Jacob Rees-Mogg Bans Lots Of Words Watch

Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#41
Report 3 weeks ago
#41
(Original post by Fullofsurprises)
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.
Sometimes I think we are too obsessed with class, I talk about plus a lot myself as it helps to discribe social circumstances, however I really believe that we should not allow class and wealth alone too label a person over and above of their actions.

I do sometimes wonder where a person would be if they had not had the privileged/deprived upbringing they was lucky/unlucky to receive?
0
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#42
Report 3 weeks ago
#42
(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.
This
(Original post by Napp)
Swivel eyed loon.
But mainly this
2
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#43
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#43
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
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.
I said that it's foolish to think imperial measurements are superior to metric measurements, not that it's foolish just to use imperial measurements. Loads of people still use imperial measurements and there's nothing inherently wrong/foolish with that. In the context of JRM, however, it's definitely foolish to insist that only imperial measurements are used. I agree with you that his insistence on using imperial probably comes, in part, from his dislike of EU.

I'm not quite sure I agree with your point on banning words and tolerance, although what relevance does this have to the words that JRM has banned?
0
reply
ChaoticButterfly
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#44
Report 3 weeks ago
#44
(Original post by gjd800)
80s, but I was taught it when learning to type.
On a type writer? Since that is the reason it's a thing, due to the monospacing of the characters.

Come to think of it I don't know any programmers who use double spaces with a full stop when writing code, which is probably the only time it would be in keeping with it's original purpose in the digital world.
Last edited by ChaoticButterfly; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#45
Report 3 weeks ago
#45
(Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
On a type writer? Since that is the reason it's a thing, due to the monospacing of the characters.

Come to think of it I don't know any programmers who use double spaces with a full stop when writing code, which is probably the only time it would be in keeping with it's original purpose in the digital world.
Nope, though the people that taught me probably learnt that way, I reckon. I thought that re typewriters but read the other day that it is disputed whether the practice now is actually directly from/a hangover from typewriting.

Some major journal publushers still do weird/double spacing or 'sentence spacing', Springer being one.
Last edited by gjd800; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#46
Report 3 weeks ago
#46
(Original post by SHallowvale)
I said that it's foolish to think imperial measurements are superior to metric measurements, not that it's foolish just to use imperial measurements. Loads of people still use imperial measurements and there's nothing inherently wrong/foolish with that. In the context of JRM, however, it's definitely foolish to insist that only imperial measurements are used. I agree with you that his insistence on using imperial probably comes, in part, from his dislike of EU.

I'm not quite sure I agree with your point on banning words and tolerance, although what relevance does this have to the words that JRM has banned?
I listened to his LBC show when he explained why he did what he did this is what he said;

"These are for my letters. This list was drawn up by my staff.

"And when you read through a letter you see something that says 'it was very important', but, probably not actually, it's probably just important.

"'Unacceptable' is a dreadful, weasel word. Such an ugly word.

"It is used when people mean 'wrong' but they don't have the courage to say so.

"The use of the words is to hide meaning rather than to elucidate meaning, and therefore you should use words that elucidate meaning."

His words, my justification for label of it to people who are intolerant of things that they disagree with particularly in the political and religious, is because unacceptable is misused. What I believe they are really doing is trying to do is shut the conversation down by labeling because by something unacceptable they are acting as judge, jury and executioner without having to justify any of their own veiw point.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#47
Report 3 weeks ago
#47
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
I listened to his LBC show when he explained why he did what he did this is what he said;

"These are for my letters. This list was drawn up by my staff.

"And when you read through a letter you see something that says 'it was very important', but, probably not actually, it's probably just important.

"'Unacceptable' is a dreadful, weasel word. Such an ugly word.

"It is used when people mean 'wrong' but they don't have the courage to say so.

"The use of the words is to hide meaning rather than to elucidate meaning, and therefore you should use words that elucidate meaning."

His words, my justification for label of it to people who are intolerant of things that they disagree with particularly in the political and religious, is because unacceptable is misused. What I believe they are really doing is trying to do is shut the conversation down by labeling because by something unacceptable they are acting as judge, jury and executioner without having to justify any of their own veiw point.
I think that rather confirms the comments I have previously made about his absolutism. In consequence of “very important” being used inappropriately, its use is prohibited, even when it is appropriate.

Unacceptable is not a weasel word in the context of someone who is being asked to accept something such as the quality of workmanship. As you say the word is misused, but again to prohibit its correct use has the air of the zealot.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
0
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#48
Report 3 weeks ago
#48
Its a lot of fuss over nothing, it's not uncommon for the leader of the house to produce documents like this, it happens all the time. JRM is proving a little if a problem for the newspapers to find dirt/discredit so lets blow up bigger than it is.
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#49
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#49
(Original post by Burton Bridge)
I listened to his LBC show when he explained why he did what he did this is what he said;

"These are for my letters. This list was drawn up by my staff.

"And when you read through a letter you see something that says 'it was very important', but, probably not actually, it's probably just important.

"'Unacceptable' is a dreadful, weasel word. Such an ugly word.

"It is used when people mean 'wrong' but they don't have the courage to say so.

