[Closed] Jacob Rees-Mogg

Let's not forget how polite he is folks.

They should reflect in their presentation that one is a subset of the other - not present two separate headings. Also where is the Modern Slavery Bill in the Human Rights stuff? Why isn't that included?

Also ignoring context makes much of the data misleading.

It is a good tool for finding speeches etc but its presentation of data is dependent upon the judgement of those who manage it and their judgement seems poor.

@perchy just like to say thank you most sincerely 🙂

As for learning Latin it's interesting and useful (to a spdegree) given how it was the basis for so many other languages. If you are academic and interested innlanguage and history its a worthwhile thung to study.

mefty - its simply a factual listing of how they voted. don't show toryboy in a good light tho does it - is that why you don't like it? It shows Rees Mogg to be a reactionary?

unpleasant man

Multiple millions of French turned out to demonstrate against same sex marriage. Does that make them unpleasant men, women and children ? What about the 38% of Irish who voted against it in their Referendum ?

[quote=jambalaya ]As for learning Latin it's interesting and useful (to a spdegree) given how it was the basis for so many other languages. If you are academic and interested innlanguage and history its a worthwhile thung to study.

As an academic pursuit I'm sure it is. I don't think anybody is suggesting there is anything wrong with learning Latin.

Correct, English is not new and scots still isn't a language, but don't take my word for it; ask the people of Scotland:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50,000,000_Elvis_Fans_Can%27t_Be_Wrong

Jamba - its not one single issue - its the totality of his voting record that shows him to be odious.

scots still isn't a language

In which case, it would appear that i'm stappit fou o' keich

Yes Jambalaya, I consider those millions of compatriotes idiots
A bit like those who voted for Lepen,

Angela Merkel voted against gay marriage.

its simply a factual listing of how they voted

No it is not, a list of all the votes would be, but it is not that - it determines what should be counted under each heading, it decides what should be under the headings etc. When I first looked at it my immediate reaction was to wonder what other gay rights he had voted against other than gay marriage, so I drilled down. If I hadn't I would have been misled, simple as that.

Where is the Modern Slavery Bill?

perchypanther - Member
scots still isn't a language
In which case, it would appear that i'm stappit fou o' keich

Hardly reactionary - Catholic, conservative and Conservative more like

What about the 38% of Irish who voted against it in their Referendum ?

Here you go again...

Amazing that 62% of those from what you call a "backward" country have come round to a more enlightened way of seeing the world isn't it?

Angela Merkel voted against gay marriage.

Yay...I'd have thought you'd be above a bit of whataboutery. Seems not.

Hardly reactionary - Catholic, conservative and Conservative more like

[quote=teamhurtmore ]Hardly reactionary - Catholic, conservative and Conservative more like

tautology

No mefty, its not trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Different categories overlap, it doesn't claim that they don't. That you can't see past your own assumption of what that site ought to do (in your opinion) is your failing, not that of the site.

His views can be unpleasant without him being unpleasant or odious. And we kind of lose the argument when we play the man rather than the ball.

Of course there are some, like Jeremy Hunt, and Teresa May, who show themselves to be colossal hypocrites with unpleasnt views as a bonus.

I have close friends who have rather different views to mine.

Stoatsbrother - the views/opinions make the man.

We can all tolerate a certain degree of difference from our own viewpoint but there comes a point where that tolerance breaks. The man, in effect, is the ball.

Rees-Mogg is a first class ****, whichever way you spin it.

indeed stoatsbrother - I have a good friend who is a died in the wool tory unionst out of the EU type. I just don't discuss politics with him - but he is not in a position of power nor is he anti equal rights.

Hitler apparently was kind to animals and loved children

I invoke Godwins law!

[quote=tjagain ]Hitler apparently was kind to animals and loved children

I'm betting he was a dog owner?

German Shepherds actually, no really...

[b]cumberlanddan [/b] Not sure I agree. And in the aftermath of the politics of the last year, I think we should try and stay out of the echo chambers of our own views and seek to listen and understand the reasons for others views. If we start by hating them, we don't listen. I dislike what he believes, but I also disliked Tim Farrons mealy-mouth beliefs.

You're allowed to dislike multiple persons at any one time you know!

People [b]are [/b]what they believe, and if those beliefs are abhorrent to you then that person must also be abhorrent.

Where people make a genuine effort to overcome some nasty deep held prejudice then yeah, they earn some respect. Mogg doesn't really fall into that category.

Rees-Mogg is a first class *, whichever way you spin it.

