UK British News Megathread - aka CWCissey's news thread

Destacado
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
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.
Presiona para expandir...

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.
 
Última edición por un moderador:
Presiona para expandir...
Mound Dweller dijo:
You got something to say about Victorian era vanity projects@Mr. Racewar1488? Don't be shy, everyone's got a take on stealing shit from Afghanistan.
Presiona para expandir...
AssignedEva complained about negrates like a faggot so that means he gets more negrates. If you care about stickers you should return to reddit. Enjoy your shithole of an island full of rape gangs and no AC!
 
Mr. Racewar1488 dijo:
AssignedEva complained about negrates like a faggot so that means he gets more negrates. If you care about stickers you should return to reddit. Enjoy your shithole of an island full of rape gangs and no AC!
Presiona para expandir...
Stickers don't mean anything m8, I'd say you're the one who seems a bit bothered though since you're doing the whole e-stalking thing over it :tomlinson:

Maybe crank up that AC a little... while you still can before those energy prices shoot up again, eh?
 
Some Hobo dijo:
Why bother playing these weird games of half banning, half restricting social media? I wouldn't agree with it, but I'd much rather they ram through a ban on phones for under 18's, you can tell they're salivating about it, and want to do it in their heart of hearts, but don't have the balls to go all the way through, they just can't commit.
In fact, why do all of this while giving these people the vote? Are they gambling on ramming as much propaganda in throughout the next 2 years to make every 16-17 year old forget they've been subject to crackdowns?
It's like they want to lose - and I'm sure some MPs are already seeing the shine rub off on Burnham. What's the endgame?
Presiona para expandir...
These same people unlocked 16 year olds voting, i dont think they are evil anymore, just really really REALLY fucking stupid
 
Some Hobo dijo:
Why bother playing these weird games of half banning, half restricting social media? I wouldn't agree with it, but I'd much rather they ram through a ban on phones for under 18's, you can tell they're salivating about it, and want to do it in their heart of hearts, but don't have the balls to go all the way through, they just can't commit.
In fact, why do all of this while giving these people the vote? Are they gambling on ramming as much propaganda in throughout the next 2 years to make every 16-17 year old forget they've been subject to crackdowns?
It's like they want to lose - and I'm sure some MPs are already seeing the shine rub off on Burnham. What's the endgame?
Presiona para expandir...
The trannies that vote for them would be outraged that it'd now be considerably harder for them to groom children.
 
teriyakiburns dijo:
BBC is positioning to lobby burnham for a new funding stream. Probably an addition to the license rather than a replacement, because why tax once when you can tax twice.
Presiona para expandir...
My pipe dream is that the entire BBC is suddenly eradicated by that explosive parasite that is afflicting America.

Or defunded. Or both.
 
Some Hobo dijo:
Why bother playing these weird games of half banning, half restricting social media? I wouldn't agree with it, but I'd much rather they ram through a ban on phones for under 18's, you can tell they're salivating about it, and want to do it in their heart of hearts, but don't have the balls to go all the way through, they just can't commit.
In fact, why do all of this while giving these people the vote? Are they gambling on ramming as much propaganda in throughout the next 2 years to make every 16-17 year old forget they've been subject to crackdowns?
It's like they want to lose - and I'm sure some MPs are already seeing the shine rub off on Burnham. What's the endgame?
Presiona para expandir...
Labour's a highly factionalist party. Some of Labour have wanted the voting age to be lowered for a long time. A small fraction because they support "youth liberatiom" (paedophiles), but mostly because they assume 16-18 will vote en masse for Labour.

This is unrelated to the hyper-authoritarian faction. One consideration is not in lockstep with the other, they are not considering "if we lower the voting age to 16 but make life worse for 16-18 year olds, they'll vote against us". That suggests cohesive joined up thinking, rather than a PM feebly tossing bones to different factions to stop them rebelling.

Banning phones/smartphones for under 18s doesn't scratch that itch. That just makes buying a phone like buying alcohol or cigarettes. The liability is shifted onto the supplier or the parents (and for a subset of parents, the suggestion they should actively parent or say no to a child is a vote loser, they want their arses wiped). But also because the point isn't to protect children. The government can't track who bought what phone or what they're doing with it if you just show your ID to a shop, any more than they can track who bought a specific bottle of wine.

That's why the discussion is around ID for social media, VPNs and ultimately device level censorship. They're opposed to message encryption and if you disagree you're Jimmy Saville because that's how the nonces get kids. They need to track everything you browse, look at, say, think - all linked to your ID so they can verify a child isn't exposed to something harmful. But then they also have a record of if someone is critical of them. If someone's looking at wrongthink. If someone's planning to attend a protest. Oh and 1 ID per device to stop the kids nicking Mum's driving license to unlock their phone.

It's not just here, it's practically every Western country in the last few years at the same time. One concerted push. You can thank Peter Thiel and his ilk for that.
 
Equal pay for equal work is the non controversial principle that you cannot pay men more than women for doing the same job just because they're men, a practice that 100% used to exist (Clive gets a raise because he's a breadwinner, you'll no doubt quit when you get married/your husband supports you).

Equal pay for work of equal value was an approach designed to equalise how different jobs were treated, e.g. the sewing machinists at the Ford plant in Dagenham were treated as "unskilled" labour and paid less than the men, despite the fact sewing leather car seats was a skill, because they felt it was a woman's job and the women didn't need the money as much as men.

The principle was sound, if the jobs were equally skilled or equally difficult, but one was female dominated, you couldn't just pay the female dominated job less or deprive them of work related benefits. Unfortunately this has ultimately lead to the insanity of grading systems where a dinner lady has to be paid the same as a binman, and you can't give the binman paid overtime without giving it to the dinner lady.

This has bankrupted some councils and is making it harder to recruit for roles nobody wants to do (because if you offer competititve wages to bin men, you've also got to give all the dinner ladies a rise, which you might not be able to afford).

Anyway in what's either a startling display of Keir Starmer having a principle about something, or Keir Starmer being a petty bitch and salting the earth to make things harder for Andy, Keir's trying to get the wheels turning on the Equality (Race and Disability) Bill. This would expand the Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value claims into considering roles that are predominately staffed by ethnic minorities or disabled people. I don't know what a typically disabled or typically black job looks like, but I know it's going to lead to a lot of court cases!
 
Última edición:
AssignedEva dijo:
The principle was sound, if the jobs were equally skilled or equally difficult, but one was female dominated, you couldn't just pay the female dominated job less or deprive them of work related benefits.
Presiona para expandir...
The principle can be questioned on the basis of whether the State should or is even capable of, regulating such matters. Rather than allow it to be determined by market forces and willingness. If being a bin man pays more than being a machinist and is no more nor less difficult or demanding, a woman could go for a job as a binman. Or conversely, a man go for a job as a sewing machinist. An argument could be made that the State's only function here should be to prevent gatekeeping based on sex. I.e. if the strong woman goes for the binman job and is turned away solely because she is a woman despite being capable, then that can be legislated.

Note, none of this is a commentary on the relative difficulties or otherwise of seamstressing (skilled work) or bin-manning (demanding work. Though the bin lorries tip the bins nowadays). It's just a commentary on the government getting involved in regulating supply and demand and assigning value to work independently of what the market sets it at.
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo