Jacob Rees-Mogg 1997 etc

boyfalldown said:
Only becoming an officer after resigning his position in government after the disastrous Dardenelles campaign
Click to expand...

I'm no Churchill fanboy, not by a long chalk, but I do think that's a little unfair.

He was offered safe, comfortable positions but insisted on going to the trenches.

OK, he had at least half an eye on how that would sell, or his wife did, but he still went into the front line trenches.
 
simon ess said:
I'm no Churchill fanboy, not by a long chalk, but I do think that's a little unfair.

He was offered safe, comfortable positions but insisted on going to the trenches.

OK, he had at least half an eye on how that would sell, or his wife did, but he still went into the front line trenches.
Click to expand...

He did, but only after that disaster. I dont mean that to sound as though I’m ignoring his actions after, but he did know (& wrote comment to that effect) how difficult a task the Dardenells were
 
Last edited:
simon ess said:
Oh yes. It was a disaster.
Click to expand...
It was, and it may have been his fault - but he always maintained that it was the failure of the admirals to act quickly that caused the problem and made it possible for the Turks to repel the landing. All of the people who knew the truth have long gone and the official records will probably never be released, so it's all guesswork.

What we do know is that Churchill, regardless of his faults, did have real qualities and had a long history of putting himself into dangerous situations.. Whatever Rees-Mogg may think about his own abilities and qualities, he's no Churchill.
 
boyfalldown said:
He did. But that glosses over his less then glorious moments in WW1. Only becoming an officer after resigning his position in government after the disastrous Dardenelles campaign
Click to expand...

AndrewFlannigan said:
Churchill was a nasty piece of work but useful at the time. I haven't seen any evidence that Rees-Mogg has been or ever will be useful. :naughty:
Click to expand...


Further up this thread Andrew F stated that Churchill was a nasty piece of work and you mention his ‘less glorious moments. I wonder how many people are aware of the use of chemical weapons in WW1

https://www.theguardian.com/world/s...nston-churchill-shocking-use-chemical-weapons
 
Garry Edwards said:
It was, and it may have been his fault - but he always maintained that it was the failure of the admirals to act quickly that caused the problem and made it possible for the Turks to repel the landing.
Click to expand...

He did have overall responsibility. Thats a matter of record. Its also a matter of record he knew how difficult and costly it would be. But its by the by. I think it reasonable to say he was a flawed hero. Like many are if they're subjected to scrutiny. He's also a million miles above the current self-serving crop
 
It’s often said that Churchill was wrong about everything ... except Hitler. It has more than a grain of truth but I think he was mainly a man of his time and influenced by his illustrious ancestor and mucked up by his dodgy parents.
 
cambsno said:
But politicians are not experts on everything and there are probably millions of laws, rules and guidelines on various things down to cars, buildings and other things.
Click to expand...
There were rules in place and mechanisms to enforce them.

then politicians relaxed the rules and took away many of the enforcement mechanisms, since they were holding back growth and restricting businesses.

They said that businesses would obviously enforce rules...
 
broc said:
Self regulation is not a good idea, it presents too many conflicts of interest.
Click to expand...

‘Absolutely..it’s akin to putting a fox on guard duty for the hen house. A wolf to guard the mountain sheep.

https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2017/02/alcohol-industry-failing-to-self-regulate-marketing/

The same for social media companies. Congress is introducing legislation because self-regulation isn’t working..it never will whatever area of business. If anyone doubts that the likes of the Food /Alcohol industry isn’t more concerned about it’s own profits then here are examples of why. The Gambling industry is just as bad... arguably worse.

Some supermarkets in the UK,to their credit have adopted the so-called red traffic light system of labelling re salt,sugars and fat content. Aldi-Lidl and Morrison’s still don’t use the system Tesco is the latest to do so. One day I heard that someone from the food industry was to be interviewed on a particular radio programme..can’t recall which one..but I asked them to question why food manufacturers label salt as sodium. My cynical reason was that it looked less than it was. The person I spoke to was unaware that to get the equivalent salt content you need to multiply the sodium content by 2.5. Quite a lot. Sodium content 1.5. Per 100gms Salt equivalent 3.75. Six is the recommended adult daily intake. The question was put by the interviewer and the person being interviewed clearly wasn’t happy it had been exposed .

Alcohol. Years ago I heard the head of European Traffic police..a high-ranking Dutch officer say that he couldn’t understand why a country..the UK..wouldn’t want to protect its citizens. This was in relation to the higher drink-drive alcohol limit we had.80 to their 50. Well, the reason was the Food/Drink industry’s lobbyists. I actually heard someone say that reducing the limit would be very bad for rural pubs where you had to drive to get there. The government will not reduce it from 80mgm in 100 mgs blood or 35ml in 100mls breath On the spurious grounds that it’s a ‘small minority’ of drivers who go excessively over that limit. Described as a ‘hard core’ .I think the limit in most European countries is 50..Sweden ban it .I’d need to do a bit of Googling .


