UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

https://news.sky.com/story/row-over-new-greggs-vegan-sausage-rolls-heats-up-11597679 (https://archive.ph/5Ba6o)

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.

 

[SchizoDaemon]

For all the worrying that people here are having, as long as you're doing the basic shit of using Tor + a VPN and not posting identifiable information on this website, you'll almost certainly be fine. Unless you're making actionable threats or posting instructions on making things that go boom (like that one guy we had ITT a few months back), the average government-hired internet janny has fuck all reason to bother with the relative inconvenience of going after you

This is the reality of it. A similar thing happened back when torrenting was being debated.

It ended up being a spineless letter from the ISP. In the end the ISPs basically said, "We are wasting our time sending these out," and I am pretty sure that other than the odd FUD article in the Daily Express scaring people into not downloading the season finale of Game of Thrones (or whatever the big TV series popular at the moment is), I don't think they even really do much anymore.

The bigger worry is whether large websites will bend the knee to Starmers demands and implement these checks, or if they'll tell him to go fuck himself and simply just block UK users.

I don't think Ofcom can do much other than issue a fine and never collect.

 

[Vesperus]

I miss the good old days when we argued about bread nomenclature.

 

[femboy fart huffer]

I miss the good old days when we argued about bread nomenclature.

When this is all over and we can all fedpost on facebook under our real names I'll tell you what I actually call bread.

 

[Beautiful Border]

If screen time really is a big issue, then we're long past the point where "teens using social media" is even the issue. I'm routinely shocked by the amount of actual babies and toddlers who are simply plopped in front of a smartphone or tablet for hours at a time. You can quite literally buy prams that have a mounted holder for a tablet.

Surely that is a way bigger issue? The early years are some of the most important for childhood development. We're worried about 15 year olds scrolling on their phones all day, when that's what 15 month olds are doing! That's way more alarming!

I'm inclined to say the issue isn't social media as such, it's smartphones and tablets. The 'worst' forms of social media, in terms of both content and affecting people's attention spans, are infinite-scrolling social media apps like TikTok and Youtube Shorts. If I had to say any apps were genuine problems, it's these ones. But these are apps that are engineered with smartphones in mind. In a world where the Internet was still only accessible through desktop PCs and laptops, I don't think TikTok would have found mass market appeal. A lot of these negative effects are downstream of the impact smartphones have had on the ecosystem of the Internet.

All of these concerns around children and screen time weren't so much of an issue 15 years ago not because parents were better back then, but because a desktop PC or a game console naturally 'nudge' people towards less screen time and at later ages than a smartphone does. At the very least, a toddler would be too frustrated with learning how to use a keyboard and mouse and navigating a desktop environment to become a screen addict. With a touchscreen, nothing is stopping them.

This just isn't going to fix the core issue. The underlying feeling that there is a problem here is valid, but the focus is on completely the wrong target.

A social media ban won't stop the most at-risk groups because all this means in practice is "You now have to show your ID to create an account". But the under-5s aren't creating their own accounts in the first place. They're scrolling on their parent's phone, or on a tablet the parents bought for them, and on their parent's account. How do you stop that?

 

[femboy fart huffer]

If screen time really is a big issue

If screen time for kids was an issue we would stop broadcasting cbeebies and cbbc.

 

[Beautiful Border]

If screen time for kids was an issue we would stop broadcasting cbeebies and cbbc.

Well, that's the thing. I'm not 100% convinced of all of this is that much of an issue in the first place.

There's clearly a large element of moral panic to all this, especially when we're talking about older kids. People have always said that whatever new thing is popular with the kids will ruin them. They said it about video games, rock and roll, comic books, Dungeons and Dragons. I think people should stop and ask themselves if they're not just falling into the same trap of pearl-clutching yet again.

Just look at the borderline hysterical way the media reports about the evil wizard Andrew Tate who is single-handedly brainwashing all the teenage boys to be murderous misogynists. Most teenage boys probably only know who he is because of the British media's bizarre obsession with him.

When we're at the point where we're comparing social media to smoking, to me that's where we can clearly say we're overreacting a bit here. Smoking gives you lung cancer. Social media... wastes your time? How is that in any way comparable lmao.

