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.

 

[Chunky Salsa]

Or chaste. You know, like you used to.

Yeha that as well lmao.

 

[Zoot]

About this abortion, I looked up the bill and the amendment because everyone has their agend

I think this is a roll out that is coming from somewhere powerful. I say this because i saw that it is also recently been announced in some crown dependencies. One of those events where stuff gets rolled out all at the same time.

 

[close]

(might have been the poster above me in fact but I honestly don't recall).

I think it was in reply to me. I harp on about Jap superiority a lot, so I wouldn't lump them in with whites.

I'm a racial chauvinist in the Mosley sense in that as well as wanting the best for my race I want the best for other races, so long as they aren't fucking with mine or my homelands.

How does that pan out when it comes to exploitation á la British Empire, or modern Chink manufacturing? Are you ok with your race benefiting directly at the expense of another? Would you be ok to sacrifice white people's iPhones if it meant yellow (subhuman Chink yellow, not superior Japanese yellow) child labor would be eradicated?

(Assuming you're white.)

 

[Zoot]

I think it was in reply to me. I harp on about Jap superiority a lot, so I wouldn't lump them in with whites.

How does that pan out when it comes to exploitation á la British Empire, or modern Chink manufacturing? Are you ok with your race benefiting directly at the expense of another? Would you be ok to sacrifice white people's iPhones if it meant yellow (subhuman Chink yellow, not superior Japanese yellow) child labor would be eradicated?

(Assuming you're white.)

I'm not for having a British Empire. It opened us up to the brownoid hordes. I'm pro a pan-European commonwealth, though. The yellows can run their countries and economies how they see fit.

 

[No. 7 cat]

Iran are mulsim, the lefties love the muzzie cock. They will support Iran and Palestine because Iran is protecting its boarders, which is fine if you're a muzzie.

Some of the IS / AQ minded ones will call them, the Shia, heretics. @Osama Bin Laden, former international terrorist turned Kiwifarmer called them worse than Jews, but most muzzies are pro Iran as Israel is its antagonist.

 

[close]

The yellows can run their countries and economies how they see fit.

Sure but by whites providing a market for child labor produced goods, the practice is incentivized. It's the same argument that makes it extremely obvious that "only" consuming child porn is bad. Once more - would you give up a benefit for your race that is solely paid for by the proportional suffering of another race?

 

[Zoot]

Sure but by whites providing a market for child labor produced goods, the practice is incentivized. It's the same argument that makes it extremely obvious that "only" consuming child porn is bad. Once more - would you give up a benefit for your race that is solely paid for by the proportional suffering of another race?

I don't know what your "ONCE MORE" is about.

I'll repeat myself. The yellows are going to have to sort out their own countries and economies and protect their children.

If you want me to do a "yes or no", I won't because it ins't my question to answer. If the yellows stop enslaving their children, then their children won't be making phones. Whether that means there will or won't be phones is a. unknown and b. something that will just happen. I'm not for going over there to force them to do it so there just won't be the phones or maybe there will because they will be made another way.

Edit: Child porn and iphones aren't the same thing btw.

 

[Free the Pedos]

Taking the opinions of women seriously and its consequences has been a disaster for the human race

Treating women like shit is brown coded.

 

[Zoot]

brown coded.

>coded.
I don't speak zoomette but don't worry; I won't take your opinion too seriously

 

[>IMPLYING]

Also why isn't this all being recorded as hate crime? They hate us because we're white and not Muslim.

You would have to prove the rape was accompanied by or motivated by hostility based on a "protected characteristic", and considering rape already carries a sentence of life in prison, it might be seen as gratuitous. You also see the partial thinking behind this in the review itself, where they couldn't conclude themselves why Pakistanis/Muslims were inclined to raping white girls specifically, hence one of the "recommendations" being to investigate why exactly they're so inclined to rape. You would also need to connect victims to their rapists, reach the conclusion "okay, Pakis disproportionately target white girls" and look into that specifically (even though we all know the answer).

