Jacob Rees-Mogg Bans Lots Of Words

my style guide insists that he be referred to as Mr Rees;Mogg

Reply 21

Napp

22

Original post by the bear

my style guide insists that he be referred to as Mr Rees;Mogg

The dishonourable member on secondment from the 17th century.

Reply 22

Fullofsurprises

Original post by nulli tertius

Inevitably, the Civil Service will take the Michael by producing nonsense in his name that complies with his stipulations.

It would be wonderful to see those!

Private Eye are already hard at it and I suspect we can expect a new special Rees-Mogg Speak Better English (or similar) column for some time to come.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 23

z-hog

13

I share his dislike of the word 'unacceptable', it has become yet another club with which some people (the usual suspects, really) try to hijack the high moral ground and slam any discussion on something they'd rather not talk about. These views are simply 'not acceptable', we hear more of these days in every sphere of public life.

Reply 24

Fullofsurprises

Original post by z-hog

I share his dislike of the word 'unacceptable', it has become yet another club with which some people (the usual suspects, really) try to hijack the high moral ground and slam any discussion on something they'd rather not talk about. These views are simply 'not acceptable', we hear more of these days in every sphere of public life.

Some of the things he mentions, like that one, are a good idea - to be fair to him, he's trying to make the English clear and exact and avoid weasel words, which is not a bad thing. He goes wrong when he injects what aren't fair minded attempts to be clear, but deliberate attempts to avoid certain subjects, or to avoid disagreeable (he'd hate that word probably) topics.

Reply 25

z-hog

13

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Some of the things he mentions, like that one, are a good idea - to be fair to him, he's trying to make the English clear and exact and avoid weasel words, which is not a bad thing. He goes wrong when he injects what aren't fair minded attempts to be clear, but deliberate attempts to avoid certain subjects, or to avoid disagreeable (he'd hate that word probably) topics.

He's a guy of high intellect and takes these things seriously, I do like the unashamed way he wears his status on his sleeve.

Reply 26

Fullofsurprises

Original post by z-hog

He's a guy of high intellect and takes these things seriously, I do like the unashamed way he wears his status on his sleeve.

Sounds like you are in awe of the upper classes. You wanna watch that. :teehee:

By the way, he's a bit of a fake when it comes to class, don't believe everything you see.

Reply 27

Profesh

Original post by Napp

not insinuation, innuendo or anything else of dubious merit of providence

I find your usage of the word "providence" to be of dubious provenance.

Reply 28

ChaoticButterfly

Original post by gjd800

When I'm writing 'officially' I do the double space after a full stop thing. Old habits die hard.

Are you from the 50s?

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 29

gjd800

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Are you from the 50s?

80s, but I was taught it when learning to type.

Reply 30

ThomH97

21

Original post by SHallowvale

I can understand the need for a general style guide although some words on that list are perfectly acceptable in my opinion (equal, yourself, lot, got, meet with, due to, etc). Having rules on fullstops and titles aren't necessary at all.

Yeah, he went too far. I wonder if there are specific instances where each of these words/phrases were misused, overused or just used as PR jargon, in which case a more detailed guide would be appropriate. For instance, did someone keep using the word 'very' instead of using a thesaurus, or they kept fobbing someone off by saying 'investigations are ongoing' etc. Then you've got things like 'invest' (how?) and 'no longer fit for purpose' (what aspect?) that I find annoying because they tell you nothing past some vague positive or negative.

Provided JRM is using those grammatical styles himself, I don't think it's unreasonable to insist on it from his staff. Perhaps he's crazy for doing it himself, but to have consistency from his office makes sense.

Reply 31

nulli tertius

21

Original post by z-hog

I share his dislike of the word 'unacceptable', it has become yet another club with which some people (the usual suspects, really) try to hijack the high moral ground and slam any discussion on something they'd rather not talk about. These views are simply 'not acceptable', we hear more of these days in every sphere of public life.

It is obvious that JRM was thinking on the same lines as you when he drafted his style guide. It is perfectly reasonable to forbid its usage in that context.

