I might have to apologise for saying this, and please don't twist my words, but he should have known; Jacob Rees-Mogg should have known better than to opine on anything as sensitive as Grenfell.
The media already regards Jacob Rees-Mogg as ‘other’, and it’s on permanent, collective stand-by, waiting to pounce when he does or says the wrong thing, which he surely will and duly has.
He just about survived lollgate, but one has to ask - how woke does one need to be in order to survive? Woker than this, for sure. Is Rees-Mogg so disconnected from reality that he hadn’t even noticed that some things are sacred?
In the light of the fact that a certain topic has been sanctified, alongside Jo Cox and Princess Diana, I wonder - is it, or is it not ‘common sense’ to steer clear of anything related to G-G-G-Grenfell? Did I really say that? Oh, my days. Oh, sorry, sorry, sorry.
I’m not heartless or unsympathetic but the BBC’s fetishisation of the Grenfell tragedy has pushed me in that direction. Now I’ve been cornered into expressing heartless and unsympathetic thoughts. Actually, let’s not go there; suffice it to say that the media has erected a consecrated buffer zone around Grenfell Tower and its former inhabitants.
This is not so much about What Jacob Said as about what the media said he said. Wouldn’t it have been much more expedient for anyone with the nous to consider the possibility that Grenfell has been Dianafied, (JoCoxified if you’re a bit younger) to have stayed woke and kept one’s cake-hole firmly closed? In the present zeitgeist, I mean.
What I’m saying is, in the days of ‘watch what you say! The media’s looking’ hadn’t you better keep your head well below the parapet? Isn’t the best thing to do just to keep shtum? Watch it!! You’ll be crucified!
Here’s the thing. I just read Brendan O’Neill’s article Jacob Rees-Mogg is right about Grenfell. We know Brendan is a bit of a controversialist, (and why not?) and there’s a generous helping of common sense in there for sure, but was Jacob Rees-Mogg really 'sensible' to express, in public, his thoughts on what kind of behaviour represents ‘common sense’ at all? Even more so when these particular thoughts concerned a situation in which he was unlikely ever to find himself. Namely, living, with all one’s worldly goods and chattels, in a twenty-story tower block, engulfed in flames and hotter than Hades? I mean, we’ve all heard tales of smoke-filled single, solitary stairwells and what can happen when panicking men women and children are all trying to flee at the same time.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I wouldn’t have thought ignoring the advice of the fire service would necessarily represent one’s immediate and obvious common-sensible reaction. Of course, instinct says get out while you can, but on the other hand, sometimes best practice in certain situations does (apparently) turn out to be the most counter-intuitive. So I’m told.
I mean, apart from that quibble, Brendan is right. However, my point is that if we all have to take the hyper-woke diktat of the scandal-hungry media into account before we open our mouth we’re in big trouble.
Should the media, especially the BBC, be allowed to try, convict and crucify anyone it feels like? The cavalier way it twists and massages these things to fit its agenda is truly chilling.
Apologies in advance and now I’ll shut up.
One of my "completely agree" posts! I thought it was just me !! I heard a recording of a caller to a radio station (I think it was LBC) say that the only reason the Fire Brigade behaved as they did was because they are racists, a remark that left me a bit stunned.
ReplyDeleteThank you! I’m relieved! This is one of those posts when you’re full of trepidation as soon as you hit ‘publish’.
DeleteI haven't seen Rees-Mogg's apology (nor Brendan O'Neill's article) but I was just thinking it's a mercy he didn't mention the fridge - or the fridge owner - that started the fire.
ReplyDeleteIf he'd said it was a natural instinct to run and that's what he thinks he might do, it wouldn't sound quite as bad as the 'common sense' phrase but I doubt it would have made enough difference to have kept them at bay. He'd probably be gone by now.
'Grenfell' is one of those triggers, like 'Windrush' against which no defence is possible - not even having Cleverly as 'minority' Chairman to put up to the BBC.
I meant to write he'd probably be gone by now if he'd mentioned the fridge - rather than putting that comment in para 2.
