None of us asked for it, but Mogg gave us all a whistle stop tour of hundreds of years of Parliamentary drama. Subscribe to our new podcast now, or you're a silly goose: linktr.ee/pubcast
Hilarious, the guy who has been caught absolutely red handed in his contempt of parliament, arguing that we should rely on his contemptuous party to investigate itself again, after it's just had its pants pulled down with the previous investigation it ordered resulting in the inevitable downfall of Alexander de Pfeffel Johnson.
Oh, but, like, he can enunciate really really slowly so that it sounds to his mind like he's talking down to you. Doesn't matter that it just gives the impression he's recovering from a mild concussion, as long as he feels like he's being mister smarty big-balls then it must be so. My cat genuinely has a better grasp of theory of mind than this man. She also has THE fwuffiest tumtum, if North East Somerset happen to be looking for a replacement.
Yet the cap-squashing Brits kneeled and gagged for Downton Abbey.Posh wins cos it is allowed and fawned upon from below. He will always win. That's the tragic truth.
Exactly! And a thirty thousand word report on a slice of birthday cake cannot be a 'word salad' because there are no salad vegetables in a birthday cake (unless it was a carrot cake) in which case Boris was clearly guilty of trying to see classified documents in the dark... 🦘🦘🦘🦘🦘🦘🦘🦘🦘🦘🦘🦘🦘🦘🦘
If your life is too happy and you find yourself perfectly content with your friends, family, job and general outlook, listen to this guy talk for 20 minutes and that’ll all change.
Never heard such a complete load of gibberish is a desperate & rather pathetic attempt at deflection??? Moggy you failed, failed & failed again!! Jealous??? Now that’s the most pathetic, infantile comment of all!!🙄
He talks utter nonsense. He contradicts himself again and again. Somehow, it's a legitimate criticism of the privileges committee to call them a 'kangaroo court'.
It is ridiculous that JRM can speak for 20 minutes on this, whereas big bills are often given as little debating time as possible with MPs allowed a few minutes each to deliver a speechlet.
"I didn't mean to impune the standing of the honourable members of the committee when calling them part of a kangeroo court and marsupials." Make it make sense. He is an utter disgrace and I hope that he is removed from office at the next opportunity.
He's upset because his sense of entitlement has been challenged. Trying to identify the actual point he is making is near impossible because of his frequent digressions and choice of outdated language to illustrate his point, but that is most likely intentional. What a shame there isn't a time limit on his rambling discourse.
So, please explain why CB said he was right to stand down on the grounds he had made prior comments suggesting he believed BJ had knowingly lied to parliament, but HH was right not to step down after it was revealed she had made prior comments suggesting she believed BJ had knowingly lied to parliament? The thing is, judges are not supposed to hold opinions prior to hearing all the evidence and judges are not supposed to gain personally from any judicial decision they make. Because, if either of these things are so, it cannot be 'justice'.
Victorian millionaire has tantrum every time anybody below him seems to challenge his quest for making the most amount of money with the minimal amount of effort
I would like to think that if a complaint were made about me in my workplace and it was for something I had actually done then rather than looking at obscure procedural precedence from 50 years ago to defend myself I'd take the time to reflect on my behaviour and look for an opportunity to put things right or improve. Once again rather than the best of us, some MPs are the worst of us. Once again MPs want to be held to lower standards than the rest of us.
What an utterly stupid thing to say. You are essentially arguing that, if at work you had reported a fire extinguisher was out of date and as a result were criticised/punished for impugning the Fire Safety Committee by saying it had not done its job correctly - you could not point to a rule which stated fire extinguishers should be replaced before the use by date expired, because the rule was 'old'. Afterall, wasn't this something you had 'actually done'?
@@Iazzaboyce I think you've either misread what I've said or misunderstood what JRM said. The argument he was making was on a point of procedure where he could only cite one example that supports his position, whether or not he's right about that doesn't actually change the facts of the case and his own party were happy with the process at the time. A fairer example would be someone caught on CCTV in the workplace not doing their job then complaining that the purpose of the CCTV is for crime prevention and not for monitoring employee activity. Regardless of whether or not that's a valid argument it doesn't change the material facts. If he wants to make that argument he is fully entitled to do so, as I say, for me personally if I had been told I had fallen short of expectations within my workplace and had been accused of wrong doing then I would look to improve, if he wants to have lower professional standards than I do then he can, I just think it's disappointing that a member of parliament and a former minister doesn't want to hold himself or be held to, the same standards as regular members of the public.
