Rees-Mogg

joey13 · Post by **joey13** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:41 pm

Grumps wrote:Telling everyone what his views were

Like Hitler then

TractorFace · Post by **TractorFace** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:55 pm

Got to love Rees-Mogg. He may care much about the unborn foetus, but he doesn't give a shite when voting for cuts that hit some of the most vulnerable children in our society.

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:12 pm

The tactic of the oversensitive libtards is to point the finger and say he said it so they can hand out labels. E.g. Anti immigration = racist right wing = nazi etc. I see Lancaster has already brought up Panzers and invasions and yet again The Daily Mail gets a mention. You're obsessed man. If there was a thread about JBG having a good game you would sneak an anti Daily Mail comment in there.

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:15 pm

And you're not obsessed about "libtards" and so on, blackrod ?

IanMcL · Post by **IanMcL** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 3:09 pm

quoonbeatz wrote:he's a backward, posh bigot who is well out of touch with reality.

rees-mogg, that is, not blackrod.

I met the previous Black Rod at at a surprise event put on for a pal of mine. My pal was in the Army Flying Helicopters. Was posted to the jungle and was sent on a mission to fly some important folk somewhere. the copter engine conked out over the jungle and everyone thought they were gonners. My pal Tony decided that the only way they had a chance, was to stand the copter on its tail, right at the last and hope that it would penetrate the trees and that the landing would be softened enough for all to have a chance. It worked and although there were injuries (inc Black Rod's back), all survived. Tony then took charge on the ground and told the high ranking officers what to do, to stay alive. Black Rod told the story as he saw it and said that Tony even visited him in hospital, to make sure he was ok. That's why he was returning the complement.

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:30 pm

Rees-Mogg may be an 'upper class twit' with outdated views, which I totally disagree with by the way, in relation to gay marriage and terminations.

However, he has been honest and told the truth and also stated that he stands by the law of the land.

The day he, or anyone else, isn't entitled to his view will be a sad day indeed.

Braindead · Post by **Braindead** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 4:39 pm

HatfieldClaret wrote:Rees-Mogg may be an 'upper class twit' with outdated views, which I totally disagree with by the way, in relation to gay marriage and terminations.

However, he has been honest and told the truth and also stated that he stands by the law of the land.

The day he, or anyone else, isn't entitled to his view will be a sad day indeed.

That's the key to all this.

When MP's are grilled by the like of Paxman etc and are predictably evasive, refusing to answer the questions or dancing around them then they are roundly and correctly criticised.

We may or may not agree with what was said, but to see such honesty from a serving MP is refreshing to say the least.

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 5:06 pm

Honesty refreshing, his views not though.....

But then if people were locked up for their views, half the posters on this board would be inside.

Which half would just depend on who was in power !

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 5:15 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:I find it amusing that the UK wouldn't elect anybody as PM who believed in God strongly and still possesses these views (I'm sure JRM has no chance of getting in as PM) but still collectively has a panic attack at the thought of challenging even more radical beliefs in other religions. The US is probably still the other way - they won't elect anyone who doesn't have a strong belief in God (although the abortion element is a big dividing line still).

For my part I went to a CoE school and had RE drummed into me every week, whereas now I think it's one big fairy story created to give leaders on the Silk Road something else to gather in followers with when rival nations were dominating them in a trading or military sense. Despite that I respect JRM for his views, I simply don't agree with them, and I wouldn't begin to entertain using this issue as a thing not to elect him with because it's irrelevant (he wouldn't attempt to change the law on abortion and his religion probably gives him a moral compass that would serve him well).

Wrong.

https://indy100.com/article/jacob-rees- ... rd-7932801" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This stuff is quite easy to look up on the internet, you know.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 5:18 pm

dsr wrote:You don't need to be religious to be anti-abortion.

Basically, if you're in favour of abortion, it's for one of two reasons:

1. The aborted foetus wasn't human;
2. The aborted foetus was human, but its life wasn't worth much.

If you believe that what's inside the mother is a human being with a life worth preserving, then you're anti-abortion.

And anti-science.

And only sociopathic pro-choice people (not in favour of abortion, as you put it, but in favour of a woman's right to choose), would justify their position using the second reason you have suggested.

TractorFace · Post by **TractorFace** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 5:26 pm

The day he, or anyone else, isn't entitled to his view will be a sad day indeed.

Quite. I'm all in favour of freedom of expression. After all, it's a good way of filtering out the idiots from the rest of the pack, especially on here.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 5:40 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Hang on a sec Chobulous

It was a determined media campaign to ignore the fact that whatever views Tim Farron has, he voted with his parties position on all of them.