I think that's a really unbalanced standpoint. Interestingly, several friends of friends who live in his constituency jumped onto a FB thread spouting the usual "class war"/inverse snobbery noise, saying what a good MP he has been for them, personally taking on issues (the kind of issues you go to your MP about) and doing right by his constituents. That doesn't sound to me like a "first class *" as you describe it, rather a committed MP doing right by those who voted him in.

Sounds like what you mean is "I disagree with his views", which is different.

As has been said, STW is almost as bad as FB for echo chamber effect.

Just because someone is a conservative doesn't make them bad, greedy, selfish or any other similar term. It's also very dangerous for the echo chamber to go on the attack - whether that's Brexit voters, UKIP voters, conservative MPs or whatever. Rather than playing the angry virtue signal card, try and engage, discuss, understand alternative points of view and what drives people to hold them. There's no universal truth, try and remember that.

But of course, that's all too sensible for the internet......

andyrm,as a committed roman catholic,I think Mr Rees-Mogg would argue that there is a universal truth.

I find him amusing (like Boris) almost a caricature of a Tory MP, dont doubt the man is smart. However he is towing a party line that extends back to the 1950s.

His ilk are disappearing and frankly the sooner the better as he brings nothing of any value to ordinary people who he probably believes are little more than resource.

Boris Rees David Liam May etc all need to get their coats - please note this is not a party political rant.

A conservative is fine. Someone who consistently voted against equal rights is not. Thats the difference. I can't stand Cameron - but his attitudes to equal rights were in favour of them. Rees MOgg would discriminate against people on grounds of the sexuality. Thats odious

Discrimination against people for their sexuality is wrong - legally and morally. thats a universal truth

He has only voted against Gay Marriage, do you hold Angela Merkel in contempt to the same degree as well?

[quote=andyrm ]Interestingly, several friends of friends who live in his constituency jumped onto a FB thread spouting the usual "class war"/inverse snobbery noise, saying what a good MP he has been for them, personally taking on issues (the kind of issues you go to your MP about) and doing right by his constituents. That doesn't sound to me like a "first class ****" as you describe it, rather a committed MP doing right by those who voted him in.

I need to caveat this by pointing out that I'm not suggesting JRM is a sociopath (I don't think he is a sociopath), but sociopaths can be quite good at convincing other people they have their interests at heart.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was a good constituency MP - in fact I'd expect it of him, because he's clearly highly intelligent and it's something I'm sure he's capable of if he puts his mind to it. Intelligent enough to realise that being a good constituency MP at this stage of his career is something which benefits him. Excuse me for being a little cynical.

It's not even his policies which particularly make me dislike him - his politics are clearly very different to what mine are nowadays. But I've covered a lot of ground politically - not only have I had friends with similar politics, I'd have probably found myself agreeing with him not so long ago.

No, as mentioned above it's his sneering condescension which leads me to think he's an arse. Just my opinion. And I should be able to recognise sneering condescension, as anybody else on here should be able to attest it's something I do myself sometimes (maybe I just hate me?)

Mefty

Jacob Rees-Mogg voted to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998

Jacob Rees-Mogg voted to remove the duty on the Commission for Equality and Human Rights to work to support the development of a society where people's ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination and there is respect for human rights.

Jacob Rees-Mogg voted against making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of caste

Just a small sample of his voting against equal rights

Jacob Rees-Mogg voted to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998

He doesn't like the EU, standard Brexit supporting MPs position

Jacob Rees-Mogg voted to remove the duty on the Commission for Equality and Human Rights to work to support the development of a society where people's ability to achieve their potential is not limited by prejudice or discrimination and there is respect for human rights.

Jacob Rees-Mogg voted against making it illegal to discriminate on the basis of caste

Government rejecting Lords Amendments, if you want to understand why, you should read Jo Swinson's speech, she was the minister. As I said earlier, context is key.

And? He consistently votes against equal rights or absents himself. And Remember the tories under Cameron actually introduced gay marriage - but Rees Mogg did not vote for it.

Would you like some more examples of his consistently reactionary voting record? there is plenty there. anti abortion etc etc

The Mash does it again:

[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/jacob-rees-mogg-and-david-davis-to-decide-tory-leadership-race-with-cannons-20170725132709 ]http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/jacob-rees-mogg-and-david-davis-to-decide-tory-leadership-race-with-cannons-20170725132709[/url]

Would you like some more examples of his consistently reactionary voting record?

One that stands up to scrutiny would be helpful to your argument, yes.

@tj - nothing will. No matter what you put there will be a reason why it is not good enough. "No true Scotsman" type thing. Have a sit down and a cuppa, go out on the bike, your blood pressure will only go up mate.

I know that Adam. Its amusing rather than angering me. Its funny to watch someone defend the indefensible.

