BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 10:48 AM

Well Shaw I suppose it all depends on how you view children doesn't it.

I see once again you yammer on about "the poorest in the land" - poverty doesn't enter into it as far as child benefit goes - it is one of those "universal" benefits.

One way of viewing children by young teenage girls at one time was if you got yourself pregnant and had the sprog you could then play the system to get the points needed to get a flat where you and your mates could hang out. No real interest in the child and the child grows up deprived in a single parent "home".

Personal responsibility Shaw something you should have instilled in the students you taught. Shudder to think what it was they took away from school having been under your tutelage.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 10:11 AM

Well Brutus helped to murder Caesar, was driven out of Rome branded a murderer, got enmeshed in the ensuing civil war and was defeated in battle alongside his co-conspirator Cassius and killed himself, all within three years of his grabbing of that flood tide in search of fortune that your quote referred to. A good quote all right (it was the play I did for my Eng Lit 'O' Level), but it all led to the sort of outcome we can cheerfully expect from brexit. Disaster, in other words. Happy to finish the tale for you, Nigel.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Iains
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 09:45 AM

I am deeply impressed! well quoted sir.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 09:39 AM

Iains:

There is a tide in the affairs of men. Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune; Omitted, all the voyage of their life. Is bound in shallows and in miseries (Brutus in Jeremy Corbyn Julius Caesar).

So grab opportunities (such as Brexit) at the right time, when available.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Iains
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 09:22 AM

Nigel Parsons. I think some of the twists and turns of the threads here would even make the mighty bard run for cover.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 09:21 AM

I have no idea whether his reply is honest or not and I'm not really interested. He certainly doesn't seem to care much about the kids of the poorest people in THIS country, accusing their parents of parasitising the rest of us by living on "handouts" and suggesting that they shouldn't even have had those children. And you will never have the remotest idea about my position regarding "charitable donations." I may not be a regular bible thumper but that's one bit that I do happen to agree with wholeheartedly. This whole section of the thread is the most infantile thing of the many infantile things I've seen on this forum. Playing one-upmanship about one's "charitable donations" is just about as laughable as it gets. Pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 08:06 AM

The devil can quote Scripture for his purpose
That Bill Shakespeare had a suitable quote for (nearly) all occasions.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Iains
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 07:38 AM

A question was asked, a response was given. What point are you trying to make Shaw? You are proud to make a case that you are no longer a catholic, yet you quote bible verses. What is the point of that?
Are you ashamed that you do not make charitable donations or are you trying to make a big issue out of some one's honest reply to a question? Rather indicates what sort of person you are, does it not?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Stu
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 07:36 AM

Well, colour me impressed Tezza! Good on you for putting your money where your mouth is. I always knew you had a heart ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 05:49 AM

"Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." [Matthew 6 1-4]

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 05:41 AM

"the corruption by the wealthy in paying taxes"

But Jom the top 1% of earners in the UK pay an astonishing percentage of the Inland Revenue's tax haul. By the way Jom how are the wealthy corrupted by paying tax?

Do you mean the tax avoidance schemes used by footballers, comedians, "so-called" celebrities and pop stars?

How much do I give Stu?

I sponsor six children in four different third world countries and will continue to do so until they all reach their respective 18th birthdays I have done that now for the past six years, which comes out at around £3,600 per year. In addition to that I support various other charities associated with MND and Cancer via standing orders and the Woodland Trust.

I get regular updates on the progress of the children along with letters and photographs from them - I can see in my retirement what my "excess money" is doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Stu
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 05:01 AM

Tezza - how much do you give?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 04:57 AM

"Tell me Shaw, Stu, Carroll what percentage of you yearly income do you give to charity?"
I'll deal fully with this pathetically desperate resorting to a pissing contest on charity later this afternoon
When a society has to resort to charity as part of it's economy it is a sign that it has failed and is no longer fit for purpose
Your failure to respond to the corruption by the wealthy in paying taxes means you are in favour of it - but you've already told us that
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 04:36 AM

"No more to say on the matter." - gnome

Would that that were true but we all know unfortunately that it won't be.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 04:34 AM

The term boutique Christian springs to mind once again.

Then you are ignorant Dave. Sorry.
Mortal sin has to be grave and committed out of malice.

Neither masturbation nor sex outside marriage can be so described.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 04:28 AM

The term boutique Christian springs to mind once again. But only so I can claim 200!

No more to say on the matter.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Iains
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 04:24 AM

"sit at home doing nothing except soaking up other people's money"? What makes it "other people's money"

Just like retired teachers then, leaching off the teat of the public purse.


https://www.ipe.com/countries/uk/uk-roundup-teachers-pension-scheme-liabilities-grow-by-76bn/www.ipe.com/countries/uk/uk-roundup

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 04:22 AM

Dave,
Q. If people who have sex outside marriage are unrepentant are they damned
A. Yes

Of course they are not silly.

No religions and few countries allow same sex marriage.
Is that your only complaint against the Catholic Church on this?
If so we do not disagree.

Jim, this is the official, current view on homosexuality from the catholic Church,
" being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. But just as it is objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so too are homosexual acts considered to be wrong."

No discrimination, except the marriage thing which is still almost universal.
Why single out Catholicism?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Stu
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 03:59 AM

"Tell me Shaw, Stu, Carroll what percentage of you yearly income do you give to charity?"

I don't have much money to give to charity, although I do give my time and skills as a graphic designer free of charge or at materials cost. I do give to homeless folk though; I can't bear to see their suffering. I'm also active in my community, building a better place to live (without those pesky politicians getting involved).

How much do you give?


Good on you for changing nappies and cooking. Always knew you were a better man than the likes of Rees-Mogg, although lacking his wit.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 03:56 AM

Let us try this in the form of a quiz shall we

Q. Does the church teach that unrepentant sinners go to hell?
A. Yes

Q. Is sex outside marriage a sin?
A. Yes.

Q. If people who have sex outside marriage are unrepentant are they damned
A. Yes

Q. Can hetrosexuals marry and avoid this situation?
A. Yes.

Q. Can homosexuals marry and avoid this situation?
A. No

Q. Does the church discriminate against homosexuals?
A. Yes.

Does that explain my views any better? And why are you addressing things that Steve and Jim post to me?

I think I have made myself quite clear on the issues. No point in going through them any further.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 03:55 AM

Your refuasal to recognise the implications of what the Pope aid about homosexuals makes you extremely dishonest and fanatical
What do you think he meant by his "rainforest" remark – an expression o "fondness", kile your "Muppet" maybe!!
You are one disturbed cookie
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 03:11 AM

Steve, Jim and Dave,
If I say your post is stupid, it isn't. And your point has been addressed by me, Dave and Jim ad nauseam.

Jim claimed that Catholicism promised hell for homosexuals.
It does not.
You all claimed it persecutes and discriminates against them.
It does not.

It does not yet allow same sex marriage, but nor does any religion in the world, nor most countries in the world and none until recently.

You have failed to make any case against Catholicism except the marriage thing, and you made false claims against that Church.

If I have got anything wrong, identify it.
Just saying "stupid," even in capitals, is not an argument.
Have you got one?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 02:30 AM

Let's see now, what is Shaw's latest whimsical notion? Explain to us all Shaw how does someone "sit at home doing nothing except soaking up other people's money"? What makes it "other people's money"? Who are these "other people"? I am absolutely fascinated to learn.

As far as I am aware the concept runs as follows:

1: Individual has an idea that he believes would be a commercial success.
2: He starts up a business in a small way and confirms that he has a viable concern.
3: Demand for what he produces increases, but he cannot expand his business on his own because he does not have the necessary free capital. He can go into debt by going to a bank, or he can look for people who would be willing to invest capital in his business in return for a share of the business.
4: He goes for the latter because that shares the risk without burdening the business with debt. In return for their investment the shareholders in the enterprise can see the value of their investment grow in terms of trading figures and with increased assets and they, depending upon how the board of directors decide get a share of the profits.
5: Of course it can all go "pear-shaped" and the venture could crash, in which case the assets of the business are realised, sold off and the proceeds shared out amongst the Inland Revenue, the listed creditors and shareholders in that order.

OK then Shaw where does "other people's money" come into the equation?

Just love the way you middle-class socialists worship at the alter of irresponsibility, where there appears to be only rights and no obligations.

Tell me Shaw, Stu, Carroll what percentage of you yearly income do you give to charity?

By the way very few people, if any at all, in the UK these days "change nappies", most would not even know how to fold one. What is in common use today are these "Pampers" things - from a father of four who both cooked for the family and changed their nappies, soaked and washed them back in the day when they were nappies.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Sep 17 - 02:18 AM

Looks like another one scheduled for the bin.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 10:23 PM

that jacob rees mogg....he seems a bit odd. that jimmy saville vibe

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 08:13 PM

Enjoying cooking and changing nappies is not a sign of a paragon. Do try to drag yourself out of the nineteenth century, Inanes. Mrs Steve knows to keep out of the kitchen when I'm in there (I admit to being an absolute culinary bastard, a man to avoid like the plague when I'm in passionate cuisinary mode), and we eat like kings (er, monarchs, should I say), and blokes changing nappies is routine these days unless you're a chauvinist pig, which you seem to want to brand yourself as. I'm normal. How are you, Iains? Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 07:23 PM

A LITTLE MORE TO SNEER AT OR IGNORE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 07:20 PM

What the hell is wrong with you people
You call yourselves Christians yet you treat the poor with utter contempt and sneer at their predicament
You epitomise what has happened to the world today - the lot of you
You have been given the facts as reported - you don't even the intelligence to either disprove them with information of your own or justify them
And your star turn,Ake says "we're all in the same boat"
You are to Christianity is what syphilis is to love
Thanks for the example of Christian love lads
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Gallus Moll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 06:45 PM

Tut tut Iains, did I not read recently that it is incorrect to use the term ' man up' nowadays -- more likely to cause some sort of emotional distress to a person, we are to be gender neutral now.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Iains
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 06:24 PM

Pon my soul. what a paragon of virtue you are Shaw.
Reminds me of a nursery rhyme:

Little Jack Horner
Sat in the corner,
Eating a Christmas pie;
He put in his thumb,
And pulled out a plum,
And said, "What a good boy am I!"

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 06:01 PM

Capitalists, people like Teribus for example, love to sit at home doing nothing except soaking up other people's money. Off-shorers do it, bankers do it, yuppies did it and Teribus brags about doing it. Tsk. Then they moan about peanut-sized handouts for the very poorest. Hypocrites.

I love cooking and Mrs Steve gets shouted at, Gordon Ramsay-style, if she dares to venture into MY kitchen when I'm in there. And I changed both my kids' nappies all the time and love to bring the buggers down a peg by reminding them of the fact. Poor Moggie. Doesn't know what he's missing.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Iains
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 05:52 PM

DmcG. I refer you to: dActs 20.35

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 04:00 PM

Interesting, Iains. So I assume you oppose Trident on the grounds it it spending other people's money. Ditto all schools except private ones, all health care except private health care, all roads except toll roads ....