DeleteWell we all know it was Rees-Mogg who lacked the common sense on this occasion...I think most of us are finding it very difficult to imagine a situation where, even in the unnatural environment of a radio studio, we would end up uttering such offensive rubbish on such a very sensitive topic. A tenant of a high rise block will know, because word gets around, that the standing instruction is to "stay put" because there can be smoke and fire in the corridors and on the stairs that might kill you. Also, you might be 20 floors up...you can't go down in the lift, and for some people walking down so many stairs is a serious challenge. Sorry, Jacob, it's not the same as telling nanny to gather the children and vacate your Georgian terrace with "all due alacrity" in the event of fire!
ReplyDeleteHad this happened outside the campaign I would definitely be of the view he should have resigned. Maybe after a period of penance he could return. But this is a very tricky situation, at the start of the campaign.
I said on another thread I initially thought of JRM as a liability, then came to think of him as an asset...but now, well I think I was right first time.
People mention the fridge. It seems a scandal to me that the Inquiry has not yet heard from the resident of the flat where the fire started. Why not? And why does no one in the media ever mention that the inquiry has not heard from him?
Jeremy Vine on Radio 2 today decided to develop the 'story' even further. He played a substantial clip of Rees-Mogg, which to my ear didn't sound at all unreasonable or uncaring, (a couple of callers agreed), but then went on to push the idea that Rees-Mogg was a 'toff' who had no connection with 'common people' and in all probability that applied to the whole Conservative party, (didn't the sage Mrs May call it the nasty party?).
ReplyDeleteWithout doubt Rees-Mogg is one of the politest people in politics, he always 'keeps a civil tongue', unlike fellow LBC presenter James O'Brian for example. He wouldn't be such a popular constituence MP if he wasn't.
Vine played the same trick as the BBC plays with the 'Israel issue', where they can always find a Jew to denounce Israel here they found a couple of willing 'Conservatives' to agree with him.
This is an excellent example of how the media and the BBC in particular has destroyed political debate in this country, one side has to be constantly on the watch not to 'say the unacceptable' while the other side can say what it likes knowing that if anyone does call them out then 'it's just a joke'.
I've no illusions about how the BBC, MSM, Labour Party and Remainiacs fall upon any wounded gazelle on the political Savannah (if it has blue stripes) and try to tear it to bits. But this was a self inflicted wound - a stupid, thoughtless, smug comment that showed lack of judgement, lack of imagination and lack of self-control.
DeleteRot.
DeleteNick Ferrari: Since we last spoke the first inquiry into the Grenfell tragedy has been released by the Judge Sir Martin Morebrook in which certain recommendations and highly critical of the command structure and the communications structure of the London Fire Brigade, NOT that the personnel on the ground but some of the command structures. There have been suggestions that in part the tragedy suggestions was caused by racism or policies of class. Are these suggestions correct?
Jacob Rees-Mogg: I don't think so. I think it the, the tragedy came about because of the cladding leading to the fire racing up the building and then was compounded by the stay-put policy and, ughff.. it seems to me that that is the tragedy of it, that the more one's read about it over the weekend about the report and about the chances of people surviving if you just ignore what you are told and leave you are so much safer and I think if either of us were in a fire whatever the fire brigade said we would leave a burning building.. it just seems.. the common sense thing to do and it is such a tragedy that didn't happen, but I don't think it is anything to do with race or class and indeed I think rather sad to raise these types of points over a great tragedy.. [intake of breath] nobody was [interjection]
NF: Well it is a Labour MP, Emma Dent Coad, the local MP whos is raising this, racism or snobbery.
J R-M: Nobody was evil in relation to this great tragedy but people made mistakes and humanity makes mistakes and sometimes they have deeply tragic consequences but it wasn't done because people had chips on their shoulder or they were bad people, they just got something terribly, terribly wrong..[interjection]
NF: In which case can the Commissioner of the London Fire Brigade stay in post, Danny Cotton?
