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.
 
'No Fash, eat Smash!'

We're fucked more than Bonnie Blue, though giving 16 year olds the vote IMO isn't too bad a thing - I'd prefer it if it were 16 year old workers only, but there we are.

The interesting thing will be if a large amount of 16 year olds actually vote for Nigel and Reform UK.

Certainly, in my part of the world, Nigel has a decent amount of respect from the 'young 'uns' and one lad who lives nearby recently said 'we have to stop thinking about how the teachers and adults tell us to think and work out what is right for us, we only have one life and can't live it on just their terms.'

In Wales, where the 16 year old vote has been standard practice for some time, it's actually led to less Labour and Lib Dem votes and more Plaid and Reform UK votes - the window is shifting and when Welsh Labour are ranting that there's no difference between Rhun ap Iorwerth and Nigel Farage then even the kids can see that what they currently have in terms of a Government is horse manure.
 
'No Fash, eat Smash!'

We're fucked more than Bonnie Blue, though giving 16 year olds the vote IMO isn't too bad a thing - I'd prefer it if it were 16 year old workers only, but there we are.

The interesting thing will be if a large amount of 16 year olds actually vote for Nigel and Reform UK.

Certainly, in my part of the world, Nigel has a decent amount of respect from the 'young 'uns' and one lad who lives nearby recently said 'we have to stop thinking about how the teachers and adults tell us to think and work out what is right for us, we only have one life and can't live it on just their terms.'

In Wales, where the 16 year old vote has been standard practice for some time, it's actually led to less Labour and Lib Dem votes and more Plaid and Reform UK votes - the window is shifting and when Welsh Labour are ranting that there's no difference between Rhun ap Iorwerth and Nigel Farage then even the kids can see that what they currently have in terms of a Government is horse manure.
81zwfrstzaL._UF894,1000_QL80_.webp
 
We're fucked more than Bonnie Blue, though giving 16 year olds the vote IMO isn't too bad a thing - I'd prefer it if it were 16 year old workers only, but there we are.
I personally think 18 is too low to make a decision about the future of a country. I was a retard at 16 and a slight retard at 18 when I voted for the first time. We should be raising the voting age, not reducing it. Especially as children nowadays are still children well into their 20s where they live at home and rely on their parents. Some people even do this into their 30s and 40s, bafflingly.

They'll always complain and say that "we can't save for a mortgage!", but it's an innately childish trait to blame anything and anyone but yourself.

16 year olds actually vote for Nigel and Reform UK.
Quite a few of them do. But like I always say in huge, constitutional, societal changes like this are floated: imagine how this will be used by the people you hate the most. Labour aren't only farming votes out to immigrants that we're importing like they're fruit, now they're farming votes out to young people which they know will benefit them.

I hate when I agree with Farage, but he had the perfect line today: "I don't agree with it even if it would benefit us electorally."
 
I hoped you lot were joking
Sixteen and 17-year-olds would be able to vote at the next general election, under government plans to lower the voting age.

Democracy Minister Rushanara Ali told the BBC the "seismic" change would ensure young people's voices were heard.

She confirmed the pledge would be part of a raft of measures introduced through a new Elections Bill.

Other changes include expanding forms of voter ID to include UK-issued bank cards, moving towards automatic voter registration and tightening rules on political donations to protect against foreign interference.
The minimum voting age is already 16 for local council elections in Scotland and Wales, and elections to the Senedd and Scottish Parliament.

However for other elections, including to the UK Parliament, local elections in England and all elections in Northern Ireland, it is 18.

Lowering the voting age to 16 across the UK would be the biggest change to the electorate since it was reduced from 21 to 18 in 1969.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c93kkg37n3kt
A pledge to lower the voting age to 16 was included in Labour's election manifesto but it did not feature in last summer's King's Speech, which sets out the government's priorities for the months ahead.

Ali confirmed the government was planning to introduce the change in time for 16 and 17-year-olds to vote at the next general election, which is due to take place by 2029 but could be called earlier than this.

She told the BBC: "At 16, a young person can work, they pay taxes, they can join the Army. So there's no reason why from that age, they shouldn't have a say in who governs our country."

