Whatever his many faults. We are lucky we have Sir Keir to have stopped the UK from getting involved in the war
I think that this has more to do with the fact that £68bn a year apparently gives us 1 destroyer that is now deployed off Cyprus. We cannot get involved because we have not got any relevant capacity. This is something we need to do something about.
Indeed so.
The MoD needs to start looking at value for money, and not treat spending as the end goal.
It's not really up to the MoD because procurement decisions get overridden by broader political imperatives. Look at the recent NMH program. The essence of the discussion was the government asking Leonardo how much money they want to keep the Lysander Road toy shop open. The reply was 1 billion pounds. How many AW149s can we get for that? 23 comes the answer. So, the end goal of the NMH effort is conveniently 23 x AW149. The needs of the services and future capabilities were only ever a minor consideration.
Australia recently bought 40 x UH-60M, a proper battlefield helicopter, for the same money.
Of course, was it two decades ago that the government absolutely needed those two aircraft carriers because it saved thousands of jobs in the Chancellor’s contituency?
I believe they stated cancelling them would have cost as much or more as building them. Even with defence procurement legends I hope that is not true.
Because the contracts were so ridiculously one-sided, written by the supplier who was headed-up by the former general and the former senior MoD CS now making seven-figure salaries, and presented to the current general and CS with a nudge-nudge as to what their retirement jobs might be…
With the added bonus of the jobs in the constituency of one G. Brown MP.
Reform has taken on a sort of Christian/religious politics that I really don’t want to see in this country
Except without any of the teachings of Jesus about loving thy fellow man, or any of that liberal, woke "sermon on the Mount" type stuff.
Remember, Christ came with a sword as much as the word. He would likely have machine gunned the dinghies
That's right: no way did he advocate for people to "turn the other cheek".
Turning the other cheek was actually a sign of resistance.
The other cheek being the one that would be struck if you were the equal of the one doing the striking, rather than being their inferior. </>
How do you get that from the Sermon on the Mount?
Based on cultural norms in the society in which Jesus was living.
My mate who has studied this stuff can explain it much better than I can.
Well that wouldn't be hard based on your response so far.
Here you go:
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
Uhuh. And that fits subsequent sentences how exactly?
"And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
Read the whole article. It explains 5he passive resistance in those acts too.
Christ, I'm the fecking atheist - I shouldn't be giving bible study classes.
Trump: “It should be wrapped up in days because no sane group of people could stand the punishment that's going to rain down on them if it's not"
ABC News
He has no idea.
Perhaps they will cut a deal, it's not like they want to have people killed and infrastructure damaged, but regimes and people can stand a lot more than opponents tend to think.
I watched “the greatest story ever told” on I player this morning between tea, wanks and shower. (I felt obliged to do something religious at Easter) I know it’s not a documentary but I did walk away from it thinking Jesus was a bit of a tit if it’s how he was. He was just played well by Max Von Sydow and I realised that the chap who played the faceless man in GoT based his whole character on him.
Well, we all have our own ways of celebrating Easter.
I watched “the greatest story ever told” on I player this morning between tea, wanks and shower. (I felt obliged to do something religious at Easter) I know it’s not a documentary but I did walk away from it thinking Jesus was a bit of a tit if it’s how he was. He was just played well by Max Von Sydow and I realised that the chap who played the faceless man in GoT based his whole character on him.
I actually went to Godshill Church on the Isle of Wight today and lit a candle, which is quite beautiful. And I'm not really religious in the slightest.
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
Then withdraw your shopping from Waitrose.
I realise for some, this will be like cutting off a limb.
I watched “the greatest story ever told” on I player this morning between tea, wanks and shower. (I felt obliged to do something religious at Easter) I know it’s not a documentary but I did walk away from it thinking Jesus was a bit of a tit if it’s how he was. He was just played well by Max Von Sydow and I realised that the chap who played the faceless man in GoT based his whole character on him.
Wanks. Plural !
Max Von Sydow must be a really challenging one, so fair play to him.
Reform has taken on a sort of Christian/religious politics that I really don’t want to see in this country
Except without any of the teachings of Jesus about loving thy fellow man, or any of that liberal, woke "sermon on the Mount" type stuff.
Remember, Christ came with a sword as much as the word. He would likely have machine gunned the dinghies
That's right: no way did he advocate for people to "turn the other cheek".
Turning the other cheek was actually a sign of resistance.
The other cheek being the one that would be struck if you were the equal of the one doing the striking, rather than being their inferior. </>
How do you get that from the Sermon on the Mount?
Based on cultural norms in the society in which Jesus was living.
My mate who has studied this stuff can explain it much better than I can.
Well that wouldn't be hard based on your response so far.
Here you go:
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
Uhuh. And that fits subsequent sentences how exactly?
"And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
Read the whole article. It explains 5he passive resistance in those acts too.
Christ, I'm the fecking atheist - I shouldn't be giving bible study classes.
It doesn't fit well either with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount.
I appreciate that there has been lots of sophistry and casuistry to twist Jesus's words to support resistance to Roman rule, but it really doesn't fit the Gospels. Jesus went deliberately to his death and told his disciples not to resist his arrest.
His kingdom is not of this world. Render unto Caesar etc.
I watched “the greatest story ever told” on I player this morning between tea, wanks and shower. (I felt obliged to do something religious at Easter) I know it’s not a documentary but I did walk away from it thinking Jesus was a bit of a tit if it’s how he was. He was just played well by Max Von Sydow and I realised that the chap who played the faceless man in GoT based his whole character on him.
Wanks. Plural !
Max Von Sydow must be a really challenging one, so fair play to him.
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
Then withdraw your shopping from Waitrose.
I realise for some, this will be like cutting off a limb.
Surely 'withdraw shopping from Waitrose' exactly what the shoplifter was trying to do?
Didn't the Ashcroft poll suggest only 13% more likely to vote Labour if Rayner is leader and 30ish% less likely. I mean if the party are that stupid.........
The evidence of the last few years tends to support the thesis that, when presented with a choice, the members a political party will select the worst option.
Does it? The alternatives to Starmer were Long-Bailey and Nandy.
The alternative to Badenoch was Jenrick.
It's just possible that both party memberships learned their lessons, though probably only temporarily.
With hindsight I'd have taken Nandy over Starmer.
I suspect had Jenrick beaten Badenoch the Conservatives would have been way ahead of the Farascists. There would be no need for Reform.
I voted for Nandy!
Almost all PB Labs did, I think. Go figure.
I voted for Sir Keir. Backed him when basically everyone called for him to go after Hartlepool too.
Ah yes. Hartlepool. Boris peak, Keir trough. If any PB poster had said then, "Prediction: Starmer landslide majority at the next GE" there would have been calls for a ban. And Kemi was toast last year yet here she still is. All goes to show. It's why politics enchants and infuriates as a betting and discussion vehicle.
I said he’d win the next election at the time.
I recall calling the Johnson peak but I can't say I was prescient enough to foresee that.
Picture of the day, our tradition for Easter is Sushi Sunday.
What would Jesus say?
("Where's the chocolate?")
So, let me get this right. The magical Easter Bunny lay a chocolate egg and on the third day, Jesus burst forth from the egg. And that is why we say he has risen. Something like this...
I watched “the greatest story ever told” on I player this morning between tea, wanks and shower. (I felt obliged to do something religious at Easter) I know it’s not a documentary but I did walk away from it thinking Jesus was a bit of a tit if it’s how he was. He was just played well by Max Von Sydow and I realised that the chap who played the faceless man in GoT based his whole character on him.
I love that film. Mary Magdalene is so beautiful.
When I first watched it, I had the idea that it would be great to do a parody of it where Jesus did things like turning nasty on the people throwing bread at him... then I watched The Life of Brian
Great line from John Wayne at the end "Truly this is the son of Gaaahd", although reading up on it , they say it might not been JW that delivered it
I watched “the greatest story ever told” on I player this morning between tea, wanks and shower. (I felt obliged to do something religious at Easter) I know it’s not a documentary but I did walk away from it thinking Jesus was a bit of a tit if it’s how he was. He was just played well by Max Von Sydow and I realised that the chap who played the faceless man in GoT based his whole character on him.
King of Kings for me. Orson Wells narration. All the Roman soldiers in supershort tunics. Jesus looking like a cross between David Ginola and Charles Manson, oozing charisma. He'd have got my vote.
You have to hope this is just tough talking gameplaying, and not genuine bafflement and rage that previous threats have not yet worked. Because if the former it is part of the dangerous game of antagonistic foreign relations, but if the latter he really might do anything out of impotent fury.
I had no idea that was an urban legend, and it makes it even funnier that it is now true.
Not sure we can trust the article though, since this sentence is bollocks - it's not unclear that it led to the belief it had been present in earlier games, people definitely believed it prior to the release of Civ5 as I remember people claiming it to be the case for earlier entries back when I was playing Civ3. So it is not the case that people didn't claim it earlier.
was programmed to exhibit this behavior in Civilization V, released in 2010, and it is unclear whether this led to the belief that the behavior had also been present in earlier games.
Picture of the day, our tradition for Easter is Sushi Sunday.
What would Jesus say?
("Where's the chocolate?")
So, let me get this right. The magical Easter Bunny lay a chocolate egg and on the third day, Jesus burst forth from the egg. And that is why we say he has risen. Something like this...
I watched “the greatest story ever told” on I player this morning between tea, wanks and shower. (I felt obliged to do something religious at Easter) I know it’s not a documentary but I did walk away from it thinking Jesus was a bit of a tit if it’s how he was. He was just played well by Max Von Sydow and I realised that the chap who played the faceless man in GoT based his whole character on him.
I love that film. Mary Magdalene is so beautiful.
When I first watched it, I had the idea that it would be great to do a parody of it where Jesus did things like turning nasty on the people throwing bread at him... then I watched The Life of Brian
Great line from John Wayne at the end "Truly this is the son of Gaaahd", although reading up on it , they say it might not been JW that delivered it
You have to hope this is just tough talking gameplaying, and not genuine bafflement and rage that previous threats have not yet worked. Because if the former it is part of the dangerous game of antagonistic foreign relations, but if the latter he really might do anything out of impotent fury.
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
A bit like that bus driver who was sacked several weeks back.
It was a very interesting quote from Waitrose though - which appears to have disappeared between me reading it 30 mins ago and just now.
Something like “while we can’t comment on individual cases, the reporting of this case does not reflect the full facts a standard process including a right to appeal is being followed”
We all know the media likes to tell a story but it’s unusual that it’s called out so bluntly.
You have to hope this is just tough talking gameplaying, and not genuine bafflement and rage that previous threats have not yet worked. Because if the former it is part of the dangerous game of antagonistic foreign relations, but if the latter he really might do anything out of impotent fury.
I watched “the greatest story ever told” on I player this morning between tea, wanks and shower. (I felt obliged to do something religious at Easter) I know it’s not a documentary but I did walk away from it thinking Jesus was a bit of a tit if it’s how he was. He was just played well by Max Von Sydow and I realised that the chap who played the faceless man in GoT based his whole character on him.
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
A bit like that bus driver who was sacked several weeks back.
It was a very interesting quote from Waitrose though - which appears to have disappeared between me reading it 30 mins ago and just now.
Something like “while we can’t comment on individual cases, the reporting of this case does not reflect the full facts a standard process including a right to appeal is being followed”
We all know the media likes to tell a story but it’s unusual that it’s called out so bluntly.
Not sure where that quote was. It wasn't in the Guardian article that I read prior to posting my vomment several.hours ago.
Picture of the day, our tradition for Easter is Sushi Sunday.
What would Jesus say?
("Where's the chocolate?")
So, let me get this right. The magical Easter Bunny lay a chocolate egg and on the third day, Jesus burst forth from the egg. And that is why we say he has risen. Something like this...
Reform has taken on a sort of Christian/religious politics that I really don’t want to see in this country
Except without any of the teachings of Jesus about loving thy fellow man, or any of that liberal, woke "sermon on the Mount" type stuff.
Remember, Christ came with a sword as much as the word. He would likely have machine gunned the dinghies
That's right: no way did he advocate for people to "turn the other cheek".
Turning the other cheek was actually a sign of resistance.
The other cheek being the one that would be struck if you were the equal of the one doing the striking, rather than being their inferior. </>
How do you get that from the Sermon on the Mount?
Based on cultural norms in the society in which Jesus was living.
My mate who has studied this stuff can explain it much better than I can.
Well that wouldn't be hard based on your response so far.
Here you go:
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
Uhuh. And that fits subsequent sentences how exactly?
"And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
Read the whole article. It explains 5he passive resistance in those acts too.
Christ, I'm the fecking atheist - I shouldn't be giving bible study classes.
It doesn't fit well either with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount.
I appreciate that there has been lots of sophistry and casuistry to twist Jesus's words to support resistance to Roman rule, but it really doesn't fit the Gospels. Jesus went deliberately to his death and told his disciples not to resist his arrest.
His kingdom is not of this world. Render unto Caesar etc.
You’ve missed out the bit where Jesus said:
“Man’s greatest joy is to slaughter his enemies. To crush them and drive them before him, and to listen to the lamentations of the women.”