@@chris56269 _"as I say, for me personally if I had been told I had fallen short of expectations within my workplace and had been accused of wrong doing then I would look to improve"_ You see, therein lies the 'presumption of guilt' which is the crux of the matter - some of us believe a person accused of wrongdoing is entitled to to a fair hearing before being found guilty of wrongdoing.
That made me laugh at the end there when we try to stop people from saying things we do not like we risk looking ridiculous. Isn't that what the bill to stop people protesting is all about? Stopping people saying things the Tories don't like or in this case, standing against things the Tories feel the people have no right to stop them from doing.
'There are some issues with this report' says the Walking Pencil from the 19th century. I'm guessing the major issue he has with the report is the fact that he is one of the seven Tory M.P.'s named in the report.😂
If you consider the number of elected public representatives in that room, that 20 minutes of nonsense could have paid the wages of a school full of teachers for a day !!
This priveiedged toff needs to go. We need normal decent folk from humble backgrounds running our multi cultural and blue collar country. A government for the people and not for themselves and their super rich friends.
So his point is: We should ignore all the rules because they were made a long time ago and seem very silly. Brilliant. I agree. Abolish the current government, it’s very old and silly and should be ignored.
He has no political career to save. He's a busted flush as far as being a minister and his eat is in danger. he can go back to his real job which is profiting from "shorting" the UK's economy on the markets, which he is apparently very good at.
I'm Stupid And Everybody Knows That I'm Stupid, But Eton Taught Me to Talk Like That Otherwise My Parents Would Ask For The £40 Grand Per Year Tuition Fee Back.... Luckily, They're As Stupid As I Am
As Abraham Lincoln once said about Stephen Douglas: “His argument is as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had been starved to death.”
Does anyone else feel like he's the embodiment of "evil boarding school headmaster in a young adult novel"? That's all I can think every time I see a video of him.
The man is a fool. He voted for the committee and its members. When it did its job but he did not agree with its findings he became abusive. He should have the whip removed, together with his knighthood He is an utter disgrace to Parliament.
I can imagine him with the same tone and candour actually seriously lobbying insistently penny farthings replace electronic tranport and the rail networks as serious benifit to the economy
Such arrogance!! He obviously fancies himself a capable debater. This is all semantics...any MP can criticise the report when it has been tabled in Parliament. Mr Smug did not wait for the report to reach the Commons before letting off his rant on GBNews!! This is akin only to tantrum by a spoilt child!!!
That one mate who kicks off with the landlord at turfing out time over the intricacies of the Licensing Act, while the rest of the group says f-this, I'm off for a kebab.
Lord Snooty and his pals in support, is trying to wriggle out of what he said, and meant to say. I'll leave it you which is "Scrapper Smith", "Hairpin Huggins" "Gertie the Goat" and "Snitch and Snatch" but I'm pretty sure that "Skinny Lizzie" and "Happy Hutton" have gone AWOL.
Nah, he just listed a load of things that happened ages ago as a de facto demonstration that his interpretation of procedure is right and everybody else is wrong. Clement Freud used to do something similar on Just a Minute, though of course usually without the same degree of relentless tedium.
@@petersvillage7447 I suppose that's one way of explaining it but I'd be taking all measures to make sure my name couldn't be lumped in with clement freud's.
When I try to imagine Mogg on TV, I just get reminded of Mr Chumley Warner. The people in the control room confused that the broadcast has suddenly gone black and white and mono
Not coordinated? The committee members received several letters from several accused MPs, including the tortured ghost of a syphillitic victorian rentboy, seeking to unduly influence them. These letters had exactly the same wording, grammar and spacing. If that isn't 'coordinated' then is he claiming they all came to the exact same wording, entirely independently?
Ok Mr Rees-Mogg you checked Erskine May and did everything by the book. Including not directly contacting members of the committee during the investigation. What he notably does not defend are the multiple other Tory backbenchers who did contact the committee to lobby them and who aren’t making 20 minute speeches defending their right to do so.
Strange that it's absurd to quote ancient evidence that goes against his ridiculous argument but fine if it supports him. Why on earth are we paying this waste of space's salary?