What is unreasonable is that his poor private secretary should have to draft a letter commenting on the poor workmanship of the painting contractors decorating the Privy Council Office without using the word "unacceptable".

Reply 32

Napp

22

Original post by Profesh

I find your usage of the word "providence" to be of dubious provenance.

You know as well as i do that that was meant to say provenance.

Reply 33

Notoriety

22

Original post by gjd800

80s, but I was taught it when learning to type.

Do you do the dots as well, Mr. Ph.D.?

Reply 34

gjd800

Original post by Notoriety

Do you do the dots as well, Mr. Ph.D.?

Never written it in anything official

Reply 35

Original post by SHallowvale

Lots of older people have an affinity for imperial measurements still since they had them drilled into their heads during childhood. It's probably nostalgia more than anything although some are foolish and think that imperial is superior somehow.

I can understand the need for a general style guide although some words on that list are perfectly acceptable in my opinion (equal, yourself, lot, got, meet with, due to, etc). Having rules on fullstops and titles aren't necessary at all.

Er... this thread is more about pointing out a stupid style guide than it is "attacking" him (not that it's really an "attack", unless you're so sensitive that having a style guide get called "weird" is an "attack" to you).

As a side note, I love that the go-to argument for supporting/admiring JRM is always something along the lines of "He is an intelligent old fashioned aristocrat who makes no applogies for being so, furthermore is open and honest about his views". It's basically just saying 'He is set in his ways' and acting like it's a good defence for stupid behaviour/beliefs.

Firstly I agree with you that metric measures make more logical sense, they are far easier to use and too teach. However I am younger and was taught in metric. I think it's more than a little intolerant to label people who were taught in imperial measures as 'foolish' or 'an imbecile' simply because they understand the measures they were taught over an above the measures they were not taught.

On the subject of measure, I think this interlink with the EU and Mr Rees-Mogg's dislike of having methods imposed onto us. Personally I would like us to fully use one or the other, why are we still using a mixture of the two?

On you're second paragraph, My personal opinion is we have bigger things to worry about, so I agree with you mainly. However I do believe banning words on official government documents which can be used to both sides of the house to hide the true meaning of the conversation is a positive. We are becoming far too intolerant of alternative political and religious views in this country, at present time. Any ideas to try to combat this to make us more tolerant is a good thing, if it will work is a separate issue.

On the third/forth paragraph I'm affiad I believe you have got a little over sensitive yourself. Let me try to explain what I mean a little better.

There are people on this topic calling the man various names, some lack the basic grasp of the English language to do this with using profanities, I mentioned the childish name callers who have unfortunately reduced the level of debate in you're thread. This is not you're fault it was just my thought after reading some text which left me with a sensation of ennui. This is possibly why I selected the tone I did in my reply which has been misinterpreted (probably my fault) as me a indicating you were attacking JCM which was not my intention.

Also I would not call myself a JRM supporter, however I have great respect for him and the eloquent manner he carries himself, it is this personality trait I find admirable. I certainly was not defending any stupid behaviour.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 36

Original post by barnetlad

As long as the pint is kept (of beer) I have no quibbles on this.

Personally I wish we would either except the European way including their measurements or reject it. Playing half and half as the UK is no good, let's either do it and believe in it or not at all.

Reply 37

Original post by nulli tertius

A style guide is normal for ministers' private offices.

He is making political points with some of his stipulations e.g. that money spent on education isn't investment, but ultimately he is a politician.

The rules however do give some insight into his character. He adopts absolutist style rules that can produce absurd results; such as "Sebastian Coe won double gold in the Olympic 1640 yards race" or references to "Ian Brady Esq" or "Leonardo Da Vinci Esq.", where other people might introduce qualifications into their rules to avoid that absurdity.

Inevitably, the Civil Service will take the Michael by producing nonsense in his name that complies with his stipulations.

Agreed and as far as I can see, politicians who are not afraid to be themselves is a good thing.

I think your are absolutely correct regarding the Civil Service @Fullofsurprises I think you will be entertained enough, it's a comedians dream let's be honest :smile:

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 38