You have to hope this is just tough talking gameplaying, and not genuine bafflement and rage that previous threats have not yet worked. Because if the former it is part of the dangerous game of antagonistic foreign relations, but if the latter he really might do anything out of impotent fury.
Impotent raging Trump and pissed Hegseth.
It's nukes, in't it?
Trump doesn't know what the fuck he's doing!
Lisa: We lost I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E! I repeat, we have no I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E.
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
A bit like that bus driver who was sacked several weeks back.
It was a very interesting quote from Waitrose though - which appears to have disappeared between me reading it 30 mins ago and just now.
Something like “while we can’t comment on individual cases, the reporting of this case does not reflect the full facts a standard process including a right to appeal is being followed”
We all know the media likes to tell a story but it’s unusual that it’s called out so bluntly.
Not sure where that quote was. It wasn't in the Guardian article that I read prior to posting my vomment several.hours ago.
Reform has taken on a sort of Christian/religious politics that I really don’t want to see in this country
Except without any of the teachings of Jesus about loving thy fellow man, or any of that liberal, woke "sermon on the Mount" type stuff.
Remember, Christ came with a sword as much as the word. He would likely have machine gunned the dinghies
That's right: no way did he advocate for people to "turn the other cheek".
Turning the other cheek was actually a sign of resistance.
The other cheek being the one that would be struck if you were the equal of the one doing the striking, rather than being their inferior. </>
How do you get that from the Sermon on the Mount?
Based on cultural norms in the society in which Jesus was living.
My mate who has studied this stuff can explain it much better than I can.
Well that wouldn't be hard based on your response so far.
Here you go:
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
Uhuh. And that fits subsequent sentences how exactly?
"And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
Read the whole article. It explains 5he passive resistance in those acts too.
Christ, I'm the fecking atheist - I shouldn't be giving bible study classes.
It doesn't fit well either with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount.
I appreciate that there has been lots of sophistry and casuistry to twist Jesus's words to support resistance to Roman rule, but it really doesn't fit the Gospels. Jesus went deliberately to his death and told his disciples not to resist his arrest.
His kingdom is not of this world. Render unto Caesar etc.
You’ve missed out the bit where Jesus said:
“Man’s greatest joy is to slaughter his enemies. To crush them and drive them before him, and to listen to the lamentations of the women.”
That was a few films before he said "I'll be back"
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
Then withdraw your shopping from Waitrose.
I realise for some, this will be like cutting off a limb.
Interesting article, and I'm not saying that on behalf of Lindt who get a double mention.
Apparently the employee threw a piece of one of the chocolate bunnies which had fallen to the floor after the tussle, but he “threw it out of frustration", mind, not out of any other emotion, and he threw it towards some shopping trolleys, mind, rather than "aiming it at the shoplifter" - perish the thought.
"He said security had been scaled back in the shop, with no guards working on Mondays and Tuesday because 'shoplifting incidents aren’t reported enough'."
One word missing from the article is "police".
It's not wholly clear why the employee gave a toss given there's no indication that he was in any danger, or was abused, or had a security role. Would he clean the windows too if the company were to cut back on its window-cleaning budget? Or am I taking insufficient account of Waitrose being "employee owned"?
I watched “the greatest story ever told” on I player this morning between tea, wanks and shower. (I felt obliged to do something religious at Easter) I know it’s not a documentary but I did walk away from it thinking Jesus was a bit of a tit if it’s how he was. He was just played well by Max Von Sydow and I realised that the chap who played the faceless man in GoT based his whole character on him.
I love that film. Mary Magdalene is so beautiful.
When I first watched it, I had the idea that it would be great to do a parody of it where Jesus did things like turning nasty on the people throwing bread at him... then I watched The Life of Brian
Great line from John Wayne at the end "Truly this is the son of Gaaahd", although reading up on it , they say it might not been JW that delivered it
Reform has taken on a sort of Christian/religious politics that I really don’t want to see in this country
Except without any of the teachings of Jesus about loving thy fellow man, or any of that liberal, woke "sermon on the Mount" type stuff.
Remember, Christ came with a sword as much as the word. He would likely have machine gunned the dinghies
That's right: no way did he advocate for people to "turn the other cheek".
Turning the other cheek was actually a sign of resistance.
The other cheek being the one that would be struck if you were the equal of the one doing the striking, rather than being their inferior. </>
How do you get that from the Sermon on the Mount?
Based on cultural norms in the society in which Jesus was living.
My mate who has studied this stuff can explain it much better than I can.
Well that wouldn't be hard based on your response so far.
Here you go:
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
Uhuh. And that fits subsequent sentences how exactly?
"And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
Read the whole article. It explains 5he passive resistance in those acts too.
Christ, I'm the fecking atheist - I shouldn't be giving bible study classes.
It doesn't fit well either with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount.
I appreciate that there has been lots of sophistry and casuistry to twist Jesus's words to support resistance to Roman rule, but it really doesn't fit the Gospels. Jesus went deliberately to his death and told his disciples not to resist his arrest.
His kingdom is not of this world. Render unto Caesar etc.
You’ve missed out the bit where Jesus said:
“Man’s greatest joy is to slaughter his enemies. To crush them and drive them before him, and to listen to the lamentations of the women.”
"Wasn't it St. Francis of Assisi himself who said "Never give a sucker an even break"?
"Well if he did, sir, it was strictly off the record"
Reform has taken on a sort of Christian/religious politics that I really don’t want to see in this country
Except without any of the teachings of Jesus about loving thy fellow man, or any of that liberal, woke "sermon on the Mount" type stuff.
Remember, Christ came with a sword as much as the word. He would likely have machine gunned the dinghies
That's right: no way did he advocate for people to "turn the other cheek".
Turning the other cheek was actually a sign of resistance.
The other cheek being the one that would be struck if you were the equal of the one doing the striking, rather than being their inferior. </>
How do you get that from the Sermon on the Mount?
Based on cultural norms in the society in which Jesus was living.
My mate who has studied this stuff can explain it much better than I can.
Well that wouldn't be hard based on your response so far.
Here you go:
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
Uhuh. And that fits subsequent sentences how exactly?
"And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
Read the whole article. It explains 5he passive resistance in those acts too.
Christ, I'm the fecking atheist - I shouldn't be giving bible study classes.
It doesn't fit well either with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount.
I appreciate that there has been lots of sophistry and casuistry to twist Jesus's words to support resistance to Roman rule, but it really doesn't fit the Gospels. Jesus went deliberately to his death and told his disciples not to resist his arrest.
His kingdom is not of this world. Render unto Caesar etc.
You’ve missed out the bit where Jesus said:
“Man’s greatest joy is to slaughter his enemies. To crush them and drive them before him, and to listen to the lamentations of the women.”
Reform has taken on a sort of Christian/religious politics that I really don’t want to see in this country
Except without any of the teachings of Jesus about loving thy fellow man, or any of that liberal, woke "sermon on the Mount" type stuff.
Remember, Christ came with a sword as much as the word. He would likely have machine gunned the dinghies
That's right: no way did he advocate for people to "turn the other cheek".
Turning the other cheek was actually a sign of resistance.
The other cheek being the one that would be struck if you were the equal of the one doing the striking, rather than being their inferior. </>
How do you get that from the Sermon on the Mount?
Based on cultural norms in the society in which Jesus was living.
My mate who has studied this stuff can explain it much better than I can.
Well that wouldn't be hard based on your response so far.
Here you go:
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
Uhuh. And that fits subsequent sentences how exactly?
"And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
Read the whole article. It explains 5he passive resistance in those acts too.
Christ, I'm the fecking atheist - I shouldn't be giving bible study classes.
It doesn't fit well either with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount.
I appreciate that there has been lots of sophistry and casuistry to twist Jesus's words to support resistance to Roman rule, but it really doesn't fit the Gospels. Jesus went deliberately to his death and told his disciples not to resist his arrest.
His kingdom is not of this world. Render unto Caesar etc.
You’ve missed out the bit where Jesus said:
“Man’s greatest joy is to slaughter his enemies. To crush them and drive them before him, and to listen to the lamentations of the women.”
Reform has taken on a sort of Christian/religious politics that I really don’t want to see in this country
Except without any of the teachings of Jesus about loving thy fellow man, or any of that liberal, woke "sermon on the Mount" type stuff.
Remember, Christ came with a sword as much as the word. He would likely have machine gunned the dinghies
That's right: no way did he advocate for people to "turn the other cheek".
Turning the other cheek was actually a sign of resistance.
The other cheek being the one that would be struck if you were the equal of the one doing the striking, rather than being their inferior. </>
How do you get that from the Sermon on the Mount?
Based on cultural norms in the society in which Jesus was living.
My mate who has studied this stuff can explain it much better than I can.
Well that wouldn't be hard based on your response so far.
Here you go:
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
Uhuh. And that fits subsequent sentences how exactly?
"And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
Read the whole article. It explains 5he passive resistance in those acts too.
Christ, I'm the fecking atheist - I shouldn't be giving bible study classes.
It doesn't fit well either with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount.
I appreciate that there has been lots of sophistry and casuistry to twist Jesus's words to support resistance to Roman rule, but it really doesn't fit the Gospels. Jesus went deliberately to his death and told his disciples not to resist his arrest.
His kingdom is not of this world. Render unto Caesar etc.
You’ve missed out the bit where Jesus said:
“Man’s greatest joy is to slaughter his enemies. To crush them and drive them before him, and to listen to the lamentations of the women.”
Genghis Khan?
Close. Arnie Schwartzenegger in Conan the Barbarian.
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
Then withdraw your shopping from Waitrose.
I realise for some, this will be like cutting off a limb.
Interesting article, and I'm not saying that on behalf of Lindt who get a double mention.
Apparently the employee threw a piece of one of the chocolate bunnies which had fallen to the floor after the tussle, but he “threw it out of frustration", mind, not out of any other emotion, and he threw it towards some shopping trolleys, mind, rather than "aiming it at the shoplifter" - perish the thought.
"He said security had been scaled back in the shop, with no guards working on Mondays and Tuesday because 'shoplifting incidents aren’t reported enough'."
One word missing from the article is "police".
It's not wholly clear why the employee gave a toss given there's no indication that he was in any danger, or was abused, or had a security role. Would he clean the windows too if the company were to cut back on its window-cleaning budget?
Excuse me (well no don't) but if that is your belief then you are a fucking idiot with no idea of what it is like working in a shop. I have never, ever met a shop worker who didn't get immensely angry and upset about people coming in and stealing product - all the more so in places where they see honest shoppers coming in every day struggling to pay for their essentials.
People care. If you don't then that says far more about you than anyone else.
Reform has taken on a sort of Christian/religious politics that I really don’t want to see in this country
Except without any of the teachings of Jesus about loving thy fellow man, or any of that liberal, woke "sermon on the Mount" type stuff.
Remember, Christ came with a sword as much as the word. He would likely have machine gunned the dinghies
That's right: no way did he advocate for people to "turn the other cheek".
Turning the other cheek was actually a sign of resistance.
The other cheek being the one that would be struck if you were the equal of the one doing the striking, rather than being their inferior. </>
How do you get that from the Sermon on the Mount?
Based on cultural norms in the society in which Jesus was living.
My mate who has studied this stuff can explain it much better than I can.
Well that wouldn't be hard based on your response so far.
Here you go:
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
Uhuh. And that fits subsequent sentences how exactly?
"And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
Read the whole article. It explains 5he passive resistance in those acts too.
Christ, I'm the fecking atheist - I shouldn't be giving bible study classes.
It doesn't fit well either with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount.
I appreciate that there has been lots of sophistry and casuistry to twist Jesus's words to support resistance to Roman rule, but it really doesn't fit the Gospels. Jesus went deliberately to his death and told his disciples not to resist his arrest.
His kingdom is not of this world. Render unto Caesar etc.
You’ve missed out the bit where Jesus said:
“Man’s greatest joy is to slaughter his enemies. To crush them and drive them before him, and to listen to the lamentations of the women.”
Why on earth did Queen Elizabeth II consider Andrew her favourite kid?
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had a “physical altercation” with one of Elizabeth II’s most senior aides, it has been claimed.
The former Duke of York was accused of lashing out at Vice-Adml Sir Tony Johnstone-Burt, master of the household, allegedly because he could not accommodate a Pitch@Palace event at Buckingham Palace.
His behaviour was considered so concerning that Prince Philip, his late father, reportedly felt obliged to write a letter of apology to Sir Tony.
“It was a routine household matter,” a senior member of staff told Robert Hardman, a royal author. “The Duke wanted to have a reception, and there wasn’t any room. It was as simple as that.
“Tony said he’d have to wait his turn like anybody else, and the Duke went for him.”
According to Mr Hardman, it was “not just an outburst of expletives and a jab of a finger” but what one member of staff described as a “kinetic” blow, which caused astonishment in the royal household.
The alleged incident is described in Mr Hardman’s latest book, Elizabeth II, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail.
Sir Tony has been master of the household since 2013 and remains in the position working for the King.
The retired naval officer was among the senior members of staff who led the ceremonial procession out of Buckingham Palace during the late Queen’s funeral in September 2022, performing one last duty for “the boss”.
His department handles official and private entertaining across all the royal residences, running teams that span hospitality, catering and housekeeping, from florists and upholsterers to specialist craftspeople and caterers.