Rees-Mogg actually votes against these things and is being backed for being principled by exactly the same media.

Since when did honesty become important to the Daily Mail and Telegraph?

Also wrong.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck ... gbt-rights" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

diamondpocket · Post by **diamondpocket** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 5:51 pm

For the record I'm not "bothered" by Rees-Mogg's views and I very much doubt I'd be "bothered" by Sadiq Khan's views and I happen to think that their private views would be very, very similar. Rees-Mogg has made his personal views public, I am not aware of Sadiq Khan doing the same, as is his prerogative.

Sadiq today clearly expressed his opinions Live on LBC questioning this morning and they don't concur with Postman Pat's thankfully.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 5:52 pm

Rees - Mogg should of kept his mouth shut. he's entitled to his personal view, but given that his life experience is so far removed from that of 99% of the population you'd think he would have more sense. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the gentleman, he was widely ridiculed for taking his NANNY campaigning with him, which he couldn't understand explaining, "If I'd taken my BUTLER no one would have thought twice about it"

He's not exactly socially aware.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 5:59 pm

The grimmest dictatorship is the dictatorship of the prevailing orthodoxy. ...

Fair play to Rees Mogg for bring honest, frank and not mythering about fitting in to what he's expected to say.

It's quite refreshing for a politician.

The same could be said about. Corbyn, Galloway and Farage.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 6:00 pm

I usually don't like overtly-Religious people in high office, but for the sheer amount of pure rage he is causing the snowflake scene, I would vote fro him as PM.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 6:42 pm

ClaretMoffitt wrote:I usually don't like overtly-Religious people in high office, but for the sheer amount of pure rage he is causing the snowflake scene, I would vote fro him as PM.

I agree, if it was Mogg versus Corbyn I would be torn between voting for Mogg due to the rage he would cause the snowflake generation, and voting for Corbyn so that the snowflakes get some life experience of his economic policies. It would genuinely be a tough call.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 6:45 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:I agree, if it was Mogg versus Corbyn I would be torn between voting for Mogg due to the rage he would cause the snowflake generation, and voting for Corbyn so that the snowflakes get some life experience of his economic policies. It would genuinely be a tough call.

It would really depend on whether you fancied someone who would take us back to the 1970s or the 1870s.

Ightenclaret · Post by **Ightenclaret** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 6:45 pm

If you're working class from Burnley, be assured Rees moggy is your enemy.

That's all we need to know.

Never trust cats.

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 6:46 pm

Snowflake
Libtard
Remoaner

When did this board become so tedious? It's seems like a thread isn't posted without turning into a 'left v right' slanging match.

Do you ever wonder if you'd be better posting on another forum? I bet there's more intelligent insults on a primary school playground. Not that you'd be able to get access to a primary school playground any more with all of this PC nonsense.

cblantfanclub · Post by **cblantfanclub** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 6:47 pm

Dreadful man

AlargeClaret · Post by **AlargeClaret** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 6:47 pm

Surely JRM is simply using his current flavour of the month status to air his (rather antiquated) views.and scupper any leader talk while keeping his profile high?

It's utterly preposterous that he could be PM,though when the tories enter the inevitable "doldrum yrs" shortly he's the sort of hardline comedy old school Tory who may try to lead his party aka Howard and IDS and be popular with blue rinse haradians who also live in 1953.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:24 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:I agree, if it was Mogg versus Corbyn I would be torn between voting for Mogg due to the rage he would cause the snowflake generation, and voting for Corbyn so that the snowflakes get some life experience of his economic policies. It would genuinely be a tough call.

Its brilliant.

Ive watched it develop from the beginning with him. Its gone from literally none of them even knowing who he was (before a few meme pages upped his profile) to them foaming at the mouth about how he is literally worse than Hitler in the space of about 3 months. The millennial left are nothing if not hysterical.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 7:43 pm

CrosspoolClarets wrote:I agree, if it was Mogg versus Corbyn I would be torn between voting for Mogg due to the rage he would cause the snowflake generation, and voting for Corbyn so that the snowflakes get some life experience of his economic policies. It would genuinely be a tough call.

You and CM may be being flippant (it's hard to tell), but it worries me that I see more and more of this idea of voting a particular way, demonstrating or whatever with the aim not of improving your own lot in life, but just to upset or enrage "the other side", be that "libtard snowflakes" or "actual nazis".

Am I being naïf or nostalgic to suggest that this is a very recent trend? Perhaps the fault of social media bubbles?

Full disclosure - part of me hopes that the people that shouted loudest in favour of Brexit bear the brunt of the (imo inevitable) negative effects of it, but I'm really not proud of this.