"The use of the words is to hide meaning rather than to elucidate meaning, and therefore you should use words that elucidate meaning."

His words, my justification for label of it to people who are intolerant of things that they disagree with particularly in the political and religious, is because unacceptable is misused. What I believe they are really doing is trying to do is shut the conversation down by labeling because by something unacceptable they are acting as judge, jury and executioner without having to justify any of their own veiw point.
If you say that something 'is/was very important' then it could still be that said something was genuinely very important.

'Unacceptable' and 'wrong' are not always interchangeable. Tenants renting a flat could have left the kitchen in an 'unacceptable' condition but it would not make sense to say they have left it in a 'wrong' one.

Your last point doesn't make much sense. People use labels all the time without actually justifying them. Banning vague and unsubstantiated words won't stop people from using different ones. I could say 'His moral behaviour is wrong' instead of 'His moral behaviour is unacceptable' but I haven't said anything more by using 'wrong' as opposed to 'unacceptable'. I certainly haven't put myself in a position where I'd then need to justify my statement just because I've used one word over another.
Last edited by SHallowvale; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#50
Report 3 weeks ago
#50
(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
It actually isn't all that uncommon. Almost any large organisation will apply "brand guidelines" to its official communications. This is to maintain the organisation's image, and to keep communications consistent with each other even if they were written by different individuals. It distinguishes between a document that speaks with the voice of the organisation itself, and a document that just so happens to be written by one of their employees.


For example, if you are creating an advertisement for Apple, you have to use a sans-serif font style, a minimalist colour scheme, and your language has to be written in a slightly informal voice. You're more likely to say something like "The best iPhone. Ever." instead of something like "I do hereby recommend that you purchase for yourself the aforementioned portable telephone".

If you're creating communications on behalf of Uber, you will always refer to a driver as a "partner-driver" instead a "cabbie". You will always say that they work "with us", not "for us".

Even if you're an airline flight attendant making public announcements on an aeroplane, your employer will probably insist that you say something like "we wish you a pleasant journey", not a "safe journey".


The fact that the Leader of the House of Commons insists on a particular style of writing for official documents is not particularly newsworthy. It's only because it's the infamously "posh" Jacob Rees-Mogg, that it has received so much media attention.
Last edited by tazarooni89; 3 weeks ago
3
reply
Burton Bridge
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#51
Report 3 weeks ago
#51
(Original post by SHallowvale)
If you say that something 'is/was very important' then it could still be that said something was genuinely very important.

'Unacceptable' and 'wrong' are not always interchangeable. Tenants renting a flat could have left the kitchen in an 'unacceptable' condition but it would not make sense to say they have left it in a 'wrong' one.

Your last point doesn't make much sense. People use labels all the time without actually justifying them. Banning vague and unsubstantiated words won't stop people from using different ones. I could say 'His moral behaviour is wrong' instead of 'His moral behaviour is unacceptable' but I haven't said anything more by using 'wrong' as opposed to 'unacceptable'. I certainly haven't put myself in a position where I'd then need to justify my statement just because I've used one word over another.
Yes, I think you could pull the sytle guides apart of most organisations and every leader of the house in history mate, as I said its no big shout.

I said why he is doing it, I did say if it will work is another arugement
Last edited by Burton Bridge; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#52
Report 3 weeks ago
#52
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Your last point doesn't make much sense. People use labels all the time without actually justifying them. Banning vague and unsubstantiated words won't stop people from using different ones. I could say 'His moral behaviour is wrong' instead of 'His moral behaviour is unacceptable' but I haven't said anything more by using 'wrong' as opposed to 'unacceptable'. I certainly haven't put myself in a position where I'd then need to justify my statement just because I've used one word over another.
No, I think Burton Bridge has a point here.

People use "unaccepable" to appoint themselves as a censor morum.
0
reply
ltsmith
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#53
Report 3 weeks ago
#53
shallowvale esquire doesn't like the mogg
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#54
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#54
(Original post by tazarooni89)
It actually isn't all that uncommon. Almost any large organisation will apply "brand guidelines" to its official communications. This is to maintain the organisation's image, and to keep communications consistent with each other even if they were written by different individuals. It distinguishes between a document that speaks with the voice of the organisation itself, and a document that just so happens to be written by one of their employees.


For example, if you are creating an advertisement for Apple, you have to use a sans-serif font style, a minimalist colour scheme, and your language has to be written in a slightly informal voice. You're more likely to say something like "The best iPhone. Ever." instead of something like "I do hereby recommend that you purchase for yourself the aforementioned portable telephone".

If you're creating communications on behalf of Uber, you will always refer to a driver as a "partner-driver" instead a "cabbie". You will always say that they work "with us", not "for us".

Even if you're an airline flight attendant making public announcements on an aeroplane, your employer will probably insist that you say something like "we wish you a pleasant journey", not a "safe journey".


The fact that the Leader of the House of Commons insists on a particular style of writing for official documents is not particularly newsworthy. It's only because it's the infamously "posh" Jacob Rees-Mogg, that it has received so much media attention.
As has been discussed in this thread, I understand that style guides are commonly used and why they are used. What I am highlighting is the style guide JRM himself is proposing/has proposed and how the contents of said style guide are outdated, redundant and/or ludicrous.