Sir Tony is said to have reported the altercation with the former Duke to the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Peel, who raised it with the then Prince Charles, who in turn spoke to his brother.
The Lord Chamberlain then received a call from an unapologetic Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, who is alleged to have said: “I gather you’ve been calling people and causing problems.”
Mr Hardman also describes a different incident in Windsor, when grooms from the Royal Mews had been riding some of the late Queen’s horses on the estate.
“One had waved a firm hand at an approaching car which was revving its engine aggressively,” he writes.
“It pulled alongside and, through the window, the Duke of York bellowed at her: ‘Who the f--- do you think you are?’”
The former Duke is said to have demanded her name before taking it up with the late Queen in person.....
...According to Andrew Lownie, an author, royal staff were instructed to bow to Andrew any time he entered a room. When anyone forgot, he would allegedly say, “Let’s try that again,” before leaving the room, only to walk back in again.
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
A bit like that bus driver who was sacked several weeks back.
It was a very interesting quote from Waitrose though - which appears to have disappeared between me reading it 30 mins ago and just now.
Something like “while we can’t comment on individual cases, the reporting of this case does not reflect the full facts a standard process including a right to appeal is being followed”
We all know the media likes to tell a story but it’s unusual that it’s called out so bluntly.
Not sure where that quote was. It wasn't in the Guardian article that I read prior to posting my vomment several.hours ago.
Weirdly specific thing to have imagined though!
Absolutely not suggesting that. The trouble is these days these articles get changed/updated ona continual basis, often by several different people who have a different idea of what message they want to get across.
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
Then withdraw your shopping from Waitrose.
I realise for some, this will be like cutting off a limb.
Interesting article, and I'm not saying that on behalf of Lindt who get a double mention.
Apparently the employee threw a piece of one of the chocolate bunnies which had fallen to the floor after the tussle, but he “threw it out of frustration", mind, not out of any other emotion, and he threw it towards some shopping trolleys, mind, rather than "aiming it at the shoplifter" - perish the thought.
"He said security had been scaled back in the shop, with no guards working on Mondays and Tuesday because 'shoplifting incidents aren’t reported enough'."
One word missing from the article is "police".
It's not wholly clear why the employee gave a toss given there's no indication that he was in any danger, or was abused, or had a security role. Would he clean the windows too if the company were to cut back on its window-cleaning budget? Or am I taking insufficient account of Waitrose being "employee owned"?
Companies are worried about insurance and lawsuits. The kind of bounce type security who will get "stuck in" are expensive and often cause their own problems.
Allowing employees to "have a go" risks legal claims that the comp[any is allowing/encouraging untrained staff to fight with suspected thieves.
So firing anyone who has a go, is the safe option for them.
Shop employees find theft threatening and incredibly dispiriting. They also know that many stores operate on a thin margin - if theft rises enough, then the shop becomes uneconomic. And closes.
Reform has taken on a sort of Christian/religious politics that I really don’t want to see in this country
Except without any of the teachings of Jesus about loving thy fellow man, or any of that liberal, woke "sermon on the Mount" type stuff.
Remember, Christ came with a sword as much as the word. He would likely have machine gunned the dinghies
That's right: no way did he advocate for people to "turn the other cheek".
Turning the other cheek was actually a sign of resistance.
The other cheek being the one that would be struck if you were the equal of the one doing the striking, rather than being their inferior. </>
How do you get that from the Sermon on the Mount?
Based on cultural norms in the society in which Jesus was living.
My mate who has studied this stuff can explain it much better than I can.
Well that wouldn't be hard based on your response so far.
Here you go:
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
Uhuh. And that fits subsequent sentences how exactly?
"And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
Read the whole article. It explains 5he passive resistance in those acts too.
Christ, I'm the fecking atheist - I shouldn't be giving bible study classes.
It doesn't fit well either with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount.
I appreciate that there has been lots of sophistry and casuistry to twist Jesus's words to support resistance to Roman rule, but it really doesn't fit the Gospels. Jesus went deliberately to his death and told his disciples not to resist his arrest.
His kingdom is not of this world. Render unto Caesar etc.
You’ve missed out the bit where Jesus said:
“Man’s greatest joy is to slaughter his enemies. To crush them and drive them before him, and to listen to the lamentations of the women.”
"Hot water, good dentishtry and shoft lavatory paper."
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
A bit like that bus driver who was sacked several weeks back.
It was a very interesting quote from Waitrose though - which appears to have disappeared between me reading it 30 mins ago and just now.
Something like “while we can’t comment on individual cases, the reporting of this case does not reflect the full facts a standard process including a right to appeal is being followed”
We all know the media likes to tell a story but it’s unusual that it’s called out so bluntly.
Not sure where that quote was. It wasn't in the Guardian article that I read prior to posting my vomment several.hours ago.
Weirdly specific thing to have imagined though!
Absolutely not suggesting that. The trouble is these days these articles get changed/updated ona continual basis, often by several different people who have a different idea of what message they want to get across.
Most of the quote is still there at the end - just the bold bit is missing
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
Then withdraw your shopping from Waitrose.
I realise for some, this will be like cutting off a limb.
Interesting article, and I'm not saying that on behalf of Lindt who get a double mention.
Apparently the employee threw a piece of one of the chocolate bunnies which had fallen to the floor after the tussle, but he “threw it out of frustration", mind, not out of any other emotion, and he threw it towards some shopping trolleys, mind, rather than "aiming it at the shoplifter" - perish the thought.
"He said security had been scaled back in the shop, with no guards working on Mondays and Tuesday because 'shoplifting incidents aren’t reported enough'."
One word missing from the article is "police".
It's not wholly clear why the employee gave a toss given there's no indication that he was in any danger, or was abused, or had a security role. Would he clean the windows too if the company were to cut back on its window-cleaning budget?
Excuse me (well no don't) but if that is your belief then you are a fucking idiot with no idea of what it is like working in a shop. I have never, ever met a shop worker who didn't get immensely angry and upset about people coming in and stealing product - all the more so in places where they see honest shoppers coming in every day struggling to pay for their essentials.
People care. If you don't then that says far more about you than anyone else.
In big supermarkets? Really? For most it's just a job, often for a relatively short period of their lives. Shoplifters aren't robbing paying customers, after all. Some employees are boss-identified and win lots of badges at Asda. Others aren't so much. FWIW I do have sympathy for e.g. staff in small branches where there's only a small number of them, maybe late at night, and the impunity of shoplifters - being perhaps bods who do it all the time and are off their heads on whatever - makes them feel unsafe.
I watched “the greatest story ever told” on I player this morning between tea, wanks and shower. (I felt obliged to do something religious at Easter) I know it’s not a documentary but I did walk away from it thinking Jesus was a bit of a tit if it’s how he was. He was just played well by Max Von Sydow and I realised that the chap who played the faceless man in GoT based his whole character on him.
I love that film. Mary Magdalene is so beautiful.
When I first watched it, I had the idea that it would be great to do a parody of it where Jesus did things like turning nasty on the people throwing bread at him... then I watched The Life of Brian
Great line from John Wayne at the end "Truly this is the son of Gaaahd", although reading up on it , they say it might not been JW that delivered it
A little tangential - but I read this piece on the beeb this morning :
"'It was radical' - How The Holy City brought the Easter story to Glasgow"
I think I faintly remember watching it at the time. And was expecting a link at the end of the article to "Available on the iPlayer here". But no. Not available on the iplayer. So a whole puff piece about their own content and how good it was with no way to watch it on their own platform. I try and defend the BBC from time to time, but lord - they make it hard.
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
Then withdraw your shopping from Waitrose.
I realise for some, this will be like cutting off a limb.
Interesting article, and I'm not saying that on behalf of Lindt who get a double mention.
Apparently the employee threw a piece of one of the chocolate bunnies which had fallen to the floor after the tussle, but he “threw it out of frustration", mind, not out of any other emotion, and he threw it towards some shopping trolleys, mind, rather than "aiming it at the shoplifter" - perish the thought.
"He said security had been scaled back in the shop, with no guards working on Mondays and Tuesday because 'shoplifting incidents aren’t reported enough'."
One word missing from the article is "police".
It's not wholly clear why the employee gave a toss given there's no indication that he was in any danger, or was abused, or had a security role. Would he clean the windows too if the company were to cut back on its window-cleaning budget? Or am I taking insufficient account of Waitrose being "employee owned"?
Companies are worried about insurance and lawsuits. The kind of bounce type security who will get "stuck in" are expensive and often cause their own problems.
Allowing employees to "have a go" risks legal claims that the comp[any is allowing/encouraging untrained staff to fight with suspected thieves.
So firing anyone who has a go, is the safe option for them.
Shop employees find theft threatening and incredibly dispiriting. They also know that many stores operate on a thin margin - if theft rises enough, then the shop becomes uneconomic. And closes.
There's a couple of other issues.
When things get violent people they say stuff that leads to them getting sacked, I know of instances where one security guard ended using homophobic language.
Also there's this
A shoplifter has admitted killing a security guard during a struggle at an Asda superstore as she tried to flee the premises.
Alun Harris-Richards fell to the ground and struck his head after trying to prevent Natasha Smith from leaving the Arbroath store with stolen alcohol in June 2024.
Smith, 38, admitted causing the 61-year-old such physical and emotional distress during the incident that he suffered a fatal heart attack.
Smith will be sentenced at the High Court in Edinburgh on 5 March.
Smith also admitted assaulting another Asda employee during the same altercation.
The court heard that following the death of Harris-Richards, pathologists carried out a post-mortem examination and found that he had a coronary artery condition.
They said people with the condition were "at risk of sudden death at any time" and this was particularly true in times of illness or stress.
Why on earth did Queen Elizabeth II consider Andrew her favourite kid?
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had a “physical altercation” with one of Elizabeth II’s most senior aides, it has been claimed.
The former Duke of York was accused of lashing out at Vice-Adml Sir Tony Johnstone-Burt, master of the household, allegedly because he could not accommodate a Pitch@Palace event at Buckingham Palace.
His behaviour was considered so concerning that Prince Philip, his late father, reportedly felt obliged to write a letter of apology to Sir Tony.
“It was a routine household matter,” a senior member of staff told Robert Hardman, a royal author. “The Duke wanted to have a reception, and there wasn’t any room. It was as simple as that.
“Tony said he’d have to wait his turn like anybody else, and the Duke went for him.”
According to Mr Hardman, it was “not just an outburst of expletives and a jab of a finger” but what one member of staff described as a “kinetic” blow, which caused astonishment in the royal household.
The alleged incident is described in Mr Hardman’s latest book, Elizabeth II, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail.
Sir Tony has been master of the household since 2013 and remains in the position working for the King.
The retired naval officer was among the senior members of staff who led the ceremonial procession out of Buckingham Palace during the late Queen’s funeral in September 2022, performing one last duty for “the boss”.
His department handles official and private entertaining across all the royal residences, running teams that span hospitality, catering and housekeeping, from florists and upholsterers to specialist craftspeople and caterers.
Sir Tony is said to have reported the altercation with the former Duke to the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Peel, who raised it with the then Prince Charles, who in turn spoke to his brother.
The Lord Chamberlain then received a call from an unapologetic Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, who is alleged to have said: “I gather you’ve been calling people and causing problems.”
Mr Hardman also describes a different incident in Windsor, when grooms from the Royal Mews had been riding some of the late Queen’s horses on the estate.
“One had waved a firm hand at an approaching car which was revving its engine aggressively,” he writes.
“It pulled alongside and, through the window, the Duke of York bellowed at her: ‘Who the f--- do you think you are?’”
The former Duke is said to have demanded her name before taking it up with the late Queen in person.....
...According to Andrew Lownie, an author, royal staff were instructed to bow to Andrew any time he entered a room. When anyone forgot, he would allegedly say, “Let’s try that again,” before leaving the room, only to walk back in again.
I'm sure that he's a deeply unpleasant individual, but he's far from having been the only powerful man with a sense of entitlement that made him think he didn't have to abide by the rules everyone else does. And I find this continuing pile-on quite distasteful.
Why is it only now, when he's been reduced to a state of powerlessness, that the press reports this stuff? It would have been much more meaningful if they'd reported on it at the time.
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
Then withdraw your shopping from Waitrose.
I realise for some, this will be like cutting off a limb.
Interesting article, and I'm not saying that on behalf of Lindt who get a double mention.
Apparently the employee threw a piece of one of the chocolate bunnies which had fallen to the floor after the tussle, but he “threw it out of frustration", mind, not out of any other emotion, and he threw it towards some shopping trolleys, mind, rather than "aiming it at the shoplifter" - perish the thought.
"He said security had been scaled back in the shop, with no guards working on Mondays and Tuesday because 'shoplifting incidents aren’t reported enough'."
One word missing from the article is "police".
It's not wholly clear why the employee gave a toss given there's no indication that he was in any danger, or was abused, or had a security role. Would he clean the windows too if the company were to cut back on its window-cleaning budget?
Excuse me (well no don't) but if that is your belief then you are a fucking idiot with no idea of what it is like working in a shop. I have never, ever met a shop worker who didn't get immensely angry and upset about people coming in and stealing product - all the more so in places where they see honest shoppers coming in every day struggling to pay for their essentials.