J R-M: I don't want to advise her personally on the choices that she should make. That she will read the report and she will come to conclusion for herself, it, it's very easy for politicians to take potshots at people making very difficult decisions. Would you or I have made a different decision in their circumstances? But I think the one thing we can do is say how much we admire the individual firefighters, I mean can you imagine the bravery you need to go into a a completely smoke-filled staircase with breathing equipment that is running out of oxygen and saving that final person that you managed to save? Their heroism should not be ignored, undermined, forgotten because of mistakes made at a higher level and the mistake had tragic consequences but I don't think that was made by people because they were wicked, I think was made by people because they thought they were doing the best.
A live, one-on-one conversation. Could anyone do better or is the media narrative that Torys are Evil and all that identical cladding 'up North' in Labour boroughs was virtuous while Grenfell's was designed to burn, just waiting for Thatcher, sorry May, to apply the match?
Ferrari was controversy-fishing, that is absolutely plain from the first question. The words "race" and "class" in relation to Grenfell should immediately have put him on his guard. He could have answered: "Look we've only had the first part of the Inquiry report. It would be wrong to rush to judgement; let us wait until we have the whole report in our hands. What we can say at this stage is that the Inquiry have not found matters of race or class to be involved as causal factors. I'm sure you'll agree, Nick, that the last thing the families of victims need now is to see this Inquiry politicised."
DeleteSomething bland and platitudinous like that was required.
JRM's second and third answers are also all over the place...linking "chips on shoulders" to allegations that racism "caused" the tragedy is taking it down the wrong road. Likewise, drifting into discussing the "heroism" of the firefighters when he wasn't asked about that shows he was in control of his answers. (By the way, the reality is that people were making their way down from the upper floors hours after the fire started, without any breathing apparatus, and then would come across firefighters with breathing apparatus on lower floors. Breathing apparatus give 47 minutes of air.)
It's true the left-liberal media and the Labour Party have indeed talked mendacious balls about Grenfell. But JRM should have realised the dangers. Perhaps he was unwell, or has family issues or was just very, very tired but there are no excuses at this high level of politics.
No, no, no. The only thing JRM did wrong was to apologise. Look, we know how this works: (1) take a potentially ambiguous statement, (2) interpret in the least charitable way possible, (3) garner victim reaction, (4) demand an apology which is taken as an admission of guilt. And so the story becomes a shorthand for the narrative that Tories are out of touch with common people.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that it can be done to anyone. For example, the BBC article about this quotes Stormzy's twitter rant against JRM. At least the printable bits. They didn't mention that he also called JRM a 'piece of s***', 'scummiest', 'prick', 'scumbag' and 'pussyhole'. Will this become part of the narrative about abuse directed against MPs? Will the BBC create a news story about this high profile example of harmful and divisive social media speech? Will Jeremy Vine hold a call-in show about it and get Jess Phillips to talk about the damaging effect his mysogynistic language has on women? No.
If you start 'watching what you say' you are conceding the power to the media. And that is the point of this whole JRM story. It is just the media flexing it's muscles over a politician they don't like. The only way to tackle them is either to ignore them or fight them. And whatever else you do never, ever apologise.
"demand an apology which is taken as an admission of guilt."
ReplyDeleteExactly.
On the subject of common sense, a few decades ago I was working in a central London building which was considered a target for IRA bombings. On our floor, an employee was appointed to direct everyone else in the event of a threat. No way were any of her colleagues going to pay any attention to her instructions - if a threat arose we were out of there through the back door, in spite of the theoretical possibility of a second bomb to catch evacuees.
Depends how much confidence you have in "experts", I suppose.
I'm with MB on this. Of course Grenfall has been sanctified by the media and weaponised by Labour, but Rees-Mogg should have had the intelligence to realise that. Quite apart from the extraordinary insensitivity of the remark. Rees-Mogg is not just an ordinary person caught out by a tricky interviewer. These are the people who are supposed to be running the country.
ReplyDeleteWalking on eggshells achieves nothing. People who self-censor are allowing themselves to be intimidated, which means that the professional offence-takers have won.
