Jacob Rees Mogg

so its OK for JRM to have a big family but those pesky benefit scroungers should stick to one?

That does seem to be the argument, batty, doesn't it?

It's a bit of a daft argument though because, on average, the birth rate is bordering on non-replacement numbers in developed countries.

It's also falling in developing countries.

There'll be no-one to pay tax for pensions if they don't keep reproducing.

In that case, JRM should have many more children.

Seventhus and Octavia.

Perhaps Septimus may sound better!

Octavia is lovely
(nearly as nice as Jalima )

I believe JRM's wife stated she wouldn't have an Octopus

That’s good to hear Jennifer they can be dangerous.

Jennifer, Michelle Ballantyne by her own admission had six children and claimed child benefit and child tax credits for them all whilst earning less than £25,000 per year.

That would be someone having children they can’t afford and claiming benefits as a result.

That’s why jaws dropped at her outburst about this.

Michelel Ballatyne is a typical Tory hypocrite.

Michelel Ballatyne is a typical Tory hypocrite.
As opposed to a typical Labour hypocrite.

I presume there are no Lib Dem hypocrites

Tory hypocrites, like JRM opening an office in Dublin to take advantage of continuing EU membership, John Redmond, advising clients to invest their money out of the UK, and so many others, are in a .league of their own.

varian, when JRM was accused on a radio show of opening an office in Dublin, he said his comapny had not opened an office in Dublin, that the only offices the company has are in London and Singapore. He explained—and why would he lie when any lie could be easily shown up?—that an investment fund had been started in Dublin and that the company has funds all over the world. This seems to me a material difference.

It has been explained in quite a few places that he is not involved in the setting up of funds and whatever else his company does while he is an MP because that would constitute a clash of interests.

I find this easy to understand even though I know nothing about investment funds and such like so I am puzzled that others apparently don't. Could it be that people simply don't care what is actually true and what isn't because they just want to stick flak to him because he's a Tory? It certainly looks like that.

I have no problem with people who disagree with JRM's political views saying why they disagree but quoting annd repeating what would appear to be untruths about his personal and on-hold business life is not criticising Tory policies or beliefs.

Looks like that to me too.
Either that, or he is wealthy, or has six children, or now and again wears a top hat.

Quite why a poster gets so worked up by JRM I can’t think.

Still, he may be pleased to know he is very much ‘in the news’ on GN.

Prominent Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg has defended the move by a City firm that he helped to found to establish an investment fund in Ireland ahead of the UK leaving the European Union.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-jacob-rees-mogg-scm-ireland-city-move-eu-withdrawal-dublin-a8398041.html

That article says what I said (which is what I heard JRM say on the radio programme I referred to): that an investment fund has been moved to Ireland. This is still not an office.

The article says the firm is based in the UK. Dublin is not part of the UK.

The article also says (as I told you) that JRM "does not make investment decisions".

The article agrees with what I was saying in my previous post, varian. So does your posting that link mean you now understand what appears to me to be the truth of the matter, or is it still all JRM's personal fault?

I really don't see how you could come up with a different interpretation of the facts from mine.

By the way, I did not get my information from the Independent but from other sources. Which again rather confirms that your view is mistaken.

If Jacob Rees Mogg is ( as he states) so confident of Britains success following Brexit, why does he not sever all his ties with the investment fund?

After all, that fund is recommending to its investors that they transfer their investments to Irish the fund as that will "offer greater ongoing stability" than British investments following Brexit.

Surely, the above runs against all JRM has stated in the UK having a most prosperous and stable future as a nation, with countless countries just waiting to sign trade agreements with the UK.

Perhaps he does not sever the ties with the investment fund because he may still be accumulating commission from those investors profits.

Those trade deals along with the European Union leave agreement seem to be very far off at this point in time. The above EU talks were the negotiations that David Davis stated would be the "easiest ever concluded" on the day article fifty was signed.

No sign of any of that agreement transpiring after more than two years of negotiations because Britain is asking for conditions that the EU negotiators simply cannot give under the terms of the European Union treaties.

However, we should all have expected nothing else but the above on realising what a gang of self-serving Bozos there are at the front of the leave campaign, with JRM being one of those in my view.

If Jacob Rees Mogg is (as he states) so confident of Britains success following Brexit, why does he not sever all his ties with the investment fund?

Forgive me if I've got this wrong, grandad, but are you not confusing the term "investment fund" with the firm, Somerset Capital Management, which JRM helped set up a number of years before Brexit ever hit the news, that makes and looks after (if that's the right expression) a large number of investment funds all over the world?

I don't think JRM has money of his own invested in all the funds the company runs but, even supposing for the sake of argument that he does, he was not personally party to the decision to move the fund in question to Dublin.

As I understand the situation, JRM is a joint owner of Somerset Capital Management, but his holding in the company is managed on his behalf by a body while he remains an MP.

The above negates "conflict of interest" situations developing in certain debates but does not preclude JRM maintaining his holding in the company. As long as JRM places those holdings in the register of members interests, then all is "correct" in parliamentary status.

However, the above does not preclude JRM from receiving commission payments from the company based on the investors profits. Those would include investment revenue moved out of Britain to Ireland on the companies advice.

That sounds good to me, grandad.

It sounds as though one fund (maybe two) out of a total of "all over the world" has been moved to Ireland for reasons beyond my ken. It may have something to do with Brexit. I don't think one can automatically assume that that means JRM doesn't really think Brexit will be good for the UK, which I think is what you and varian have been hinting at.

I understand that you and varian don't think Brexit will be good for the UK but that doesn't prove that anyone else thinks that. Are you saying that you think JRM supports Brexit because even though it will be a disaster for the UK he will benefit financially?

Baggs, I will in answer to your above post repeat my statement of earlier in this thread. That was, "If Jacob Rees Mogg is ( as he states) so confident of Britains success following Brexit, why does he not sever all his ties with the investment fund?

The asset management company in advising it's clients that the Irish fund would be preferable to UK investment due to Greater stability of the of EU member country investment following Brexit surely must run against everything that JRM holds as his beliefs in Britain leaving the EU (or so he states).

So, to dispose of his ties with the company would seem to many I am sure the logical way to proceed. However, JRM appears to be a long way from taking that course of action, and in that one has to wonder just where his true principles are to be found?