Or are you perhaps a little more of a socialist than you admit?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Iains
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 03:49 PM

Bit like ever whinging, whining socialists then are we not. The major difference is that we are happy to take responsibility for our actions.
All socialists are capable of doing is spending other people's money and blaming everyone but themselves for misfortune.
Is the saying not MAN UP!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Stu
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 03:47 PM

Not at all. I don't have kids but love cooking and if you've never had to cook a meal in your life, I'd suggest you're too distant form he real world to understand the issues that affect most of us.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 03:14 PM

"Are you jealous?"
Why can't right wingers tell the difference between a desire for equality of opportunity and jealousy
Perhaps that wasn't pert of their privileged education curriculum!!
Stereotypes - all of you without exception
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Iains
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 02:59 PM

One of the many benefits of having loadsamoney. Are you jealous?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Stu
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 02:34 PM

Apparently Rees-Mogg has never changed a baby's nappy (despite having six children) and never cooked a meal.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 02:04 PM

If I say that you're stupid, that's abuse. If I say your post is stupid, it isn't. And your point has been addressed by me, Dave and Jim ad nauseam. Run along now. Do they have Sunday evensong?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 01:54 PM

"Just abuse again"
Not true Keith
The statement came with a sizable anount of information
10 Sep 17 - 09:08 AM
Which you choose to ignore, but nevertheless undermines your entire position
Little wonder you choose to ignore in then claim it hadn't been maid
Dishonest, dishonest, dishonest post Keith
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 01:49 PM

Your money, which you paint as a charitable institution that alleviates all the problems of the world, also pays large share dividends to people sat on their arses doing nothing. Oh yes, you get your cut all right! I note that your unfocused rant did not address the uncomfortable fact that your successful capitalist achievements rely on massive inequalities in society. Without those, you and your fellow clever moneymakers wouldn't have the incentive to roar ahead and leave the poorest even further behind, which is what has happened in this country for several decades by every measure. Anyway, do enjoy counting your dividends and working out your percentage gains. I hope it makes you happy.

By the way, we own our own very nice home, mortgage-free, in a half-acre garden, half a mile from one of the most beautiful coastlines in the world, and we both have pensions on top of our old age pensions that enable us to live comfortably and go on several European holidays a year. Four in 2017. I eat approximately three pasties per annum. It's probably best if you try to not judge the lifestyles and the means of people you know nothing about.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 01:38 PM

Steve,
Stupid, stupid, STUPID post, Keith. Most of us already think you're a fool. Why do you post stuff that just confirms our suspicions?

Just abuse again, but you are incapable of indicating any error or actually challenging anything I said.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 01:32 PM

GOOD OVERALL SUMMARY HERE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 01:18 PM

"Yet another long rant."
Then feel free to disprove what I say
Name calling has become the get-out of jail card on these threads
"not secure a living off child support"
My apologies Nigel - I attributed it to you but in fact it was Teribus's statement, your reference was a reference to that nasty Tory statement - my mistake
However, I went on to say "This has always been a slanderous Tory myth aimed directly at the poorer people of Britain"
You are, I believe, a Tory suppoerter
I would be interested to know if you go along with this long-standing smear of the less well off in Britain
I quite understand if you decline to answer, of course
There are of course other attacks on working people - like Ake's and Tribus's latest on Britain's lazy class
I'd ask your opinion on that particular smear if I thought an answer was forthcoming
You people are allways ready to lump us together under one umbrella; it's always interesting to learn if you people all singe from the same hymn-sheet
I quite understand if you don't wish to commit yourself on this one either
I wonder why you peiople never refer to the Bankers who ruined the British economy by their greed and stupidity, or those who avoid paying tax with offshore accounts and clever-clever lawyers
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/jul/27/disgusting-astonishing-how-do-uks-top-1-view-tax-avoidance-voices-of-the-one-percent
Don't these people bear any responsibility for the state of the economy - or is it just lazy workers with sore backs fiddleing the state for their holidays in the Bahamas
You people really are a transparent joke
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Stu
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 12:47 PM

"So in short Stu, your WE is in fact OTHERS - NOT YOU"

No need to shout old chap, I can hear you perfectly. No, not me. Are you suggesting in the fight against fascism we should not invoke the events of the second world war because we weren't there personally? That the suffering of others during that conflict should be ignored and forgotten because we weren't there?


"Apparently I seem to question things a damned sight more than you or your pals do."

Nah mate. You can type the words, but you're not the questioning type as is obvious from your posts over the years. That's fine, but the pretence doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Give up lad.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 11:46 AM

"Ooh me back!"...Yes Teribus and the latest cop out for those in the teaching and public administration "trades" is "Ooh my head" the poor souls are so stressed they can hardly enjoy their massive holidays.

The mantra seems to be take as much out of the system and put as little in as possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 11:44 AM

Jim:
Yet another long rant.
Unfortunately it starts by accusing me in words I never used:
Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll - PM
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 03:57 AM

By the way Nigel
"not secure a living off child support "
This has always been a slanderous Tory myth aimed directly at the poorer people of Britain - a smear on the British people by the privileged and comfortable - our "betters"
Family allowance is pitifully small in Britain - no family could possibly get a "secure a living" from it
"A family with two children can claim nearly £1,800 a year in Child Benefit. In the 2017-18 tax year, you can claim: £20.70 per week for your first child. £13.70 a week for any further children."
The purpose of family support is to keep a poor family's head above water, not to "secure a living" - it is to stay alive


If you want to discuss what I have said, please do so.
But do not attribute the comments of others to my name, and then discuss them as if I am in any sense responsible for those comments.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Iains
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 11:42 AM

Back to the nice Mr Rees Mogg-again!

How the EU slaughters democracy. Demonstration in moving pictures by the erudite mr. Rees Mogg so that even the tedious remoaners can understand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXkjc7lqOUQ

If at first you don't succeed try, try, try again.
Perhaps this well known phrase or saying should be a part of the EU anthem.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 11:37 AM

Hello there Raggy I see your arithmetic has improved since you were trying to work out votes in Irish Referendums. Trying to tell us that that is the only benefit claimed? What would the other "entitlements" be.

"Here we have a chap, moaning about what he calls "handouts" to the poorest people in society" - Shaw

The poorest people in society? Where was that stated?

Now as for being "economically inactive" Shaw is that your rather long winded way of saying retired?

The crowing "about how much his shares have gained this year." was actually detailing a personal example what has happened financially over the past eighteen months since the electorate of the United Kingdom voted to Leave the EU, which rather countered your "doom'n'gloom" mutterings.

"Now you buy shares with your excess money." - What a strange expression Shaw? What is "excess money" Shaw - disposable income perhaps? What do you do with yours Shaw? From your posts you would appear to "Oikishly" guzzle and munch your way around the place on Cornish Pasties, "sprouting purple" and cheap plonk - your choice.

"Then you sit on your arse doing nothing while your shares "make" money for you. I'd call that a handout."

Ah Shaw, I may not be doing anything but my money is. It is invested in companies that employ people and pay their wages, my money invested pays for research and development, it allows companies to expand and employ even more people. It provides profit and of course dividends that pay people's pensions.

"I wonder whether he sends back his old age pension, another handout to people who are no longer economically active."

Wonder no longer Shaw, I do not return my State Pension as I worked throughout my life and contributed on the higher end of the scale towards it - in short Shaw I earned it. I did not at some opportune moment decide to yell, "Oooh me back", then sit back on benefits (Unemployment, disability, income support, housing and child benefit) until I could lift a pension that I had barely contributed to. Of course it is not just the state pension I rely on for income, I receive three other pensions and my own private pension is yet to kick in - before you ask I also earned all of those and paid into the latter using that "Excess Money" you were wittering on about instead of squandering it.

Your defence of irresponsibility is ridiculous

Stu - 10 Sep 17 - 09:06 AM - So in short Stu, your WE is in fact OTHERS - NOT YOU. Apparently I seem to question things a damned sight more than you or your pals do.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 11:32 AM

It's the Twelfth Commandment, Dave. "Thou shalt not be a complete twat."

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 11:29 AM

Dunno whether my post got deleted or just didn't take. I'm not trying to be vexatious if it did get deleted. It went something like this:

Trendy socialists? In what sense are we "trendy?" 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 11:28 AM

JRM, like some on here, is a boutique Christian. He picks and choses the bits he likes. He is against abortion and homosexuality because it says so in the bible. He choses to ignore the bits that say you have to care for people and not be a complete twat.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: peteglasgow
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 11:23 AM

for JRM and some of his supporters on here, how do you respond to the most recent exposure of crimes by the church? this 'care' home in Lanarkshire where 400 children lie in unmarked graves is just the latest example of the shocking violence and barbarity that some people (in all religious persuasions) seem to be capable of in the name of their god. when you care more about those not yet born or the likely afterlife fate of the dead, than helping the living, you really are a sick and dangerous person. i'm not for a moment dismissing the good stuff that the vast majority of religious (and non-religious) people do but i suspect that the kind of fundamental, mediaeval cruelty exemplified here has been the attitude of religious leaders for most of the centuries they have been in existence. where has our enlightenment gone, jacob?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Stu
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 10:40 AM

Heck Ake, I really can't figure you out. Are you a Russian troll?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 10:37 AM

War without end.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 10:35 AM

Welcome to the real world Stu, the alternative is even more chilling.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Stu
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 10:32 AM

"...it will seem like evolution to those who participate, but to our eyes at this time it will look like totalitarianism"

My god... what a chilling, desperate and deeply disturbing statement this is.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 10:19 AM

"Calm down Jim, or you will get my thread closed."
Please stop being insulting - that is what gets these threads closed
I laid out my argument rationally and articulately and gave you and yours plenty to respond to in a similar manner - with direct questions, in fact
You do
neither, instead you enter into an inaccurate to the point of dishonest diatribe as to what I am and what I believe - not the slightest attempt to respond to what I have said
That is not debate, that is trolling
Now
Do you want me to repeat my points again or what
Your behaviour confirms more and more that you have nothing rational to contribute to the subjects you intervene on
I would sincerely request of anyone with authority on this forum that they ask this individual to desist and if he does not. please remove him
Please do not punish the rest of us for the behaviour of one troll
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 09:52 AM

Calm down Jim, or you will get my thread closed.
"If you believe we are "all in it together" explain why is the gap between haves and have not increasing at the rate it is"
I also think the wealth gap is a disgrace and that it can only be remedied by a socialist system, but we have widely differing opinions on how that should be brought about. You appear believe that a revolution or a continuation of the battles of the last century can accomplish what they failed to do in the past when the "working class" were an organised section of political opinion.
I believe that only unity and all our people working together can bring about a fair society. It will take a couple of generations and will be necessity rather than choice, as resources diminish; it will seem like evolution to those who participate, but to our eyes at this time it will look like totalitarianism.
The "socialist paradise" will not be pleasant, but it will be about survival rather than "fun"......there will certainly be no room for the "liberal" idiocies that we now tip toe around.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 09:48 AM

That works out at #9.71 per week to feed and clothe a child.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Raggytash
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 09:38 AM

#12.7 million divided by 2095 works out to #6062.05 per family.

