Moggmentum is getting stronger

voxpoliticalonline.com/2017/10/08/lets-admit-it-jacob-rees-mogg-has-been-shamed-into-dropping-shares-in-abortion-pills/

Very difficult to be a such a strong supporter of the Catholic faith and at the same time benefit from such a drug.

I really can't square JRM with the concept of shame but I can square him with self serving political ambition

mary so right

And I wonder how you can be such a wonderful Catholic and support every single benefit cut made since he became an MP? He has a stellar voting record based on let the poor be even poorer - that well known Christian principle.

Oh dear, it must be true, voxpox says so

www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/pro-life-tory-mp-jacob-11305073

He is quoted in the Indie article as not having any of his own money in the pill company. Doesn't that mean he doesn't have shares in it?

I get the impression from the Indie article that his job before he was an MP was to tell potential investors about where they can invest their money and that it's against the rules to apply his own personal beliefs to his advice to investors.

I don't find this a difficult concept to understand.

Also, the drugs are (or were) primarily for treatment of stomach ulcers. To drop shares when it is found that the same drug can cause abortion seems a reasonable thing to do. I would do the same if I had money invested in s stomach ulcer drug and discovered it did something else that I objected to.

www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/pro-life-jacob-rees-mogg-595961

Neither do I Baggs, but I don't have a problem with anyone who employs a nanny or is honest and said he hadn't change the nappy on his baby, it really trouble some

I find the concept of somebody who is so anti-abortion as he is owning a company that buys shares in a company that sells pills for abortion.
Sad that you don't, but hey-ho, not surprised.

I know what shares my pension is invested in, and I don't pretend to know anything about share dealing.
It's quite easy to find out.
Somerset Asset Holdings is a family firm, set up by Jacob and other members of his family. It was remiss of him to not find out about where the shares were, after he said what he did about abortion, and even women who were raped being made to have the babies.
He should have realised that investigators would be investigating his company.

Just read your link maryeliza54 so he did know then.
His explanation was a bit convoluted.

He has also said that his company never invests without doing copious research. Did they forget for this company?
He had worked with his two partners since 1999. I am sure they knew his thoughts on abortion.

He went on: “This company does not procure the abortion of babies. It’s not my money in these investments and I profit from the total amount of client money we hold, not the investments we make.”

Weasel words from the Independent link.

It's nothing to do with nappies and nannies and everything to do with his hypocrical stance on abortion, on the poor. And he didn't drop his investments when he found out, he defended them until he realised he was on a hiding to nothing. A person with principles who found out what was happening would have been so shocked they wouldn't have had time to craft such a carefully worded explanation for why it was actually all right.

Weasel words - that's the phrase I was looking for.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/09/07/jacob-rees-mogg/

There's a limerick halfway down this link.

And someone also says his voting record is petty and vindictive.
I agree with that.

I think quite a few people find logic weaselly. I think another name for weaselly logic might be Jesuitical. Don't quote me. I'm dredging back of the brain drawers for that.

I am going to read all the articles again. If I find something to condemn I'll condemn it.

Your virtue is not in question, jd. You tell us about it often enough. But it does not follow from that that others are unvirtuous or stupid.

I just had to look up the word "strident" which the Mirror article used of JRM, saying he is a strident opponent of abortion. Strident is something JRM is definitely not. Small detail, I know, but amusing. And it makes me wonder about the accuracy of some of the rest of the Mirror reporting.

I like JRM, great sense of humour, not aggressive, not a camera grabber, the house has always had members who could be classed rather eccentric.

Who remembers Leo Abse? MP for thirty years , wore very unusual clothes

And the lovely Donald Dewer

If abortion is legal in India, what's the problem? JRM has said more than once that he doesn't seek to impose his beliefs on others. When asked what he believed on the subject of abortion he said he was against it in all circumstances. He didn't say he thought everyone else should be against it.

OK the difference is subtle but it is a difference.

He has also said, on the current stomach ulcer pill subject that he doesn't make investment decisions for the family company and that he hasn't been directly involved since he became an MP. I don't know how long the stomach ulcer/abortion drug has been on the market but it might be relevant.

I really don't get the impression that JRM is a petty or vindictive man. I've only been aware of him for a short time, admittedly, but I get the impression his politics is principled based in his beliefs about what is good for the country (and possibly for humanity in general). Whether I would agree with any or all of those principles is a separate issue but I don't think a person is automatically bad or petty or vindictive just because I disagree with their world outlook. I can accept that they are as principled as I am but that their principles are different. I think some people can't or won't do that. They can't cope without a high degree of conformity.