Here we have a man who consistently votes in a reactionary way and against equal rights, whos public pronouncements support this evidence and who is unashamed about it. ( I suppose at least he is not a hypocrite)

Then watching folk trying to pretend that allthe evidence in the public domain means notyhing is rather absurd.

Away to finish cooking tea now - I'll do Moggs public statements later.

No matter what you put there will be a reason why it is not good enough

You're quite right , it is highly unlikely because I have already been through it. I am not sure whether TJ's hatred of JRM is down to his views or it is just another example of TJ's bigotted view when it comes to those of faith.

Perhaps he doesn't believe in gay marriage? Just a thought based on his background and religious persuasion,

When others hold on to beliefs we disagree with, we bracket them as conviction politicians and criticise (and some even bully) those who dIsagree. Funny/inconsistency old world isn't it?

Mefty,I'm pretty sure tj has a faith of his own,you probably wouldn't recognise it,as it doesn't discriminate on the bases of sex,sexuality or income.

we know he is a bigot fuelled by god and christians want the right to discriminate.

Its perfectly reasonable to judge him on this, you positively because its part of your club and others negatively
Hitler had convictions we still criticised him

When others hold on to beliefs we disagree with, we bracket them as conviction politicians and criticise (and some even bully) those who dIsagree.

The beam in thine eye THM the beam

just another example of TJ's bigotted view when it comes to those of faith.

Well legal marriage takes place in a registry office, it's signing a contract. It's not a religious event.
Whether you chose to have a serimony in a church or on a beach is quite irrelevant.

To say same sex couples can't legally marry is a purely selfish attitude, and even more bigoted.
They are not doing any harm and have a right just like anyone else.

That's why it's fundamentally bigoted to be against gay marriage. They are causing no bother, so what right do you have to stop them?

I hope someone can put a link to this thread on JRMs Facebook thingy - or his nanny's if he doesn't have one - he would be tickled pink

To say same sex couples can't legally marry is a purely selfish attitude, and even more bigoted.
They are not doing any harm and have a right just like anyone else.

has he said they will die for their sins or was he more tolerant than that ?

Judge for yourself, here is where he laid out his cards

Geetee - I loathe and despise religion and the religious, I believe all people who believe in god(s) are feeble minded.
I think the religious, religion and belief in god as an incredibly regressive, negative, dangerous and harmful mental illness. It is a force of incredible harm and holds back the human race.

Its not biogotry.

 

IMHO if you cannot legally consomethinge it then you cannot get married

I never really understood where all this left field thing about siblings marrying came from in this debate.

Is it basically an excuse to avoid tax ?surely even the most tight fisted of right wing tax avoider would baulk at marrying their sibling just to save money?

Have I underestimated their avarice?

Hatred? Biggoted? neither are true. I find Ress Mogg odious and contemptable

Just as a little example of my bigoted attitudes to faith - I once worked alongside some nuns for an organisation that (before I worked for them)was run by the religious order. There were also some nuns amongst the patients. This was a good many years ago. One of the nuns ( who had taken a vow of poverty) gave me a cutting off her favourite plant. I still have it and I treasure it. I looked after her in accordance with her faith. Yes I have no time for religion but I do not discriminate on religious grounds.

And predictably while I was posting this post Mefty puts up that quote again from years ago that I apologised for at the time.

Jacob works with some gay people too. a few Scottish ones.

awesome the some of my friends are black defence 🙄

What a shame he wants to treat them less well than his straight friends due to their sexuality which is the dictionary definition of

1) Tolerance
2) Bigotry/discrimination

And predictably while I was posting this post Mefty puts up that quote again from years ago that I apologised for at the time.

Yep, because it is the single most disgusting thing I have seen posted on this website - you say you apologized for it, you didn't apologize on the thread, and it is hardly something you can apologize for.

IMHO if you cannot legally consomethinge it then you cannot get married

I never really understood where all this left field thing about siblings marrying came from in this debate.

Is it basically an excuse to avoid tax ?surely even the most tight fisted of right wing tax avoider would baulk at marrying their sibling just to save money?

Have I underestimated their avarice?

What mefty appear unable to understand is that a rationalist like me can have no time for religion and view it as a regressive force - but is able to set this aside and treat everyone as equal and to accept their views. Why - because its the morally and ethically correct thing to do.

Note also it is mefty who brought religion into this. I made no mention of it.

I understand perfectly what you are.

No, JRM did because that is the reason he voted against gay marriage.

Mefty - your joke/irony was wasted ^

Very funny to see it played out though - in spades. Bravo!!

