Dear Jacob Rees Mog...

[MoiraRosesMeltdown]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41172426

.....You may think that abortion is "morally indefensible", and that
"Life is sacrosanct and begins at the point of conception", even in cases or rape or incest.

You can have an opinion on this when you have a uterus, have been raped or have been abused yourself. You can never know why individual women make this heartbreaking decision. You are supposed to represent the public. Keep your insulting, patronising opinions to yourself.

Yours sincerely,
Women of the world

I fundamentally disagree with Rees-Mogg about abortion, same-sex marriage, Brexit and more besides.

But I admire his honesty, integrity and willingness to say what he really believes, instead of the disingenuous crap we hear from most politicians.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

He's a stinking hypocrite. Blatantly so. If that's 'integrity', hey ho.

It makes me laugh that people admire the honesty and integrity of such awful tossers.

Hitler? - Yeah, at least he was open about hating the Jews.

Also, don't assume that just because he is willing to say some things some people find shocking that he is being honest about all his opinions. This may just be what he considers publicly acceptable - there is no reason to believe that he doesn't hold even more extreme beliefs in private.

I, too, defend someone's right to say things I don't like. I also defend my own right to denounce them based on what they say and do, and I defend the rights of others to call JRM a turbocunt if that's what they want to use their free speech to do.

I agree OP. He's saturated in privilege and despite six children, never even had finger coated in baby poo (Nanny wouldn't approve). Life must be a lovely fragrant otherworldy parallel universe of unghastliness. He is a child in a man's clothing. Not inhabiting the real world.

Dear JRM,

Pease fuck off.
It's my body I choose what to do with it.

I admire his honesty, integrity and willingness to say what he really believes, instead of the disingenuous crap we hear from most politicians.

Fool.

Hes a mysongistic tw*t who votes for himself and not for those who voted for him and those who did not.
Hes a typical selfish Tory.

Where the hell has this horrible thread with beastly replies accross the board magically pouffed from overnight?
BOTS???
JRM..cometh the hour cometh the man! UK would be so lucky for this principled man to be prepared to serve his country!

gotthemoon what man?

gotthemoononastick hahahahahahahahaha I needed a laugh this morning thanks

I disagree vehemently with his religious beliefs but at least he has been honest. However, as he said at the time, his personal opinion/beliefs do not affect uk law. It is the law that permits abortion and gay marriage. Tim Farron was asked several times during the election campaign how he felt about these topics and both times said he was for them. He then resigned because he could not carry on living the lie he had created. When you have a job to do, you have to separate personal opinion/beliefs from common sense/the views of the majority/law. If you can do this then you can do your job effectively. There are far too many people in positions of power who think their personal view is more important than the views of those they are employed to represent. In my opinion this man lives a life of wealthy privilege and has views that are different to some of those he represents. He is the antithesis of the modern man and his beliefs are driven by the book he follows where the female is either a virgin, a prostitute or a humble figure standing in the shadow of her husband. If he wants to privately follow a particular way of life, and many agree with this and follow the same beliefs, then fine. Be prepared to accept many will disagree. Living in the uk allows residents to have differing beliefs and cultures. The question to be asked is can he independently make professional decisions based on his personal opinion/way of life about uk law and legislation? If the answer is no, he requires the agreement of parliament then he will never have ultimate power. He will also never be able to truly appreciate the work done by rape crisis centres and abortion support groups or gay rights campaign groups nor will he ever understand how devastating it is to make the decision to abort your child or to constantly fight to be with the one you love on equal terms. Your loss Joseph.

happy to oblige...twirls.

Well said!

@Sactterolight

I've ignored all the ones that just called him an idiot or out of touch. Fairly restrained criticisms. But here are some of the other words used in this thread...
dangerous
reprehensible
ll means disagree with him. By all means, if you're in his constituency, don't vote for him next time around. But this level of intemperate language is at best unhelpful, and at worst adds to the dreary poverty of our public discourse.

I've just kept the 2 words I used in my post - let me explain them to you because I don't consider either 'intemperate language'.

The definition of reprehensible is deserving censure or condemnation and I fully believe he us deserving of condemnation for holding the views he does. I wonder why he is lauded for being so honest and straightforward in his views but I am wrong to express mine. His views on poverty, education, abortion, women's rights and gay marriage are reprehensible to me and if he is entitled to express them I am entitled to see them as reprehensible - deserving of condemnation. I'm not entirely sure what your problem with this word is or why it is intemperate?

Dangerous: I think that someone who becomes popular through a form of nebulous celebrity built on some guest appearances on a comedy show where his views are put forward as gently amusing has the power to allow views such as his own become less shocking, less harmful and as such people become jaded and almost immune to the shock factor (see the rise of Donald Trump for how this happens). I think this idea of him being a character and being honest means his rather self-centred and unpleasant views become insidiously more acceptable to hold and that is dangerous to the morality of our society.

I hope that explains in more detail what I meant and why I really don't think my language was remotely 'intemperate' - there was no lack of control in what I said just use of language as it was intended.

Actually I am a bit irritated that just using certain words is considered intemperate as if I let off a volley of expletives and name calling rather than expressing why I dislike him as a politician. It's bizarre.