Abortion was always murder, it's always going to be murder. Ironically, unless you believe in the soul there is no medical delineation point between 'clump of cells' and 'baby'. If you had to put a gun to my head I'd probably say the best 'real' delineation point would be the formation of the neural crest. Which is basically morning after pill territory.

The sanitised language we use around abortion is deliberate, because we know it's baby killing, we just don't like admitting that. It's why there's so much effort to avoid 'shame' and 'don't feel guilty!' because people that kill their babies generally do feel shame, and do feel guilty. No one apparently is adult enough to just say that the three choices we have are: Lots of kids everywhere, lots of abandoned kids everywhere, or dead babies.

To me the timeframe always made uneasy. To me, 9 months isn't a lot of time and knowing at the end of such a short wait there's a baby, I've become against it. The sanitisation as you point out is to avoid confronting the fact they're ending a life (even a potential life has value) in essence. Then the further reductionist counter-arguments ("Clump of cells!" or worse, "It's a parasite.") has pushed them steadily to the point that a potential human life is neither truly human or truly alive until it leaves the womb. In the UK we have a law that punishes people who damage/kills a foetus if it was capable of being born alive. The University of Durham opposes this.

If there's an insistence on abortion, then there's two somewhat morally acceptable windows for it as far as I see:
1. Abortion on personal/accidental grounds: Within 3 weeks of having conceived (home pregnancy tests, take a minimum I think, 6-12 days of conception to pick it up hence the extra week, it's the only concession I can give)
2. The discovery of major health and/or major development problems on the mother's end or the child's.

 

[Otterly]

How the fuck can that happen and be a surprise? I saw the brain developing at the private scan I went to at what, 11 weeks. Went for another private scan at around 18 weeks and I could see the whole ass face.

I am being very very charitable, but sometimes a 20 week scan will pick up something the earlier one didn’t, or something will have stopped developing properly between them. It’s not something that happens often and it’s almost always a baby that’s wanted at that point so ironically it’s people who want a baby and are then faced with the possibility of giving birth to one that may die at or before birth - which some people do, personally I would just go ahead and let nature take its course but everyone’s different. I don’t envy anyone in that situation and personally I think those cases should be the parents decision. I don’t support on demand abortion to birth
Abortion is always killing. We have to acknowledge that before we can make any laws on it. In life sometimes (in a VERY few circumstances) we accept killing happens. It should not be a free for all with abortion in demand to birth, that’s just so abhorrent. This blatant disrespect for life is sickening.

I think this is a roll out that is coming from somewhere powerful. I say this because i saw that it is also recently been announced in some crown dependencies. One of those events where stuff gets rolled out all at the same time.

Yeah I agree. The euthanasia bill as well, I think we talked about this before, there was a lot of foreshadowing of it, rather bloody rantzen was rolled out to soften people up. Expect a terrible ‘this woman died needlessly because of abortion access’ case I guess, only they will be hard pressed to find one because UK abortion law is NOT restrictive and it’s not killing pregnant women.

said a while back this was going to come up - you could see the media push start to ramp up and then there were all those Esther Rantzen articles. It’s been astroturfed in the press quite heavily the last year or so

That was oct 2024, and references a previous post, so it’s been in the works a while. I just wonder WHY? Uk abortion law isn’t restrictive at all. It’s been uncontroversial because it’s a law that sort of straddles the middle of things - it does allow abortion, it doesn’t make it massively easy, there are hoops to jump through but it’s possible, it doesn’t allow to birth on demand, and it does account for the health of the mother . Why is this now suddenly not enough? What’s the clinical and moral justification here? There is none

 

[teriyakiburns]

Treating women like shit is brown coded.

More accurately, it's Frankishness. Prior to the Normans, the British isles were still germanic, with a heavily celtic substrate and a strong nordic influence. Men and women both could own and manage property, and were recognised for their individual strengths, rather than one being "morally superior" to the other. The French overturned all of that, instituting continental-style serfdom and reducing women (and most men) to little more than chattel. It's this French influence that has crafted the narrative of the woman as inferior in every respect to the man. Radical feminism has tried to invert that narrative, with the predictable backlash from men, and with all parties not understanding that all they're trying to do is institute different kinds of Frenchness. We should return to our ancestors. Paint yourselves blue and stab a Frenchman today!

