had been earmarked for inclusion in a green paper scheduled to be published on Tuesday and had been one of several elements of a wider package of welfare cuts designed to save between £5bn and £6bn on the ballooning benefits bill.

Ministers, who are facing the wrath of Labour MPs and peers over the plans, are understood to have taken fright after being accused in meetings with MPs of planning measures rejected as unfair even by former Tory chancellor George Osborne during the Conservative years of austerity.

In his Political Currency podcast last week with former Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls, Osborne said: “I didn’t freeze Pip. I thought [it] would not be regarded as very fair. What I did try to do was reform Pip.”

Balls, who is married to the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, infuriated Downing Street by saying on the same podcast that the plan would not work if its aim was to get more people back into work, adding that “it’s not a Labour thing to do”.

At a tense cabinet meeting last Tuesday, several serving members raised their concerns about how the Labour government would be viewed if it froze Pip payments and made it more difficult to receive them.

Any plan to freeze Pip or change eligibility rules would require primary legislation, running the risk that they could become the focus of a sizeable Labour rebellion in the House of Commons and also the Lords.

Several Labour MPs have made clear to the Observer that they could not support the plans in any parliamentary vote.

Speaking to the Observer, Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, insisted that Labour was sympathetic to those unable to work because of disability.

She said: “I know as a constituency MP for 14 long years under the Tories that there will always be some people who cannot work because of the severity of their disability or health condition. Protecting people in genuine need is a principle Labour will never compromise on.”

But she also insisted that the system badly needed reform to ensure that people did not spend a lifetime on benefits and to prevent the overall benefits bill from soaring even higher.

“Being trapped on benefits if you can work is terrible for people’s living standards, health and opportunities,” Kendall said.

She added: “It’s terrible for the country, too, as spending on the costs of failure soar. The sickness and disability bill for working age people has increased by £20bn since the pandemic, with a further £18bn rise to £70bn projected over the next five years.

We must fix this broken system for the people who depend on it and the country as a whole.”

In a further measure to placate furious Labour MPs, sources said Kendall would move to legislate to create “a right to try” guarantee to ensure sick and disabled people could take a job safe in the knowledge that they would not be forced to undergo a new reassessment and the possibility of losing their benefits as a result.

One million people would see their benefits reduced under the government’s proposed reforms, according to the Times.

Ministers are said to be examining changing eligibility for Pip in such as way that it would not be available for people who need someone else to help them wash below the waist, or need to be reminded to go to the toilet to prevent them having an accident.

The new rules would, in effect, mean that only the most severely disabled would receive Pip, while those with mental health conditions would not.

Ministers are also planning to scrap the work capability assessment, which is used to decide if people receiving universal credit are fit for work.

It is separate from Pip, which is intended to help cover the extra costs of being disabled, whether or not they can work.

About 4.8 million people receive Pip or the benefit it was designed to replace, the disability living allowance.

Campaigners say the problem facing disabled people is that even those who are desperate to return to the workforce find they cannot cope, or employers are not willing to accommodate them.

A government programme that supported 286,000 disabled people over the past seven years who wanted to find work was only able to secure jobs for one in five.

Anna Stevenson, a benefits expert at the disability charity Turn2us, said: “These were people who, although they were unwell, thought they were probably well enough to work and really keen to work.”

Stevenson said that if the government was serious about helping more disabled people into work, it needed to change employment law.

“If you want very high employment among disabled people, one of the things you need to change is how easy it is for employers to fire people when they’re ill.

“But that has the potential to distort the labour market. There are always trade-offs.”

In the 1970s, employers would put workers on “light duties” if they were unable to do harder, physical jobs, but that practice has all but vanished, leaving disabled people to rely on the state instead.

The Department for Work and Pensions said: ‘We have been clear that the current welfare system is broken and needs reform, so it is fairer on the taxpayer, helps long-term sick and disabled people who can work to find employment, whilst ensuring it provides support for those who need it most

“We have a duty to get the welfare bill on a more sustainable path and we will achieve that through meaningful, principled reforms rather than arbitrary cuts to spending.

“That why as part of our Plan for Change we will bring forward our proposals for reform shortly that will unlock work to help us reach our ambition of an 80% employment rate, and is fairer to all.”

This is a government-scared and ignore the Russia stuff, Starmer thinks it will get him better ratings. It won't he looks schizophrenic because Russia is coming to the table with EU countries backing down. Germany realised that it was too expensive for them to do and France ks going to get bodied because they were trying to put nukes there the Poles, US and Germany were like wtf mate?

I expect a Reeves sacking in the next couple of weeks, with them countering her claim about Trump lowering our GDP and the statement about countering her proposal is pretty brutal for a Chancellor.
 
Back