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.

 

[Made In Wales]

@Zoot I believe there's talk about removing the whip from Ms. Sultana.

That would be contentious, but Starmer would have to be seen as the victor in any fight with her and any dissidents.

 

[>IMPLYING]

https://www.gbnews.com/politics/politics-news-latest-starmer-nato-farage-iran-russia-israel

Archive: https://archive.ph/1nc7G

'Reform UK's deputy leader Richard Tice is set to present a bill introducing a new "backstop" against overly harsh sentences following the imprisonment of Lucy Connolly.

The bill, nicknamed "Lucy's Bill" would allow members of the public to mount mass appeals against punishments they deem to be too severe.'

Common sense, but no doubt the usual suspects will have apoplectic fits...

Also, Pat McFadden MP insists the Benefits Bill will go through, despite the fact that it will lead to an almost instantaneous backlash. If the MP's are whipped, and they defy their masters, then Labour will be facing a major crisis and (hopefully) a lot worse.

Is this being done to counter Lowe's petition so Reform can get some clout instead?

 

[Zoot]

Is this being done to counter Lowe's petition so Reform can get some clout instead?

I reckon.

Also Immigration #1 issue even with the normies now.

Link
Archive

 

[Kofi Drinka]

When I’m in charge, we will have a constitution. Number one will be free speech, expression and thought

Free speech is a dangerous tool. The leftist problems we have today come from free speech in American culture. With no way to punish promoting dangerous ideas they get to grow and become rival ideologies and life styles. Some ideas are dangerous (islam) and outlawing their promotion is for the benefit of all.

Imran Mulla jailed after granting asylum applications for money

Paki asked a Paki if they needed more Pakis. Paki said yes.

All of our social systems are run by foreigners and no one wants to say how bad this is. Immigration and benefits are both overrun by these people. Talk to people on benefits who needed to be assessed and many will tell you a foreigner was making the judgement.

 

[>IMPLYING]

I reckon.

Also Immigration #1 issue even with the normies now.
View attachment 7550168View attachment 7550169
Link
Archive

I can't see any other outcome than everything else improving if you sort out immigration. Maybe everyone else had the same thought too.

Health: Less people = less burden on NHS = ought to work better in theory. Iffy about lying foreign nurses and doctors, but with less patients there should be less of a burden on it and they can afford to let all the shit go, which also lowers over costs alongside fewer patients.

Economy & Welfare: Relies on jobs, which natives are pretty much competing with the whole world for (low-skilled jobs fucked by mass import of cheap labour, high-skilled jobs fucked for similar reasons ever since Indians got internet access), so fewer people means excess jobs means competitive wages means more disposable income which leads to increased consumerism which benefits the consumer goods market. (Did you know on average pre-80s in places like France and the US, places paid double minimum wage despite the floor being set so low?)

Welfare: Fewer people also means less people on our welfare which ought to decrease costs. Being pragmatic we're unlikely to kick out every undesirable (unless we offer incentivised self-deportations a la Sweden, ramping the payouts even higher once their numbers start trickling low) but if we can force out all the overt leeches first it again positively impacts our spending. And if the complaint here is that they don't get enough welfare, well with fewer people burdening it they might be able to consolidate it and give out more individually from the people who've left, and for those worried about it being given out at all, the fewer people burdening it makes it easier to audit and employ more scrutiny.

Crime: Pretty self-explanatory. I mean we just got stats regarding the disproportionate numbers of child sexual assault, it would at least ameliorate that somewhat. Fewer people also means less crime across the board.

Housing: Property prices rise with rising population because it's creating the demand for more housing. Decreased or outright cessation on immigration and declining population numbers will allow house prices to decline and perceived demand lowers too.

Environment: Fewer people, smaller carbon footprint (I fookin' hate that term but yeah). Might also decrease fly tippers, litterers and all sorts.

Yeah I can't see how decreasing immigration would act as a negative. Maybe it'll harm corporations who need the mere existence of these people to keep local wages low, which in turn might see several places providing jobs close down due to costs; parties who rely on immigrants for their votes in some places (especially in cities) will be harmed, incentivising they don't vote or get behind legislation that cuts it; people who rely on properties to keep the value of their portfolio high will be harmed (alongside landlords, whose rent prices do rise in accordance to property values to some extent); consumer goods and service providers might be harmed since the market shrinks (welfare states make good markets because even in places where people aren't earning a disposable income, the government is effectively providing you revenue indirectly by giving the unemployed money).

But yeah: I'm a larger fan of a different sort of net-zero if you catch my drift.