Ali added that the move would ensure politicians took into account the concerns of young people on issues ranging from crime to education, work and housing.

However, Conservative shadow minister Paul Holmes said the government's position was "hopelessly confused".

"Why does this government think a 16-year-old can vote but not be allowed to buy a lottery ticket, an alcoholic drink, marry, or go to war, or even stand in the elections they're voting in?" he asked in the Commons.
Among the other plans set out by the government are expanding the list of accepted ID to vote in Great Britain to UK-issued bank cards, which display the voter's name.

Labour opposed the introduction of voter ID under the Conservatives in 2023 but in its election manifesto the party only promised to "address inconsistencies" in the rules "that prevent legitimate voters from voting", rather than scrapping the policy entirely.

Some 4% of people who did not vote at last year's general election said this was because of voter ID rules, according to the Electoral Commission.

The Conservatives suggested allowing bank cards as voter ID could "undermine the security of the ballot box".

Pressed over whether the security checks of digital banks were robust enough to allow bank cards to be used as a legitimate form of voter ID, Ali told the BBC: "We're going to make sure we take the time to introduce the appropriate changes, and that those changes are done gradually, to make sure that there aren't any risks of abuses or things going wrong."

The government said it would also work towards creating an automated voter registration scheme over the coming years, with safeguards so that people are aware of their registration status and can opt-out if they wish.

Currently people in the UK need to register in order to vote, which can be done online or using a paper form.

The Electoral Commission estimates that nearly eight million people are incorrectly registered or missing from the electoral register entirely, with the issue disproportionately affecting private renters and young people.

In a 2023 report it suggested an automated system could involve organisations like the Passport Office providing Electoral Registration Officers with the names and addresses of people eligible to vote so they can be registered.

The government said its plans would mean individuals would not necessarily need to register to vote and instead those eligible could be directly added to the electoral register through better sharing of data between government agencies.

Exactly how this would work has not been confirmed yet, with the government saying it plans to test different methods.

The National Union of Students described lowering the voting age as "a major victory for young people".

It called on the government to make it as easy as possible for 16 and 17-year-olds to vote by scrapping voter ID laws, implementing automatic voter registration and promoting political literacy in schools and colleges.
Meanwhile, the government said changes to the rules around political donations would help to tackle foreign interference.

Currently political parties can only accept donations from individuals registered on a UK electoral register or UK-registered companies which carry out business in the country.

However, there have been concerns that foreign nationals could get around the rules by donating through a foreign company that is registered in the UK.

The issue came to the forefront at the end of last year, when it was reported that US billionaire Elon Musk could make a donation to Reform UK through the British arm of his social media company X.

Under the plans, political parties would have to assess companies they receive donations from.

Companies would have to make sufficient income in the UK or Ireland to donate.

The government said its proposals would close loopholes that mean a new company, registered only recently without even a single day of trade, owned by anyone, could still donate to a political party.

The Electoral Commission, which oversees elections and regulates political finance in the UK, would be able to hand out larger fines of up to £500,000 to those who breach the rules.

The Liberal Democrats welcomed votes at 16 as "a no-brainer" but said "ministers must go much further to close the door to foreign oligarchs interfering in British politics".
As for the working person Torygraph had a bit of fun with that.


Ever since the Labour general election manifesto promised there would be no tax rises for “working people”, party figures have struggled to define what that means.
The manifesto claimed “Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT”.
Sir Keir Starmer said on Wednesday that the Government would keep this promise, but a growing hole in the public finances has raised questions over whether this will remain the case, and how the party will define a “working person”.
Heidi Alexander, the Transport Secretary, on Sunday appeared to suggest that only those on “modest incomes” would be classed as working people. It was not clear how she defined a “modest” income.
This is not the first time that the language surrounding “working people” and how the Labour Party defines them has come under scrutiny.
The Telegraph breaks down how the term “working people” has changed since Sir Keir first made that promise last year.
Working people do not have savings
Before voters went to the polls, the Labour leader suggested that he did not believe that “working people” had savings.
Asked what he meant by a working person, Sir Keir told LBC in June: “People who earn their living, rely on our [public] services and don’t really have the ability to write a cheque when they get into trouble.”
The following day, Rachel Reeves, the Chancellor, appeared to contradict him by saying that some working people did have savings.
She claimed on Sky News that her definition was: “Working people are people who go out to work and work for their incomes.
“Sort of by definition, really, working people are those people who go out and work and earn their money through hard work.”