(Original post by nulli tertius)
No, I think Burton Bridge has a point here.

People use "unaccepable" to appoint themselves as a censor morum.
What relevance does this have to the point Burton was trying to make?
0
reply
tazarooni89
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#55
Report 3 weeks ago
#55
(Original post by SHallowvale)
x
What is it that you find outdated, redundant and/or ludicrous about this particular style guide? Considering it’s the House of Commons, it seems quite unremarkable to me.

Certain phrases such as “no longer fit for purpose” have been so overused in formal writing recently that they have become cliché and do not carry the weight they once did. I personally would also consider the word “very” to be a bit too vague for an official document. To describe something as “unacceptable” might be seen as overly presumptuous, as if it is indeed one’s place to “accept” or “reject” it. The idea of “investing” (in schools etc.) could carry the connotation of seeking some kind of profit or return from it.

etc.
Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
Last edited by tazarooni89; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#56
Report 3 weeks ago
#56
(Original post by SHallowvale)
As has been discussed in this thread, I understand that style guides are commonly used and why they are used. What I am highlighting is the style guide JRM himself is proposing/has proposed and how the contents of said style guide are outdated, redundant and/or ludicrous.


What relevance does this have to the point Burton was trying to make?
A censor isn't a critic; a censor prevents you from saying what you want to say.

By saying that someone else's comments are unacceptable, a person is setting themselves up as the arbiter of those comments and then exercising that self-conferred power to forbid them.
1
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#57
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#57
(Original post by nulli tertius)
A censor isn't a critic; a censor prevents you from saying what you want to say.

By saying that someone else's comments are unacceptable, a person is setting themselves up as the arbiter of those comments and then exercising that self-conferred power to forbid them.
I'm still not sure what relevance this has to what Burton wrote. Burton was talking about using words like "unacceptable" to shut down conversation while not justifying what you're saying. In the context of this thread and banning words this makes no sense. I gave an example: replacing "unacceptable" with the seemingly more desired "wrong" would not shut down conversation any less nor would it make people justify their positions more.

(Original post by tazarooni89)
What is it that you find outdated, redundant and/or ludicrous about this particular style guide? Considering it’s the House of Commons, it seems quite unremarkable to me.

Certain phrases such as “no longer fit for purpose” have been so overused in formal writing recently that they have become cliché and do not carry the weight they once did. I personally would also consider the word “very” to be a bit too vague for an official document. To describe something as “unacceptable” might be seen as overly presumptuous, as if it is indeed one’s place to “accept” or “reject” it.

etc.
Imperial measurements are outdated. While we do still use imperial measurements for some things but we live in a mixed system. To require imperial measurements exclusively is ludicrous. Double spaces after fullstops are redundant as is referring to males as "Esq".

Sometimes it is in one's place to describe something as unacceptable. I can understand why you'd want to avoid vague language in official documents however sometimes it does make sense to use these words. There is no reason to ban them outright. Personally I cannot think of any reason why you'd want to ban words/phrases like "meet with", "due to", "got", "equal", etc, unless you have some personal peeve about them.
0
reply
Trotsky's Iceaxe
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#58
Report 3 weeks ago
#58
(Original post by tazarooni89)
What is it that you find outdated, redundant and/or ludicrous about this particular style guide?
The insistence of imperial measurements stands out as particularly ludicrous.

The absolute basic of effective communication is know your audience. Insisting on imperial measurements in documents that will be read by people who almost exclusively work in metric measurements is unnecessarily confusing and makes things difficult to read.

Additionally, having civil service servants having to convert from metric to imperial and back again all the time is a good way to introduce errors. Bear in mind this is a Conservative government that is so inept, it awards ferry contracts to companies that don't have ferries. We can only hope that the worst that happens is Rees-Mogg ends up with a short desk chair, rather than tax payer's money being squandered due to conversion errors.

In short, it is a fine example of how to communicate ineffectively, simply done because Rees-Mogg enjoys his idiosyncratic image.
0
reply
LiberOfLondon
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#59
Report 2 weeks ago
#59
Regarding Jacob Rees-Mogg's support for imperial units, I can only post this (sort of translated into Finnish) Viz comic, Viktoriaanen Isä, regarding mysterious weights and measures...

»Hei, poikia, paljonko tuumat virstassa?»
»Öö... Kymmenentuhatta?»
*Läimäys!*
»Neljakymmenentuhatta kuusisataa, poikia. Nyt, aion lyödä matematikkasi osaksi sinä kanssa ”Hra. Fothergillin Matematikkalinen Opettaja”»
/finnish translation
After all, why use such boring things as miles when you can use the poronkusema, the distance a reindeer can run before needing the toilet?
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts

All the exam results help you need

1,942

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 (214)
12.55%
Excited (156)
9.15%
Worried (306)
17.95%
Terrified (379)
22.23%
Meh (166)
9.74%
Confused (37)
2.17%
Putting on a brave face (234)
13.72%
Impatient (213)
12.49%

Watched Threads

View All