There are basically two possibilities here: Either screen time for kids is harmful - in which case, we're making a serious mistake by focusing so heavily on tweens and teens, as by that point the damage is arguably already done. Or screen time isn't harmful, in which case this is just an outright waste of time and resources thinking about and passing laws to try to stop. Depending on how you look at it, this is barking up the wrong tree at best or a complete overreaction at worst.

 

[AssignedEva]

Surely that is a way bigger issue?

Banning parents from throwing an iPad at their toddler would be unpopular with the electorate, nanny state gone mad etc. etc.
Doing age verification to stop nonces and prevent cyberbullying is popular. At least for now. It'll stop being popular when everyone's having to upload their ID to use Facebook, and the kids are whining they can't use YouTube properly until eventually their parents cave and age verify the accounts for them. But it's one of those laws that once passed will never be repealed, unless the specific implementation causes significant economic disruption in some way.

 

[Judge Dredd]

The answer to protecting children from groomers and pornography is to actually actively parent your kids and monitor what they do and who they may be interacting with online.

Here's how I'd fix it.

Ban everyone under 16 from using the internet. Done.

No real ID or any of that nonsense. Police it as they do movies or alcohol. ie. It's focused more on parents telling them to knock it off, and giving the side eye to any business that tries to sell internet access to children. Parents can give limited internet access (like those kinds that give kids half a glass of wine at weddings) but it's understood that if your kid is seen drunk or walking around with a vodka bottle, social services will be having a word.

End result. Grown ups get to enjoy the internet as is. Children aren't pressured into joining Discord or Whatsapp for school work. Kids who are responcible get to play Call of Duty or whatever. And a few parents who let iPads raise their kids will find themselves in trouble.

‘Far-right fascist rag’ the Daily Mail today:
Ver archivo adjunto 9148285

Sorry if late, but I wanted to ask about this.

I saw the papers this morning, and it claims that Tommy Robinson was arrested at Heathrow for terrorism. I couldn't find any mention of it in the thread.
Searching online brings up this BBC article.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1kym193k7po

Far-right activist Tommy Robinson says he was stopped at Heathrow Airport under counter terrorism laws and had his phones seized on Saturday evening.

A Metropolitan Police spokesperson said a man in his 40s was stopped after returning to the UK from Russia via Turkey.

A man was stopped at around 17:00 GMT under the Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, they added.

The statement said: "The man was interviewed by officers and his communication devices were seized. He was subsequently released."

Robinson, 43, posted a video on X earlier in the week showing him meeting Elon Musk's father in Moscow.

In November, Robinson, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, was found not guilty of a terror offence after refusing to give police access to his phone in July 2024.

He had been stopped by officers at the Channel Tunnel in Folkestone while driving a friend's silver Bentley to Spain.

Robinson refused to give officers the Pin to his phone during the stop, saying that the device contained confidential journalistic material.

This seems to be old news, so why it's being brought up again seems odd.

 

[Anomalous Coward]

Monero

You can only buy monero p2p here. Exchanges don't list it

 

[General Emílio Médici]

You can tell exactly who gives a shit about freedom and who just says so when the TV man tells them to by the reaction to this. You have to have a sub-Pajeet IQ to think that Queer Stalin and the UK Government give the SLIGHTEST FUCKING SHIT about the dangers of internet addiction. It is obviously about control and censorship, and anyone trying to argue otherwise is spiritually a natural slave and a subhuman.

And, of course, Nigel's response to this has been weak hearted and wishy washy instead of calling it what it is like Lowe did.

 

[Anomalous Coward]

I don't want them to ban social media because I don't use it - this way everyone else gets brain raped instead of me and i get to be king harrson bergeron of the retard castle

 

[Betonhaus]

https://x.com/RT_com/status/2066525968290984001

https://x.com/Taleiisin/status/2066545793511923883/photo/1

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r2l352z2do

"now who could've possibly wanted to burn down our dear old prime minister's house? Must've been the Russians"

 

[Fireman Sam]

"now who could've possibly wanted to burn down our dear old prime minister's house? Must've been the Russians"

You know it's getting interesting when they pull out the old "Russia is actually playing both sides and they're the real enemy" card.
Is it really hard for people to grasp that racial tensions to the extent we're seeing in Britain and Ireland is caused by... Racial tensions? Ie; foreigners stabbing and trying to behead white people for no reason at all.