 

[Kier Starmer]

I think personally, there are about 200 who are going to vote against. I say 200 because 150 have spoken up about it on their social media, and 108 committed to it and put their name on the line. I think there are a lot of MPs seeing whether the group is sizeable, and it is. 108 of the declared rebels are over 1/4 of the party. The shadow ministers have also spoken about this, and they do not support it because it has not been tested. I think Kemi will side with them since she is also not in a great position either.

Funnily enough, Starmer has been absent from PMQs for 2 weeks now because he is a coward. The China shit will also haunt Kier as much as the word "Nigel". People have not forgotten Covid and they dislike the chinks.

 

[Kofi Drinka]

Welfare: Fewer people also means less people on our welfare which ought to decrease costs. Being pragmatic we're unlikely to kick out every undesirable (unless we offer incentivised self-deportations a la Sweden, ramping the payouts even higher once their numbers start trickling low) but if we can force out all the overt leeches first it again positively impacts our spending. And if the complaint here is that they don't get enough welfare, well with fewer people burdening it they might be able to consolidate it and give out more individually from the people who've left, and for those worried about it being given out at all, the fewer people burdening it makes it easier to audit and employ more scrutiny.

You're not going to have a bribe large enough to make people leave. You see how bad the third world is and here they get so many benefits outside of the money. As bad as the country is to us now, it's still better than anything in the third world. They're low class criminal scum with shared harems of the most beautiful children in the world. That alone is more than their own nations can ever offer. It's going to take them feeling terror to make them leave and that means extreme levels of violence where it's better to live in a single room shack with 10 other smelly curry niggers than face the consequences of not leaving.

 

[Amin Yasister]

Has been for the last 15 years but if you say this you get called a pedophile.

Not from what I saw of the groupies that surrounded the bands I used to go and see. A few were in their teens, most in their 20's, the odd one or two in their 30's.

I suppose age depends on which bands they followed-I can't comment on the fans of "Boy Bands" but imagine their fans will be in their mid teens.

I just was listening to this Greg Johnson talk on free speech. It pretty much convinced me what a bad spot we would be in if It wasn't for the American free speech that enables them to be able to say more than us, but Britain has been able to access. It's clearly why they are clamping down.

They don't want us to be able to hear what Americans can talk about.

I sometimes wonder if "Angry Bootneck" would get his collar felt if his YouTube videos were posted from within the UK, rather than from his home in US?

 

[>IMPLYING]

Free speech is a dangerous tool.

The first major hindrance to free speech in this country and what directly lead to people getting arrested for Twitter posts was the Public Order Act of 1986.

An Act to abolish the common law offences of riot, rout, unlawful assembly and affray and certain statutory offences relating to public order; to create new offences relating to public order; to control public processions and assemblies; to control the stirring up of racial hatred; to provide for the exclusion of certain offenders from sporting events; to create a new offence relating to the contamination of or interference with goods; to confer power to direct certain trespassers to leave land; to amend section 7 of the Conspiracy, and Protection of Property Act 1875, section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, Part V of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 and the Sporting Events (Control of Alcohol etc.) Act 1985; to repeal certain obsolete or unnecessary enactments; and for connected purposes.

In the context of the time, it was passed by a Conservative government in reaction to: Southall riot in 1979 (parallels to modern Leftist, anti-right wing demonstrations), Brixton riot in 1981 (sort of a proto-BLM), and the national miners' strike and associated disorder between 1984 and 1985 – in particular the Battle of Orgreave in June 1984, and the Battle of the Beanfield in June 1985.

These were primarily left-aligned and/or union/worker strikes. Prohibiting free speech 40 years ago is still having major consequences to this day. Even the Left's attempt to suppress the Right in modern times just resulted in a harsh rubber banding that's seeing formerly unthinkable views 20 years ago starting to push into the mainstream whilst also actively silencing the voices who might've put a lid on the major problems we're experiencing today before they ever become ones. The back and forth censorship just leads to the intensity of one group growing larger before the problems that went ignored become too big to ignore, rupture like a boil, and effectively give control over to the other side. Conservatives did nothing to prevent industries leaving the UK in the 80s, silenced the disaffected, and eventually gave control to Blair on a silver platter. Labour did nothing about going immigration resentment, silenced the disaffected, and gave control to the Tories in 2010. The Tories were similar, now we've crashed because the original problem they were meant to solve, they didn't even try to, so now we're in a liminal period.