By god we're spoiling the bastards ................

I think not.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 09:23 AM

"Can you imagine the reaction of the trendy socialists here the first time they were forced to don khaki and subjected to shouting by a Sergeant major?"
A lovely bit of history that Iains - put them in the Army - that'll teach them
I thought even the Tories had grown out of that one
We already have a wannabe Seargent Major as it happens, in the form of the anonymous Teribius sneering and shouting at uus from the safety of distance and anonymity
At least the old S.Ms had the balls to do their shouting and strutting within arms reach of his men and not from afar
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 09:15 AM

"Jim, you haven't noticed that the "working class" are no more."
Only because your lot have done away with work
If you believe we are "all in it together" explain why is the gap between haves and have not increasing at the rate it is
Explain why taxpayers money was used to bail out corrupt and incompetent bankers.
Explain the massive divide between those living in the South East and those in the rest of Britain
Explain the discrepancy of medical care between those who can pay for it and those who can't afford to.
Your Tory sloganising is a joke when put next to the actual facts of the situation in Britain today
I expect no honest response to this from you, but there again, it's not intended for you - you are where and what you are and will remain so
"You have no case that the Catholic Church persecutes gay people as claimed"
Repetitive nonsense that flies in the face of the actual facts as articulated so beautifully by the Pope
Anybody who compares a natural state of being with "the destruction of the rain-forests" is guilty of the slanderous persecution of millions of people
While we're on religion, did you know that 400 unregistered childrens' bodies have been discovered in a field in Lanarkshire, believed to have been buried by nuns running a care home in the vicinity?
This scandal gets murkier and wider as time passes
Your churches are turning out to have been a monstrous sore inflicted on humanity - far worse than those you have maligned
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Iains
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 09:10 AM

Can you imagine the reaction of the trendy socialists here the first time they were forced to don khaki and subjected to shouting by a Sergeant major?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 09:08 AM

Stupid, stupid, STUPID post, Keith. Most of us already think you're a fool. Why do you post stuff that just confirms our suspicions?

This "handouts" malarkey. Here we have a chap, moaning about what he calls "handouts" to the poorest people in society, who is economically inactive himself and who crows about how much his shares have gained this year. Now you buy shares with your excess money. Then you sit on your arse doing nothing while your shares "make" money for you. I'd call that a handout. I wonder whether he sends back his old age pension, another handout to people who are no longer economically active. Now I have to breathe the same polluted capitalist air so I don't complain about people putting their savings into shares (though bragging about them is a different matter), or about getting my pension from a fund that invests in shares. But I do object to the hypocritical attitude of someone who no longer works who sits at home while the pensions and share dividends roll in (which, if he's lucky like my now 94-year-old dad, will go on for many more years to come) complaining about the far more meagre "handouts" to the poorest in society. Perhaps he's like me, with one of those "gold-plated" final salary pensions. Maybe he needs a sharp reminder that the capitalist system that has been so good to him wouldn't exist without the stark inequalities that sheer humanity demands are corrected by "handouts," unless of course we'd prefer to have millions living on the streets. Of course, we're now going to get a litany of reasons why he deserves all his rewards whilst the poor should shut up and stop having kids. Just one thing about those kids brought up on those "handouts". A lot of them are now the doctors, nurses and care-home bottom-wipers that are going to look after him in his prosperous and lengthy old age, if they're not already. Maybe he'll be telling a care-home worker doing the night shift on the minimum wage how lucky she is. Maybe he could advise her which shares to buy.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Stu
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 09:06 AM

"Who constitute this "WE" Stu? It most certainly WAS NOT YOU."

My family. We. Us.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 08:59 AM

"We fought a war" ....... "We suffered on the battlefields"...

Who constitute this "WE" Stu? It most certainly WAS NOT YOU.

It would appear that YOU only recognise the right of free speech when it suits YOU.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Stu
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 08:52 AM

"We are all in this together now and have to make it work or we all suffer."

No we're not, you and your tory right-wing homophobic, xenophobic buddies are making everyone suffer. Some of us are trying to lessen the suffering because we care about our fellow human beings.

We fought a war and defeated people like you, Farage and Trump. We suffered on the battlefields to stop the likes of you and build a better, more tolerant world. Don't include us in your sordid, pathetic little authoritarian vision of this craphouse country.

Some of us actually do care for other people, hard though that is for the likes of you to understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 08:20 AM

"Class warrior" to the bitter end!

Jim, you haven't noticed that the "working class" are no more.
We are all in this together now and have to make it work or we all suffer. Bitterness about past battles is useless, move on.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 08:19 AM

Dave and Steve,
So, being homosexual is not wrong or sinful. Fine, but engaging in sex outside marriage is sinful.

Correct. No special rules for gay Catholics. The same rules for gay and straight.

They do not allow same sex marriage, but nor does any other religion in the world, nor most countries in the world and no single country in the world until about ten years ago, and still a large minority against even in those few countries that do now allow it.

You have no case that the Catholic Church persecutes gay people as claimed. They do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 08:03 AM

I cannot stress stronhly enough that the income supplements received by families in need are ENTITLEMENTS, NOT "HANDOUTS" as and contemptuously and contemptibly described by Teribus and his Tory friends.
Descibing them the way they choose to do underline their hatred for the poor of Britain - apparently their 'patriotism' dose not extend as far as the majority of British people, just the elite
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 07:35 AM

Family allowance is pitifully small in Britain - no family could possibly get a "secure a living" from it
"A family with two children can claim nearly £1,800 a year in Child Benefit. In the 2017-18 tax year, you can claim: £20.70 per week for your first child. £13.70 a week for any further children."
The purpose of family support is to keep a poor family's head above water, not to "secure a living" - it is to stay alive
These are what you and your ilk describe as "handouts" but are actually paid for as in insurance against hardship and unemployment by the taxpayer
Only Tory fundamentslists describe them as "handouts"
My putting the hypocrisy of those who support the idea of 'faving the unborn foetus' while at the same time being prepared to send an entire generation of young man to their deaths seems to have hit home, which is good to know
If you refuse to recognie the hypocrisy of this and the connection between the two, thare are plenty her intelligent enough not to
I have never "closed a thread" that is the role of you and your little army of trolls - often deliberately when you find yourself in a corner
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 07:21 AM

"Here we see a typical Carroll response in a thread where he sees that he and his pals are failing:
"
You disprove nothing that is being said - you don't even try to
You only "fail" when your arguments are defeated - you are not even attempting to do so
Your figures (un-linked as usual) when broken down into families show that those claiming benefit still have to live on a pittance
Cut the bullshit and tell us how that is "ecuring a living off child support" which is what Nigel suggested
Try to do it without your usual hectoring and bullying, if you can manage it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 07:20 AM

This thread was about the personal views of one individual who was in line to become leader of a political party and whether or not his religious views made unfit for public office.
It led on to whether the personal views of people of other more radical religions would be subject to the same scrutiny, for example devout Muslims.

It has turned out that many here hate the man because of his views, although they are perfectly legal, because he is rich, because he is a Christian and because he presents himself as a social conservative.

Are these people really liberal? I think not.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 05:34 AM

Oh I think he does get it, Steve. Keith is not thick. I am not so sure about the other half of the sorbiquet he had.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 05:27 AM

I've tried telling Keith that, Dave, but he doesn't get it. Here's another way of putting it to him in order to convince him that the Church does distinguish between straight and gay sex: if you are straight, you can have sex if you get married. If you're gay, you can never have sex under any circumstances, and we're certainly not going to let you get married. I think I've just spotted a tiny distinction there...

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 05:23 AM

Normality: There is a lovely little section in "Chocky" by John Wyndham where a dinner party takes place. During it the sister of the main couple is saying their son is a bit, well, odd. They responded by saying how the sister's child is thoroughly normal in every way. Naturally, she then denies it and comes out with little tales of how he has not been so normal. As the man of the lead couple says afterwards 'basic human psychology'.

It is best not to get worked by 'normality' - it is slippery little fellow.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 05:09 AM

" being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. But just as it is objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so too are homosexual acts considered to be wrong."

Your claimed promise of hell for homosexuals was false.



So, being homosexual is not wrong or sinful. Fine, but engaging in sex outside marriage is sinful. Yet the church does not allow homosexual marriage so by that very act it denies any homosexual the right to have sex without committing sin. The promise of hell may not be for being homosexual but by denying homosexuals the right to marriage the church is committing them to hell for having sinful sex.

Doesn't really make a lot of sense does it. Little wonder that the church is rapidly losing members.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 05:06 AM

Here we see a typical Carroll response in a thread where he sees that he and his pals are failing:

In his post Jim Carroll - 09 Sep 17 - 12:57 PM he goes trolling with an attempted diversion - "Hardly worth putting in your glorification of WW1" - dredging up threads from years ago, most of whom Carroll & Co managed to get either deleted or closed down. No connection whatsoever to the topic under discussion.

He tries again later on in the thread with his return to abuse by members of the Roman Catholic Clergy in Ireland - a thread that he and his pals got closed down. No connection whatsoever to the topic under discussion.

SPB-Cooperator - 09 Sep 17 - 03:54 PM

"the implication of your post that those below a certain income are only getting pregnant to sponge of the stet is reprehensible."

Really SPB-Cooperator? Reported in May this year - Super-sized families on state handouts cost British taxpayers £21.2million each year in child benefits. Breakdown is as follows:

- Families of 8 children - 2095 families claim £12.7 million in child benefit.

- Families of 9 children - 800 families claim £5.4 million in child benefit.

- Families of 10 children - 270 families claim £2.1 million in child benefit.

- Families of 11 children - 85 families claim £697,000 in child benefit.

- Families of 12 children - 30 families claim £267,384 in child benefit

- Families of 13+ children - 10 families claim £96,252 in child benefit.

At no point at all in my original post did I mention income, as Shaw pointed out child benefit gets paid to all - what I did refer to was the ability to provide for the children any couples chose to have.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Iains
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 05:02 AM

Back on topic!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2V7r2wUspI

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 04:57 AM

Your claim that homosexuals are treated no differently than hetrosexuals isw a blatant lie
You have the "destruction of the rain forests" words of the man himself "god's Representative on earth"
Your own particularly superstitious sect is no different that any other 'divinely inspired' bunch of nutters - including the ones you personally target
That 'god' they are on their way out
EXCOMMUNICATION = HELL-FIRE
Jim Caroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Stu
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 04:51 AM

Please.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 04:49 AM

One...