I'm expecting another serious push to online censorship and sudden laws being made under dubious worded "emergency" reasons very soon... Potentially bigger than we've seen recently too.
It seems that this convenient bit of information is going to be part of the justification to stomp out ANY dissent British people might be showing, the last push before they start to ban or heavily regulate VPNs. It's coming, a matter of time now.

 

[Betonhaus]

You know it's getting interesting when they pull out the old "Russia is actually playing both sides and they're the real enemy". Is it really hard for people to grasp that racial tensions to the extent we're seeing in Britain and Ireland is caused by... Racial tensions? Ie; foreigners stabbing and trying to behead white people for no reason at all.

I'm expecting another serious push to online censorship and sudden laws being made under dubious worded "emergency" reasons very soon... Potentially bigger than we've seen recently too. It seems that this convenient bit of information is going to be part of the justification to stomp out ANY dissent British people might be showing.

Now to me this sounds completely bonkers and it seems the BBC has chosen to compete with the rags that claim nonsense involving aliens and Elvis Presley rising from the dead to give birth to turtles.

 

[General Emílio Médici]

You don't understand the Russians used KGB chemical weapons to make peaceful migrants into rapist murderers and then they paid off the judges to ignore their crimes! And also Tommy Robinson was then paid to blame the migrants for it all! Now stop falling the right wing billionaire psyop of blaming the migrants and please elect the government that has been in power for the last 30 years again because they are the underdog.

 

[Fireman Sam]

Ver archivo adjunto 9151276
Now to me this sounds completely bonkers and it seems the BBC has chosen to compete with the rags that claim nonsense involving aliens and Elvis Presley rising from the dead to give birth to turtles.

Bonkers or not, some fucking James Bond shit is actually the line they're going with and the sad thing is, it WILL convince boomers to be happy to hand over more of their freedom. I'm convinced it's intentional in some way, or more realistically they're using it as an opportunity they're seeing in a crisis. This is propaganda with a clear purpose.

I'm not convinced the majority of people will buy it. But they don't need to. In fact Two Tier Kier doesn't seem to really care if anyone actually believes the drivel excuses the Government use to justify increased pressure on the native British people...

But what a stellar way to pin the blame on rogue actors who are supposedly secretly drumming up problems with 'fake' accounts... You better not be using the tools of the enemy, ban all VPNs NOW NOW NOW. Be a good citizen, report all cases of anti-censorship attempts... Doing your own research is racist, it's Russia's fault that foreigners are attacking and murdering you in your own country, don't look back in anger or else Russia wins...

Getting pretty sick of it, innit m8

 

[Product Placement]

You can tell exactly who gives a shit about freedom and who just says so when the TV man tells them to by the reaction to this. You have to have a sub-Pajeet IQ to think that Queer Stalin and the UK Government give the SLIGHTEST FUCKING SHIT about the dangers of internet addiction. It is obviously about control and censorship, and anyone trying to argue otherwise is spiritually a natural slave and a subhuman.

And, of course, Nigel's response to this has been weak hearted and wishy washy instead of calling it what it is like Lowe did.

Ver archivo adjunto 9150732

Ver archivo adjunto 9150733

It is more about Keir Starmer wanting a win. The reality is, this policy is extremely popular. And with his aprroval in the gutter he will grab for anything to help him out.
77% of parents support a ban on social media for under-16s

https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/54969-eight-in-ten-parents-say-social-media-use-has-a-negative-impact-on-children

 

[Morethanabitfoolish]

This seems to be old news, so why it's being brought up again seems odd.

Given the timing it's fairly clearly tied to this.

https://x.com/Taleiisin/status/2066545793511923883/photo/1 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8r2l352z2do "now who could've possibly wanted to burn down our dear old prime minister's house? Must've been the Russians"

 

[Ken Barlow]

....Go and build your straw man somewhere else...

Nigger

[posted from my Chinky Paki tapatalk phone]

God you are so fucking boring.

 

[SchizoDaemon]

God you are so fucking boring.

There is an ignore button you can use.