Places like France and Germany can delay and lengthen this period thanks to their coalition system, but the right-wing (even those who voted CDU) are probably confused as shit as to why their "right-wing" party made coalition with a left-wing one - again - and immediately dismissed the idea that there was a problem with immigration. Macron and the lefties had to finagle some bullshit to ensure Le Pen's party didn't make a majority, and when the leftists in-fought - as they do - he was forced to make Le Pen's party take the prime minister spot. As a last resort the EU charged her for embezzlement committed during her time as an EU MP (in 2004) to stop her running in 2027, but the guy who replaced her is even more extreme than she is.

This all to their detriment as well.

Imagine if Donald Trump won in 2020, and then had to lead America through 3 years of a shit economy (Covid still fucking up rest of the world), then one or two year of lameduckery as they inevitably lost the midterms. The Republican party would be floundering right now and their reputation in the proverbial toilet. But no, they (Dems, Dem-alighted platforms, etcetera) had to censor the right-wing, meaning that trannies went unopposed and actively scared off Dems as their representatives were giving ground to skinwalkers who wanted access to their kids. These trannies had zero pushback effectively since in discourse and news, shit was so controlled and shadowbanned that people weren't allowed to push back against it in any major way.

Through censorship and keeping as firm a grasp onto power as they can, neoliberals, leftists and traitors (just like the plutocrats, trickle-down economists and traitors before them) have handed the next decade over to their opponents. Only this time, unlike the Tories to Blair and Brown to Cameron, who had to cope with a decade of unanswered issues, we're currently preceding a society that has been forced to stew for even longer (15 to 28 years) in a problem that they weren't legally allowed to talk about anywhere, and the politicians and leftists are so surprised it's considered a problem for the majority of people that they're trying to scramble and appeal but to no avail.

With Free Speech, shit positions and ideas are self-correcting as they're blatantly dismissed. With trannies for example, they were allowed to grow and get worse because pushback was a non-option.

In modern times, something like this: French petitions against age-of-consent laws

Would've made more headway than it did if free speech apparatus was in the hands of the far-Left between 2015-2025.

 

[Made In Wales]

Some latest news from GB News:

Cemeteries campaigner abused by roadside vows to fight on: 'I will not let them deter me!'

https://www.gbnews.com/news/birmingham-news-cemeteries-campaigner-abused-roadside-john-gilmore

Archive: https://archive.ph/wip/C9Xkq

Backbench Labour MPs have been warned that an upcoming vote on welfare reforms is being treated as 'a confidence vote in Sir Keir Starmer.'

https://www.gbnews.com/politics/politics-news-latest-starmer-nato-farage-iran-russia-israel

Archive: https://archive.ph/1nc7G

Former England footballer Shaun Wright-Phillips faces bankruptcy after 'being hit with HRMC bankruptcy petition'

https://www.gbnews.com/sport/football/shaun-wright-phillips-bankruptcy-petition-2672417956

Archive: https://archive.ph/wip/P66kJ

 

[>IMPLYING]

You're not going to have a bribe large enough to make people leave. You see how bad the third world is and here they get so many benefits outside of the money. As bad as the country is to us now, it's still better than anything in the third world. They're low class criminal scum with shared harems of the most beautiful children in the world. That alone is more than their own nations can ever offer. It's going to take them feeling terror to make them leave and that means extreme levels of violence where it's better to live in a single room shack with 10 other smelly curry niggers than face the consequences of not leaving.

If you were going to pass harsher measures, you'd want to introduce incentives to reduce their overall numbers first so that there's less of them here to push back against harsher legislation. "Ban (implicitly Muslim specific thing)" would be easier with a smaller Muslim population. The "bribe" argument is based on its effectiveness in Sweden mostly. Plus the smarter ones would realise that the sweet opening incentives means it's better to leave now before you end up getting constricted later on when stuff like halal is taken away and your women can't sufficiently cover themselves.

Plus, 24k GBP translates to 9 million Pakistani rupees, which is apparently enough to get you a 3 bedroomed house and have 1.5 million left over.

It's better to be poor in the UK than poor in Pakistan, but if you could live as a rich man in Pakistan (as a Pakistani) than a poor man in the UK, you'd probably take the offer.
Like look at this shit:


Thanks Arooj.

(Also all the deported Pakistanis coming up with relative millions buying up properties is likely to fuck something up)

 

[Le b0wski]

Caught one of the experts yesterday on the BBC wailing out how this overreach might impact (in her own words) innocent "aliases" of Palestine Action. Clearly assuming the audience is too dumb to know what that means.

I just think they need to be realistic about how few people are the handful of people who are breaking into weapons factories and things.

As an example I know from them posting online the boycott mc donalds/coca cola/starbucks/nestle people who have suggested the same boycott for 20+ years in response to everything and anything also claim to be Palestine Action. Apart from being a bit repetitive and annoying they aren't terrorists.

 

[Mister Fister]

If you were going to pass harsher measures, you'd want to introduce incentives to reduce their overall numbers first so that there's less of them here to push back against harsher legislation. "Ban (implicitly Muslim specific thing)" would be easier with a smaller Muslim population. The "bribe" argument is based on its effectiveness in Sweden mostly. Plus the smarter ones would realise that the sweet opening incentives means it's better to leave now before you end up getting constricted later on when stuff like halal is taken away and your women can't sufficiently cover themselves.

Plus, 24k GBP translates to 9 million Pakistani rupees, which is apparently enough to get you a 3 bedroomed house and have 1.5 million left over.
View attachment 7550302
It's better to be poor in the UK than poor in Pakistan, but if you could live as a rich man in Pakistan (as a Pakistani) than a poor man in the UK, you'd probably take the offer.
Like look at this shit:
View attachment 7550307
View attachment 7550311
Thanks Arooj.

(Also all the deported Pakistanis coming up with relative millions buying up properties is likely to fuck something up)

Better now than after the UK government collapses and the protection of the state is gone.

 

[Tom Nook's Gloryhole]

As an example I know from them posting online the boycott mc donalds/coca cola/starbucks/nestle people who have suggested the same boycott for 20+ years in response to everything and anything also claim to be Palestine Action. Apart from being a bit repetitive and annoying they aren't terrorists.

As much as my eyes rolled about the McDonalds protests, I did enjoy how it was the first way of credibly attacking Sir Stormzy for collaborating with McDonalds. Watching his fanbase eat itself was enjoyable.

 

[Otterly]

Free speech is a dangerous tool.

It’s dangerous to tyrants.

The leftist problems we have today come from free speech in American culture. With no way to punish promoting dangerous ideas they get to grow and become rival ideologies and life styles. Some ideas are dangerous (islam) and outlawing their promotion is for the benefit of all.

The Islam problem is solved by creating a hostile environment to Islamists. No non medical circumcision, no halal slaughter, no consecration of mosques. No immigration from that part of the world. No bongs would be converting en masse to Islam. You just have to enforce the borders.
The leftist mind rot MUST have censorship to flourish. It’s only becasue you will actually get jailed and fired and ruined for opposing it that such ideas gained a hold. If we’d been able to mock the fuck out of it like before we’d be ok. It’s the restriction of expression that’s allowed it to root, not freedom if expression. Even in the states, a culture of fear is there about opposing certain ideas.
Are there limits to free expression? Yeah I think stuff like child sexual abuse material is one, and i don’t care if that’s contradictory with otherwise being a free speech wanter - you know what’s evil and you crack down on it and anything else you let speak.
We badly need a constitution in this country. We are being shackled to tyranny and genocided. We need to be able to talk about it, to normalise opposition to it and to sort it out.

 

[Mound Dweller]

Yeah nah, this bit of yours is really fucking tiresome to read.
You're always either complaining about someone making an effortpost or you accuse people of being a glowie.
Meanwhile, you endlessly suck Jewish cock and push civic nationalism.

If anyone is trying to subvert the narrative, it's you Moishe. All you do is complain about other posters, make suspiciously catty remarks, or make the same Gregg joke a million times.
Yeah, we've all seen the meme dipshit.
You sound like a foreigner doing a "how do you do fellow kids?".
If Null pinged your IP, would it be set in Ramat Gan?

I really wish you'd stop kvetching about people being too right wing when the English speaking world is currently being overrun with Bomalians.

Yeah "he"'s a bit tiresome, also ambiguously brown, needs to mix it up a little.
That said though it's not just a bit, it's due diligence; you think am*rica has it bad with piggus infiltrating the shit out of everything? Britain invented (good) espionage aftrerall.

There's currently a ruckus in the courts over a 20 year police operation to do with subverting leftie environmentalist groups, that got attention because the orificers in question had been doing shit like having multiple families in-between setting up false flags and embezzling funds.
It's not just regular plods either, NCA is literally anglo CIA but it operates domestically, they're mostly concerned with shit like actual terrorism for now (and more recently: grooming, they're part of the reason why that report was made possible thanks to the "above and beyond" nature of their powers) but this place could easily fall under that particular aegis.