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 04:24 AM

Jim, Catholic teaching is
" being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. But just as it is objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so too are homosexual acts considered to be wrong."

Your claimed promise of hell for homosexuals was false.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 04:20 AM

Keith
"You and Steve are just bigoted and prejudiced against Christianity and have utterly failed to make a case."

"Now Rome complains that the Anglican Communion is affirming gays through blessed unions and full admission to the priesthood. The complaint is no surprise. In 2008, Benedict labeled homosexuality as a "destruction of God's work" on a par with the ruination of the tropical rain forests. Gays, he said, threaten "the order of creation." This is less blatant than, say, the "God hates fags" sign carried by Protestant fundamentalists at Matthew Shepard's funeral in 1998, but the drift is toward the same hateful conclusion."
CHRISTIAN ANTI_GAY CAMPAIGN
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 04:07 AM

"Some, like me, poke their heads in occasionally to see if anything has improved,"
I have a great respect for you normally Baccy, but it is diminishing rapidly
How dare you judge who is "normal" and who isn't on this forum?
If you wish take part in these discussions, you are free to do so, if not, you are equally free to stay away
In interfering with these discussions, you are little better than Keith in his constant attempts to censor these arguments to suit himself
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 04:01 AM

Sorry Sandman, I am not an expert on anything except perhaps traditional Scottish slate roofing, but I have read the Prophets teaching on homosexuality and abortion in various publications.
If I am in error, please inform.

Regarding Mr Rees Mogg, I'm afraid the "liberal" media would crucify him....if you'll pardon the expression, but it does not ensue that he would make a "bad" Prime Minister, I think its about time the "liberal" tide was turned, we are entering a difficult phase politically and economically, it will be all for one no place for people who think a comfortable life is a "right" regardless of contribution.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 03:57 AM

By the way Nigel
"not secure a living off child support "
This has always been a slanderous Tory myth aimed directly at the poorer people of Britain - a smear on the British people by the privileged and comfortable - our "betters"
Family allowance is pitifully small in Britain - no family could possibly get a "secure a living" from it
"A family with two children can claim nearly £1,800 a year in Child Benefit. In the 2017-18 tax year, you can claim: £20.70 per week for your first child. £13.70 a week for any further children."
The purpose of family support is to keep a poor family's head above water, not to "secure a living" - it is to stay alive

This from the Financial Times, April 4th 2017
The UK government will this week stop giving extra benefits to families when they have a third child, to encourage people to "consider whether they can afford to support additional children".
Until now, tax credits — which provide extra money for unemployed and low-income families — have increased by up to £2,780 a year for each extra child. From April 6, families will not receive extra income for third children born on or after this date. The restrictions will be extended to all new claimants from November 2018 onwards, regardless of when their children were born.
The policy is ultimately expected to save taxpayers about £3bn a year but it will take time for the savings to build up. Families will continue to receive child benefit, worth £700 a year for each second and subsequent child, provided neither parent earns more than £50,000 a year.
The new policy, announced by George Osborne in the July 2015 budget, is a change of direction for the UK.
Under successive Labour governments, between 1997 and 2010, support for families with children through the tax and benefit system increased significantly in a concerted effort to reduce child poverty. Support for larger families grew more quickly than support for families with only one or two children.
The tax credit cuts for larger families contribute to the Conservative government's manifesto promise to reduce welfare spending by £12bn by the end of the parliament. A secondary motivation is "explicitly . . . to affect the decisions low-income families make about how many children to have", said Andrew Hood of the Institute for Fiscal Studies think-tank.
Mr Osborne said the changes would make the tax credit system "fairer and more affordable" by ensuring that people receiving tax credits "face the same financial choices about having children as those supporting themselves solely through work".
But Alison Garnham, chief executive of the Child Poverty Action Group, said the changes were "pernicious".
"Our analysis shows another 200,000 children will be in poverty once universal credit [which is replacing tax credits and three other means tested benefits] is fully rolled out, directly because of this cut," she said. "Surely children should not have their life chances damaged because of the number of siblings they have."
A third of children already in poverty live in families with three or more children.

Your squalid party really is the pits
On the one hand, you have a bunch who are forcing cuts on family sizes by withdrawing support - in esssence a cull.
On the other, you are considering electing a leader who believes that women who might fall pregnant by accident or through rape should be forced to go through her pregnancy and bear her child
This feller applies this to cases where it is known in advance that some children will be born with physical defects or that forcing a woman through an unplanned pregnancy could effect either her mental or physical health - or both, which could add enormously to the cost of rearing such a child
What kind of people are you?
Perhaps your government has in mind what happened in Spain after the Civil War there when the victorious party set up a clandestine industry to steal children from Republicans and give them to the more deserving Franco supporters!
It is estimated that up to 300,00 newborn children were stolen from their families and sold to wealthy ones - they were known as "Los niños robados del franquismo" [The kidnapped children of Francoism]
Now that would be a lucrative industry to help Britain stand on its own two feet in the Brave New World of Brexitism
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Iains
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 03:53 AM

Rees Mogg versus gobby corbyn:


http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/835146/Jeremy-Corbyn-mocked-Jacob-Rees-Mogg-Moggmentum-Venezuela-socialism-video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hkOlW6_uTM

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 03:51 AM

could the Tories want to deliberately lose the election?to leave a decision "Brexit",[ which appears to be an political gamble whose possible consequences do not appear to have been   thought through,and which the uk political establishment and civil service seem to be unprepared for,   left to some other party to sort out, an abdication of responsibilties.
before any decision was made the civil service and the political establishment should have been prepared for the consequences of a leave vote. the conservative leadership at the time were irresponsible because they took a political gamble whilst being unprepared for the political consequences, it would not surprise me at all if they elected rees mogg and lost and deliberately abdicated responsibilty, so that another party had to deal with their gamble and lack of foresight.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 03:49 AM

I don't think for a moment that an old fashioned "class warrior" like Jim, gives a fig about homosexuality or even abortion, he simply sees "The Church" any church as a conservative monolith and an impediment to his agenda, which I am sure he realises will be in no way liberal.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: The Sandman
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 03:37 AM

Akeneaton since you are an expert on the muslim faith, please bacjk up your statement with statements from all the varying sects in the m,uslim religion , do they all agree on this one? bring on rees mogg he is the best leader capable of losing an election, the tories would do much better with sir alec douglas home even though he is dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 03:32 AM

Jim,
Sorry keith - the church's own statement bungs yoour piteous excuses right up your holy jaxi, I'm afraid.

Here is the Church's own statement,
" being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. But just as it is objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so too are homosexual acts considered to be wrong."

They have no ruling on gay sex. Their rules on sex apply to everyone.
You have failed to make a case that they are hostile to gay people.
They are clear that they are not.

Your statements about the Church were false and wrong.

They do not allow same sex marriage, but nor does any other religion in the world, or most countries in the world and until about ten years ago any country in the world.

You and Steve are just bigoted and prejudiced against Christianity and have utterly failed to make a case.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 03:27 AM

"The day you think this forum is working to your strange morality is the day that most normal people will leave."

Most normal people have already left, Dave, as you well know. Some, like me, poke their heads in occasionally to see if anything has improved, but are always bitterly disappointed. Even Eliza (Senoufou), one of the nicest and most thoughtful members we've seen for a long time, has been driven off. Shameful.

If anyone doubts the veracity of this, consider the dearth of threads in recent times which has driven the mods to replace the '1-day' default of the thread-list to '3-days' in order to disguise the fact that the forum is on its arse, put there by the constant bickering and childish behaviour of a small number of shit-for-brains Keyboard Warriors, none of whom would have the balls to face up and slug it out in a pub car-park.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 Sep 17 - 03:10 AM

"must do so in such a way as to always have their children's best interests at heart, not secure a living off child "
And that must be solely the decision of the parents, not a bunch of self-appointed fundamentalist mystics who insists on interfering in what happens in other people's bedrooms and WHOSE RELIGION IS ON THE SKIDS ANYWAY, which is what this discussion is about
Is one of these nut-jobs someone to be considered as Prime Minister of Britain?
If we want Britain to be led by a bunch of nutters as crazy as he is - maybe
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 07:20 PM

Yes, Nigel, I did slip up on that one. I hadn't looked it up and so just went from the fact that a person could retire under the old rules and a person born a day later would retire under the new rules. What I did not take into account was the sliding scale that applies at the beginning of the new rules that prevwnts such a cliff edgw. A mistake, freely admitted.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 07:09 PM

From: Dave the Gnome - PM
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 05:39 PM

Sorry, that's not one I'm aware of. A one day difference in date of birth means a two year difference in retirement/pension date?
Can you point to any guidance which substantiates that illogical situation

Not quite the straight cut off but daft enough.

Look it up yourself Nigel.

DtG

I read the link, and it agrees with my comments. Nowhere is there a one day cut-off that causes a two year delay in pension/retirement dates.
The closest is that a woman born in December '51 will have a pension date 2 years after a woman born in January '51. Hardly a 'cliff-edge' change is it? (effectively it is a one year delay, not two years)
And if retirement/pension dates have to be increased then it is bound to be the case that there will be a period when women work longer without reaching their pension dates as quickly as their elders. But from the link you gave this is being phased in in a reasonable way.

People are living longer, and will be retired for a greater portion of their lives. The pensions have to be paid for from somewhere.

With women (on average) having a longer life-span than men, I think it's not before time that pension ages are moving towards equality.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 07:02 PM

Toddle off and have another ten pints of wee heavy, akenaton. You are an irrelevance.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 05:39 PM

Sorry, that's not one I'm aware of. A one day difference in date of birth means a two year difference in retirement/pension date?
Can you point to any guidance which substantiates that illogical situation

Not quite the straight cut off but daft enough.

Look it up yourself Nigel.

Ake, I have high hopes for this forum, freedom of speech and reasoned discussion.

