"All non-title males: Esq." - Rees-Mogg bans these words. Seriously!

[ArvidsDaddy]

And I call for his beheading! Metaphorically speaking of course. For centuries we have fought against such nastiness. Why is this suddenly acceptable again? (BBC news: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-49137619) Also very puzzled & miffed by reading the news that Boris the charlatan was mobbed in the North. Sorry to be controversial - the working class should really get better educated, be empowered, and stop being so easily manipulated, supporting these nasty hoodwinker politicians, and getting our country (&themselves in particular) in such troubles. Happy to hear your views & rebutal. Feeling really fed up.
----
What has been banned?
Very • due to • ongoing • hopefully • unacceptable • equal • too many "I"s • yourself • lot • got • speculate • invest (in schools etc) • no longer fit for purpose • I am pleased to learn • meet with • ascertain • disappointment • I note/understand your concerns

Nonbroken link

I agree Boris is definitely a charlatan. As well as a racist pig. I'm working class & I consider myself educated & empowered.
I'm concerned about Boris' links to Steve Bannon.
The thing that makes him dangerous is that he acts like a buffoon but is actually very intelligent.

JRM is I feel fairly inconsequential (he would appreciate that word) & won't have much influence. Can't believe he's still in his 40s!! Like a weird Victorian vicar.

What's wrong with 'very' and 'speculate'?

I'm so confused - why can't mumsnet handle quotation marks (or is it just my phone)

JRM would be quite a good audiobook narrator I think. He'd have a good voice for Dickens.

Good to see JRM focusing on the prioroties.

What an Olympian level twunt.

Do Mr Mogg's pints contain 20 imperial fluid ounces or 16 fluid ounces?

Some of it is not uncommon preferences in the editorial world. But imperial fucking measurements???!!! It's not going to bring 'em back, Moggy.

I'm no Rees-Mogg fan but I find myself nodding in agreement at some of the words, used within the context he outlines. So many politicians just grab conveniently at words like these to respond to a letter without really having to put any thought into it. These letters are simple formulas, i.e.

'I note your concerns and clearly, X is unacceptable and unfit for purpose blah blah'. The sum of these words are received phrases that add up to pretty meaningless things, especially in the politician's vernacular.

So at least he's aiming to put some original thought into his letters. As an English academic, that's something that I welcome.

I agree with @Catmint - Olympian level twunt.

Very controlling isn't it?

Ha! The man knows how to get a bit of publicity, doesn't he? Social media is reacting just how he wanted - talking about him, name-calling, getting his name out there. All publicity is good publicity.

It's just such a totalitarian thing to do. It is like Newspeak in 1984 where the party controlled what the population thought by narrowing the words and grammatical structures they could use.

@YourVagesty - thanks! But it is not about pedantic linguistics, is it? As @mellicauli said, it is about controlling & belittling others. Even on an liguistic level, I cannot see how banning words could stimulate proper usage, let alone literacy liberty & creativity. Pretty sure this was not how this country produced Shakespeare, or how he produced his midsummer night's dream..

Great. All road signs are soon going to be in Leagues and Chains. You'll have to buy Red Bull in 2 Gill cans. Your child not well? Give them a Fluid Scruple of Calpol.

Twat.

@tierraJ - thx & apologies - didn't mean to stoke up class wars. Being a university academic, I always feel intimately aligned with the working class brotherhood/sisterhood - the hardworking, the sensible, the descent, the dependable, the kindhearted, and ultimately the wise. However, recent experiences - here (really hate to mention the B-word) and across the pond in the big bad US of A - have been disheartening. I feel alienated, betrayed, & definitely underappreciated by our work class allies accross the globe. Feeling somewhat lost as to where and who to align with.

What a cock. That's all.

The Economist and the BBC both have style guides.

This ain't so different

I don't know @Arvids - I fully see everybody's point which is making me reconsider my own position. Maybe I'm ascribing (positive) motivations onto his missive that he didn't intend .

I'm always hopeful that politicians will stop sounding so scripted and that their written communications become less formulaic. So I suppose I saw this as a good move. But maybe he's just being pompous.

Do Mr Mogg's pints contain 20 imperial fluid ounces or 16 fluid ounces?

Twenty, of course. It's only in the 13 colonies they reckon 16 fl ozs = 1 pint.

work class allies
What on earth ever made you believe we were allies?

If he spends his time arguing about the Oxford comma , at least he isn't doing anything else

The BBC and the Economist need to have a "house style" for their published material. I can't imagine you have to use house style when communicating with each other, which is what Rees Mogg proposing. And their style guide is also written in the positive, not the negative.

Regarding Imperial measurements, I don't know where that's coming from. I was taught only metric at school and I am 51 and he's younger than me.

@RodGallowglass "What on earth ever made you believe we were allies?" - Knowing our 20 ounces from our 16 ounces evidently . More seriously, seeking equality, fairness, dignity, & opportunities for all. You don't recognise it? Then we might not have been allies after all...

@ArvidsDaddy Yes, but to quote Orwell, many of those who claim to believe in those things “while theoretically pining for a classless society, cling like glue to their miserable fragments of social prestige"