People care. If you don't then that says far more about you than anyone else.
In big supermarkets? Really? For most it's just a job, often for a relatively short period of their lives. Shoplifters aren't robbing paying customers, after all. Some employees are boss-identified and win lots of badges at Asda. Others aren't so much. FWIW I do have sympathy for e.g. staff in small branches where there's only a small number of them, maybe late at night, and the impunity of shoplifters - being perhaps bods who do it all the time and are off their heads on whatever - makes them feel unsafe.
We can maybe agree there's a policing issue here.
Agreed. Hell, I'm just a shopper and it boils my piss to see it. When people are grabbing armfuls of sausage sandwiches from the Costa, I don't think 'Well, Costa is a big company, and they can absorb the financial loss,' I think 'this isn't right, and these people should be stopped'. And I'm not even an employee!
Why on earth did Queen Elizabeth II consider Andrew her favourite kid?
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had a “physical altercation” with one of Elizabeth II’s most senior aides, it has been claimed.
The former Duke of York was accused of lashing out at Vice-Adml Sir Tony Johnstone-Burt, master of the household, allegedly because he could not accommodate a Pitch@Palace event at Buckingham Palace.
His behaviour was considered so concerning that Prince Philip, his late father, reportedly felt obliged to write a letter of apology to Sir Tony.
“It was a routine household matter,” a senior member of staff told Robert Hardman, a royal author. “The Duke wanted to have a reception, and there wasn’t any room. It was as simple as that.
“Tony said he’d have to wait his turn like anybody else, and the Duke went for him.”
According to Mr Hardman, it was “not just an outburst of expletives and a jab of a finger” but what one member of staff described as a “kinetic” blow, which caused astonishment in the royal household.
The alleged incident is described in Mr Hardman’s latest book, Elizabeth II, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail.
Sir Tony has been master of the household since 2013 and remains in the position working for the King.
The retired naval officer was among the senior members of staff who led the ceremonial procession out of Buckingham Palace during the late Queen’s funeral in September 2022, performing one last duty for “the boss”.
His department handles official and private entertaining across all the royal residences, running teams that span hospitality, catering and housekeeping, from florists and upholsterers to specialist craftspeople and caterers.
Sir Tony is said to have reported the altercation with the former Duke to the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Peel, who raised it with the then Prince Charles, who in turn spoke to his brother.
The Lord Chamberlain then received a call from an unapologetic Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, who is alleged to have said: “I gather you’ve been calling people and causing problems.”
Mr Hardman also describes a different incident in Windsor, when grooms from the Royal Mews had been riding some of the late Queen’s horses on the estate.
“One had waved a firm hand at an approaching car which was revving its engine aggressively,” he writes.
“It pulled alongside and, through the window, the Duke of York bellowed at her: ‘Who the f--- do you think you are?’”
The former Duke is said to have demanded her name before taking it up with the late Queen in person.....
...According to Andrew Lownie, an author, royal staff were instructed to bow to Andrew any time he entered a room. When anyone forgot, he would allegedly say, “Let’s try that again,” before leaving the room, only to walk back in again.
I'm sure that he's a deeply unpleasant individual, but he's far from having been the only powerful man with a sense of entitlement that made him think he didn't have to abide by the rules everyone else does. And I find this continuing pile-on quite distasteful.
Why is it only now, when he's been reduced to state of powerlessness, that the press reports this stuff? It would have been much more meaningful if they'd reported on it at the time.
Yes it would, but it's better late than never, and there is the faint hope that a proportionate pile on for him being a jackass* might lead to great acknowledgement of others who do the same things in future.
*though let's be honest, he's probably a lot more than that.
Why on earth did Queen Elizabeth II consider Andrew her favourite kid?
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had a “physical altercation” with one of Elizabeth II’s most senior aides, it has been claimed.
The former Duke of York was accused of lashing out at Vice-Adml Sir Tony Johnstone-Burt, master of the household, allegedly because he could not accommodate a Pitch@Palace event at Buckingham Palace.
His behaviour was considered so concerning that Prince Philip, his late father, reportedly felt obliged to write a letter of apology to Sir Tony.
“It was a routine household matter,” a senior member of staff told Robert Hardman, a royal author. “The Duke wanted to have a reception, and there wasn’t any room. It was as simple as that.
“Tony said he’d have to wait his turn like anybody else, and the Duke went for him.”
According to Mr Hardman, it was “not just an outburst of expletives and a jab of a finger” but what one member of staff described as a “kinetic” blow, which caused astonishment in the royal household.
The alleged incident is described in Mr Hardman’s latest book, Elizabeth II, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail.
Sir Tony has been master of the household since 2013 and remains in the position working for the King.
The retired naval officer was among the senior members of staff who led the ceremonial procession out of Buckingham Palace during the late Queen’s funeral in September 2022, performing one last duty for “the boss”.
His department handles official and private entertaining across all the royal residences, running teams that span hospitality, catering and housekeeping, from florists and upholsterers to specialist craftspeople and caterers.
Sir Tony is said to have reported the altercation with the former Duke to the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Peel, who raised it with the then Prince Charles, who in turn spoke to his brother.
The Lord Chamberlain then received a call from an unapologetic Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, who is alleged to have said: “I gather you’ve been calling people and causing problems.”
Mr Hardman also describes a different incident in Windsor, when grooms from the Royal Mews had been riding some of the late Queen’s horses on the estate.
“One had waved a firm hand at an approaching car which was revving its engine aggressively,” he writes.
“It pulled alongside and, through the window, the Duke of York bellowed at her: ‘Who the f--- do you think you are?’”
The former Duke is said to have demanded her name before taking it up with the late Queen in person.....
...According to Andrew Lownie, an author, royal staff were instructed to bow to Andrew any time he entered a room. When anyone forgot, he would allegedly say, “Let’s try that again,” before leaving the room, only to walk back in again.
I'm sure that he's a deeply unpleasant individual, but he's far from having been the only powerful man with a sense of entitlement that made him think he didn't have to abide by the rules everyone else does. And I find this continuing pile-on quite distasteful.
Why is it only now, when he's been reduced to state of powerlessness, that the press reports this stuff? It would have been much more meaningful if they'd reported on it at the time.
I've been reading Popbitch for a quarter of a century, even in the early days, his bad behaviour was known, the nickname his bodyguards gave him gets you banned on PB.
My friend's father has hosted the royals for decades, he said they were all lovely, except Andrew.
Prince Charles as he was then had some very particular requests, such as an exclusive loo with a certain brand of toilet paper, and that sandwiches had to be cut diagonally not horizontally.
I think the reason it wasn't reported by the main press was that he was known to threaten them and the Queen acquiesced (mostly indirectly).
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
Then withdraw your shopping from Waitrose.
I realise for some, this will be like cutting off a limb.
Interesting article, and I'm not saying that on behalf of Lindt who get a double mention.
Apparently the employee threw a piece of one of the chocolate bunnies which had fallen to the floor after the tussle, but he “threw it out of frustration", mind, not out of any other emotion, and he threw it towards some shopping trolleys, mind, rather than "aiming it at the shoplifter" - perish the thought.
"He said security had been scaled back in the shop, with no guards working on Mondays and Tuesday because 'shoplifting incidents aren’t reported enough'."
One word missing from the article is "police".
It's not wholly clear why the employee gave a toss given there's no indication that he was in any danger, or was abused, or had a security role. Would he clean the windows too if the company were to cut back on its window-cleaning budget? Or am I taking insufficient account of Waitrose being "employee owned"?
Companies are worried about insurance and lawsuits. The kind of bounce type security who will get "stuck in" are expensive and often cause their own problems.
Allowing employees to "have a go" risks legal claims that the comp[any is allowing/encouraging untrained staff to fight with suspected thieves.
So firing anyone who has a go, is the safe option for them.
Shop employees find theft threatening and incredibly dispiriting. They also know that many stores operate on a thin margin - if theft rises enough, then the shop becomes uneconomic. And closes.
There's a couple of other issues.
When things get violent people they say stuff that leads to them getting sacked, I know of instances where one security guard ended using homophobic language.
Also there's this
A shoplifter has admitted killing a security guard during a struggle at an Asda superstore as she tried to flee the premises.
Alun Harris-Richards fell to the ground and struck his head after trying to prevent Natasha Smith from leaving the Arbroath store with stolen alcohol in June 2024.
Smith, 38, admitted causing the 61-year-old such physical and emotional distress during the incident that he suffered a fatal heart attack.
Smith will be sentenced at the High Court in Edinburgh on 5 March.
Smith also admitted assaulting another Asda employee during the same altercation.
The court heard that following the death of Harris-Richards, pathologists carried out a post-mortem examination and found that he had a coronary artery condition.
They said people with the condition were "at risk of sudden death at any time" and this was particularly true in times of illness or stress.
Why on earth did Queen Elizabeth II consider Andrew her favourite kid?
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had a “physical altercation” with one of Elizabeth II’s most senior aides, it has been claimed.
The former Duke of York was accused of lashing out at Vice-Adml Sir Tony Johnstone-Burt, master of the household, allegedly because he could not accommodate a Pitch@Palace event at Buckingham Palace.
His behaviour was considered so concerning that Prince Philip, his late father, reportedly felt obliged to write a letter of apology to Sir Tony.
“It was a routine household matter,” a senior member of staff told Robert Hardman, a royal author. “The Duke wanted to have a reception, and there wasn’t any room. It was as simple as that.
“Tony said he’d have to wait his turn like anybody else, and the Duke went for him.”
According to Mr Hardman, it was “not just an outburst of expletives and a jab of a finger” but what one member of staff described as a “kinetic” blow, which caused astonishment in the royal household.
The alleged incident is described in Mr Hardman’s latest book, Elizabeth II, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail.
Sir Tony has been master of the household since 2013 and remains in the position working for the King.
The retired naval officer was among the senior members of staff who led the ceremonial procession out of Buckingham Palace during the late Queen’s funeral in September 2022, performing one last duty for “the boss”.
His department handles official and private entertaining across all the royal residences, running teams that span hospitality, catering and housekeeping, from florists and upholsterers to specialist craftspeople and caterers.
Sir Tony is said to have reported the altercation with the former Duke to the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Peel, who raised it with the then Prince Charles, who in turn spoke to his brother.
The Lord Chamberlain then received a call from an unapologetic Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, who is alleged to have said: “I gather you’ve been calling people and causing problems.”
Mr Hardman also describes a different incident in Windsor, when grooms from the Royal Mews had been riding some of the late Queen’s horses on the estate.
“One had waved a firm hand at an approaching car which was revving its engine aggressively,” he writes.
“It pulled alongside and, through the window, the Duke of York bellowed at her: ‘Who the f--- do you think you are?’”
The former Duke is said to have demanded her name before taking it up with the late Queen in person.....
...According to Andrew Lownie, an author, royal staff were instructed to bow to Andrew any time he entered a room. When anyone forgot, he would allegedly say, “Let’s try that again,” before leaving the room, only to walk back in again.
I'm sure that he's a deeply unpleasant individual, but he's far from having been the only powerful man with a sense of entitlement that made him think he didn't have to abide by the rules everyone else does. And I find this continuing pile-on quite distasteful.
Why is it only now, when he's been reduced to state of powerlessness, that the press reports this stuff? It would have been much more meaningful if they'd reported on it at the time.
I've been reading Popbitch for a quarter of a century, even in the early days, his bad behaviour was known, the nickname his bodyguards gave him gets you banned on PB.
My friend's father has hosted the royals for decades, he said they were all lovely, except Andrew.
Prince Charles as he was then had some very particular requests, such as an exclusive loo with a certain brand of toilet paper, and that sandwiches had to be cut diagonally not horizontally.
I think the reason it wasn't reported by the main press was that he was known to threaten them and the Queen acquiesced (mostly indirectly).
Can I support Charles in his diagonal cut sandwiches preference !
From AI but it gets to the heart of the matter !
More Filling per Bite: The acute angles (45°) allow you to bite into the center of the sandwich first, where the filling is most concentrated, rather than just eating crust.
Better Mouthfeel & Texture: The diagonal cut provides a more satisfying, less-even, and "fancier" experience than a standard rectangle.
Reduced Crust Ratio: The long, diagonal edge means you start with a "crustless" experience before reaching the corners.
Psychological Impact: Triangles visually feel like a larger portion than rectangles, and the improved presentation enhances perceived flavor.
Ergonomics: The point of a triangle fits more easily in the mouth, making it easier to eat without getting condiments on your cheeks
Why on earth did Queen Elizabeth II consider Andrew her favourite kid?
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had a “physical altercation” with one of Elizabeth II’s most senior aides, it has been claimed.
The former Duke of York was accused of lashing out at Vice-Adml Sir Tony Johnstone-Burt, master of the household, allegedly because he could not accommodate a Pitch@Palace event at Buckingham Palace.
His behaviour was considered so concerning that Prince Philip, his late father, reportedly felt obliged to write a letter of apology to Sir Tony.
“It was a routine household matter,” a senior member of staff told Robert Hardman, a royal author. “The Duke wanted to have a reception, and there wasn’t any room. It was as simple as that.
“Tony said he’d have to wait his turn like anybody else, and the Duke went for him.”