You wouldn't know reasoned discussion if it bit you on the bum. The day you think this forum is working to your strange morality is the day that most normal people will leave.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 05:16 PM

Teribus is right Steve, you have lost the argument. Your last few post have contained nothing but bluster

I have high hopes for this forum, freedom of speech and reasoned discussion.....times are a changin', the light is beginning to penetrate the gloom.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 05:07 PM

My God, the sanctimonious are really crawling out of the woodwork in this thread. Christ knows what these smug bastards' own kids are like, poor little sods. We had our two when we were on our uppers, but we made it in the end, same child benefit as every millionaire got, struggling towards our aspirations and succeeding in the end. Why, who would have known. Maybe I should have shed the courage early on and tied a knot in it. I was born into poverty and lived in a slum for the first ten years of my life. Maybe I shouldn't even be here - should we have a poll? I can't believe that there are people around in the 21st century who still think that your right to have children is proportional to the success you achieve in this capitalistic world. I went to school with kids who would never have been born according to the Rule Of Teribus. Some of them are priests or professors or teachers or doctors and a good few are still mates of mine. Go bloody figure, Billyboy. I'd pick them over bigots like you any day.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 04:36 PM

From: SPB-Cooperator - PM
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 03:54 PM

"SPB-Cooperator ever heard of people behaving responsibly? Have you got some marked objection to that? ANYONE who has bigger families than they can support quite frankly can be legitimately labelled as "freeloaders" as they have those families in the full expectation that the rest of us have to pay for them, and that any shortfall is "society's" fault.
Anyone making the conscious decision to have a family must do so in such a way as to always have their children's best interests at heart, not secure a living off child support - you get child support/allowance for two children then all after that are your own responsibility. There again personal responsibility is something that "socialists" do not accept - they never have done. "

You are making assumptions that all pregnancies are planned,

You're not reading what has been written (and you're responding to).
The first line in bold makes it clear that the discussion is not about those having 'unexpected' children. Although, once a woman has two children I would expect her to have worked out what the cause was!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 03:54 PM

"SPB-Cooperator ever heard of people behaving responsibly? Have you got some marked objection to that? ANYONE who has bigger families than they can support quite frankly can be legitimately labelled as "freeloaders" as they have those families in the full expectation that the rest of us have to pay for them, and that any shortfall is "society's" fault.

Anyone making the conscious decision to have a family must do so in such a way as to always have their children's best interests at heart, not secure a living off child support - you get child support/allowance for two children then all after that are your own responsibility. There again personal responsibility is something that "socialists" do not accept - they never have done. "

You are making assumptions that all pregnancies are planned, and the implication of your post that those below a certain income are only getting pregnant to sponge of the stet is reprehensible. Every circumstance is different, it could be through failed contraception, it could be because a partner has forced himself on his wife when he was drunk, it could be complacency that thinking being of a certain age reduces the likelihood of conception.

Rees Mogg is on one hand against those who for example have their 'complete family' - mnaybe teen children, maybe in their forties, and do not feel able to bring up another child - a hard decision to make - and on the other hand withdrawing support form society. So what would you have done to the children who are surplus to societies requirements then????

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 03:20 PM

"Who would be left?"
Those who confess their sins and become hypocrites like the rest of you
That's their get out of jail free card
I suppose it's a step up from their old method of torturing a confession out of sinners then burning them alive at the stake before they can recant
Sorry keith - the church's own statement bungs yoour piteous excuses right up your holy jaxi, I'm afraid.
And don't forget that this was all being put into practice by a church heiorarch of supposed celibate old men who forbade contraception and whose clerics were helping themselves to children when the fancy took than
What a bunch eh?
Do you care to explain the discrpency of defending unborn foetuses, refusing abortions to raped 11 year olds, allowing women to die in pain rather than carrying out life-saving operations, watching children pulled deead out of the sea and yet still opposing refugees, claiming "thou shalt not kill" meant something else and supporting the WW1 bloodbath
No?
Thought not, especially as you were in to all these right up to your Christian neck
The "viciousness" was the spiritual blackmail that went into all this hypocrisy
Sleep well, and don't forget to say your prayers
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 03:09 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: DMcG - PM
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 04:06 AM
Or women of a certain age can retire as 65 but those born a day later they have to wait to 67? Laws introduce boundaries, and the exact point of that boundary is a balance of many competing interests;

Sorry, that's not one I'm aware of. A one day difference in date of birth means a two year difference in retirement/pension date?
Can you point to any guidance which substantiates that illogical situation?

Cheers
Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 01:27 PM

Sounds sensible to me Tunesmith,
It's started to happen in Ireland but it took a great sacrifice on the part of children and "fallen" women to arrive at that conclusion
Despite opposition, there ore now statues in memory of 'The Magdalene girls'
Thye have yet to get round to the victims of Clerical abuse
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 01:25 PM

Jim,
So youu can be a homoosexual but you burn in hell if you follow your natural instincts

No. They see sex outside marriage as sinful gay or straight, but do not condemn us all to hell for it. Who would be left?

Steve,
The truth is that the Church is viciously opposed to gay people exercising their human right to have sex with whoever they want

No. It is opposed to sex outside marriage gay or straight, and where does "vicious" come into it?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Tunesmith
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 01:12 PM

The sensible, sane course of action would be to bar any believers of religion from high - or any - political positions based on the fact that would be dangerously gullible and open to any wild, unverified beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 12:57 PM

Seems this argument is pretty well over when (this time deliberate) typos and non-responses aer te order of the day
You have your hypocritical behaviour before you
Hardly worth putting in your glorification of WW1
'Course we're getting slaughtered aka "I can't fight but I can still spit"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 12:55 PM

You don't have to be the Brain of Britain to see the outcome of any thread this bunch of childish, OCD fuckwits infest.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 12:52 PM

I could have put that point better, I admit. I don't think anyone here really thought I meant that gay men should be able to rampantly go around, tackle-out, having the non-consensual pick of the flock. I suppose that anyone desperate enough to jump on that inelegant sentence in order to make a Big Thing of it in that manner must be pretty bereft of ideas.

And if you want to quote me, do just that is my advice. We can all read and we don't need your "helpful" bolds, capitals and italics, none of which were in my sentence. You may insult me all you like, but you don't need to insult everyone else's intelligence as well. Or maybe you think you do.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 12:31 PM

"You [ate] back to [you] [pedantic] typo mode - you know damn well he was not suggesting that homosexual men should be allowed to [sake] [satisfaction] from whoever [that] choose
Back to typos"

Priceless Jom, simply priceless.

Continue the countdown BWM your pals are getting slaughtered once again, and no doubt they are frantically PM-ing mods to kill the thread before they are embarrassed even further.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 12:29 PM

He certainly has his finger on the pulse of the way this thread is going.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 12:16 PM

Has BWM got his finger on the nuclear button :0(

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 11:48 AM

Four...
Three...
Two...

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 11:23 AM

"Jom, let Shaw speak for himself."
This is a publc forum - I will intervene when I see fit
If you're not happy with that, go PM each other
You ate back to you pedentic typo mode - you know damn well he was not suggesting that homosexual men should be allowed to sake satisfacion from whoever that choose
Back to typos and "Jom" again - a handy guide for how this argument is going - beats the weather forcast any ady!
I'm just contemplating whether to dig up the numerous threads were you
valiant foetus defenders put in so much efforts describing a slaughter for Empire which wiped out generations of young men as "a well conducted war"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 11:16 AM

Please don't be so stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 11:03 AM

Jim Carroll - 09 Sep 17 - 10:48 AM

"Ehmmm Shaw, you pillock, ""
That is not what Steve meant and you know it

Jom, let Shaw speak for himself.

"You would reserve your own right to have or not sex with whoever you choose"

Not what Shaw said at all was it? He stated - "gay people exercising THEIR HUMAN RIGHT to have sex with whoever THEY want - In that statement the object of THEIR desires, does not appear to have a choice they must comply or deny some gay person THEIR HUMAN RIGHTS - Utterly fuckin' ridiculous.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:58 AM

Sorry about the cross posting that was in response to MRT 8:13am

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Stu
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:54 AM

"If child support/child allowance was withdrawn tomorrow you would not hear one squeak out of Jacob Rees-Mogg or his wife"

1) Because they've got inherited money dripping from their arses.

2) How the hell can you know this? Utter bollocks. You're a pleb like the rest of us Mr. T, just a servile, unquestioning one.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:54 AM

It was a stupid post not worth a reply, Jim. It's what he does. I'm perfectly happy that everyone else reading it would get the point. Maybe he thinks all gay people are lascivious predators who simply must have sex with anyone they want to, consent or no. There are people around who think that. Maybe he's one of 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:52 AM

Well said Teribus, We had four children including twins and I worked my bloody socks off to provide for them, sometimes working till midnight in the muck, shit and cold. I considered myself responsible for my family....we only intended to have two, but It did not work out that way, we were lucky that all were born hale and hearty.
I have never been unemployed, and I've had some jobs that have left physical effects, breaks hernias scars....the works.
But if there is a God he's been good to me.

Steve...Mr Rees Mogg made it abundantly clear that his expressed views were personal and that he would never attempt to impose them on the country in any capacity.
Don't tell me what I may or may not post here, admin make the rules not you. You and your creepy friends have avoided every issue that this thread has provoked.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:50 AM

Jacob Rees-Mogg has six children Shaw. If child support/child allowance was withdrawn tomorrow you would not hear one squeak out of Jacob Rees-Mogg or his wife. You would out of those parents of families who could field a rugby team on the basis of the State benefits they receive.

Jacob Rees-Mogg has six children Shaw, and they will not cost the taxpayer a single penny with regard to their education and upbringing. Jacob Rees-Mogg and his wife can have as many children as they wish because they are responsible and sensible enough to provide for their children.

If you cannot provide for and look after children Shaw then you shouldn't effin' well have them.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:48 AM

"Ehmmm Shaw, you pillock, ""
That is not what Steve meant and you know it
You would reserve your own right to have or not sex with whoever you choose but you w=and your ilk would refuse that right to a significant percentage of the world's population
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:45 AM

"Getting back to the abortion issue, is their really anyone who does Not believe that live begins at conception? "
Is there really anybody who wishes a return to the archaic laws of forbidden termination and chemical castration
These are now fully accepted - we reach compromises on the question of whether we want families or not for all sorts of reasons - overpopulation, personal situations, the fact that sex is not and has never been solely for procreation, rape, incest.... millions of reasons
How about the morality of forcing a raped 11 year old child to endure a pregnancy for the sake of not destroying an unborn fetus - in one case the victim had also acquired two sexually- transmitted diseases - humanity or barbarism?
Several years ago a patient at Galway Hospital died after being refused a life-saving operation "because Ireland is a Catholic country", she was told
Humanity or barbarism?
If human life is so precious, why would you people rather watch dead children being pulled out of the sea rather than granting them asylum?
Why do you Pro-lifers invariably support the manufacture use and sale for profit of weapons capable of killing and maiming dozens, even thousand people at one go?
I find very little pacifism or even humanity when it comes to that taking of life in these cases.
But when it comes to the edicts of mother church.... that then becomes a different matter.
Even then, that becomes very much a movable feast
I remember a bunch of you desperately claiming that the Christian edict "though shalt not kill" didn't really mean what it said.
Your hypocrisy is utterly astounding to me, as is your lack of simple common sense and humanity
Let Jacob Rees Mogg be Proime Minister - that will put paid to The Tory Pary once and for all, and good riddance to bad rubbish
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:43 AM

This is priceless:

" The truth is that the Church is viciously opposed to gay people exercising their human right to have sex with whoever they want." _ Steve Shaw

Ehmmm Shaw, you pillock, " The truth is that I am viciously opposed to gay people exercising their human right to have sex with whoever they want." - If that "whoever they want happens to be me. In your case probably you and your Mrs might think differently. But just for clarification just let us all know for certain.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:40 AM

So what you're saying, Teribus, that it's fine for the likes of Rees-Mogg to have as many kids as they want, swelling the population of this overcrowded planet with impunity, whereas poor people had better have few if any kids. Am I reading you correctly there?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:35 AM

"When he attempts to inmpose those views on others, that becomes a different matter" - Jim Carroll

When has he attempted to impose those views on others Jom?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:32 AM

SPB-Cooperator - 09 Sep 17 - 08:13 AM

"Rees-Moog's anti-abortion views,and his party's vilification of people on low incomes having bigger families than they can afford' and sanctioning 'surplus' children just show him to be a hypocrite."