ReplyDeleteIf the tower block had been full of white, working class people in, say, S Yorkshire, the disaster would have passed into history by now.
To everyone who commented on this thread. Thank you for your thoughtful contributions and an amicable (but not an echo-chamber) debate, I’m truly grateful.
ReplyDeleteWould prominent public figures like J R-M be wise to tailor their utterances to suit a ruthless press?
Galling as it is, apologising does seem to amount to an admission of guilt, even when in reality there isn’t much to apologise for, apart from being stupid enough not to ‘pander’. On the other hand, NOT apologising (doubling down) would probably prolong and inflame the situation whereas en apology is more likely to diffuse it.
Either way, it’s going down in the annals along with letterboxes and humbug.
It's simply a race to the bottom. Why should any politician now give his honest opinion - something by which we used to be able to judge the character of the man/woman? JRM has demonstrated a few times lately that he doesn't possess a safe pair of hands when confronted by aggressive media. He must stick the carefully scripted bland non-committal answers - thus without earning respect, at least preserving some measure of it.
DeleteOn this occasion it was hardly the "aggressive media" - it was Nick Ferrari interviewing, who one might say is broadly sympathetic to Conservatism, though he was undoubtedly fishing for controversy. If anything, JRM was probably lulled into a false sense of security by Ferrari's emollient style.
DeleteMoving on to the larger question of "speaking your mind"...I am not sure politicians have ever done that entirely but certainly the Conservatives have been complicit in creating the "fear speech" culture of PC we see all around us today. You can probably trace it back to Enoch Powell and his statements...rather than say at the time "OK, you've used some rather stark imagery there, Enoch, but clearly you are reflecting a lot of people's concerns about the future...let's encourage some open debate on our migration policy..." the Conservative Party closed down debate. Both Major and Cameron tried to close down debate on the EU...leading directly to the creation and rise of UKIP and the EU Referendum. More recently we have seen all major parties close down debate on the influence of Islam on the UK.
A free speech society is a healthy society - it's like having a strong immune system. We don't have that.
This 'walking on egg shells' only seems to work for one side of the political divide when it comes to our media.
ReplyDeleteHillsborough, a disaster in which the only sober, mild-mannered football fans in history were herded by fascist police into a death camp.
Immigration, re-branded migration, where victims of the Syrian war travel from China and Pakistan to selflessly take up vital roles in our NHS while never having families, needing houses or getting old.
The NHS, a healthcare scheme exclusively owned by the Labour party that is always under-funded unless the previous Tory 'austerity' budget has been taken on by a Labour government. Only employs dedicated nursing staff who, despite earning above average pay, only eat because of food banks.
Greta Thunberg, an inspired 16 year-old, who can see what is wrong with the world despite her vision being obscured by the (visible) carbon dioxide exhaled from her own mouth.
Etc. It is a pretty good scam where most of the issues are 'off the table' to your opponents and even better when it is the 'impartial' media that has made it so.
Well yes, it would be much better for our society if all these things could be talked about honestly.
DeleteBut let's be clear before we going any further that JRM has not spoken honestly about any of the issues to which you refer and Michael Gove actually engaged in a grovelling display of obeisance towards the Swedish Savant.
I think that was my point, if anyone dares talk about certain topics there is a protocol that the media creates/enforces.
DeleteWe hear this in 'phone-ins' when some previously unknown member of the public has managed to kill themselves. Our equally previously unknown caller will introduce themself with, "I would just like to say..sympathy..family etc. ..", before going on to imply that the deceased was an idiot.
Under no circumstances can anyone offend anyone, especially those that have got no interest in the matter except to seek out potential offence.
I recall that after the Soham murders a senior police officer spoke at a conference with an audience of about 25, one of whom was a reporter. He took it upon himself to doorstep the family just to seek to damn the policeman for his 'offensive' behaviour. Who gains here? The family suffers extra grief and the police are unable to discuss matters that might save young lives in future. Shooting a few messengers might 'pour encourager les autres'.