Jacob Reed-Mogg admits that voter ID was an attempt at gerrymandering by the tories!

Some days I'm so glad I'm just a simple scientist without a lawyer's need to apply the ability for doublethink to every interaction on GN every day, just because they can.

Dear God. Thank your lucky stars you didn’t try to make a career as a lawyer.

Fleurpepper

fb.watch/ky9BpOA9s_/

clear as a bell (cracked!)

Yup.

I've been speaking English for 70+ years now and I don't find it in the slightest bit difficult. Absolutely clear.

That was addressed to fleurpepper.

Germanshepherdsmum

Dear God. Thank your lucky stars you didn’t try to make a career as a lawyer.

Thank God indeed.

Germanshepherdsmum

Dear God. Thank your lucky stars you didn’t try to make a career as a lawyer.

Volver's lack of legal training, is, like mine, and several other member's, property law's loss. We all have our abilities, skills, professional expertise, prejudices and opinions, and nobody's is worth less than anyone else's, despite what some may think.

I am no fan of JRM, I think he is a spineless man educated beyond his natural intelligence. I say this as a citizen, not as an educational psychologist or a teacher.

Prejudices - absolutely the right word. Which, despite my dislike of JRM, I put aside in considering the words he was reported to have said. As I was trained to do.

This is from the Independent. It mirrors his speech to the National Conservatism conference (as per the above link at 18.56)

"The Conservative government’s introduction of voter ID was an attempt at “gerrymandering” that backfired against the party, senior Tory Jacob Rees-Mogg has said.

The former cabinet minister said the policy – which saw voters required to have photo ID when voting at England’s local elections – had made it harder for elderly Tories to vote and “upset a system that worked perfectly well”.

Speaking at the National Conservatism conference on Monday, Mr Rees-Mogg said: “Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them – as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections.”

“We found the people who didn’t have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well,” he added."

Seems perfectly clear to me but then I'm not a lawyer.

Germanshepherdsmum

Prejudices - absolutely the right word. Which, despite my dislike of JRM, I put aside in considering the words he was reported to have said. As I was trained to do.

Did you watch and listen

fb.watch/ky9BpOA9s_/

Nope, you don't need to be a lawyer, at all.

There are literally hundreds of reports in the press and on the TV and radio, apart from the Mail and the Express it is everywhere. Whatever GSM thinks personally will make no difference at all to what the public will understand from his speech. As I said earlier he has scored a massive own goal.

No no Dinahmo.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty.

He didn't mean that at all, despite the fact that he said it.

I've just been wondering. Do lawyers try to distract from the real important issue by concentrating on a minor, side issue, and driving people down the path of that discussion? Or am I just the suspicious type?

Yes Volver you're right but not suspicious.

Dinahmo

This is from the Independent. It mirrors his speech to the National Conservatism conference (as per the above link at 18.56)

"The Conservative government’s introduction of voter ID was an attempt at “gerrymandering” that backfired against the party, senior Tory Jacob Rees-Mogg has said.

The former cabinet minister said the policy – which saw voters required to have photo ID when voting at England’s local elections – had made it harder for elderly Tories to vote and “upset a system that worked perfectly well”.

Speaking at the National Conservatism conference on Monday, Mr Rees-Mogg said: “Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them – as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections.”

“We found the people who didn’t have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well,” he added."

Seems perfectly clear to me but then I'm not a lawyer.

Indeed you’re not. You know that I respect your profession - why trash mine?

volver3

No no Dinahmo.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty.

He didn't mean that at all, despite the fact that he said it.

I've just been wondering. Do lawyers try to distract from the real important issue by concentrating on a minor, side issue, and driving people down the path of that discussion? Or am I just the suspicious type?

You are just the suspicious type.

Casdon

There are literally hundreds of reports in the press and on the TV and radio, apart from the Mail and the Express it is everywhere. Whatever GSM thinks personally will make no difference at all to what the public will understand from his speech. As I said earlier he has scored a massive own goal.

That’s the trouble - the public read a tabloid headline and insist it’s true. Plenty of evidence of that here from people I would have thought more able to think for themselves.

NO, I have read and then listened to what he ACTUALLY said- did you?

Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them – as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections.”

Note the absence of punctuation. Lawyers don't like punctuation, it leaves text less open to punctuation.
(In the course of some research I've been doing recently I've read a number of legal documents)

I would read the crucial part of this sentence as " ..finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them - as, dare I say, we found by insisting on insisting on voter ID..." Which for me makes it clear that he is equating the insistence on voter ID to one of those 'clever schemes'

But, in the absence of punctuation... well, read it how you like...

Germanshepherdsmum

Casdon

There are literally hundreds of reports in the press and on the TV and radio, apart from the Mail and the Express it is everywhere. Whatever GSM thinks personally will make no difference at all to what the public will understand from his speech. As I said earlier he has scored a massive own goal.

That’s the trouble - the public read a tabloid headline and insist it’s true. Plenty of evidence of that here from people I would have thought more able to think for themselves.

It’s not in the tabloids, it’s the more respectable news outlets that are all over it. From what I’ve seen so far, nobody anywhere has taken the stance you have, maybe that’s to come.

Germanshepherdsmum

volver3

No no Dinahmo.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty.

He didn't mean that at all, despite the fact that he said it.

I've just been wondering. Do lawyers try to distract from the real important issue by concentrating on a minor, side issue, and driving people down the path of that discussion? Or am I just the suspicious type?

You are just the suspicious type.

'Tis true.

Comes of being a scientist.

Nullius in verba

(Oh no, there's me boasting about my background again. I forgot. We're not doing that tonight.)

A good Judge would see right through the attempt by a defence lawyer misusing so-called 'bias' to distort clear evidence.

Fleurpepper

NO, I have read and then listened to what he ACTUALLY said- did you?

You really haven’t
Look at the online BBC news about this.Others here are also leaving out what he said, and it’s being reported that same way in some outlets.
Preceding the ‘parties that try and gerrymander’ was him accusing the Labour party of doing that exact thing, then came the sentence ‘parties that try and gerrymander end up finding ‘etc.
Casdon is right that the exact words won’t find their way into most people’s noddles tho.

Often in life we prefer what we want to see.Since I have no truck with JRM I have no bias about him, other than thinking he is weird.

Germanshepherdsmum

Casdon

There are literally hundreds of reports in the press and on the TV and radio, apart from the Mail and the Express it is everywhere. Whatever GSM thinks personally will make no difference at all to what the public will understand from his speech. As I said earlier he has scored a massive own goal.

That’s the trouble - the public read a tabloid headline and insist it’s true. Plenty of evidence of that here from people I would have thought more able to think for themselves.

This.

Oreo

Fleurpepper

NO, I have read and then listened to what he ACTUALLY said- did you?

You really haven’t
Look at the online BBC news about this.Others here are also leaving out what he said, and it’s being reported that same way in some outlets.
Preceding the ‘parties that try and gerrymander’ was him accusing the Labour party of doing that exact thing, then came the sentence ‘parties that try and gerrymander end up finding ‘etc.
Casdon is right that the exact words won’t find their way into most people’s noddles tho.

Oh yes I have- pantomime indeed.

And many others did too and came to same conclusion.

Keep your condescending and frankly, ridiculous. noodles to yourself.

Noodles? 😄
Noddle is used in England to mean your head.