SPB-Cooperator ever heard of people behaving responsibly? Have you got some marked objection to that? ANYONE who has bigger families than they can support quite frankly can be legitimately labelled as "freeloaders" as they have those families in the full expectation that the rest of us have to pay for them, and that any shortfall is "society's" fault.

Anyone making the conscious decision to have a family must do so in such a way as to always have their children's best interests at heart, not secure a living off child support - you get child support/allowance for two children then all after that are your own responsibility. There again personal responsibility is something that "socialists" do not accept - they never have done.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:28 AM

"Getting back to the abortion issue, is their really anyone who does Not believe that live begins at conception? That is surely not a religious tenet, but a biological one.
If we accept that fact, every abortion is in reality the destruction of an innocent human being.
Is there really anyone who thinks that the power of life or death of an unborn child should be left in all cases solely to the mother?"

This post doesn't belong here. There is no point whatsoever on a forum like this trying argue for the exact beginning of a life. And the answer to the last misogynistically-posed question is yes, and she deserves the very best neutral support in making the decision.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Raggytash
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:27 AM

I'm reading a book named "The Burning Time" by Virginia Rounding which demonstrates vividly how the churches sought to control public attitudes and public behavior to the extent that people who disagreed with the church were burnt to death. Unsurprisingly the criteria of whether you were judged to be heretical changed over a very short period. As little as six years between 1532 and 1538.

I somehow feel that the likes of Rees-Mogg would be quite content with a return to that era.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 10:18 AM

Keith has repeatedly tried to claim that the Church regards sex outside marriage for everybody, gay or straight, as equivalently sinful. What he mischievously and disingenuously leaves out of the equation is that the Church does not recognise gay marriage and is therefore condemning all homosexual people to a celibate life. He then claims that the Church is being somehow accommodating to homosexual people. You really couldn't make this up. The truth is that the Church is viciously opposed to gay people exercising their human right to have sex with whoever they want. There is nothing warm and cuddly about it. On top of that, he is defending "sincerely-held views" held by people in an organisation that attempts to enforce those views. If you hold the "sincerely-held view" thst gay marriage is wrong, then it's my sincerely-held view that you need to keep it to yourself, shut up about it and accept, for chrissake, that two gay people getting married hurts neither you, them nor anyone else in the slightest way.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 09:35 AM

Getting back to the abortion issue, is their really anyone who does Not believe that live begins at conception? That is surely not a religious tenet, but a biological one.
If we accept that fact, every abortion is in reality the destruction of an innocent human being.
Is there really anyone who thinks that the power of life or death of an unborn child should be left in all cases solely to the mother?
I think it was DMcG who mentioned "Red lines"(excuse me if I am wrong "D"), but red lines seem to be the ultimate idiocy when dealing with human life. As I said already, why should a 23 week old foetus be regarded as disposable and a 24 week old protected by law?
Why should a full term child be killed because of disablement?

All hugely controversial issues.......not a "given" as in the doctrine of "liberalism"

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 09:22 AM

So youu can be a homoosexual but you burn in hell if you follow your natural instincts
Makes sense to me alongside all the other mumbo jumbo of your claimed religion Keith
Any intolerance comes from those who insist that such things are wrong and a sin when they are now written into British law - the church having precedence over the national judicial process - dangerous ground
I have no objection to Moggie choosing not to have an abortion or indulge in homosexual acts - his business alone
When he attempts to inmpose those views on others, that becomes a different matter
When the church decides that those who follow their natural instincts or takes steps to save the lives or well-being of women will burn in hell, that becomes spiritual blackmail
The facts that these rights are written into British law makes someone like Mogg totally unsuitable to lead Britain politically
You people prate enough about those of other religions who follow or advocate practices that you don't agree with, but when it comes to your own particular branch of fundamentalism - "crown 'em king'
Family planning and sexual choice are had-fought-for rights in our society - electing someone who opposes the rights of the majority of the population of britain is not fit to captain a rowing boat across Newsham Park lake, never mind lead a country.
You are defending fundamentalist views that you oppose for other communities
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 09:20 AM

The whole point of this thread was to illustrate the anomaly between the reception by the media of conservative social views pertaining to Catholicism.....and their reception of the tenets of Islam regarding abortion and homosexuality.
To say that people should be put to death or imprisoned because to their sexual behaviour is surely "hateful" no matter how unhealthy it may be?

The media has brainwashed a majority of the public into supporting idiocy....parliament which contains a large over representation of homosexuals have turned that idiocy into law.
The Christian religion is now a lone voice calling for sensible social values Mr RM is supporting that voice, perhaps his quiet reasoning will garner a few converts, but I fear that like S@G things have fallen too low to be resurrected.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 08:38 AM

Jim, the Catholic Church does not yet accept same sex marriage, but otherwise does not oppose homosexuality specifically, only sex outside marriage straight or gay.
Yours statements on that were wrong Jim.
"being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. But just as it is objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so too are homosexual acts considered to be wrong."

Steve and Jim, we agree on same sex marriage and abortion.
The only difference is your intolerance of anyone with different views, and your misrepresentation of the Catholic Church's view of homosexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 08:19 AM

His alleged statement that 'people educated in state-schools are as thick as pot-plants' should, by rights, ensure he isn't re-elected at the next GE. Arrogant wank-puffin.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 08:13 AM

Rees-Moog's anti-abortion views,and his party's vilification of people on low incomes having bigger families than they can afford' and sanctioning 'surplus' children just show him to be a hypocrite.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 07:53 AM

You have the bell book and candle position of the Catholic Church in black and white -you also have Jarogs position on these tow issues - they coincide, which is precisely what this discussion is about
The OP asked whether such views make Moggie a fit person to lead Britain - not your 'claimed' Christianity.
I'm sure some of the world's greatest dictators possessed "sincerely held views"
Let's leave it there for the sake of the debate eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 06:59 AM

Jim, I am a Christian and like all the other Christians I know am pro choice and pro same sex marriage.

Many people, Christian or not, disagree on one or both of those.
I accept that such views are sincerely held and they are entitled to hold them, and even entitled to articulate them as RM did when asked.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 06:57 AM

"Homosexual desires, however, are not in themselves sinful. People are subject to a wide variety of sinful desires over which they have little direct control, but these do not become sinful until a person acts upon them, either by acting out the desire or by encouraging the desire and deliberately engaging in fantasies about acting it out. People tempted by homosexual desires, like people tempted by improper heterosexual desires, are not sinning until they act upon those desires in some manner."
CATHOLIC RULING on HOMOSEXUALITY - you can feel it but you can't act on it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 06:53 AM

Wiki on Catholicism,
" homosexual persons "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity", and "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided"[35] "The Catholic Church holds that, as a state beyond a person's choice, being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. But just as it is objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so too are homosexual acts considered to be wrong."

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 06:53 AM

Can we not make this another Keith versus the world thread
Mogg has said what he said and everybody knows what fund=mentalist Christianity stands for regarding homosexuality and pregnancy termination -
the fact that the more pragmatic members of the church have been dragged kicking and screaming int the twentieth century (just), over these issues is immaterial - Mogg and his archaic ilk are fundamentalists
Let's leave it at that and not allow one regular cuckoo spoil a summer
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 06:52 AM

Wiki on Catholicism,
" homosexual persons "must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity", and "every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided"[35] "The Catholic Church holds that, as a state beyond a person's choice, being homosexual is not wrong or sinful in itself. But just as it is objectively wrong for unmarried heterosexuals to engage in sex, so too are homosexual acts considered to be wrong."

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 06:39 AM

I am not Catholic or homophobic and I believe in same sex marriage, so how am I treading on thin ice.

Jim says that Catholicism promises hell for homosexuals.
Is he right or wrong?

Does Catholicism say gay sex outside marriage is worse than straight sex outside marriage?

Many people religious or not oppose same sex marriage, including some gay people. We might disagree with them but it is a legitimate and widely held view. Until recent years it was a universally held view.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 06:26 AM

The debate has nothing to do with sex outside marriage. It is to do with discrimination against homosexual people. Please do not try to blur that distinction. You are treading on thin ice.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 06:23 AM

A "mogg" of pooves, or a "mogg" of abortions!!!!!

Or even a "mogg" of catholics!!!!!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 06:22 AM

But this time he's in severe danger of branding himself homophobic. I suggest he treads carefully.

No need to tread carefully. I am not.
Not having been a Catholic myself I will not challenge what you assert.

My understanding was that sex outside marriage is held to be wrong, hetero or homo, even though most are guilty of it.

Is Jim right that it will get you to hell, but only if same sex?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 06:07 AM

Yes he is, Dave. But this time he's in severe danger of branding himself homophobic. I suggest he treads carefully.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 06:05 AM

That is not true, Keith. Heterosexuality, whether within or outside marriage, is not regarded as "an objective disorder ordered towards an intrinsic moral evil." The only common position is that Catholicism regards acting on it outside marriage as sinful, which is an entirely separate issue. You can't get away with ignoring that fundamental distinction. You appear to be defending what amounts to the institutional homophobia of the Catholic Church, which attempts to conceal its intolerance of homosexuality under a mass of faux-rational doctrinal verbiage.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 05:52 AM

He's holding up the hoops again lads!

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 05:48 AM

Jim,
The school which believes that homosexuality is a mortal sin Keith

Which one is that Jim?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 05:46 AM


Let's be clear, Keith. The Catholic Church has an extremely intolerant official line on homosexuality,

No it does not. The position is the same for heterosexual relationships outside marriage.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 05:45 AM

The fact that he has the full vocal support of Farrago says everything that neds to be said about Mogg
Two clowns in the same circus

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 05:43 AM

"What school of thought is that then Jim?. "
The school which believes that homosexuality is a mortal sin Keith - go read what he has to say - don't take my words for it
Mogg is a fundamentalist on both Gays and pregnancy termination - hence the Times cartoon of him being strangled by his own umbilical cord

"The Tory backbencher, who's been widely tipped to replace Theresa May as Conservative leader, possibly Prime Minister, stressed that he "supports the teaching of the Catholic church," suggesting that same-sex weddings are a sin.
He also insisted that he doesn't support abortion under any circumstance, including rape.
"Plenty of Catholics believe in gay marriage," Susanna Reid fumed.
Mogg elaborated: "But marriage is a sacrament and a sacrament lies with the church and not with parliament."
http://www.express.co.uk/showbiz/tv-radio/850555/Jacob-Rees-Mogg-abortion-gay-marriage-Good-Morning-Britain-Piers-Morgan-Susanna-Reid
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 05:41 AM

Let's be clear, Keith. The Catholic Church has an extremely intolerant official line on homosexuality, thus:

Homosexuality is addressed in Catholic moral theology under two forms: homosexual orientation is considered an "objective disorder" because Catholicism views it as being "ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil", but not sinful unless acted upon. Homosexual sexual activity, by contrast, is viewed as a "moral disorder" and "homosexual acts" are viewed as "contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity."