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44533752
 
Last edited:
We seem to have forgotten Jacob Rees-Mogg...lol. I was just looking back up the thread to see where it went off piste from my original post. :)
 
JohnC6 said:
‘Absolutely..it’s akin to putting a fox on guard duty for the hen house. A wolf to guard the mountain sheep.

https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2017/02/alcohol-industry-failing-to-self-regulate-marketing/

The same for social media companies. Congress is introducing legislation because self-regulation isn’t working..it never will whatever area of business. If anyone doubts that the likes of the Food /Alcohol industry isn’t more concerned about it’s own profits then here are examples of why. The Gambling industry is just as bad... arguably worse.

Some supermarkets in the UK,to their credit have adopted the so-called red traffic light system of labelling re salt,sugars and fat content. Aldi-Lidl and Morrison’s still don’t use the system Tesco is the latest to do so. One day I heard that someone from the food industry was to be interviewed on a particular radio programme..can’t recall which one..but I asked them to question why food manufacturers label salt as sodium. My cynical reason was that it looked less than it was. The person I spoke to was unaware that to get the equivalent salt content you need to multiply the sodium content by 2.5. Quite a lot. Sodium content 1.5. Per 100gms Salt equivalent 3.75. Six is the recommended adult daily intake. The question was put by the interviewer and the person being interviewed clearly wasn’t happy it had been exposed .

Alcohol. Years ago I heard the head of European Traffic police..a high-ranking Dutch officer say that he couldn’t understand why a country..the UK..wouldn’t want to protect its citizens. This was in relation to the higher drink-drive alcohol limit we had.80 to their 50. Well, the reason was the Food/Drink industry’s lobbyists. I actually heard someone say that reducing the limit would be very bad for rural pubs where you had to drive to get there. The government will not reduce it from 80mgm in 100 mgs blood or 35ml in 100mls breath On the spurious grounds that it’s a ‘small minority’ of drivers who go excessively over that limit. Described as a ‘hard core’ .I think the limit in most European countries is 50..Sweden ban it .I’d need to do a bit of Googling .


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44533752
Click to expand...
Yes, that's exactly how it works.
Typically, left wing governments tend to over-regulate and right wing governments tend to under-regulate, allow "self regulation" and even remove regulations that previously protected the public. The two great depressions in the USA were each a direct result of deregulation, which allowed massive frauds to take place, and of course these also affected this county.

Trump has removed a lot of the regulation that used to keep corporate fraudsters in check to some extent, inevitably this leads to an increase in "business success" which of course makes the corrupt politicians rich, and our current government is also very much in favour of deregulation too. It may be significant that both Boris Johnson and Rees-Mogg are extremely rich, through the efforts and successes of others.

And of course, they don't just deregulate, they also strip away the resources that are needed by the regulators that do exist. For example, the Housing ombudsman is so short staffed that even the cases that their very narrow terms of reference allow them to take on don't even get looked at for about 8 months. . .
JohnC6 said:
We seem to have forgotten Jacob Rees-Mogg...lol. I was just looking back up the thread to see where it went off piste from my original post. :)
Click to expand...
I'm not sure that it has gone off piste, we're still talking about the useless tosser.
 
JohnC6 said:
‘Absolutely..it’s akin to putting a fox on guard duty for the hen house. A wolf to guard the mountain sheep.

https://www.thespiritsbusiness.com/2017/02/alcohol-industry-failing-to-self-regulate-marketing/

The same for social media companies. Congress is introducing legislation because self-regulation isn’t working..it never will whatever area of business. If anyone doubts that the likes of the Food /Alcohol industry isn’t more concerned about it’s own profits then here are examples of why. The Gambling industry is just as bad... arguably worse.

Some supermarkets in the UK,to their credit have adopted the so-called red traffic light system of labelling re salt,sugars and fat content. Aldi-Lidl and Morrison’s still don’t use the system Tesco is the latest to do so. One day I heard that someone from the food industry was to be interviewed on a particular radio programme..can’t recall which one..but I asked them to question why food manufacturers label salt as sodium. My cynical reason was that it looked less than it was. The person I spoke to was unaware that to get the equivalent salt content you need to multiply the sodium content by 2.5. Quite a lot. Sodium content 1.5. Per 100gms Salt equivalent 3.75. Six is the recommended adult daily intake. The question was put by the interviewer and the person being interviewed clearly wasn’t happy it had been exposed .