 

[Zoot]

Men and women both could own and manage property, and were recognised for their individual strengths, rather than one being "morally superior" to the other.

And man's strength is his opinions on practical matters, which certainly does not make him morally superior. Glad to be in concert with my ancestors.

Also: Glad to see that the line in the report about the significance of asylum seekers is getting picked up more and more. It got missed at first in the popular narrative.

Archive

 

[teriyakiburns]

Also: Glad to see that the line in the report about the significance of asylum seekers is getting picked up more and more. It got missed at first in the popular narrative.

It was being deliberately ignored by some quarters. There's still people insisting that 80% of the rape gangs are white British.

 

[>IMPLYING]

>coded.
I don't speak zoomette but don't worry; I won't take your opinion too seriously

Throughout history and to the present day, the race which has been the most consistently nice to their women were whites. Whilst you may have a plethora of examples to pick from regarding the coercion into marriages, of fathers making decisions on behalf of their daughters (and their sons), and abusive husbands, women in Europe's early history were still treated as prized possessions rather than objects, if that makes sense. It's why polygamy was more of a common practice outside of Europe, whereas in Europe proper the furthest such a concept was ever taken was the concubinage practiced amongst the higher echelons of Norse society. The husband still had a wife — the woman whom he married and presumedly loved — and then the women who probably did fall into the category of being objects — usually because they were usually acquired in the same way said Viking acquired all his other treasures — alongside her. By the 1100s, concubinage had also been entirely wiped out, and within the same period Europe also established what age was "too young" for consenting sex.

"Statute of Westminster I" (1275, English law), it says: “all marriages and carnally knowings of maidens under twelve years of age shall be deemed rape.”

Ten years later they added: "a virgin under the age of 12 cannot give legal consent"

(Yes, boys being neglected in laws concerning rape and underage sex has been the case for close to 800 years.)

In Europe, the concept of a wife burning with her husband was conceptually romantic (can't bear to live without him) but not carried out in practice because it was cruel, even to the "uncivilised" Norse. Even though we have evidence of additional human remains alongside the primary occupant, and Ibn Fadlan's account of a female slave being raped and then burnt for a funeral (my only excuse here is that said "female" was still a "slave" ergo an object moreso than a possession). But much of Europe started embracing the concept of chivalry, even in its vaguest sense, the primary attributes of which were fairness and honesty, and empathy for the weak (which included women and children).

I bring up the earliest demarcation between "old enough" and "too young", the idea of burning a wife alive with her husband, and chivalry because these two things that required British intervention in India under British rule.
Age of consent act 1891:

Sati:

First law banning its practice:

So don't hate women, or think of them as being an inherent lesser if what I think they mean by it being "brown coded". Don't perceive their choices and decisions as being necessarily the result of some internal, inherent quality, because the past 70-80 years of human history shouldn't override the centuries that had come before it. Like men, they're fully capable of being subverted and manipulated to achieve the ends of other parties and groups, and attributing too large a portion of blame onto their backs is a way of making the cause of present day woes much simpler.

They're also just as capable of being based, like men.

Complete ignorance to biology and the ignorance of real life limitations is the result of the word "feminist" being re-defined/captured by critical theorists (critical feminist theory, in this instance), and the over presence of young girls on social media being retarded can also be attributed to their age. Remember that feminism changed from "women's rights" to "resisting female oppression" (when said oppression does not exist in any grand scale in the West).

 

[Made In Wales]

The issue of Asians in the UK can actually be solved, perhaps not in five years but definitely within a decade.

1) Halal slaughter is banned - this would lead to some Pakistani's leaving.

2) No more Mosques and repurposing of buildings for Christian worship first - again, this would lead to some leaving because they don't want to be ignored by the state.

