Mogg

WWM2 thank you for the link to Berkowitz. I had no idea about the term until now, and I'm sure many others are unfamiliar with it.

I think Berkowitz is correct in saying that Rees-Mogg was fully aware of the implications of his use of the word when referring to Letwin and Bercow as 'illuminati' in his derogatory and anti-Semitic trope.

Not a good ambassador for his professed faith.

MaizieD I think the reason "supposedly" is used there is because the artist consistently asserted that he regarded the image as masonic. They are very similar.

I found the last paragraph of that article interesting in that he mentions in passing the only recent high profile 'Illuminati' based controversy, using the word'supposedly'. Jewish historian casting doubts on the validity of that particular controversy?

Also amazed that the MSM didn't pick up on Mogg, being as they are so very sensitive to any hint of anti-Semitism...

There is no other, anodyne usage of this term in current political discourse. That is why, in March 2018, Jeremy Corbyn had been excoriated—by those within and outside of the party–for not objecting to a mural that supposedly employed “Illuminati” imagery. With his nod to “Illuminati” – pointed at Letwin and Bercow – Rees-Mogg is knowingly trafficking in the portrayal of Jews as underhanded and sinister. As Heilbrunn wrote of Pat Robertson, it can be said of Rees-Mogg, in 2019, that while studiously avoiding the word “Jew”, he has exhumed, embellished, and rebroadcast one of the most poisonous antisemitic canards in all of history.

trisher I’m unclear whether people understood its significance tbh.

But be sure that Mogg did. Otherwise why use it?

Whitewavemark2 that remark is shocking. The questions that arise such as why didn't any Jewish MPs object and why wasn't it picked up by the mainstream media are so many. It points to a significant rise of right wing idealism which is really scary.

Grenfell Cladding
I have no idea how the EU approval affected Grenfell, the cladding was only approved for use in low rise buildings and would never have been allowed in new build high rise. Because it was refurbishment the building regulations were different, the risk was known but someone somewhere decided that fire spreading round the outside of the building was not likely. When fire escaped from the original flat (UPVC windows ?) the cladding melted and burnt, spread and entered other flats.
Any fire close to that cladding would have had the same effect

My question is why did building regulations allow that cladding to be used in a refurbishment when the risk was known.

If you look at his voting record in the Commons it says a lot about the man. Any measure that would improve the lives of poorer people he votes against it. QAny measure giving more to the rich he is for it. I think that sums him up. I can't see from his record any articles in respect to Health and Safety ; I suspect based on his record that he would not want greater involvement by H&S in matters to do with houses etc. I suspect he would want to 'cut red tape'. Goodness only knows where we would be then.

Mogg uses an anti-Semitic trope when criticising two Jewish members of Parliament.

ucl-brexit.blog/2019/09/05/jacob-rees-moogs-alarming-cry-of-illuminati/

quizqueen Quote [ On another point- the cladding on the tower block met EU standards to meet their climate change agenda- you know that organisation most of you claim to love-as British builders cannot chose what materials they deem fit to use while we are still members.] End Quote.

Quizqeen, can you please post a link in regards to your above statement that the composite panels fitted to Grenfell Tower met EU standards for such a requirement. Also, can you expand on your statement or post a link in regard to British builders being unable to choose what materials they use while the United Kindom remains a member of the European Union?

There is also the point that should any person or organisation have deemed that the cladding chosen for installation on Grenfell Tower was combustible and therefore not fit for purpose, then the answer should have been to not install that product. Indeed, under The Health & Safety at Work legislation, it is demanded that such risk assessment and action is carried out.

As Jeremy Corbyn stated in his comments in regard to the Jacob Reece Mogg interview comments yesterday, that the way to avoid allegations of crass behaviour for Reece Mogg is to ensure that highly inflammable cladding cannot be installed on the outside of people's homes.

And never have more true words been said.

MOnica I am truly sorry, I was not going to respond again
but I had to defend myself against that allegation . I have done so and that’s it.

My apologies to all .

The cladding did not in fact meet EU standards. It was originally classed as B which there is some discussion about. Some claiming A was the required standard for buildings over 18 meters. It was subsequently re-graded and was therefore totally unsuitable
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43558186
Usually leavers rubbish!

grandad43 so not true, I have the whole thread , I have just copied and pasted your post which I followed with my question .

The last thing I would do is to stay in a burning building, especially one which had multiple floors. That IS common sense in my opinion.

On another point- the cladding on the tower block met EU standards to meet their climate change agenda- you know that organisation most of you claim to love-as British builders cannot chose what materials they deem fit to use while we are still members.

X post M0nica

The attacks on Anniebach by some posters are because of her political beliefs - to which she is entitled as much as anyone surely? I'm sure she has thought long and hard about this and not without some angst in making a decision.

Why is considered by so many on the threads to be acceptable to criticise some politicians (as on this thread Rees-Mogg) and not other politicians, mainly those on the left especially Corbyn? Is he above criticism?

Surely, in the interests of fairness all or none should be up for criticism?

Grandad threatening to report people (not just one poster) to outside bodies for something they have posted on Gransnet sounds quite OTT - surely it is up to GNHQ to decide if a post is appropriate or libellous?

Your posts are informative, posters can read them or not as they wish, likewise if you don't like certain other posts or posters why not ignore them?
Surely we're entitled to post what we like within guidelines?

Annie please, you have many supporters on this thread, but I do think, asNatasha says, we should give this personal disagreement a rest and return to the broad subject of this thread

This thread is all about Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Gaulieter of the Conservative party. Unfortunately over the last few days he has been playing. Can we hope that this silence will be prolonged?

Interesting isn't it that a thread about the absolutely disgusting remarks made by a Tory minister in the last government who has previously been see lying down on a bench in Parliament has been totally abandoned and become a Labour criticism thread. Let's realise that there are people who really don't want anyone criticising people like JRM. Butreally if that person was the gentleman he pretends he would have resigned. Even the Victorians. had morals and standards.

Iam64, I will keep this just to what occurred in the thread I sighted in regard to anniebach.

I had in a post stated that I had retained my Unite Union membership in appreciation of what that organisation had done for my basic education during the years 1970-1980 anniebach responded with the remark I sighted of hers in my post @20:41 today.

So, I will leave it to others to judge if that was a kind, caring and non-inciting remark.

So once again I will take my leave of the thread, for now.

I asked a question ‘ so all union members during the Blair government years were Male, single and childless ? ‘

This question was asked during a discussion of what was accomplished during the Blair years, ‘Sure Start, etc, as children and usually mothers benefitted .

Grandad43 posted

However, that does not excuse the affiliation fees taken from often poorly paid trade union members throughout the Blair government years and doing absolutely nothing for those members in return.

We are told what a lovely place the Labour Party was for its members during those years and "how nice everybody was to one another".

Well, it was all paid for by those trade union members and now times have changed, and we now have a Labour party that is putting those peoples interests as first priority.

Tough for those who just want to take their money.

end of his post

If the Blair government did nothing I asked that question

‘So all union members in the Blair government years were
Male, single and childless ? ‘

Give it a rest gfp, please do.

We all have out tragedies, personal or otherwise. Many here will have witnessed or been caught up in terrible things.

Nobody really knows do they?

Personally I don’t like extremes MaizieD - or the people who attack folks they perceive to be more left or right than themselves.

Everyone has a 'perspective'. Pantglas, you just described two of them.

If you mean that everyone should be middle of the road why should that be at all desirable?

Lemon, I second what you posted at 20.50.

Could we all just stop this bullying of Annie, yes you read that correctly, some (by no means all) are bullying Annie. Can we just drop it?