According to Mr Hardman, it was “not just an outburst of expletives and a jab of a finger” but what one member of staff described as a “kinetic” blow, which caused astonishment in the royal household.
The alleged incident is described in Mr Hardman’s latest book, Elizabeth II, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail.
Sir Tony has been master of the household since 2013 and remains in the position working for the King.
The retired naval officer was among the senior members of staff who led the ceremonial procession out of Buckingham Palace during the late Queen’s funeral in September 2022, performing one last duty for “the boss”.
His department handles official and private entertaining across all the royal residences, running teams that span hospitality, catering and housekeeping, from florists and upholsterers to specialist craftspeople and caterers.
Sir Tony is said to have reported the altercation with the former Duke to the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Peel, who raised it with the then Prince Charles, who in turn spoke to his brother.
The Lord Chamberlain then received a call from an unapologetic Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, who is alleged to have said: “I gather you’ve been calling people and causing problems.”
Mr Hardman also describes a different incident in Windsor, when grooms from the Royal Mews had been riding some of the late Queen’s horses on the estate.
“One had waved a firm hand at an approaching car which was revving its engine aggressively,” he writes.
“It pulled alongside and, through the window, the Duke of York bellowed at her: ‘Who the f--- do you think you are?’”
The former Duke is said to have demanded her name before taking it up with the late Queen in person.....
...According to Andrew Lownie, an author, royal staff were instructed to bow to Andrew any time he entered a room. When anyone forgot, he would allegedly say, “Let’s try that again,” before leaving the room, only to walk back in again.
I'm sure that he's a deeply unpleasant individual, but he's far from having been the only powerful man with a sense of entitlement that made him think he didn't have to abide by the rules everyone else does. And I find this continuing pile-on quite distasteful.
Why is it only now, when he's been reduced to state of powerlessness, that the press reports this stuff? It would have been much more meaningful if they'd reported on it at the time.
I've been reading Popbitch for a quarter of a century, even in the early days, his bad behaviour was known, the nickname his bodyguards gave him gets you banned on PB.
My friend's father has hosted the royals for decades, he said they were all lovely, except Andrew.
Prince Charles as he was then had some very particular requests, such as an exclusive loo with a certain brand of toilet paper, and that sandwiches had to be cut diagonally not horizontally.
I think the reason it wasn't reported by the main press was that he was known to threaten them and the Queen acquiesced (mostly indirectly).
Can I support Charles in his diagonal cut sandwiches preference !
From AI but it gets to the heart of the matter !
More Filling per Bite: The acute angles (45°) allow you to bite into the center of the sandwich first, where the filling is most concentrated, rather than just eating crust.
Better Mouthfeel & Texture: The diagonal cut provides a more satisfying, less-even, and "fancier" experience than a standard rectangle.
Reduced Crust Ratio: The long, diagonal edge means you start with a "crustless" experience before reaching the corners.
Psychological Impact: Triangles visually feel like a larger portion than rectangles, and the improved presentation enhances perceived flavor.
Ergonomics: The point of a triangle fits more easily in the mouth, making it easier to eat without getting condiments on your cheeks
Why on earth did Queen Elizabeth II consider Andrew her favourite kid?
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had a “physical altercation” with one of Elizabeth II’s most senior aides, it has been claimed.
The former Duke of York was accused of lashing out at Vice-Adml Sir Tony Johnstone-Burt, master of the household, allegedly because he could not accommodate a Pitch@Palace event at Buckingham Palace.
His behaviour was considered so concerning that Prince Philip, his late father, reportedly felt obliged to write a letter of apology to Sir Tony.
“It was a routine household matter,” a senior member of staff told Robert Hardman, a royal author. “The Duke wanted to have a reception, and there wasn’t any room. It was as simple as that.
“Tony said he’d have to wait his turn like anybody else, and the Duke went for him.”
According to Mr Hardman, it was “not just an outburst of expletives and a jab of a finger” but what one member of staff described as a “kinetic” blow, which caused astonishment in the royal household.
The alleged incident is described in Mr Hardman’s latest book, Elizabeth II, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail.
Sir Tony has been master of the household since 2013 and remains in the position working for the King.
The retired naval officer was among the senior members of staff who led the ceremonial procession out of Buckingham Palace during the late Queen’s funeral in September 2022, performing one last duty for “the boss”.
His department handles official and private entertaining across all the royal residences, running teams that span hospitality, catering and housekeeping, from florists and upholsterers to specialist craftspeople and caterers.
Sir Tony is said to have reported the altercation with the former Duke to the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Peel, who raised it with the then Prince Charles, who in turn spoke to his brother.
The Lord Chamberlain then received a call from an unapologetic Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, who is alleged to have said: “I gather you’ve been calling people and causing problems.”
Mr Hardman also describes a different incident in Windsor, when grooms from the Royal Mews had been riding some of the late Queen’s horses on the estate.
“One had waved a firm hand at an approaching car which was revving its engine aggressively,” he writes.
“It pulled alongside and, through the window, the Duke of York bellowed at her: ‘Who the f--- do you think you are?’”
The former Duke is said to have demanded her name before taking it up with the late Queen in person.....
...According to Andrew Lownie, an author, royal staff were instructed to bow to Andrew any time he entered a room. When anyone forgot, he would allegedly say, “Let’s try that again,” before leaving the room, only to walk back in again.
Why on earth did Queen Elizabeth II consider Andrew her favourite kid?
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had a “physical altercation” with one of Elizabeth II’s most senior aides, it has been claimed.
The former Duke of York was accused of lashing out at Vice-Adml Sir Tony Johnstone-Burt, master of the household, allegedly because he could not accommodate a Pitch@Palace event at Buckingham Palace.
His behaviour was considered so concerning that Prince Philip, his late father, reportedly felt obliged to write a letter of apology to Sir Tony.
“It was a routine household matter,” a senior member of staff told Robert Hardman, a royal author. “The Duke wanted to have a reception, and there wasn’t any room. It was as simple as that.
“Tony said he’d have to wait his turn like anybody else, and the Duke went for him.”
According to Mr Hardman, it was “not just an outburst of expletives and a jab of a finger” but what one member of staff described as a “kinetic” blow, which caused astonishment in the royal household.
The alleged incident is described in Mr Hardman’s latest book, Elizabeth II, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail.
Sir Tony has been master of the household since 2013 and remains in the position working for the King.
The retired naval officer was among the senior members of staff who led the ceremonial procession out of Buckingham Palace during the late Queen’s funeral in September 2022, performing one last duty for “the boss”.
His department handles official and private entertaining across all the royal residences, running teams that span hospitality, catering and housekeeping, from florists and upholsterers to specialist craftspeople and caterers.
Sir Tony is said to have reported the altercation with the former Duke to the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Peel, who raised it with the then Prince Charles, who in turn spoke to his brother.
The Lord Chamberlain then received a call from an unapologetic Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, who is alleged to have said: “I gather you’ve been calling people and causing problems.”
Mr Hardman also describes a different incident in Windsor, when grooms from the Royal Mews had been riding some of the late Queen’s horses on the estate.
“One had waved a firm hand at an approaching car which was revving its engine aggressively,” he writes.
“It pulled alongside and, through the window, the Duke of York bellowed at her: ‘Who the f--- do you think you are?’”
The former Duke is said to have demanded her name before taking it up with the late Queen in person.....
...According to Andrew Lownie, an author, royal staff were instructed to bow to Andrew any time he entered a room. When anyone forgot, he would allegedly say, “Let’s try that again,” before leaving the room, only to walk back in again.
I'm sure that he's a deeply unpleasant individual, but he's far from having been the only powerful man with a sense of entitlement that made him think he didn't have to abide by the rules everyone else does. And I find this continuing pile-on quite distasteful.
Why is it only now, when he's been reduced to state of powerlessness, that the press reports this stuff? It would have been much more meaningful if they'd reported on it at the time.
I've been reading Popbitch for a quarter of a century, even in the early days, his bad behaviour was known, the nickname his bodyguards gave him gets you banned on PB.
My friend's father has hosted the royals for decades, he said they were all lovely, except Andrew.
Prince Charles as he was then had some very particular requests, such as an exclusive loo with a certain brand of toilet paper, and that sandwiches had to be cut diagonally not horizontally.
I think the reason it wasn't reported by the main press was that he was known to threaten them and the Queen acquiesced (mostly indirectly).
Can I support Charles in his diagonal cut sandwiches preference !
From AI but it gets to the heart of the matter !
More Filling per Bite: The acute angles (45°) allow you to bite into the center of the sandwich first, where the filling is most concentrated, rather than just eating crust.
Better Mouthfeel & Texture: The diagonal cut provides a more satisfying, less-even, and "fancier" experience than a standard rectangle.
Reduced Crust Ratio: The long, diagonal edge means you start with a "crustless" experience before reaching the corners.
Psychological Impact: Triangles visually feel like a larger portion than rectangles, and the improved presentation enhances perceived flavor.
Ergonomics: The point of a triangle fits more easily in the mouth, making it easier to eat without getting condiments on your cheeks
AI nonsense strikes again!
In this instance I agree with it . I always triangular cut , they just taste better .
Reform has taken on a sort of Christian/religious politics that I really don’t want to see in this country
Except without any of the teachings of Jesus about loving thy fellow man, or any of that liberal, woke "sermon on the Mount" type stuff.
Remember, Christ came with a sword as much as the word. He would likely have machine gunned the dinghies
That's right: no way did he advocate for people to "turn the other cheek".
Turning the other cheek was actually a sign of resistance.
The other cheek being the one that would be struck if you were the equal of the one doing the striking, rather than being their inferior. </>
How do you get that from the Sermon on the Mount?
Based on cultural norms in the society in which Jesus was living.
My mate who has studied this stuff can explain it much better than I can.
Well that wouldn't be hard based on your response so far.
Here you go:
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
Uhuh. And that fits subsequent sentences how exactly?
"And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
Read the whole article. It explains 5he passive resistance in those acts too.
Christ, I'm the fecking atheist - I shouldn't be giving bible study classes.
It doesn't fit well either with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount.
I appreciate that there has been lots of sophistry and casuistry to twist Jesus's words to support resistance to Roman rule, but it really doesn't fit the Gospels. Jesus went deliberately to his death and told his disciples not to resist his arrest.
His kingdom is not of this world. Render unto Caesar etc.
You’ve missed out the bit where Jesus said:
“Man’s greatest joy is to slaughter his enemies. To crush them and drive them before him, and to listen to the lamentations of the women.”
That;s Genghis Khan.
Now, I know it seems like that. But think about it.
In its original meaning, 'Khan' literally means 'inn'. Where was Jesus born? An inn.
And 'Genghis'... that sounds awfully like 'Genesis', which is the first book of the Christian Bible.
Jesus said 'I am the Good Shepherd.' Genghis Khan was literally a nomadic herder.
And Jesus -according to Revalantions- was King of Kings. What did Gengis Khan call himself? Khan of Khans.
The signs area all there if you take the time to look. Genghis Khan was the second coming of Jesus Christ.
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
Then withdraw your shopping from Waitrose.
I realise for some, this will be like cutting off a limb.
Interesting article, and I'm not saying that on behalf of Lindt who get a double mention.
Apparently the employee threw a piece of one of the chocolate bunnies which had fallen to the floor after the tussle, but he “threw it out of frustration", mind, not out of any other emotion, and he threw it towards some shopping trolleys, mind, rather than "aiming it at the shoplifter" - perish the thought.
"He said security had been scaled back in the shop, with no guards working on Mondays and Tuesday because 'shoplifting incidents aren’t reported enough'."
One word missing from the article is "police".
It's not wholly clear why the employee gave a toss given there's no indication that he was in any danger, or was abused, or had a security role. Would he clean the windows too if the company were to cut back on its window-cleaning budget?
Excuse me (well no don't) but if that is your belief then you are a fucking idiot with no idea of what it is like working in a shop. I have never, ever met a shop worker who didn't get immensely angry and upset about people coming in and stealing product - all the more so in places where they see honest shoppers coming in every day struggling to pay for their essentials.
People care. If you don't then that says far more about you than anyone else.
In big supermarkets? Really? For most it's just a job, often for a relatively short period of their lives. Shoplifters aren't robbing paying customers, after all. Some employees are boss-identified and win lots of badges at Asda. Others aren't so much. FWIW I do have sympathy for e.g. staff in small branches where there's only a small number of them, maybe late at night, and the impunity of shoplifters - being perhaps bods who do it all the time and are off their heads on whatever - makes them feel unsafe.
We can maybe agree there's a policing issue here.
Yep even in the big supermarkets. When you are earning minimum wage and struggling to afford to live then seeing some scrote wandering in and nicking from your place of work with seeming impunity gets people really angry.
And as shop lifting has become the norm then violence and threatening behviour against shop workers has also increased. The two are directly linked - as anyone who works in retail knows only too well. When the scumbags know you are not allowed to intervene they become a lot more aggressive.
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
Then withdraw your shopping from Waitrose.
I realise for some, this will be like cutting off a limb.
Interesting article, and I'm not saying that on behalf of Lindt who get a double mention.
Apparently the employee threw a piece of one of the chocolate bunnies which had fallen to the floor after the tussle, but he “threw it out of frustration", mind, not out of any other emotion, and he threw it towards some shopping trolleys, mind, rather than "aiming it at the shoplifter" - perish the thought.