There's also the 77th brigade, which are a real thing not just a bogeyman, and that's without going into all the well documented shit GCHQ get up to, or the crap that H*pe n*t H*te get away with as a de facto branch of the Security Services.
They really are out to get us, they have been on this forum before, they will be here right now, they will be here again, it's not just a silly joke; it's a reminder of this fact.

 

[Zoot]

We badly need a constitution in this country. We are being shackled to tyranny and genocided. We need to be able to talk about it, to normalise opposition to it and to sort it out.

We need the freedom to speak about these issues, and the freedom to organise along our own racial lines of white British. If we had those two things we would win so easily.

The taboo of the host people organising as ourselves is the strongest taboo as it would give us complete victory. We would soon overcome the Muslim networks in Whitehall, the Indian shop networks, all of that shit.

It is why all the race relations and equality stuff was written. To stop us from organising amongst ourselves. I mean, from that the free speech would come anyway, so its really one thing

My main thing I encourage is for white people to favour their own race in businessm, trade, socially etc. We need to get use to actively favouring our own face, even sometimes when we don't personally like someone,

We should favour a white tradesman over a brown one at all times.

 

[Kofi Drinka]

It's better to be poor in the UK than poor in Pakistan, but if you could live as a rich man in Pakistan (as a Pakistani) than a poor man in the UK, you'd probably take the offer.

You're thinking they would value being rich in a shit hole where being rich is often a death sentence and they would still be returning as a lower caste member despite the money. As horrific as it is, look at the perks of being a rapey paki today and ask yourself what you would trade for it. There's nothing better in the world to them. Even if they could get a harem they wouldn't be as beautiful as European women.

We badly need a constitution in this country. We are being shackled to tyranny and genocided. We need to be able to talk about it, to normalise opposition to it and to sort it out.

The constitution hasn't protected America. The global culture of leftism used the free speech to gain power and then used non-governmental power to crush it's opposition. The constitution does nothing to stop social media shutting you down for wrong think of the banks deplatforming you so you can't make a living. The right has tried to play fair every time it got into power and ended up being taken for a ride by the left. You don't treat evil people fairly because they will abuse your nativity. These are people who murder unborn children, help protect rape gangs and think it's fine to sing don't look back in anger when the streets run red with little girl's blood.

Right wing ideology is common sense. It's protecting your family and your wider family from dangers. It doesn't need a boot on people's necks to make them live by it and see the benefits. Left wing ideology can only prosper in unnatural environments backed up by force. If you don't keep it locked down then it will take control of the power structures and continue to spread evil.

I don't want to be fair to child murderers and rapists. This is the one thing women promote in politics and it always back fires on them. If you kill the evil people there are less evil people to do evil. If you let evil people build up a network they will use it to take power for themselves. You can stamp it out and you can prevent it from growing. The meme of "if we oppose it then it will only get stronger" is the same argument as "you're gay if you publicly oppose homos." If you solve problems then there are less problems. Pieces of paper telling everyone to be fair and nice to each other don't work, they're useless in defending your people and culture. People have been talking about the paki problem since Enoch Powell days and it didn't solve anything. The only reason there is push back now is because it's become everyone's problem. Being the only white person in a town center wakes people up better than Morgoth's review has ever done. Free speech lets you preach to the choir. If you don't control the propaganda machine and the violence in a society you have no power no matter what you say say. And they have to be protected through using them against evil people trying to subvert them.

 

[Mound Dweller]

Constitutions nshit are a spook, just look at the crap that gets pulled in muttmerica thanks to the commerce clause, or the crap that got pulled in Ancient Rome because of... many reasons there, my point is; writing things down counts for fuck all, the only power that maters is the control of violence or it's implication, and that never has anything to do with written rules, focusing on them is a waste of time and effort.
Case in point; when the cops were directly instructed to stop fucking around and just ram moped thieves and suddenly the problem went away (till they switched to ebikes and the cycle started anew), this wasn't a law change it was... using the implication of violence that was already there.

 

[Otterly]

The constitution hasn't protected America. The global culture of leftism used the free speech to gain power and then used non-governmental power to crush it's opposition.

Then it’s the non governmentals you crush. I’m all for defunding NGOs. actually I’m all for chucking them in a volcano. It’s the subversive elements that have gotten a hold. You dont go after them with restriction of free speech, you just take them down, with hardcore blackops if you must. You defund them and put rules on foreign funding in place. You undermine and you form your own consensus. You don’t just restrict everyone’s speech. That’s a top down enforcement where a bottom up building is more effective.