Ms Reeves added: “Many other people who go out to work have had to run down their savings.
“But there are people who do have savings, who have been able to save up and those are working people as well.”
People on six figures can be working people
The new Government came under intense scrutiny over its definition of “working people” ahead of the Chancellor’s first Budget in October last year.
Lisa Nandy first suggested that someone on a six-figure salary who goes to work counts as a “working person”.
In an interview with Sky News, the Culture Secretary said: “When I think about working people, particularly the challenges they face, I think about the factory workers, I think about people driving the buses in my constituency, working in the public services, working in the private sector, delivery drivers, call centres.”
When asked whether someone on a six-figure salary counted, the minister replied: “I mean, if they go to work obviously they will be working.”
Landlords and shareholders aren’t working people
The following day, the Prime Minister said that he did not believe that landlords or shareholders fell under his definition of a working person.
Asked by Sky News if those who earn income from assets such as shares or property would count as working people in the Budget, Sir Keir said that they “wouldn’t come within my definition”.
The Chancellor went on to announce an increase in capital gains tax at the Budget, but kept property rates the same.
Small business owners might not be working people
Bridget Phillipson, just days before the Government’s first fiscal event, refused to say whether a small business owner who earned £13,000 a year was a “working person” or not.
The Education Secretary told the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg that Labour’s definition of a working person was someone “whose main income arises from the fact that they go out to work every day”.
Those paying employers’ NI contributions are not working people
When Ms Reeves’s first Budget was unveiled on October 30, she announced an increase to employer’s NI contributions.
Standing at the despatch box, the Chancellor said that “people will not see higher taxes in their playslips as a result of the choices that I am making today. That is a promise made and a promise fulfilled”.

Ministers insisted that this did not breach the manifesto promises not to raise taxes on “working people” because it was employers, rather than employees, paying the increased levy.
But critics, including the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), disagreed.
Paul Johnson, the then director of the IFS, said ahead of the Budget that the manifesto did not “specify employee National Insurance” and therefore raising employers’ NI would be a breach.
He also warned that the levy ultimately came from employee pay, and therefore an increase could result in “less pay rises” and “possibly fewer jobs”.
Working people earn ‘modest incomes’
On Sunday, Ms Alexander said that the Government had promised not to put up taxes for “people on modest incomes”.
She told Sky News: “We made a commitment in our manifesto not to be putting up taxes on people on modest incomes, working people. We have stuck to that.”
Her comments came after Sir Keir appeared to open the door to introducing wealth taxes, following remarks made in favour of the policy by Lord Kinnock, former Labour leader.
 
The actual effect on any elections will be minimal, as under 25s are the lowest turnout group by age and there aren't that many 16-18yos to start with.

It doesn't change the fact that the franchise should not be extended any further than it already is, and frankly should be restricted. People who are chronically reliant on the state should not have the same level of influence as the people who are funding them. I am not in favour of going back to weighting votes by wealth, but a minimum degree of contribution should be required.
 
https://www.cardiff.ac.uk/research/explore/find-a-project/view/2618934-islam-in-wales (archive)

Islam in Wales​


Muslims have been part of the fabric of Wales for over a century, and Islam and Wales are joined through deep historic connections.

Background​


The project seeks to document and tell the “story” of Islam in Wales and make the history of Muslims in Wales accessible to academics, the wider public, and Welsh Muslims themselves so as to broaden public understanding of a multicultural and multireligious Wales.

Urgency​


The first generation of pioneers who settled in Wales are ageing and passing away, and with them, the accounts, histories, and stories of Muslim settlement beyond retrieval.

The importance of this story is even more pronounced given that the current generation of Welsh-born Muslims are “coming of age” and seeking to understand their place in Welsh society. Capturing and telling the history of Muslims in Wales will equip them with an academic account of their communities’ experiences.