"He said security had been scaled back in the shop, with no guards working on Mondays and Tuesday because 'shoplifting incidents aren’t reported enough'."
One word missing from the article is "police".
It's not wholly clear why the employee gave a toss given there's no indication that he was in any danger, or was abused, or had a security role. Would he clean the windows too if the company were to cut back on its window-cleaning budget? Or am I taking insufficient account of Waitrose being "employee owned"?
Companies are worried about insurance and lawsuits. The kind of bounce type security who will get "stuck in" are expensive and often cause their own problems.
Allowing employees to "have a go" risks legal claims that the comp[any is allowing/encouraging untrained staff to fight with suspected thieves.
So firing anyone who has a go, is the safe option for them.
Shop employees find theft threatening and incredibly dispiriting. They also know that many stores operate on a thin margin - if theft rises enough, then the shop becomes uneconomic. And closes.
Reform has taken on a sort of Christian/religious politics that I really don’t want to see in this country
Except without any of the teachings of Jesus about loving thy fellow man, or any of that liberal, woke "sermon on the Mount" type stuff.
Remember, Christ came with a sword as much as the word. He would likely have machine gunned the dinghies
That's right: no way did he advocate for people to "turn the other cheek".
Turning the other cheek was actually a sign of resistance.
The other cheek being the one that would be struck if you were the equal of the one doing the striking, rather than being their inferior. </>
How do you get that from the Sermon on the Mount?
Based on cultural norms in the society in which Jesus was living.
My mate who has studied this stuff can explain it much better than I can.
Well that wouldn't be hard based on your response so far.
Here you go:
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
Uhuh. And that fits subsequent sentences how exactly?
"And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
Read the whole article. It explains 5he passive resistance in those acts too.
Christ, I'm the fecking atheist - I shouldn't be giving bible study classes.
It doesn't fit well either with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount.
I appreciate that there has been lots of sophistry and casuistry to twist Jesus's words to support resistance to Roman rule, but it really doesn't fit the Gospels. Jesus went deliberately to his death and told his disciples not to resist his arrest.
His kingdom is not of this world. Render unto Caesar etc.
You’ve missed out the bit where Jesus said:
“Man’s greatest joy is to slaughter his enemies. To crush them and drive them before him, and to listen to the lamentations of the women.”
That;s Genghis Khan.
Now, I know it seems like that. But think about it.
In its original meaning, 'Khan' literally means 'inn'. Where was Jesus born? An inn.
And 'Genghis'... that sounds awfully like 'Genesis', which is the first book of the Christian Bible.
Jesus said 'I am the Good Shepherd.' Genghis Khan was literally a nomadic herder.
And Jesus -according to Revalantions- was King of Kings. What did Gengis Khan call himself? Khan of Khans.
The signs area all there if you take the time to look. Genghis Khan was the second coming of Jesus Christ.
Oh God... I've just created the plot for the next Tom Knox novel. All off a stupid throwaway comment.
Why on earth did Queen Elizabeth II consider Andrew her favourite kid?
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had a “physical altercation” with one of Elizabeth II’s most senior aides, it has been claimed.
The former Duke of York was accused of lashing out at Vice-Adml Sir Tony Johnstone-Burt, master of the household, allegedly because he could not accommodate a Pitch@Palace event at Buckingham Palace.
His behaviour was considered so concerning that Prince Philip, his late father, reportedly felt obliged to write a letter of apology to Sir Tony.
“It was a routine household matter,” a senior member of staff told Robert Hardman, a royal author. “The Duke wanted to have a reception, and there wasn’t any room. It was as simple as that.
“Tony said he’d have to wait his turn like anybody else, and the Duke went for him.”
According to Mr Hardman, it was “not just an outburst of expletives and a jab of a finger” but what one member of staff described as a “kinetic” blow, which caused astonishment in the royal household.
The alleged incident is described in Mr Hardman’s latest book, Elizabeth II, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail.
Sir Tony has been master of the household since 2013 and remains in the position working for the King.
The retired naval officer was among the senior members of staff who led the ceremonial procession out of Buckingham Palace during the late Queen’s funeral in September 2022, performing one last duty for “the boss”.
His department handles official and private entertaining across all the royal residences, running teams that span hospitality, catering and housekeeping, from florists and upholsterers to specialist craftspeople and caterers.
Sir Tony is said to have reported the altercation with the former Duke to the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Peel, who raised it with the then Prince Charles, who in turn spoke to his brother.
The Lord Chamberlain then received a call from an unapologetic Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, who is alleged to have said: “I gather you’ve been calling people and causing problems.”
Mr Hardman also describes a different incident in Windsor, when grooms from the Royal Mews had been riding some of the late Queen’s horses on the estate.
“One had waved a firm hand at an approaching car which was revving its engine aggressively,” he writes.
“It pulled alongside and, through the window, the Duke of York bellowed at her: ‘Who the f--- do you think you are?’”
The former Duke is said to have demanded her name before taking it up with the late Queen in person.....
...According to Andrew Lownie, an author, royal staff were instructed to bow to Andrew any time he entered a room. When anyone forgot, he would allegedly say, “Let’s try that again,” before leaving the room, only to walk back in again.
I'm sure that he's a deeply unpleasant individual, but he's far from having been the only powerful man with a sense of entitlement that made him think he didn't have to abide by the rules everyone else does. And I find this continuing pile-on quite distasteful.
Why is it only now, when he's been reduced to state of powerlessness, that the press reports this stuff? It would have been much more meaningful if they'd reported on it at the time.
I've been reading Popbitch for a quarter of a century, even in the early days, his bad behaviour was known, the nickname his bodyguards gave him gets you banned on PB.
My friend's father has hosted the royals for decades, he said they were all lovely, except Andrew.
Prince Charles as he was then had some very particular requests, such as an exclusive loo with a certain brand of toilet paper, and that sandwiches had to be cut diagonally not horizontally.
I think the reason it wasn't reported by the main press was that he was known to threaten them and the Queen acquiesced (mostly indirectly).
Can I support Charles in his diagonal cut sandwiches preference !
From AI but it gets to the heart of the matter !
More Filling per Bite: The acute angles (45°) allow you to bite into the center of the sandwich first, where the filling is most concentrated, rather than just eating crust.
Better Mouthfeel & Texture: The diagonal cut provides a more satisfying, less-even, and "fancier" experience than a standard rectangle.
Reduced Crust Ratio: The long, diagonal edge means you start with a "crustless" experience before reaching the corners.
Psychological Impact: Triangles visually feel like a larger portion than rectangles, and the improved presentation enhances perceived flavor.
Ergonomics: The point of a triangle fits more easily in the mouth, making it easier to eat without getting condiments on your cheeks
AI nonsense strikes again!
In this instance I agree with it . I always triangular cut , they just taste better .
Interesting that AI assumed the crusts aren't trimmed off.
Why on earth did Queen Elizabeth II consider Andrew her favourite kid?
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had a “physical altercation” with one of Elizabeth II’s most senior aides, it has been claimed.
The former Duke of York was accused of lashing out at Vice-Adml Sir Tony Johnstone-Burt, master of the household, allegedly because he could not accommodate a Pitch@Palace event at Buckingham Palace.
His behaviour was considered so concerning that Prince Philip, his late father, reportedly felt obliged to write a letter of apology to Sir Tony.
“It was a routine household matter,” a senior member of staff told Robert Hardman, a royal author. “The Duke wanted to have a reception, and there wasn’t any room. It was as simple as that.
“Tony said he’d have to wait his turn like anybody else, and the Duke went for him.”
According to Mr Hardman, it was “not just an outburst of expletives and a jab of a finger” but what one member of staff described as a “kinetic” blow, which caused astonishment in the royal household.
The alleged incident is described in Mr Hardman’s latest book, Elizabeth II, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail.
Sir Tony has been master of the household since 2013 and remains in the position working for the King.
The retired naval officer was among the senior members of staff who led the ceremonial procession out of Buckingham Palace during the late Queen’s funeral in September 2022, performing one last duty for “the boss”.
His department handles official and private entertaining across all the royal residences, running teams that span hospitality, catering and housekeeping, from florists and upholsterers to specialist craftspeople and caterers.
Sir Tony is said to have reported the altercation with the former Duke to the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Peel, who raised it with the then Prince Charles, who in turn spoke to his brother.
The Lord Chamberlain then received a call from an unapologetic Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, who is alleged to have said: “I gather you’ve been calling people and causing problems.”
Mr Hardman also describes a different incident in Windsor, when grooms from the Royal Mews had been riding some of the late Queen’s horses on the estate.
“One had waved a firm hand at an approaching car which was revving its engine aggressively,” he writes.
“It pulled alongside and, through the window, the Duke of York bellowed at her: ‘Who the f--- do you think you are?’”
The former Duke is said to have demanded her name before taking it up with the late Queen in person.....
...According to Andrew Lownie, an author, royal staff were instructed to bow to Andrew any time he entered a room. When anyone forgot, he would allegedly say, “Let’s try that again,” before leaving the room, only to walk back in again.
I'm sure that he's a deeply unpleasant individual, but he's far from having been the only powerful man with a sense of entitlement that made him think he didn't have to abide by the rules everyone else does. And I find this continuing pile-on quite distasteful.
Why is it only now, when he's been reduced to state of powerlessness, that the press reports this stuff? It would have been much more meaningful if they'd reported on it at the time.
I've been reading Popbitch for a quarter of a century, even in the early days, his bad behaviour was known, the nickname his bodyguards gave him gets you banned on PB.
My friend's father has hosted the royals for decades, he said they were all lovely, except Andrew.
Prince Charles as he was then had some very particular requests, such as an exclusive loo with a certain brand of toilet paper, and that sandwiches had to be cut diagonally not horizontally.
I think the reason it wasn't reported by the main press was that he was known to threaten them and the Queen acquiesced (mostly indirectly).
Why on earth did Queen Elizabeth II consider Andrew her favourite kid?
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had a “physical altercation” with one of Elizabeth II’s most senior aides, it has been claimed.
The former Duke of York was accused of lashing out at Vice-Adml Sir Tony Johnstone-Burt, master of the household, allegedly because he could not accommodate a Pitch@Palace event at Buckingham Palace.
His behaviour was considered so concerning that Prince Philip, his late father, reportedly felt obliged to write a letter of apology to Sir Tony.
“It was a routine household matter,” a senior member of staff told Robert Hardman, a royal author. “The Duke wanted to have a reception, and there wasn’t any room. It was as simple as that.
“Tony said he’d have to wait his turn like anybody else, and the Duke went for him.”
According to Mr Hardman, it was “not just an outburst of expletives and a jab of a finger” but what one member of staff described as a “kinetic” blow, which caused astonishment in the royal household.
The alleged incident is described in Mr Hardman’s latest book, Elizabeth II, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail.
Sir Tony has been master of the household since 2013 and remains in the position working for the King.
The retired naval officer was among the senior members of staff who led the ceremonial procession out of Buckingham Palace during the late Queen’s funeral in September 2022, performing one last duty for “the boss”.
His department handles official and private entertaining across all the royal residences, running teams that span hospitality, catering and housekeeping, from florists and upholsterers to specialist craftspeople and caterers.
Sir Tony is said to have reported the altercation with the former Duke to the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Peel, who raised it with the then Prince Charles, who in turn spoke to his brother.
The Lord Chamberlain then received a call from an unapologetic Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, who is alleged to have said: “I gather you’ve been calling people and causing problems.”
Mr Hardman also describes a different incident in Windsor, when grooms from the Royal Mews had been riding some of the late Queen’s horses on the estate.
“One had waved a firm hand at an approaching car which was revving its engine aggressively,” he writes.
“It pulled alongside and, through the window, the Duke of York bellowed at her: ‘Who the f--- do you think you are?’”
The former Duke is said to have demanded her name before taking it up with the late Queen in person.....
...According to Andrew Lownie, an author, royal staff were instructed to bow to Andrew any time he entered a room. When anyone forgot, he would allegedly say, “Let’s try that again,” before leaving the room, only to walk back in again.
I'm sure that he's a deeply unpleasant individual, but he's far from having been the only powerful man with a sense of entitlement that made him think he didn't have to abide by the rules everyone else does. And I find this continuing pile-on quite distasteful.
Why is it only now, when he's been reduced to state of powerlessness, that the press reports this stuff? It would have been much more meaningful if they'd reported on it at the time.
I've been reading Popbitch for a quarter of a century, even in the early days, his bad behaviour was known, the nickname his bodyguards gave him gets you banned on PB.
My friend's father has hosted the royals for decades, he said they were all lovely, except Andrew.
Prince Charles as he was then had some very particular requests, such as an exclusive loo with a certain brand of toilet paper, and that sandwiches had to be cut diagonally not horizontally.
I think the reason it wasn't reported by the main press was that he was known to threaten them and the Queen acquiesced (mostly indirectly).
Can I support Charles in his diagonal cut sandwiches preference !
From AI but it gets to the heart of the matter !
More Filling per Bite: The acute angles (45°) allow you to bite into the center of the sandwich first, where the filling is most concentrated, rather than just eating crust.
Better Mouthfeel & Texture: The diagonal cut provides a more satisfying, less-even, and "fancier" experience than a standard rectangle.