3) No new benefits for five years - a tough call but we have to save the UK long term. Those who've been given them since 2019 and who have come over by boat get nothing and will either have to return or risk homelessness. Counties will be instructed to put them 'last in line'.

4) Restrictions on new builds - put the countryside and green-belt first. Houses to only be leased/sold to BritNats who were born here or have contributed at least 10 years tax.

There is also the wildcard which is affecting the quality of life in mainly Muslim areas - Cholera.

In Yorkshire, deaths from Cholera in these communities is rife (because their personal habits are disgusting) but it's something the NHS Trusts in these areas cannot discuss because of racism. Instead, deaths are being attributed to heart attacks, Covid, cancer or other less underlying symptoms.

Cholera or super-Cholera (when it comes) will be to these people what The Spanish Flu was globally in the 1950s. There may even be no vaccine strong enough if their antibodies cannot fight off this new disease.

According to the WHO, there are between 21,000 to 143,000 deaths from Cholera annually worldwide with between 1.3 and 4 million reported cases. Now, let's multiply this by 10 at the very least and say that this many Muslims are going to die from Cholera due to bad sanitation, a lack of investment in infrastructure - insufficient/poor drainage etc. which will cost millions to put right (oh, and it's too late to save people - this should have been done when Rishi was PM). The population of Muslims will nosedive and places like Dewsbury, Bradford, Leeds, Rotherham, Stoke etc. will resemble the opening of Monty Python's 'The Meaning Of Life' - 'bring out your dead!'

Now, could 'Super Cholera' be made in a Wuhan type lab - hmm, perhaps...

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

Having this desire when you don't live here is bizarre to admit.

No, it's not.

Ironically, unless you believe in the soul there is no medical delineation point between 'clump of cells' and 'baby'.

I do believe in a soul. I believe it's mroe humane to send that soul back to God, than allow it to suffer because of Satan's exploitation of human weakness; fear, ego, narcissism and a lack of faith.

 

[EddyRooney]

He missed out the word "no", it's not that deep.

Perhaps it's me, but given the topic and the fact that it is a public message, it might possibly be wise to triple check it before publishing ?

 

[Overly Serious]

Sure but by whites providing a market for child labor produced goods, the practice is incentivized. It's the same argument that makes it extremely obvious that "only" consuming child porn is bad. Once more - would you give up a benefit for your race that is solely paid for by the proportional suffering of another race?

@Zoot doesn't really need me to speak for him but I have this clip handy. He said his politics were in the fashion of Moseley in wanting the best for everybody but separately. So here's Mosely on the subject of exploitative foreign labour. He was against it and wanted onshore manufacturing and industry instead. He viewed exporting manufacturing as bad for the target countries and as uneven competition to British industry. He viewed it as a way for bankers to undermine nation's sovereignty by pitting them against each other. Mosely was a Hell of a speaker and not what a lot of people would expect.

 

[Special spoonie]

I sometimes get a taxi home from work and there's a regular driver who picks me up. Sikh but with a broad Yorkshire accent so must have been here a while

All this was mentioned on news on radio other morning and he went off on one about Muslims. Totally ballistic like. He was nearly in tears and something he said struck a chord with me, as someone who has lived abroad before. "They're guests like me and this, THIS is how the fuckers repay mother England. It makes me sick".

I am a hardened racist but seeing an older man nearly crying at that was awful. Moreso because we all know the Muslims are just as awful to the Sikhs.

I’ve seen things like that before Sikhs going off on the Muslims. Honestly it’s quite entertaining. Some of the biggest “racist” arguments I’ve seen. And as I’ve said before many paki women do actually hate their own men. Was really surprised a couple of them ranting off themselves.

Side note but I really don’t get pakis like that MP Naz Shah (the shut up for the sake of diversity one) who stood up in parliament in defence of Pakis during the grooming gang session. She’s even gone on before about her own mother was sexually abused by a paki, so she murdered him and is in prison (if anyone want a refresh Link) gone about that she was forced into child marriage. Yet. woo lets defend the pakis! She must be the biggest fucking inbred idiot.