Methods​


The research will be led by Dr Abdul-Azim and supported by community volunteers who will act as “participant researchers” documenting their own family history, and collecting important documents and items for archiving. The “participant researchers” will be given training in oral history and social science research methods.

The final dataset will include oral history interviews, collaboratively created family timelines, and archival material.

Outputs​


The outputs for the project will include:
  • a travelling exhibition that can be adapted for museums, galleries, schools, mosques and other locations
  • a monograph published by the Principal Investigator based on project findings, along with academic journal articles
  • a sizable collection collated and made accessible to future researchers and scholars on the history of Muslims in Wales

Advisory Board​


We are currently seeking advisory board members. If you would like to be included, please contact a member of the project team.
 
It doesn't change the fact that the franchise should not be extended any further than it already is, and frankly should be restricted. People who are chronically reliant on the state should not have the same level of influence as the people who are funding them. I am not in favour of going back to weighting votes by wealth, but a minimum degree of contribution should be required.
Universal Suffrage was a mistake.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Mound Dweller
In other news that I'm sure will make people smile, Emma Watson has been banned for driving for 6 months because she got caught speeding. Hahahahah.
She looks rough. I didn’t realise it was her until you pointed it out.
Reform UK-led council axes climate emergency declaration - The council is reallocating their funding to support children in care:
Nature is healing. It is unconscionable that we are spending money on net zero rather than the people who live in a constituency and need help and services. Maybe they can even stop the rape gangs using kids in care as an all you can rape buffet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: teriyakiburns
Nature is healing.
I really hope so. It's a good headline, too, not just another: "Reform UK puts another 18 year old in charge of family services on X council" or "Reform UK councilor by-election after resignation two weeks into the job". or whatever.

Trying not to PL too much but I've got a Reform UK council now and the changes are going well so far.
 
remigration a la Sweden,
Are they actually managing to get rid of anyone? What about those with citizenship?
she knows exactly where she was blocked by what institutions and laws and has a very clear idea of what she wants to change to make the UK democratic again. She's talked about how even as Prime Minister she was unable to actually govern due to laws that had been brought in specifically to make interfering with the agenda illegal and how these laws need to be repealed. And she knows now how the Civil Service fight.
I have always said truss was done dirty and I think I’ve seen that interview. It was a very clear eyed look at the whole thing. I hope she’s able to convey what she learned to reform
one lad who lives nearby recently said 'we have to stop thinking about how the teachers and adults tell us to think and work out what is right for us, we only have one life and can't live it on just their terms.'
Good on him. As for reform, well I’m down in England this week and all I’m hearing is ‘reform has better sort this out, it’s the last chance.’
There is significant support for them but they have one shot at it. I hope they use it well. It’s heartening to see reform led councils drop the net zero stuff - it costs huge amounts of money we don’t have for zero positive effect. That money is limited and it needs to be spent on maintaining the services and environment of their ward. Hang the fly tippers, make the water companies bathe daily in their dirtiest outfall, and spend that money on kids in care and not on net zero bollocks. I am all for environmental preservation, and I hate seeing nonsensical greenwash done at huge cost over simple beneficial moves like ‘hey let’s not build a barret estate on this key wetland flood area.’
 
Interesting exclusive from Guido (link / archive):

Labour have apparently launched a "Farage attack" training camp for their MPs.

Labour HQ has launched “Campaign 365” – a frantic 14-part training push to win over voters. Guido has seen the latest campaign session on how to “take on” Nigel Farage and Reform UK. Strategists admit Reform’s message is cutting through, labelling it a “triple threat” built on immigration, net zero scepticism, and anti-establishment anger, lumping the Tories and Labour into “one box”. Shouldn’t come as a surprise…

The new strategy orders campaigners to undermine Farage’s “underdog” image, drag up old “questionable” comments about Putin and the NHS, and portray Reform as a personal vanity project with Farage as the “king.”

Campaigners say Reform has to be taken “seriously” but insist that it could witness its “destruction” at the hands of Farage’s “ability to fall out with people that don’t fall into line is phenomenal… it’s a pathological situation seemingly throughout most of his life.”