Reduced Crust Ratio: The long, diagonal edge means you start with a "crustless" experience before reaching the corners.
Psychological Impact: Triangles visually feel like a larger portion than rectangles, and the improved presentation enhances perceived flavor.
Ergonomics: The point of a triangle fits more easily in the mouth, making it easier to eat without getting condiments on your cheeks
AI nonsense strikes again!
In this instance I agree with it . I always triangular cut , they just taste better .
Interesting that AI assumed the crusts aren't trimmed off.
Good grief I’ve stumbled across the riff raff AI !
Reform has taken on a sort of Christian/religious politics that I really don’t want to see in this country
Except without any of the teachings of Jesus about loving thy fellow man, or any of that liberal, woke "sermon on the Mount" type stuff.
Remember, Christ came with a sword as much as the word. He would likely have machine gunned the dinghies
That's right: no way did he advocate for people to "turn the other cheek".
Turning the other cheek was actually a sign of resistance.
The other cheek being the one that would be struck if you were the equal of the one doing the striking, rather than being their inferior. </>
How do you get that from the Sermon on the Mount?
Based on cultural norms in the society in which Jesus was living.
My mate who has studied this stuff can explain it much better than I can.
Well that wouldn't be hard based on your response so far.
Here you go:
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
Uhuh. And that fits subsequent sentences how exactly?
"And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
Read the whole article. It explains 5he passive resistance in those acts too.
Christ, I'm the fecking atheist - I shouldn't be giving bible study classes.
It doesn't fit well either with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount.
I appreciate that there has been lots of sophistry and casuistry to twist Jesus's words to support resistance to Roman rule, but it really doesn't fit the Gospels. Jesus went deliberately to his death and told his disciples not to resist his arrest.
His kingdom is not of this world. Render unto Caesar etc.
You’ve missed out the bit where Jesus said:
“Man’s greatest joy is to slaughter his enemies. To crush them and drive them before him, and to listen to the lamentations of the women.”
That;s Genghis Khan.
Now, I know it seems like that. But think about it.
In its original meaning, 'Khan' literally means 'inn'. Where was Jesus born? An inn.
And 'Genghis'... that sounds awfully like 'Genesis', which is the first book of the Christian Bible.
Jesus said 'I am the Good Shepherd.' Genghis Khan was literally a nomadic herder.
And Jesus -according to Revalantions- was King of Kings. What did Gengis Khan call himself? Khan of Khans.
The signs area all there if you take the time to look. Genghis Khan was the second coming of Jesus Christ.
Oh God... I've just created the plot for the next Tom Knox novel. All off a stupid throwaway comment.
There's a potential box-office disaster of a movie in the Trek franchise just waiting to be made.
Reform has taken on a sort of Christian/religious politics that I really don’t want to see in this country
Except without any of the teachings of Jesus about loving thy fellow man, or any of that liberal, woke "sermon on the Mount" type stuff.
Remember, Christ came with a sword as much as the word. He would likely have machine gunned the dinghies
That's right: no way did he advocate for people to "turn the other cheek".
Turning the other cheek was actually a sign of resistance.
The other cheek being the one that would be struck if you were the equal of the one doing the striking, rather than being their inferior. </>
How do you get that from the Sermon on the Mount?
Based on cultural norms in the society in which Jesus was living.
My mate who has studied this stuff can explain it much better than I can.
Well that wouldn't be hard based on your response so far.
Here you go:
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
Uhuh. And that fits subsequent sentences how exactly?
"And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
Read the whole article. It explains 5he passive resistance in those acts too.
Christ, I'm the fecking atheist - I shouldn't be giving bible study classes.
It doesn't fit well either with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount.
I appreciate that there has been lots of sophistry and casuistry to twist Jesus's words to support resistance to Roman rule, but it really doesn't fit the Gospels. Jesus went deliberately to his death and told his disciples not to resist his arrest.
His kingdom is not of this world. Render unto Caesar etc.
You’ve missed out the bit where Jesus said:
“Man’s greatest joy is to slaughter his enemies. To crush them and drive them before him, and to listen to the lamentations of the women.”
That;s Genghis Khan.
The signs area all there if you take the time to look. Genghis Khan was the second coming of Jesus Christ.
Bit less of the peace and love the second time around. Maybe he was not as forgiving about that crucifixation business as he seemed at the time.
The Kobeissi Letter @KobeissiLetter · 22m BREAKING: President Trump's advisors are reportedly texting Iran's Foreign Minister Araghchi in an attempt to continue negotiations, per Axios.
Reform has taken on a sort of Christian/religious politics that I really don’t want to see in this country
Except without any of the teachings of Jesus about loving thy fellow man, or any of that liberal, woke "sermon on the Mount" type stuff.
Remember, Christ came with a sword as much as the word. He would likely have machine gunned the dinghies
That's right: no way did he advocate for people to "turn the other cheek".
Turning the other cheek was actually a sign of resistance.
The other cheek being the one that would be struck if you were the equal of the one doing the striking, rather than being their inferior. </>
How do you get that from the Sermon on the Mount?
Based on cultural norms in the society in which Jesus was living.
My mate who has studied this stuff can explain it much better than I can.
Well that wouldn't be hard based on your response so far.
Here you go:
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
Uhuh. And that fits subsequent sentences how exactly?
"And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
Read the whole article. It explains 5he passive resistance in those acts too.
Christ, I'm the fecking atheist - I shouldn't be giving bible study classes.
It doesn't fit well either with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount.
I appreciate that there has been lots of sophistry and casuistry to twist Jesus's words to support resistance to Roman rule, but it really doesn't fit the Gospels. Jesus went deliberately to his death and told his disciples not to resist his arrest.
His kingdom is not of this world. Render unto Caesar etc.
You’ve missed out the bit where Jesus said:
“Man’s greatest joy is to slaughter his enemies. To crush them and drive them before him, and to listen to the lamentations of the women.”
That;s Genghis Khan.
Now, I know it seems like that. But think about it.
In its original meaning, 'Khan' literally means 'inn'. Where was Jesus born? An inn.
And 'Genghis'... that sounds awfully like 'Genesis', which is the first book of the Christian Bible.
Jesus said 'I am the Good Shepherd.' Genghis Khan was literally a nomadic herder.
And Jesus -according to Revalantions- was King of Kings. What did Gengis Khan call himself? Khan of Khans.
The signs area all there if you take the time to look. Genghis Khan was the second coming of Jesus Christ.
Oh God... I've just created the plot for the next Tom Knox novel. All off a stupid throwaway comment.
There's a potential box-office disaster of a movie in the Trek franchise just waiting to be made.
Why on earth did Queen Elizabeth II consider Andrew her favourite kid?
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had a “physical altercation” with one of Elizabeth II’s most senior aides, it has been claimed.
The former Duke of York was accused of lashing out at Vice-Adml Sir Tony Johnstone-Burt, master of the household, allegedly because he could not accommodate a Pitch@Palace event at Buckingham Palace.
His behaviour was considered so concerning that Prince Philip, his late father, reportedly felt obliged to write a letter of apology to Sir Tony.
“It was a routine household matter,” a senior member of staff told Robert Hardman, a royal author. “The Duke wanted to have a reception, and there wasn’t any room. It was as simple as that.
“Tony said he’d have to wait his turn like anybody else, and the Duke went for him.”
According to Mr Hardman, it was “not just an outburst of expletives and a jab of a finger” but what one member of staff described as a “kinetic” blow, which caused astonishment in the royal household.
The alleged incident is described in Mr Hardman’s latest book, Elizabeth II, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail.
Sir Tony has been master of the household since 2013 and remains in the position working for the King.
The retired naval officer was among the senior members of staff who led the ceremonial procession out of Buckingham Palace during the late Queen’s funeral in September 2022, performing one last duty for “the boss”.
His department handles official and private entertaining across all the royal residences, running teams that span hospitality, catering and housekeeping, from florists and upholsterers to specialist craftspeople and caterers.
Sir Tony is said to have reported the altercation with the former Duke to the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Peel, who raised it with the then Prince Charles, who in turn spoke to his brother.
The Lord Chamberlain then received a call from an unapologetic Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, who is alleged to have said: “I gather you’ve been calling people and causing problems.”
Mr Hardman also describes a different incident in Windsor, when grooms from the Royal Mews had been riding some of the late Queen’s horses on the estate.
“One had waved a firm hand at an approaching car which was revving its engine aggressively,” he writes.
“It pulled alongside and, through the window, the Duke of York bellowed at her: ‘Who the f--- do you think you are?’”
The former Duke is said to have demanded her name before taking it up with the late Queen in person.....
...According to Andrew Lownie, an author, royal staff were instructed to bow to Andrew any time he entered a room. When anyone forgot, he would allegedly say, “Let’s try that again,” before leaving the room, only to walk back in again.
I'm sure that he's a deeply unpleasant individual, but he's far from having been the only powerful man with a sense of entitlement that made him think he didn't have to abide by the rules everyone else does. And I find this continuing pile-on quite distasteful.
Why is it only now, when he's been reduced to state of powerlessness, that the press reports this stuff? It would have been much more meaningful if they'd reported on it at the time.
I've been reading Popbitch for a quarter of a century, even in the early days, his bad behaviour was known, the nickname his bodyguards gave him gets you banned on PB.
My friend's father has hosted the royals for decades, he said they were all lovely, except Andrew.
Prince Charles as he was then had some very particular requests, such as an exclusive loo with a certain brand of toilet paper, and that sandwiches had to be cut diagonally not horizontally.
I think the reason it wasn't reported by the main press was that he was known to threaten them and the Queen acquiesced (mostly indirectly).
OT sadly following on from yesterdays shop lifting discussion I see today the Guardian are reporting Waitrose sacked a store employee of 17 years because they wrestled a bag away from a shop lifter.
Then withdraw your shopping from Waitrose.
I realise for some, this will be like cutting off a limb.
Interesting article, and I'm not saying that on behalf of Lindt who get a double mention.
Apparently the employee threw a piece of one of the chocolate bunnies which had fallen to the floor after the tussle, but he “threw it out of frustration", mind, not out of any other emotion, and he threw it towards some shopping trolleys, mind, rather than "aiming it at the shoplifter" - perish the thought.
"He said security had been scaled back in the shop, with no guards working on Mondays and Tuesday because 'shoplifting incidents aren’t reported enough'."
One word missing from the article is "police".
It's not wholly clear why the employee gave a toss given there's no indication that he was in any danger, or was abused, or had a security role. Would he clean the windows too if the company were to cut back on its window-cleaning budget?
Excuse me (well no don't) but if that is your belief then you are a fucking idiot with no idea of what it is like working in a shop. I have never, ever met a shop worker who didn't get immensely angry and upset about people coming in and stealing product - all the more so in places where they see honest shoppers coming in every day struggling to pay for their essentials.
People care. If you don't then that says far more about you than anyone else.
In big supermarkets? Really? For most it's just a job, often for a relatively short period of their lives. Shoplifters aren't robbing paying customers, after all. Some employees are boss-identified and win lots of badges at Asda. Others aren't so much. FWIW I do have sympathy for e.g. staff in small branches where there's only a small number of them, maybe late at night, and the impunity of shoplifters - being perhaps bods who do it all the time and are off their heads on whatever - makes them feel unsafe.
We can maybe agree there's a policing issue here.
Yep even in the big supermarkets. When you are earning minimum wage and struggling to afford to live then seeing some scrote wandering in and nicking from your place of work with seeming impunity gets people really angry.
And as shop lifting has become the norm then violence and threatening behviour against shop workers has also increased. The two are directly linked - as anyone who works in retail knows only too well. When the scumbags know you are not allowed to intervene they become a lot more aggressive.
It's the kind of thing which is true in many professions, not even involving theft - the little things possibly should not really matter to the minimum wager in some minor aspect of the overall business, but they can still take professional pride in what they do, and also not want to see the rest of the enterprise be unfairly criticised, fail, or be ripped off.
Reform has taken on a sort of Christian/religious politics that I really don’t want to see in this country
Except without any of the teachings of Jesus about loving thy fellow man, or any of that liberal, woke "sermon on the Mount" type stuff.
Remember, Christ came with a sword as much as the word. He would likely have machine gunned the dinghies
That's right: no way did he advocate for people to "turn the other cheek".
Turning the other cheek was actually a sign of resistance.
The other cheek being the one that would be struck if you were the equal of the one doing the striking, rather than being their inferior. </>
How do you get that from the Sermon on the Mount?
Based on cultural norms in the society in which Jesus was living.
My mate who has studied this stuff can explain it much better than I can.
Well that wouldn't be hard based on your response so far.
Here you go:
In Jesus’ day, hitting a person on the cheek was a forceful insult, but it was not considered a violent assault. Here, Jesus is specifying a strike on the right cheek, which implies a back-handed slap. Striking someone with the back of the hand (3) could demand a doubled fine because it was “the severest public affront to a person’s dignity.” (4)
But Jesus is not suggesting that his followers should stand around and take abuse. First, turning the left cheek was a bold rejection of the insult itself. Second, it challenged the aggressor to repeat the offense, while requiring that they now strike with the palm of their hand, something done not to a lesser but to an equal. In other words, turning the other cheek strongly declares that the opposer holds no power for condescending shame because the victim’s honor is not dependent on human approval—it comes from somewhere else. (5) This kind of action reshapes the relationship, pushing the adversary to either back down or to treat them as an equal.