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:13 pm

Ightenclaret wrote:If you're going to post a link to a basic source of information via Google Rowls, it would help if you read beyond the first sentence. The article you link to states that there is no definitive ruling in Islam as differing schools of Islamic jurisprudence disagree on the issue.

Absolutely not the same in the Catholic Church.

Please feel free to edit your post accordingly.

What a strange thing to say. When it's suggested that terrorism might have something to do with Islam, it is repeated, often and loudly, that this is not the case. There is no equivocation, no pointing out that Islam, unlike Catholicism, say, is basically a free-for-all with no hierarchy to set out definitive interpretation.
I'm confused. Maybe that's the intention.

Uwe Noble · Post by **Uwe Noble** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:44 pm

JRM just got my vote.

Uwe Noble · Post by **Uwe Noble** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:52 pm

LoveCurryPies wrote:Rees-Mogg is clearly living in the past.

Most of us were brought up with the traditional idea marriage was a man and woman, however times have changed. Homosexuality used to be hidden away and something most of us knew little about.

We can all see just how many people are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. Hiding away, their lives must have been miserable. We've

Rees-Mogg is free to live whatever life he choses. That choice is available to everyone of us and not for others to moralise.

Quite a bit of 'moralising' going on in your post, don't you think?

Uwe Noble · Post by **Uwe Noble** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 9:54 pm

ClaretEngineer wrote:I saw this yesterday and wondered what planet some people are on.

Childbirth and parenting should be embarked upon with joy, happiness and love.

Imagine harbouring all your life the knowledge that your child was the result of a horrific act committed against your will.

Someone I know decided to keep her child after being raped. Think she thought why should the child be punished for the sins of the father. Last time I saw them together they looked really happy. Just saying.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:09 pm

Greenmile wrote:You and CM may be being flippant (it's hard to tell), but it worries me that I see more and more of this idea of voting a particular way, demonstrating or whatever with the aim not of improving your own lot in life, but just to upset or enrage "the other side", be that "libtard snowflakes" or "actual nazis".

Am I being naïf or nostalgic to suggest that this is a very recent trend? Perhaps the fault of social media bubbles?

Full disclosure - part of me hopes that the people that shouted loudest in favour of Brexit bear the brunt of the (imo inevitable) negative effects of it, but I'm really not proud of this.

Yes, you're right, just a bit of friendly jesting. In this era of political correctness it feels everyone is too sensitive and lacks backbone, which I think is why the media have started to use the snowflake label as a sweeping statement for the millenials.

In truth I would never vote for Corbyn but from my background in economics and finance I see the younger generation who (mainly) vote for him about to indulge in self harm that makes the consequences of Brexit (whatever they are) look like small fry. Part of me hopes they get what they vote for, a bit like you with Brexit. Mind you, the Bank of England's policies that have fuelled inequality would run Corbyn a close second.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:29 pm

Blackrod wrote:Whilst I respect his personally held religious views and agree that 'marriage' is actually a religious term that has been hijacked I cannot accept his views on abortion. If someone has been raped they should be entitled to abhort within certain timescales. For a woman it could create distastrous long term psychological damage and would not be fair to her or the baby.

Cue the usual procession of libtards and atheists .....

In what way has "marriage" been hijacked?

Blackrod · Post by **Blackrod** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:44 pm

It took a while to get that one dissected. Here we go again. It really is like bait. I ll play along even though you called me an ' f***ing idiot on another thread 'It's a religious term for a union between a man and a woman. I'm all for Civil Parnerships and it's quite right that partners in same sex relationships are protected in terms certain rights such as pension payments etc

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:03 pm

Greenmile wrote:And only sociopathic pro-choice people (not in favour of abortion, as you put it, but in favour of a woman's right to choose), would justify their position using the second reason you have suggested.

If you're in favour of a woman's right to choose, then obviously you're in favour of abortion. I don't get your point there.