Alcohol. Years ago I heard the head of European Traffic police..a high-ranking Dutch officer say that he couldn’t understand why a country..the UK..wouldn’t want to protect its citizens. This was in relation to the higher drink-drive alcohol limit we had.80 to their 50. Well, the reason was the Food/Drink industry’s lobbyists. I actually heard someone say that reducing the limit would be very bad for rural pubs where you had to drive to get there. The government will not reduce it from 80mgm in 100 mgs blood or 35ml in 100mls breath On the spurious grounds that it’s a ‘small minority’ of drivers who go excessively over that limit. Described as a ‘hard core’ .I think the limit in most European countries is 50..Sweden ban it .I’d need to do a bit of Googling .

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44533752
Click to expand...

In Scotland

https://www.mygov.scot/drink-drive-limit-scotland/:
  • 22 mcg of alcohol in 100 ml of breath (the 'breath limit')
  • 50 mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood (the 'blood limit')
  • 67 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of urine (the 'urine limit')
I don't drink and I've no idea whether this has reduced the number of accidents.
 
JohnC6 said:
We seem to have forgotten Jacob Rees-Mogg...lol. I was just looking back up the thread to see where it went off piste from my original post. :)
Click to expand...
Apologies for my part in that, though I would characterise it as going ‘p***ed off’ rather than off piste ;-)
Edit to say I’m also peed off that the software has put a lot of ** into a perfectly good word.
 
Last edited:
simon ess said:
To my surprise, I actually find the comparison odious.
Click to expand...

As I'm the one who made it...

My point was that in the past we suffered or even admired those who said things that would melt social media and enrage every snowflake and / adversary / VS SJR for miles these days.

I was not saying that Churchill was a great man or implying that JRM was either, I was just pointing out that these days one word never mind a phrase or a speech can be objected too regardless of intent or a lifes work and get you crucified and hounded out of your job and maybe your life.

IMO the arguably mostly fake reaction to JRM's stupidly phrased thoughts are just another example of the times we live in, ones in which you can't say anything which may be viewed as offensive by someone somewhere.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
As I'm the one who made it...

My point was that in the past we suffered or even admired those who said things that would melt social media and enrage every snowflake and / adversary / VS SJR for miles these days.

I was not saying that Churchill was a great man or implying that JRM was either, I was just pointing out that these days one word never mind a phrase or a speech can be objected too regardless of intent or a lifes work and get you crucified and hounded out of your job and maybe your life.

IMO the arguably mostly fake reaction to JRM's stupidly phrased thoughts are just another example of the times we live in, ones in which you can't say anything which may be viewed as offensive by someone somewhere.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with your general point but JRM’s comment about Grenfell fits well with all sorts of other daft things he’s said/written so I don’t think it supports your argument very well.
 
It's not an argument, it's a pov based on what he said and peoples reaction to it. His point was clumsy but I don't think he deserves crucifying over it and I think some of the outrage is fake. I may be wrong but it's what I think.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
It's not an argument, it's a pov based on what he said and peoples reaction to it. His point was clumsy but I don't think he deserves crucifying over it and I think some of the outrage is fake. I may be wrong but it's what I think.
Click to expand...

I certainly think he is a prime candidate for crucifying. But over what is down to personal preference.

But if the list was up dated he would be first on it...
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlOb0XMxt84
 
MartynK said:
In Scotland

https://www.mygov.scot/drink-drive-limit-scotland/:
  • 22 mcg of alcohol in 100 ml of breath (the 'breath limit')
  • 50 mg of alcohol in 100ml of blood (the 'blood limit')
  • 67 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of urine (the 'urine limit')
I don't drink and I've no idea whether this has reduced the number of accidents.
Click to expand...

Well. ..that’s a revelation to me and also my Scottish wife. She didn’t know either. December 2014, I see. Good for them.It’s one of my pet hates. If I had my way you could legally drive with no more than the amount that goes into Christmas pudding/cake etc.

I also see in this article that the Scottish Conservative justice spokesman, Liam Kerr is criticising it Stating the emphasis should be on those who cause the accidents,fatal or otherwise. Paragraph near the end. I really am a cynic so I googled to see what kind of donations to the Conservative Party came from that industry but couldn‘t find a specific amount. Someone rich in that industry donated a large sum but I was looking for a donation from the industry as one body. What I saw in a couple of lists were the usual suspects..especially Hedge Funds,banking and fossil fuel companies.

https://www.itv.com/news/2018-12-12...t-in-scotland-has-not-reduced-road-accidents/
 
Last edited:
sphexx said:
Apologies for my part in that, though I would characterise it as going ‘p***ed off’ rather than off piste ;-)
Edit to say I’m also peed off that the software has put a lot of ** into a perfectly good word.
Click to expand...

No need,atall, for an apology. It’s typical of how original forum subjects can morph. It just made me smile. All very interesting,though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top