Uhuh. And that fits subsequent sentences how exactly?
"And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you."
Read the whole article. It explains 5he passive resistance in those acts too.
Christ, I'm the fecking atheist - I shouldn't be giving bible study classes.
It doesn't fit well either with the rest of the Sermon on the Mount.
I appreciate that there has been lots of sophistry and casuistry to twist Jesus's words to support resistance to Roman rule, but it really doesn't fit the Gospels. Jesus went deliberately to his death and told his disciples not to resist his arrest.
His kingdom is not of this world. Render unto Caesar etc.
You’ve missed out the bit where Jesus said:
“Man’s greatest joy is to slaughter his enemies. To crush them and drive them before him, and to listen to the lamentations of the women.”
That;s Genghis Khan.
The signs area all there if you take the time to look. Genghis Khan was the second coming of Jesus Christ.
Bit less of the peace and love the second time around. Maybe he was not as forgiving about that crucifixation business as he seemed at the time.
You know, his back was never the same afterwards and it made him a bit cranky.
Why on earth did Queen Elizabeth II consider Andrew her favourite kid?
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had a “physical altercation” with one of Elizabeth II’s most senior aides, it has been claimed.
The former Duke of York was accused of lashing out at Vice-Adml Sir Tony Johnstone-Burt, master of the household, allegedly because he could not accommodate a Pitch@Palace event at Buckingham Palace.
His behaviour was considered so concerning that Prince Philip, his late father, reportedly felt obliged to write a letter of apology to Sir Tony.
“It was a routine household matter,” a senior member of staff told Robert Hardman, a royal author. “The Duke wanted to have a reception, and there wasn’t any room. It was as simple as that.
“Tony said he’d have to wait his turn like anybody else, and the Duke went for him.”
According to Mr Hardman, it was “not just an outburst of expletives and a jab of a finger” but what one member of staff described as a “kinetic” blow, which caused astonishment in the royal household.
The alleged incident is described in Mr Hardman’s latest book, Elizabeth II, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail.
Sir Tony has been master of the household since 2013 and remains in the position working for the King.
The retired naval officer was among the senior members of staff who led the ceremonial procession out of Buckingham Palace during the late Queen’s funeral in September 2022, performing one last duty for “the boss”.
His department handles official and private entertaining across all the royal residences, running teams that span hospitality, catering and housekeeping, from florists and upholsterers to specialist craftspeople and caterers.
Sir Tony is said to have reported the altercation with the former Duke to the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Peel, who raised it with the then Prince Charles, who in turn spoke to his brother.
The Lord Chamberlain then received a call from an unapologetic Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, who is alleged to have said: “I gather you’ve been calling people and causing problems.”
Mr Hardman also describes a different incident in Windsor, when grooms from the Royal Mews had been riding some of the late Queen’s horses on the estate.
“One had waved a firm hand at an approaching car which was revving its engine aggressively,” he writes.
“It pulled alongside and, through the window, the Duke of York bellowed at her: ‘Who the f--- do you think you are?’”
The former Duke is said to have demanded her name before taking it up with the late Queen in person.....
...According to Andrew Lownie, an author, royal staff were instructed to bow to Andrew any time he entered a room. When anyone forgot, he would allegedly say, “Let’s try that again,” before leaving the room, only to walk back in again.
Comments
@BarakRavid
🚨🇺🇸🇮🇷Trump tells me: Iran deal possible by Tuesday, otherwise "I am blowing up everything". My story on
@axios
https://x.com/BarakRavid/status/2040812785924235525
With the added bonus of the jobs in the constituency of one G. Brown MP.
ABC News
He has no idea.
Christ, I'm the fecking atheist - I shouldn't be giving bible study classes.
Picture of the day, our tradition for Easter is Sushi Sunday.
He rose again.
The revisionists omit half the verse:
But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on [your] right cheek, turn the other one to him as well...
Along with the rest of the sermon.
I just enjoyed the peace and serenity.
I realise for some, this will be like cutting off a limb.
I appreciate that there has been lots of sophistry and casuistry to twist Jesus's words to support resistance to Roman rule, but it really doesn't fit the Gospels. Jesus went deliberately to his death and told his disciples not to resist his arrest.
His kingdom is not of this world. Render unto Caesar etc.
("Where's the chocolate?")
A fish is an ancient Christian symbol too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ichthys#:~:text=The first appearances of the,the 3rd and 4th centuries.
Teach a man to fish, and he will spend the day on a boat with his friends, drinking beer…
When I first watched it, I had the idea that it would be great to do a parody of it where Jesus did things like turning nasty on the people throwing bread at him... then I watched The Life of Brian
Great line from John Wayne at the end "Truly this is the son of Gaaahd", although reading up on it , they say it might not been JW that delivered it
Not sure we can trust the article though, since this sentence is bollocks - it's not unclear that it led to the belief it had been present in earlier games, people definitely believed it prior to the release of Civ5 as I remember people claiming it to be the case for earlier entries back when I was playing Civ3. So it is not the case that people didn't claim it earlier.
was programmed to exhibit this behavior in Civilization V, released in 2010, and it is unclear whether this led to the belief that the behavior had also been present in earlier games.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2n-blwYJ4s
and
"Sometimes it’s better to light a flamethrower than curse the darkness"
The Bulwark
@BulwarkOnline
·
33m
"It's truly deranged, obviously, for a number of reasons."
@Timodc takes on Trump’s Easter morning threats to bomb Iran’s bridges, power grid, and energy infrastructure if a deal isn’t reached
https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/2040861066339430842
"Aw, truly this is the son of Gaahd."
This Zhao Xintong isn't bad at snooker.
It's nukes, in't it?
Something like “while we can’t comment on individual cases, the reporting of this case does not reflect the full facts a standard process including a right to appeal is being followed”
We all know the media likes to tell a story but it’s unusual that it’s called out so bluntly.
Thoughts of the US editor of the Economist.
Surely the obvious joke here is the second coming.
“Man’s greatest joy is to slaughter his enemies. To crush them and drive them before him, and to listen to the lamentations of the women.”
Interesting article, and I'm not saying that on behalf of Lindt who get a double mention.
Apparently the employee threw a piece of one of the chocolate bunnies which had fallen to the floor after the tussle, but he “threw it out of frustration", mind, not out of any other emotion, and he threw it towards some shopping trolleys, mind, rather than "aiming it at the shoplifter" - perish the thought.
"He said security had been scaled back in the shop, with no guards working on Mondays and Tuesday because 'shoplifting incidents aren’t reported enough'."
One word missing from the article is "police".
It's not wholly clear why the employee gave a toss given there's no indication that he was in any danger, or was abused, or had a security role. Would he clean the windows too if the company were to cut back on its window-cleaning budget? Or am I taking insufficient account of Waitrose being "employee owned"?
"Well if he did, sir, it was strictly off the record"
Easter is good
People care. If you don't then that says far more about you than anyone else.
Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor had a “physical altercation” with one of Elizabeth II’s most senior aides, it has been claimed.
The former Duke of York was accused of lashing out at Vice-Adml Sir Tony Johnstone-Burt, master of the household, allegedly because he could not accommodate a Pitch@Palace event at Buckingham Palace.
His behaviour was considered so concerning that Prince Philip, his late father, reportedly felt obliged to write a letter of apology to Sir Tony.
“It was a routine household matter,” a senior member of staff told Robert Hardman, a royal author. “The Duke wanted to have a reception, and there wasn’t any room. It was as simple as that.
“Tony said he’d have to wait his turn like anybody else, and the Duke went for him.”
According to Mr Hardman, it was “not just an outburst of expletives and a jab of a finger” but what one member of staff described as a “kinetic” blow, which caused astonishment in the royal household.
The alleged incident is described in Mr Hardman’s latest book, Elizabeth II, which is being serialised in the Daily Mail.
Sir Tony has been master of the household since 2013 and remains in the position working for the King.
The retired naval officer was among the senior members of staff who led the ceremonial procession out of Buckingham Palace during the late Queen’s funeral in September 2022, performing one last duty for “the boss”.
His department handles official and private entertaining across all the royal residences, running teams that span hospitality, catering and housekeeping, from florists and upholsterers to specialist craftspeople and caterers.
Sir Tony is said to have reported the altercation with the former Duke to the Lord Chamberlain, Lord Peel, who raised it with the then Prince Charles, who in turn spoke to his brother.
The Lord Chamberlain then received a call from an unapologetic Mr Mountbatten-Windsor, who is alleged to have said: “I gather you’ve been calling people and causing problems.”
Mr Hardman also describes a different incident in Windsor, when grooms from the Royal Mews had been riding some of the late Queen’s horses on the estate.
“One had waved a firm hand at an approaching car which was revving its engine aggressively,” he writes.
“It pulled alongside and, through the window, the Duke of York bellowed at her: ‘Who the f--- do you think you are?’”
The former Duke is said to have demanded her name before taking it up with the late Queen in person.....
...According to Andrew Lownie, an author, royal staff were instructed to bow to Andrew any time he entered a room. When anyone forgot, he would allegedly say, “Let’s try that again,” before leaving the room, only to walk back in again.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2026/04/04/andrew-mountbatten-windsor-physical-altercation-aide-queen/
Allowing employees to "have a go" risks legal claims that the comp[any is allowing/encouraging untrained staff to fight with suspected thieves.
So firing anyone who has a go, is the safe option for them.
Shop employees find theft threatening and incredibly dispiriting. They also know that many stores operate on a thin margin - if theft rises enough, then the shop becomes uneconomic. And closes.
We can maybe agree there's a policing issue here.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62jxd2jdd7o
"'It was radical' - How The Holy City brought the Easter story to Glasgow"
I think I faintly remember watching it at the time. And was expecting a link at the end of the article to "Available on the iPlayer here". But no. Not available on the iplayer. So a whole puff piece about their own content and how good it was with no way to watch it on their own platform. I try and defend the BBC from time to time, but lord - they make it hard.
When things get violent people they say stuff that leads to them getting sacked, I know of instances where one security guard ended using homophobic language.
Also there's this
A shoplifter has admitted killing a security guard during a struggle at an Asda superstore as she tried to flee the premises.
Alun Harris-Richards fell to the ground and struck his head after trying to prevent Natasha Smith from leaving the Arbroath store with stolen alcohol in June 2024.
Smith, 38, admitted causing the 61-year-old such physical and emotional distress during the incident that he suffered a fatal heart attack.
Smith will be sentenced at the High Court in Edinburgh on 5 March.
Smith also admitted assaulting another Asda employee during the same altercation.
The court heard that following the death of Harris-Richards, pathologists carried out a post-mortem examination and found that he had a coronary artery condition.
They said people with the condition were "at risk of sudden death at any time" and this was particularly true in times of illness or stress.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cd9e5jxdv7go
Why is it only now, when he's been reduced to a state of powerlessness, that the press reports this stuff? It would have been much more meaningful if they'd reported on it at the time.
*though let's be honest, he's probably a lot more than that.
My friend's father has hosted the royals for decades, he said they were all lovely, except Andrew.
Prince Charles as he was then had some very particular requests, such as an exclusive loo with a certain brand of toilet paper, and that sandwiches had to be cut diagonally not horizontally.
I think the reason it wasn't reported by the main press was that he was known to threaten them and the Queen acquiesced (mostly indirectly).
https://news.sky.com/story/shoplifter-who-killed-asda-security-guard-at-arbroath-superstore-jailed-for-five-years-13515500
From AI but it gets to the heart of the matter !
More Filling per Bite: The acute angles (45°) allow you to bite into the center of the sandwich first, where the filling is most concentrated, rather than just eating crust.
Better Mouthfeel & Texture: The diagonal cut provides a more satisfying, less-even, and "fancier" experience than a standard rectangle.
Reduced Crust Ratio: The long, diagonal edge means you start with a "crustless" experience before reaching the corners.
Psychological Impact: Triangles visually feel like a larger portion than rectangles, and the improved presentation enhances perceived flavor.
Ergonomics: The point of a triangle fits more easily in the mouth, making it easier to eat without getting condiments on your cheeks
In its original meaning, 'Khan' literally means 'inn'. Where was Jesus born? An inn.
And 'Genghis'... that sounds awfully like 'Genesis', which is the first book of the Christian Bible.
Jesus said 'I am the Good Shepherd.' Genghis Khan was literally a nomadic herder.
And Jesus -according to Revalantions- was King of Kings. What did Gengis Khan call himself? Khan of Khans.
The signs area all there if you take the time to look. Genghis Khan was the second coming of Jesus Christ.
And as shop lifting has become the norm then violence and threatening behviour against shop workers has also increased. The two are directly linked - as anyone who works in retail knows only too well. When the scumbags know you are not allowed to intervene they become a lot more aggressive.
We can go from discussing a war and the imminent apocalypse to triangular cut sandwiches !
The Kobeissi Letter
@KobeissiLetter
·
22m
BREAKING: President Trump's advisors are reportedly texting Iran's Foreign Minister Araghchi in an attempt to continue negotiations, per Axios.