Jacob Rees-Mogg Bans Lots Of Words

"According to the Guardian, the official transcript of parliamentary proceedings, Hansard, recorded more than 700 instances of Mr Rees-Mogg using one or other of the banned words or phrases".

:spank:

All that from people who'd dearly love to ban JRM from political life, were he a Remainer and they'd find him delightfully quirky instead. .

It is weird, but HE is very weird.

Have you got a shred of evidence to back up that borderline slanderous accusation?

Maybe, what sort of evidence would you like?

Anything you have to prove your accusation that 'remainers would find jrm quirky' instead of a **** if he were a remainer.
I do mean evidence by the way, not insinuation, innuendo or anything else of dubious merit of providence

Not sure if a thread has been made on this. Jacob Rees-Mogg's new role as Leader of the House has come with a very odd style guide which includes the following words being banned in written communication to MPs and members of the public:

"Very • due to • ongoing • hopefully • unacceptable • equal • too many "I"s • yourself • lot • got • speculate • invest (in schools etc) • no longer fit for purpose • I am pleased to learn • meet with • ascertain • disappointment • I note/understand your concerns"

He has also requested that men without titles be referred to as "esquire" and that double spaces are put after fullstops.

Anyone else think this is a bit... weird? I can understand that some people are very anal about grammar and written formalities but it's ludicrous to try and micro manage your staff over things so trivial.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49137619

Oh, that. It would be hard to offer any material evidence without the use of a time machine, it's like asking you for evidence that whoever you vote for is the best for the country. Therefore, a request for evidence is impossible to meet for obvious and practical reasons and in such situations we have a matter of faith. No need to see it as an 'accusation' either, treat it as a matter of firm belief that, were JRM a hardened Remainer, many or most of his vociferous opponents would view him under a much more congenial light. Think of the Labour dears, were he an all-out pro-choice campaigner and they would love him to bits. Wouldn't they?

To be honest I can just about understand where he's coming from on the language point of view, if he's trying to maintain a certain level of formality. It would be a bit weird if it gets super strictly enforced though - can't waste too much time avoiding common words like "got" after all.

The bit I don't understand is his insistence on using imperial measurements - it's not the 1960s anymore...

Tbh this is for written official communication, so I'm not surprised at there being some style guidance (depends how he enforces it though). His reasoning for not using 'unacceptable' and the other vague words makes sense, people should be specific where possible, especially in official communication.

Obviously he's an imbecile for wanting to use imperial units.

I think there are people who just wish to attack JRM because they fear him and his political direction. People fear different people in particular you ecentric highly intelligent people.

To call him a *enter profanity here* or an imbecile is absolutely ridiculous just for issuing a style guide which is standard practice for the leader of the house to do. He is an intelligent old fashioned aristocrat who makes no applogies for being so, furthermore is open and honest about his views. His style guide is a reputation of him, he justifies it and stands by it. If you don't agree with him don't vote for him, simple as that.

I'm willing to bet most childish name callers have it even listened to his explanation, they are just desperate to try to score a point

The worst thing is his preference for imperial units. He hasn't got an ounce of modernity in him.

I think there are people who just wish to attack JRM because they fear him and his political direction. People fear different people in particular you ecentric highly intelligent people.

To call him a *enter profanity here* or an imbecile is absolutely ridiculous just for issuing a style guide which is standard practice for the leader of the house to do. He is an intelligent old fashioned aristocrat who makes no applogies for being so, furthermore is open and honest about his views. His style guide is a reputation of him, he justifies it and stands by it. If you don't agree with him don't vote for him, simple as that.

I'm willing to bet most childish name callers have it even listened to his explanation, they are just desperate to try to score a point