Whether pro-choice people are sociopathic or not, the two scenarios must by definition cover the reasons for choosing abortion. Either the foetus is not human, or else it is human but we are allowed to kill it.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:23 pm

Blackrod wrote:It took a while to get that one dissected. Here we go again. It really is like bait. I ll play along even though you called me an ' f***ing idiot on another thread 'It's a religious term for a union between a man and a woman. I'm all for Civil Parnerships and it's quite right that partners in same sex relationships are protected in terms certain rights such as pension payments etc

Is it? Marriage existed way before the church got involved. I didn't think the etymology of the word had a religious root.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:27 am

Blackrod wrote:It took a while to get that one dissected. Here we go again. It really is like bait. I ll play along even though you called me an ' f***ing idiot on another thread 'It's a religious term for a union between a man and a woman. I'm all for Civil Parnerships and it's quite right that partners in same sex relationships are protected in terms certain rights such as pension payments etc

I trust you have always been opposed to marriages between a man and a woman who are not religious? Or is it just recently you've decided that marriage as a religious tradition is too sacred to be ruined by non-believers?And why aren't you complaining about the rights of atheists to get married? I mean, if you're not a bigoted homophobe and really are just concerned with the sancrity of the original religious meaning of marriage then surely two atheists getting wed equally offends you. Yet I bet you've not once ever opposed it.

It's kind of wierd that your only concern is with the proper use of words as define by their original meanings when you used the word "bait" in your post yet i can't see any fish. Or is it only when "the gays" want to use a word that you suddenly become deeply concerned about original definitions?

Would you like to know what the "original" definition of marriage is according to the Bible? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Is this the definition of "marriage" you want to live by just to stop a couple of guys who love each other having the the right to say they're married?

And finally, and this question never gets an answer but it should keep being asked - in what way has your marriage been damaged by gay marriage?

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Sep 08, 2017 6:58 am

dsr wrote:If you're in favour of a woman's right to choose, then obviously you're in favour of abortion. I don't get your point there.

Whether pro-choice people are sociopathic or not, the two scenarios must by definition cover the reasons for choosing abortion. Either the foetus is not human, or else it is human but we are allowed to kill it.

If there are two options and you are in favour of someone's right to choose between those two options without having one of them forced on her, that doesn't mean you are in favour of either option. That seems quite obvious to me.

I see you chose not to quote or address my point about religious people who choose to see a clump of cells as human being anti-science.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:01 am

CrosspoolClarets wrote:Yes, you're right, just a bit of friendly jesting. In this era of political correctness it feels everyone is too sensitive and lacks backbone, which I think is why the media have started to use the snowflake label as a sweeping statement for the millenials.

In truth I would never vote for Corbyn but from my background in economics and finance I see the younger generation who (mainly) vote for him about to indulge in self harm that makes the consequences of Brexit (whatever they are) look like small fry. Part of me hopes they get what they vote for, a bit like you with Brexit. Mind you, the Bank of England's policies that have fuelled inequality would run Corbyn a close second.

Tory policies, surely?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Fri Sep 08, 2017 7:56 am

Greenmile wrote:If there are two options and you are in favour of someone's right to choose between those two options without having one of them forced on her, that doesn't mean you are in favour of either option. That seems quite obvious to me.

I see you chose not to quote or address my point about religious people who choose to see a clump of cells as human being anti-science.

If you agree with a woman's right to choose, then you agree with the consequences of the right to choose. You can't agree with a woman's right to choose to abort her baby, while being opposed to the abortion of the baby. It's nonsense.

I didn't know you meant that unborn babies aren't human. I thought is was undisputed that these cells, as you put them, were human and were alive (ie. a being) from the moment of conception.

At what point does science say that the foetus becomes a human being?

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Sep 08, 2017 8:30 am

Think James O'Brien has nailed this on twitter

"Remarkable how many people concerned about the rights of 'unborn children' couldn't give a **** about actual children drowning in the Med."

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Fri Sep 08, 2017 8:39 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Think James O'Brien has nailed this on twitter

"Remarkable how many people concerned about the rights of 'unborn children' couldn't give a **** about actual children drowning in the Med."

It's equally remarkable how the same people who claim to care about those children turn a blind eye to others being systematically raped in this country simply because the perpetrators upset their world view and political narratives; but hey, that's the world we live in.

CrosspoolClarets · Post by **CrosspoolClarets** » Fri Sep 08, 2017 8:57 am

Greenmile wrote:Tory policies, surely?

No, couldnt be further from the truth.

Central bankers around the world have indulged in these policies (quantitative easing and low interest rates), and the countries they inhabit have a range of governments, from the US under Obama, to the European Central Bank, Bank of Japan, Canada etc.

It has made house prices unaffordable, made share prices surge, made bank account interest worthless and in general has massively widened inequality and given the young no hope of affording a home.

Austerity can be blamed on the Tories (to the limited extent they truly did it) but for most of us thats a drop in the ocean compared to the damage central bankers have done. Just wait for the unwinding to start, do we really trust them to do it gently enough so that houses and invstments don't now collapse? I don't.