Mefty - your joke/irony was wasted ^

Some seed falls on stony ground

😀

It's about partnership. Two elderly sisters sharing a house together for example.

Do you really need the difference between a marriage and a platonic relationship explaining to you ?

I guess so. How is it relevent?

We can define marriage to mean anything we like. Why do we chose to exclude those who want to make a life partnership because of what they do with their genitals?

Why would we even care?

it is the single most disgusting thing I have seen posted on this website

YOU really should get hold of all the stuff the mods delete -

- you say you apologized for it, you didn't apologize on the thread, and it is hardly something you can apologize for

One can apologise for anything whether others choose to accept it is another issue

Another example of my bigoted attitude towards the religious. I once employed some muslim men. We served alcohol and normally it would be part of their duties to do so. I found a way around this for them so as not to put them in a difficult position. Why? Because it was the morally correct thing to do.

And note - that statement Mefty keeps on posting that I made ( How many times now? should I be flattered he stalks me that much? ) is not aimed at an individual whereas mefty has sent several personal insults my way

He who is without sin cast the first stone

JRM's domestic staff are probably gay too - very common in that line of work

We can define marriage to mean anything we like

Why do we chose to exclude those who want to make a life partnership because of what they do with their genitals?

How about mum marries son a dad son b all just to avoid tax....still ok with you ?
.

I think the point made further up is valid. If you can bonk each other and it's legally ok you can get married. If you decide not to that's up to you.

[quote=mefty ]JRM's domestic staff are probably gay too - very common in that line of work

until he allows them to marry who they chose he remains a bigot.

I am not convinced Catholicism precludes the employment of married gays.

Yes we can but currently it does not include sibling marriages of convenience to avoid tax. I am awaiting an explanation of why it should

How about mum marries son a dad son b all just to avoid tax....still ok with you ?

My sister in law and husband lived with her father. I did suggest my sister in law divorce her husband so he could marry her father to avoid them getting taxed on inheriting the shared family home. She didn't go for it. But what your suggesting is possible now and entirely reasonable.

In fact limiting marriages to couples is a bad idea. If you choose to live with your parents you should be able to form a four way marriage to gain the same benefits as a couple in a life partnership.

excellent news so the priesthood will be awash with married gays then.

Great news eh

life partnerships exist between siblings.

they should have the same protection as any other couple can gain through marriage.

If you choose to live with your parents you should be able to form a four way marriage to gain the same benefits as a couple in a life partnership.

Again WHY

Ok you would let any number of people choose to say they are married to avoid tax

Why?

Mefty - I take it religion / Christianity is important to you?

Matthew 7:1 Judge not, that you be not judged.

Matthew 7:12 So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

John 8:7 “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.”

Perhaps follow your creed?

Googled to get the verses. From my studies of religion I knew the quotes and many more

bikebouy - Member 
This again?

Didn't we bash JRM a few weeks ago?

Wouldn't it be better to just "cut and paste" the comments out of that thread.

POSTED 5 DAYS AGO # REPORT-POST

Was it as funny as this one bikebouy?

I take it religion / Christianity is important to you?

Not particularly, but I detest hypocrisy.

Some good advice there, perhaps you should take some heed of it.

Ah - that would be claiming to be Christian but not following the teachings. Or do you mean me? Please explain where I have been a hypocrite? Argumentative git I will give you.

Some good advice there, perhaps you should take some heed of it.

I wouldn't hold your breathe mate 😈

Was it as funny as this one bikebouy?

God, no!

I detest hypocrisy.

that will be why you are attacking the bigotry of christian re homosexuality/equal marriage rights as much as you are attacking TJ then ?

Don't bring God into it - mefty might have done, but I think he got away with it....

that will be why you are attacking the bigotry of christian re homosexuality/equal marriage rights as much as you are attacking TJ then ?

Too much competition, I prefer to plough my furrow.

But on a more serious note, I don't think sticking to your religious beliefs is bigotry - I am very glad we have laws that protect the religious from discrimination as we do for LGBT community. Sometimes those rights will come into conflict as with gay marriage. We as a society need to find a compromise to assuage both sides.

But on a more serious note, I don't think sticking to your religious beliefs is bigotry - I am very glad we have laws that protect the religious from discrimination as we do for LGBT community. Sometimes those rights will come into conflict as with gay marriage. We as a society need to find a compromise to assuage both sides.

Bloody hell, don't go disrupting the echo chamber with such sensible comments..... Absolutely bang on. We should be respectful of alternative views, regardless of whether we agree with them, and definitely not be shouting people down or recklessly banding offensive terms like "bigot" about just because someone has a different belief or viewpoint.