The Catholic Church teaches that marriage can be made only between a man and a woman, and opposes introduction of both civil and religious same-sex marriage.The Church holds that same-sex unions are an unfavorable environment for children and that the legalization of such unions is harmful to society. [wiki]

In essence, that's as bad as it gets in any religion. How Catholicism actually responds to homosexuality may be a different matter, especially in some western countries. But I don't disecern much scope for softening in that official doctrine, and, as Jim says, as a Catholic believer you are going to hell if you act on your homosexuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 05:31 AM

Good God, a rogue apostrophe in the other thread, now "you're." Arrgh.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 05:31 AM

Mogg comes from a school of thought that believes homosexuality to be punishable by eternal fire and damnation

What school of thought is that then Jim?.
Gay folk are welcome in church, and neither Catholic nor CofE Churches proscribe it.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 05:19 AM

"I do not believe that things have got to that state yet with regard to Jacob Rees-Mogg."
Mogg comes from a school of thought that believes homosexuality to be punishable by eternal fire and damnation - far worse than any temporal punishment to a believer - eternal, pain-filled revenge.
His school also condemns the use of contraception and believes women unfit to hold church office
He is an anachronism - a regular guest on 'Have I got News for You' for his 'ridicule' value
He represents everything the Tory party stands for, privilege, inequality and the rest of us knowing our place
BRING HIM ON - PLEASE!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 04:56 AM

You're Muslim example is a poke in the eye for akenaton, Teribus, negating his opening post nicely. Well done!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 04:49 AM

Also Teribus, having an Irish born grandparent really does entitle you to Irish citizenship. I checked this out after the brexit vote, sadly my Irish ancestry is two generations further back.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 04:46 AM

Teribus, in some countries nationality is conferred automatically at birth, and the holder has to explicitly renounce that nationality in order not to hold it. This is what some Australian politicians have fallen foul of. I think Britain is one such country, it certainly used to be. So actually did Australia.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 04:16 AM

As a bit of an aside, I was thinking about this of the latest royal conception (I know, I know, but bear with me.) We often say that XYZ is nth in line to the throne. When child is a year old that same person is (n+1)th in line. So when does it change? When the pregnancy is announced? When the birth takes place? So is Harry currently 5th or 6th in line?

I don't care a jot, actually, apart from that it a quirk of the system...

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 04:06 AM

He sees the anomaly in a 24 week old foetus having the "right to life", yet a 23 week old does not.

Leaving the specific issue aside, he knows full well that every law introduces such anomalies. Why is someone of sixteen allowed things that a sixteen-year-old-less-1hr is not? Or 18 years olds allowed to vote, but 17-and-11 months can't? Or women of a certain age can retire as 65 but those born a day later they have to wait to 67? Laws introduce boundaries, and the exact point of that boundary is a balance of many competing interests; it is a consensus not, in most case, a matter of anything specifically logical about the choice. So pleading this specific law as anomalous is mendacious, in my view.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Iains
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 03:40 AM

Ake. Being able to discuss tolerance within the context of any religion
is probably generations into the future. Expecting any rational discussion of such a topic on this forum is a step too far.
Even the weather cannot be discussed without the idiots insisting on their pedantic two penn'orth.
For some, discussion of semantics covers an inability to pursue or even discuss the argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 03:32 AM

The most apt "Muslim" example on record would appear to be the current Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who voted for Gay Marriage and supports abortion - he received death threats for doing so from fellow Muslims. I do not believe that things have got to that state yet with regard to Jacob Rees-Mogg.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 03:25 AM

Jeff, what YOU refer to as "trolling", I see as stimulation of discussion.

If you dislike discussion of controversial subjects, just remain above it all.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 03:20 AM

JRM

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 09 Sep 17 - 03:01 AM

This issue has caused a bit of a furore in the UK....current affairs.
It was instigated by the mainstream media as a political bear trap and Mr RM's response has dealt with it pretty well.
His beliefs are "based on the teaching of the Catholic Church"

The issue regarding the views on homosexuality and abortion held by devout Muslims is never discussed....... why the double standards?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 08:14 PM

Yeah, well, Jeff, the last time you posted to BS was a response to an Ake post and you typed twice as much as you've done here. Thing is, the odds are that someone would have brought up Moggie sometime around now in any case. The fact that troll-face did it first is, well, a tad irrelevant, and his follow-up posts on this thread have demonstrated just how irrelevant he is. So forget akenaton and yak on about Jake. Or just forget it and play a tune. We have choices!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: JeffB
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 07:44 PM

Well, here you all go again, dancing to ake's tune while he's laughing up his sleeve at you. You lot never learn. He posts something provocative, everyone jumps in, then you start arguing amongst yourselves, then it turns into a vicious slanging match, and once in a while he posts again to stir things up. Why do you bother to even reply to his posts and play his infantile game? Do you really think you can change his mind? Do you think he is remotely interested in your opinions? He's just a troll. He enjoys winding you up. He doesn't think in a rational way; he has merely a visceral hatred of liberal opinion which he cannot articulate because he chooses not to think rationally. What he believes to be his considered opinions are nothing but a kind of frustrated emotion fuelled by aggressive discontent, like all the other bigoted trolls which infest the internet.

I have asked him a couple of times to say exactly what aspects of liberal political philosophy he disagrees with, and why, and he refuses to reply. Because he can't. Because thought, of an impartial analytical rational sort, is beyond him. What he can do though, and what he delights in, is getting "liberals" in a lather. It proves to him that he is better than you.

Best thing to do is to stop posting to this thread, and ignore him in future.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 07:18 PM

You're not wrong, Gallus Moll. It gets me every time. Should I say nothing though?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Donuel
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 06:59 PM

I guess this stuff passes for tossing red meat to starving conservative crowd.

In the US we call this stuff the never ending culture war.

Jeez this stuff is for tossers. A gay marriage abortion thread, what will they think of next?

How about a thread just on abortion? or marriage?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Gallus Moll
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 06:41 PM

Mildly interesting that all those discussing an event that only happens to women, and is the right of any woman to choose (or not) ---appear to be male? (I assume the pseudonyms are all male)

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Iains
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 06:15 PM

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Jeremy_Corbyn

and you have the temerity to accuse the lucid, right honourable Mr. Rees Mogg of being mad as a bag of frogs??????

I trust you jest!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 06:01 PM

I heard you first time, Bill.

He does not invoke my ire. He's a joke who is no threat to any ideals I may subscribe to. Actually, considering that you're not interested in my opinions, it's somewhat amazing that you home in on me more than on anyone else bar Jim. I'm sure that someone who "can be arsed to look it up" could analyse that statistically. I suppose it emanates from your underlying insecurity, so often laid bare on this forum. Let's keep on having fun, Monsieur Woodcock.

I would imagine that most thinking Catholics, Joe included (who, sensibly, probably isn't reading this) would distance themselves from this chap's intolerant and bigoted outbursts. You don't have to be in favour of abortion to accept that it's the right of any woman to make those decisions for herself, even if you accept restrictions. You don't have to like the idea of gay marriage to accept that ordinary, decent human beings want to embrace that for themselves and that, when they do, it won't do you or anyone else one iota of harm.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 05:32 PM

Being eligible for dual or multi-nationality is one thing. Actually applying for it and holding it is another entirely. Does anyone KNOW that Jacob Rees-Mogg HOLDS either an Irish, or American Passport? I rather doubt that he does. I think that having had an Irish-American grandmother is a bit tenuous for claiming US Citizenship - might even be true for the Irish connection as well - can't really be arsed to look it up but I think it has got to be direct parent, and even with that there are qualifications.

By the bye Shaw I would rather have hoped by now that you would have realised that I am not in the least bit interested in your opinions on anything. Were that not the case, the fact that you seem to have such a particularly low opinion of the man would only recommend him to me better than a glowing reference from anyone else - If he has prompted your ire then he must be doing something right.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 05:32 PM

Being eligible for dual or multi-nationality is one thing. Actually applying for it and holding it is another entirely. Does anyone KNOW that Jacob Rees-Mogg HOLDS either an Irish, or American Passport? I rather doubt that he does. I think that having had an Irish-American grandmother is a bit tenuous for claiming US Citizenship - might even be true for the Irish connection as well - can't really be arsed to look it up but I think it has got to be direct parent, and even with that there are qualifications.

By the bye Shaw I would rather have hoped by now that you would have realised that I am not in the least bit interested in your opinions on anything. Were that not the case, the fact that you seem to have such a particularly low opinion of the man would only recommend him to me better than a glowing reference from anyone else - If he has prompted your ire then he must be doing something right.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 05:00 PM

Rees-Mogg's catholicism came from his Irish-American grandmother, the male line were protestant vicars and coal owners in north east Somerset. Members of that family both baptised some of my ancestors into the anglican church, and sent them to work down coal mines at the age of 11. Of course, not only did the catholicism come into the family by that route, so did the new money as the pits in Somerset were exhausted by the late 19th century. A bit like Churchills and Vanderbilts really. If he can be shown to be entitled to either an Irish or an American passport, then I would agree, in this one instance with Iains, that he should be banned from public office. In Australia, people seem to have been decreed to be ineligible for office as they have been found to have nationalities that they were entirely unaware of.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 04:50 PM

I would be very interested in a contribution from Joe who is a Catholic I believe.
Mr RM bases his views on Catholic teaching, I have no religious faith but find myself understanding his views and agreeing for the most part.

Jim's point regarding a pregnancy which put the mother's life at risk is interesting, how would Jacob deal with that quandary?
Would leaving it to God be a cop out? Should it be the mother's decision in that case?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 04:49 PM

Despite all that, Teribus, thing is, he's a twat.


I don't think he should be banned from being Tory leader. I think he's the ideal candidate. The sooner the better! As for the indignant and Islamophobic nonsense of the opening post, the obstinate fact is that he can't be banned. However, he CAN be not selected by the Tories. They are the only people who can "ban" him. And they suck, so let 'em get on with it, say I.