A bit off topic but since this thread is underpinned by an anti Tory vibe it's important to explain the above.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Fri Sep 08, 2017 9:06 am

Good argument Ringo-lite

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:10 pm

dsr wrote:If you agree with a woman's right to choose, then you agree with the consequences of the right to choose. You can't agree with a woman's right to choose to abort her baby, while being opposed to the abortion of the baby. It's nonsense.

I didn't know you meant that unborn babies aren't human. I thought is was undisputed that these cells, as you put them, were human and were alive (ie. a being) from the moment of conception.

At what point does science say that the foetus becomes a human being?

Not being opposed to something doesn't make you in favour of it. These things are not as binary as you're making out. You're making it sound like pro-choicers are forcing unwanted abortions on people.

And if you think it's undisputed that human life begins at conception, you've been reading the wrong books. General scientific consensus (and I accept I may have painted this as more "settled" science than it is, perhaps) is somewhere between 14 and 21 weeks.

If you were right on this latter point, how would you define "conception" anyway? When the sperm breaches the wall of the ovum? When it fertilises the egg? When the DNA merge? When the embryo is formed? You see, it's not as simple as you may think.

aggi · Post by **aggi** » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:16 pm

I do wonder why he chooses to follow certain sections of the bible but ignores others such as:

Luke 12:33 - Sell your possessions and give to the poor.
Luke 18:22 - When Jesus heard this, He said to him, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:24 pm

dsr wrote:If you agree with a woman's right to choose, then you agree with the consequences of the right to choose. You can't agree with a woman's right to choose to abort her baby, while being opposed to the abortion of the baby. It's nonsense.

I didn't know you meant that unborn babies aren't human. I thought is was undisputed that these cells, as you put them, were human and were alive (ie. a being) from the moment of conception.

At what point does science say that the foetus becomes a human being?

I'm pretty sure the cells were alive even before conception. Maybe you mean to argue that human life begins at fertilization?That's one end of two extremes which i dont' agree with. Nor do i agree with the opposide extreme; that a human life begins at birth.

And of course you can support a woman's right to chose while also disagreeing with what they decide. I think you should have the right to say whatever dumb **** you like, that doesn't mean i can't oppose whatever dumb **** you decide to say.

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:46 am

aggi wrote:I do wonder why he chooses to follow certain sections of the bible but ignores others such as:

Luke 12:33 - Sell your possessions and give to the poor.
Luke 18:22 - When Jesus heard this, He said to him, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

I don't think he was saying he followed the Bible, he was following the teachings of the catholic church. The two aren't necessarily the same....

HatfieldClaret · Post by **HatfieldClaret** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 8:53 am

Lancasterclaret wrote:Think James O'Brien has nailed this on twitter."

Can't abide that man on LBC; I now need to switch channel when he's on.

Does he let people with opposing views speak yet; when they call in on his "phone-in if you agree with me show" ? Or is he still just telling them they're stupid and giving tedious monologues ?

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:00 am

HatfieldClaret wrote:I don't think he was saying he followed the Bible, he was following the teachings of the catholic church. The two aren't necessarily the same....

What does the Catholic Church base its teachings on then? Can the Pope just make stuff up that they all then have to follow?

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:06 am

HatfieldClaret wrote:
Can't abide that man on LBC; I now need to switch channel when he's on.

Does he let people with opposing views speak yet; when they call in on his "phone-in if you agree with me show" ? Or is he still just telling them they're stupid and giving tedious monologues ?

Not sure how many times you've listened to his show, HatfieldClaret, but I'd say he very often, almost always asks people with different views to phone in. I wouldn't describe it as a "phone-in if you agree with me show" at all.

He's very good at running rings around people with knuckleheaded views and he regularly destroys people with weak and nonsensical arguments. He's been superb at taking people down on the Brexit issues, which is probably why so many people dislike him.

Socrates · Post by **Socrates** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:41 am

I'm surprised at these people commending Rees-Mogg for his honesty in expressing these prehistoric views.

Firebrand Muslim clerics honestly believe a number of things in the name of their religion. Are we ok with them expressing those views and applauding their honesty?

He's absolutely entitled to his opinion. But I'm also entitled to say that I think his views are abhorrent in this day and age and I find him repugnant.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:01 am

HatfieldClaret wrote:Can't abide that man on LBC; I now need to switch channel when he's on.

Does he let people with opposing views speak yet; when they call in on his "phone-in if you agree with me show" ? Or is he still just telling them they're stupid and giving tedious monologues ?

I used to listen to Obrain. But concluded that when this far left london borough of ivory towers establishment bubble dweller is on. LBC stands for Let Bullying Commence.

However. I could be WRONG!!

Do a Google search on "London's biggest c***"