Jacob Rees-Mogg Bans Lots Of Words Watch

SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
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
4
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 weeks ago
#2
When I'm writing 'officially' I do the double space after a full stop thing. Old habits die hard.

It is weird, but HE is very weird.
2
reply
Drewski
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 weeks ago
#3
Every Leader of the House issues a style guide, every one has their own tone of voice. Nothing overly weird about that.
1
reply
Interea
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#4
Report 3 weeks ago
#4
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...
5
reply
AngryJellyfish
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 weeks ago
#5
"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:
9
reply
Onde
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 weeks ago
#6
Is the use of the word "plebs" acceptable, or must "plebeians" be used?
5
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 weeks ago
#7
Style guides are fine, especially as a letter written on behalf of Mr Rees-Mogg should use words he would use. Many companies have them.

Though most people are probably more concerned with his views on abortion or Brexit.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by AngryJellyfish)
"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:
If you find them in letters he writes, let us know.

He does filibuster and occasionally quotes long passages; and he gives very short speeches at the Speaker's direction (which can compromise style). Does the Guardian tell us how many of these occur in quotations and under the so-called one-sentence rule?
1
reply
z-hog
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 weeks ago
#9
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. .
Last edited by z-hog; 3 weeks ago
1
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 weeks ago
#10
Swivel eyed loon.
2
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by z-hog)
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. .
Have you got a shred of evidence to back up that borderline slanderous accusation?
1
reply
The Mogg
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 weeks ago
#12

(Original post by gjd800)
It is weird, but HE is very weird.
1
reply
Palmyra
Badges: 20
#13
Report 3 weeks ago
#13
The worst thing is his preference for imperial units. He hasn't got an ounce of modernity in him.
6
reply
z-hog
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by Napp)
Have you got a shred of evidence to back up that borderline slanderous accusation?
Maybe, what sort of evidence would you like?
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by z-hog)
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
0
reply
z-hog
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 weeks ago
#16
(Original post by Napp)
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
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?
0
reply
ThomH97
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by SHallowvale)
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
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.
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by z-hog)
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?
It's hard to imagine such a mythical being...
Either way the fact remains he is an unreconstructed fossil from the time of the Spanish inquisition - in every single way. To say people would love him if he were the diametric opposite of what he is would seem to not only rather prove my point that he is a tosspot but rather undercut your point no?
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 weeks ago
#19
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
Last edited by Burton Bridge; 3 weeks ago
1
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Interea)
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...
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.

(Original post by ThomH97)
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 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.

(Original post by Burton Bridge)
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
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.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts

All the exam results help you need

2,292

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

Hopeful (209)
12.76%
Excited (146)
8.91%
Worried (296)
18.07%
Terrified (370)
22.59%
Meh (150)
9.16%
Confused (36)
2.2%
Putting on a brave face (224)
13.68%
Impatient (207)
12.64%

Watched Threads

View All