According to the strategists Labour’s internal polling shows one in five of their 2024 voters view the Reform leader favourably. The party line now demands they highlight “why he shouldn’t be Prime Minister.”
 
Are they actually managing to get rid of anyone? What about those with citizenship?
They are. Net migration is negative as of last year, with fewer "asylum seekers" entering and more of the "new swedes" leaving again. Criminals are set to be deported more often. They're also stripping citizenship from dual citizens who are classed as a danger to the security of the country after conviction of a crime, which is a small but significant number, and one that can only be expected to grow as they start to see the benefit of removing disruptive foreigners.
 
The actual effect on any elections will be minimal, as under 25s are the lowest turnout group by age and there aren't that many 16-18yos to start with.
The problem is it will be abused by Muslims to take over places they other wise wouldn't. Muslims don't vote the way we intend them to vote. Men go door to door and do postal votes for every person in a home. Adding all those extra votes will be enough to swing places that wouldn't other wise. All the Muslim kids will vote, very few whites.
Trying not to PL too much but I've got a Reform UK council now and the changes are going well so far.
They didn't cancel enough pride parades. Which annoyed me. It should have been axed on day one.
Interesting exclusive from Guido (link / archive):

Labour have apparently launched a "Farage attack" training camp for their MPs.
What's Farage going to do to the NHS? Make it run worse? 18 month wait to see an African with barely any English skills can't get much worse. Farage will help the NHS if he keeps his deportation promises and that's more than enough to benefit it more than he would hurt it.
 
1752756096737.webp

The logical corollary to the above being that if you don't pay in you should shouldn't get a say. Right, Mr. Starmer?

The actual effect on any elections will be minimal, as under 25s are the lowest turnout group by age and there aren't that many 16-18yos to start with.
Maaaaybe. It could be that the only effect is for the Daily Mail Online to get another excuse to print photos of 17yo girls. But of the 16-18yos who do vote, which way do you think they will be inclined to? I mean when I was 17 if you'd let me vote I'd have probably gone confidently marching in there and put a big fat tick next to the Green Party. And look at my politics now!

Even though there may only be 1.5m 16+17 year olds in the country, it could tip some seats here and there. Politically it's probably equivalent of removing votes from anybody over 75+. Maybe bit less. And the below is some food for thought, it's voting intention in 2025 by age group.

1752756875203.webp

Since Reform is the thread theme at present, there's an interesting trend to note...
 
It is insane that Labour still don't GET IT. If you unleash the past against your opponent, then they will against you. This is just baiting an FAFO mandate. Mate 4 Ukrainian rent boys were caught firebombing an unlisted home. Your wife hates you, and you have been caught partying with only homosexuals, being Lord Ali and Sir Ian McChellin. You are playing with fire, and you will get burned because, out of all the political leaders I have seen, you lack the most foresight.

This Afghan mess is equally on you because you could have lifted the superinjunction but continued, instead to cost up 7 billion, you fucking targeted the most vulnerable of the natives, being the elderly, farmers, and the disabled, like actually disabled. You're a sick, twisted fuck who should never even be allowed near a modicum of power. Your party despises you.

What is funny from a witness at Reeves' Mansion Summit, no one clapped. GET FUCKED!
 
They are. Net migration is negative as of last year, with fewer "asylum seekers" entering and more of the "new swedes" leaving again. Criminals are set to be deported more often. They're also stripping citizenship from dual citizens who are classed as a danger to the security of the country after conviction of a crime, which is a small but significant number, and one that can only be expected to grow as they start to see the benefit of removing disruptive foreigners.
Updating on this @Otterly and co with an official press release. In 2023, the majority of emigrants were middle eastern and somali, which is where the majority of immigrants previously came from.
 
Updating on this @Otterly and co with an official press release. In 2023, the majority of emigrants were middle eastern and somali, which is where the majority of immigrants previously came from.
Very interesting thank you. I wonder what kind of numbers are leaving…it says online that they will offer 34k sek (that’s about 30k pounds per person to leave from 2026, which is quite a lot, you could be rich in Somalia on that. It’ll be interesting to see what that does, and of they follow it up with the real stick, who h is removal of benefits
 
Back