In fact, despite all these claims about his alleged honesty, his antediluvian telly outburst about abortion and gay marriage was a coded message that he doesn't want to be Tory leader in a million years. As a matter of fact, he's always said that he loves being a back-bencher. Not so straightforward after all. Typical devious politico, in fact. 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Iains
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 03:30 PM

I much prefer an honest politician, anachronism though the species may be. Could have done with more of his ilk when dodgy dossiers were being conjured up, and force fed to the unsuspecting electorate as holy writ.
Rather than bringing the desirability of religious affiliations into the equation, where again any proposals having a religious slant would need party support and parliamentary approval to make any headway, I would prefer to ban anyone holding dual nationality from holding any kind of public office.
What nationality would have the over riding loyalty?
Think Brexit and dual anglo-french, anglo-german nationality, or anglo-irish.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 03:13 PM

Seven...
Six...
Five...

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 03:11 PM

I could be arguing in my spare time.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 03:07 PM

I've told you once !

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 02:44 PM

Is this the 10 minute argument or the full half hour?

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 02:27 PM

Anytime Rees-Mogg has appeared on Question Time he acquitted himself far, far better than his fellow panellists. Anytime he spoke to address a point EVERYONE fell silent to listen to what he had to say - Not always the case on that programme:

"Mr Rees–Mogg previously described the victory for the Leave campaign as "a wonderful liberation for the country", adding "no political event in my lifetime has been better or more exciting for the nation".

Following a particularly impassioned speech in the Commons earlier this year, Brexit secretary David Davis declared: "As ever, my right honourable friend speaks for England."

The question of a second referendum was raised and Mr Rees–Mogg calmly declared that democracy must be respected.

On Question Time he added: "This is characteristic of the EU, vote in a way that Brussels does not like and you have to vote again until they have done what they tell you. [Ask the electorate of Ireland that is precisely what has happened to them TWICE now]

"It seems to me that we had a referendum, we voted to leave and that must be implemented or we deny democracy."

As for this:

"Rees Mogg is an anachronism, his beliefs are archaic, outdated and serve no useful purpose in the 21st century, not even to the Tory party."

Well I will grant that he is honest and has integrity which does set him out as being liable to accusations of being "anachronistic" in comparison to our current crop of politicians. But greatly to his credit, he does not squat down in railway carriages and complain about there being no seats when there is documented video coverage of the fact that there were seats available.

As for "beliefs being outdated" - I do not believe that he would waste anytime attempting to restore the reputation of Leon Trotsky a-la Jeremy Corbyn. But I suppose to some on this forum that is real "finger-on-the-pulse" stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Stu
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 02:18 PM

Time for the off button...

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 02:04 PM

The Tories also voted for that war.

"If one accepts the principle of the "right to life" one must oppose abortion."

Please just shut up.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 01:28 PM

Ten...
Nine...
Eight...

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Iains
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 01:27 PM

I do not anticipate this thread lasting too much longer.

Rees Mogg is articulate and certainly not stupid. Any policies he may introduce depend on his party's backing. His personal thoughts and beliefs may or may not sway his party and/or the electorate.
He is apparently a politician able to give honest answers, even if controversial. The usual pack would obviously prefer to hear what they want to hear from a politician. maybe they even believe what they say!
Now what about bliar blair and weapons of mass destruction. Led us into an illegal war.

What is more important: having a personal belief in banning abortion?
                        Taking a country to war and having a
                        responsibility for the ensuing death toll

Squeals on a postcard please!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 12:49 PM

"What do you know about dignity, you are a cheap ranter with nothing to contribute."
Very wel argued ake - I doubt if I could aspite to that level of discussion
"right to life"
The right to life, as advocated by the anti-choicers, doesn't apply to mothers who stand to die if their unborn children's life is at stake, or to the raped pre-teen children who have ben refused terminations when their lives were at risk.
A great deal of thought and discussion ahs taken place to decide time limits of when pregnancy termination is permissible and not and laws have been made on the basis of those discussions - only the medievalist fundamentalists like yourself still oppose them - based largely on the demands of superstition-ridden celibate old men who don't even regard women as important to hold office in their churches
You describe me as "out of date", but, as with homosexuality, you still plouter round in medieval darkness
You really are something else
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 12:44 PM

Yes Nigel but would he be judged as harshly as Mr Rees Mogg on his social views or his adherence to his faith, by our "liberal" colleagues?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 12:37 PM

What do you know about dignity, you are a cheap ranter with nothing to contribute.
Mr RM makes the point avoided by many "liberals", that human life begins at conception. He sees the anomaly in a 24 week old foetus having the "right to life", yet a 23 week old does not.
It has also been brought to my attention that a child at full term can be legally killed if the child is disabled...this may or may not be true perhaps someone on the thread knows?

If one accepts the principle of the "right to life" one must oppose abortion.
Nigel makes some good points, Had Mr RM lied or refused to answer, would he be a better person.....do we actually want politicians who habitually lie.
Mr RMis very well liked in political circles by people of all political persuasions, he has an excellent grasp of parliamentary procedure and uses reasoned argument at all times.....unlike most of the "contributors" here, but I have no doubt he will be hounded by jackals like Morgan and his sidekick from now onward.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 12:19 PM

Ake:
I see nothing that would debar a Muslim from serving in HM Government, unless it was un unwillingness to take the oath of office (which has in the past prevented some Irish MPs from attending)

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 11:56 AM

"have said anything of interest, "
Then again, you are not interested in facts - you certainly refuse to respond to them
Your postings become more and more like unqualified graffiti
"The Muslim faith teaches that homosexuality is a cardinal sin, punishable by death."
So does the Christian faith in many cases - punishable by eternal damnation - far worse for a believer
"But you all love the Muslim faith.....don't you?"
If I thought you would respond with actual evidence, I'd ask you to produce a single shred of proof of this statement - you won't so I will settle for failure to do so as evidence of it being pure invention on your part
Why do you do this Ake - it isn't even dignified, let alone logical
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Stu
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 11:46 AM

Sigh.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 11:31 AM

Well, Only the usual "suspects" Iains, Nigel, and DmcG, have said anything of interest, or even addressed my question.

Nobody has commented on the issue regarding devout Muslims and their suitability for office.
The Muslim faith teaches that homosexuality is a cardinal sin, punishable by death.....Abortion is of course completely proscribed.
But you all love the Muslim faith.....don't you?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 10:35 AM

I've seen worms with more charisma and character than this piece of shit.

Dave H

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Stu
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 10:32 AM

Nasty piece of work parading as an amiable buffoon. Must be some sort of toffs trick as Boris employs the same subterfuge too, and Farage's public persona is a similar construct. Works on a fair wodge of us proles though, more's the pity.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 10:17 AM

Jayz, Bonzo, if even you don't like him he must be bad! 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 10:12 AM

Rees Mogg is an anachronism, his beliefs are archaic, outdated and serve no useful purpose in the 21st century, not even to the Tory party.

Lets hope he gets the leadership, though I can't see it happening myself, the Tories are not that daft .......... are they.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 10:01 AM

In a TV interview he was asked for his personal opinions/beliefs and he stated them.
It may cause him political problems or censure.
He is, of course, entitled to hold opinions, and to express them (unless they amount to an incitement of racial hatred).
He could have either declined to answer (in which case he would have been hounded for an answer) or he could have lied.
Would taking either of those courses have made him a better person?
Lying may have made him more suitable to be a politician, but is that a good thing?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 09:55 AM

He is an arrogant slime, reminds me of a former partner in Binder Hamlin Chartered Accountants - Angus Gilroy!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 09:04 AM

He is jumping on the Trump bandwagon. Pander to the vociferous minorities to get the gutter press on your side (it sells newspapers) and you are on a winner. I can't see it working this time and I can only hope that it does give enough rope to the Tory party.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 08:48 AM

Let history repeat itself. The Tories elected a terrible leader who went and lost them their majority. Go on, Tories, do it again -- please!!

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 08:48 AM

That he is not fit to run a creche, never mind a country - what's yours?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Iains
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 08:13 AM

"They are his personal beliefs, not those of his party."
Ake asked whether he si fir to hold office as Prime Minister - not what his personal views were.
and your point is?

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 07:48 AM

"They are his personal beliefs, not those of his party."
Ake asked whether he si fir to hold office as Prime Minister - not what his personal views were
Anbody advocation such archaic veiws which adversely affect a huge swathe of the British population is not - surely,
The fact that he admits being mad as a bag of frogs doesn't change the fact that he is as mad as a bag of frogs one iota
Corbyn is upfront in his views and has won the leadership on the basis of his beliefs
Let's hope Jarog puts up and brings a few more out of the woodwork - it did wonders when Loose Bruce came out
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 07:28 AM

Blast, I was still editing that and changing Rim to Tim.


As i was saying, the upshot is such views can make a person unsuitable for the role. That is not the same as a formal disqualification.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 07:25 AM

Whatever the issue, holding a different opinion to the majority should not, and does not (in itself) disqualify a person from any position in Parliament. However, that is only half the story, or even less than half.
It matters a great detail whether you then attempt to impose your view on the people bia legislation and the fear of that could disqualify him. Then there is the problem thar MPs need to get elected and topics like this candamage a party (cf Rim Farron)

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Iains
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 07:24 AM

They are his personal beliefs, not those of his party.
I am sure many other politicians have beliefs well away from the mainstream. At Least Rees Mogg has the honesty to be open and upfront about his. With Corbyn it seems a slow drip drip of his beliefs, and maybe that is still only a voter friendly facade we see.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Stu
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 07:06 AM

Oh dear.

Subject: RE: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 06:58 AM

"Mr Rees Mogg is a distinguished parliamentarian and was recently touted as favourite to succeed Mrs May as leader of the Conservative Party."
Lovely cartoon of Jarog in the Times yesterday depeicting him as an unborn foetus in a womb clutching a poster bearing the slogan "anti-gay, anti abortion and saying "Well, that's my leadership plan terminated"
Anybody holding these views and advocates opposition to pregancy termination in the cases of rape and incest should be sent for a cure somewhere, they have no place in public life.
Personally, I would have welcomed him as leader of the Tories - that would send their credibility to the bottom of the deepest ocean where it truely belongs
The man is an utter buffoon, though I'm sure his "nanny" was a very nice
lady
What nest Ake?
Ressurect Mary Whitehouse maybe?
Jim Carroll

Subject: BS: Jacob Rees Mogg.
From: akenaton
Date: 08 Sep 17 - 06:26 AM

Mr Rees Mogg is a distinguished parliamentarian and was recently touted as favourite to succeed Mrs May as leader of the Conservative Party.
On TV this week he was asked what his personal views were on abortion. he stated that he thought abortion was wrong in all circumstances as it involved the taking of an innocent human life, he said that he followed the teaching of the Cathilic Church in his personal views.
When asked about same sex "marriage", he also said that he followed the teaching of the Catholic Church on that issue, stating that Marriage was a sacrament and could only apply to the union of one man and one woman.

Should these views prevent Mr Rees Mogg from succeeding Mrs May, and do similar views held by devout Muslims equally disqualify them from public office?