Russell Brand.........

[Hastings gull]

I think it also suits the mddle classes to have a little snipe at someone who is better off than them but who is able to have a pop at the establishment. Probably because they are envious as they are too ****ing scared to speak out about anything incase it affects their own crappy little career or their dull friends think they're a radical or something.

Yet another absurd generalisation, bordering on the offensive. I presume your own career is not crappy, then? Teachers and doctors all have crappy careers, don't they?

 

[Machiavelli]

Agree that there are very blatant attempts to smear him but I do think the underlying points made are valid ones. The man is calling for a revolution, I've read some of his books and they're full of diatribes about the powerful exploiting the man. He does talk the talk for sure, but he's certainly not walking it...not in my eyes.

If you really, really, really believe in the equality that Brand talks of I simply can't see how he can reconcile it with his own lifestyle. Rather ironically, it's some sort of corporate revolution that he aspires to with his actions. There's no personal responsibility: the money he wants to re-distribute is never his money. It all smacks of that comment about Geldof where, when asked what he was giving, the reply was his time. As The Spanish has said, Brand's love of shiny things is well-documented by his mates.

I think a big part of him means well but revolutions aren't easy and take great moral courage and discipline. If he wants to lead this, as clearly he does then he needs to lead by example. At the moment he's got the best of both worlds, he's got the media attention but there's no personal responsibility to muddy his hands in the day-to-day work of changing this place for the better [sorry, but long words and Youtube rants don't quite cut it - run for Mayor of London with a clear and practical manifesto of reform]. Other outsiders have done precisely this in Italy and Iceland.

In doing so, I think he might gain a bit more respect from those of us cynical of his actions. He might also realise how morally dubious, some of his chums such as Mo Ansar really are. I've no doubt at all that the incredibly inaccurate and offensive attack on the Australian Prime Minister after the Sydney shootings was led from that lying scuzzball, Ansar.

Until that time, I'm struggling to take him seriously.

I'm going to have to agree with most of this. I particularly like your comment that revolutions take great moral courage and discipline. They're also extremely hard work to achieve, and are rarely predictable. Most often go wrong too. Others don't really tend to achieve any significant change. I'm far more attached to radical change as a principle/event than revolution.

 

[MattBackHome]

Agreed that Sachsgate was poor even with full context, however the blame is massively with Ross (who, you'll notice DIDN'T resign while Brand was the bigger man and stepped down).

That radio show (not that episode but the whole lot) was so so funny.

I think he talks a loads of old guff at the moment, but can't really understand all the vitriol. At least he's having a go.

 

[Mellotron]

That radio show (not that episode but the whole lot) was so so funny.

I think he talks a loads of old guff at the moment, but can't really understand all the vitriol. At least he's having a go.

The "racism" episode where Russell is high on caffeine is the funniest radio programme of all time. Comfortably.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Yet another absurd generalisation, bordering on the offensive. I presume your own career is not crappy, then? Teachers and doctors all have crappy careers, don't they?

I didn't mean all of the middle-class. And I think you know the section I'm referring to. Offensive? Drama queen.

 

[W.C.]

Agree that there are very blatant attempts to smear him but I do think the underlying points made are valid ones. The man is calling for a revolution, I've read some of his books and they're full of diatribes about the powerful exploiting the man. He does talk the talk for sure, but he's certainly not walking it...not in my eyes.

If you really, really, really believe in the equality that Brand talks of I simply can't see how he can reconcile it with his own lifestyle. Rather ironically, it's some sort of corporate revolution that he aspires to with his actions. There's no personal responsibility: the money he wants to re-distribute is never his money. It all smacks of that comment about Geldof where, when asked what he was giving, the reply was his time. As The Spanish has said, Brand's love of shiny things and his superficial nature is well-documented by his mates.

I think a big part of him means well but revolutions aren't easy and take great moral courage and discipline. If he wants to lead this, as clearly he does then he needs to lead by example. At the moment he's got the best of both worlds, he's got the media attention but there's no personal responsibility to muddy his hands in the day-to-day work of changing this place for the better [sorry, but long words and Youtube rants don't quite cut it - run for Mayor of London with a clear and practical manifesto of reform]. Other outsiders have done precisely this in Italy and Iceland.

In doing so, I think he might gain a bit more respect from those of us cynical of his actions. He might also realise how morally dubious, some of his chums such as Mo Ansar really are. I've no doubt at all that the incredibly inaccurate and offensive attack on the Australian Prime Minister after the Sydney shootings was led from that lying scuzzball, Ansar.

Until that time, I'm struggling to take him seriously.

I'm not completely sure what to make of Brand yet but I do think that putting himself out there, in the firing range of the British tabloid press does take bravery. Those ***** will ruin anyone's life if they feel like it.

The whole 'long word using' 'your rich you can't have an opinion' argument from people has been pushing me to have a listen to what he has to say too.

 

[Hastings gull]

I didn't mean all of the middle-class. And I think you know the section I'm referring to. Offensive? Drama queen.

If you don't mean it, then make that clear -surely that is obvious. Yes, I did get back to reading the article to which you referred, and your comment then about those at the top, was equally sweeping. My daughter is in the Old Bill and has made a wonderful contribution to area she serves, and it is quite frankly offensive to read your condescending spout about crappy careers. The vast majority of middle class folk are not "at the top" and do much good work. Perhaps your final two words say more about you than anything else?

 

[Guinness Boy]

Five quotes and no one's managed to answer a simple question. Would the vulnerable of this country be worse off if the banks had not been bailed out. Yes / no. Who's first?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

My daughter is in the Old Bill and has made a wonderful contribution to area she serves, and it is quite frankly offensive to read your condescending spout about crappy careers. The vast majority of middle class folk are not "at the top" and do much good work. Perhaps your final two words say more about you than anything else?

Well, if your daughter is offended then maybe she can defend herself? Does she need a parent to be offended on her behalf? And, this says more about you than anything else.....patronising.

I'm sure your daughter has made a wonderful contribution, as have many. My point is that there are tedious and dull middle-class types who are mortgaged up the hilt, chasing their own tails and have little to offer apart from a few envious snipes at Russell Brand and the best they can ****ing come up with is "champagne socialist."

 

[Hastings gull]

Well, if your daughter is offended then maybe she can defend herself? Does she need a parent to be offended on her behalf? And, this says more about you than anything else.....patronising.

I'm sure your daughter has made a wonderful contribution, as have many. My point is that there are tedious and dull middle-class types who are mortgaged up the hilt, chasing their own tails and have little to offer apart from a few envious snipes at Russell Brand and the best they can ****ing come up with is "champagne socialist."[/QUOTE]

I am sure that she can -it is just that I was giving you an example, which is far more preferable to your usual sweeping and unsubstantiated statements, which here again characterise your post. Would you include yourself as a dull and tedious type? What arrogance, to talk of other people whom you don't know, in such a manner. By the way, I doubt very much that the tedious middle classes, as you describe them, would indulge in "envious" swipes at RB. IF he were being called a champagne socialist, I am sure that his hypocrisy would be uppermost in people's minds, and certainly not envy of him.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Well, if your daughter is offended then maybe she can defend herself? Does she need a parent to be offended on her behalf? And, this says more about you than anything else.....patronising.

I'm sure your daughter has made a wonderful contribution, as have many. My point is that there are tedious and dull middle-class types who are mortgaged up the hilt, chasing their own tails and have little to offer apart from a few envious snipes at Russell Brand and the best they can ****ing come up with is "champagne socialist."[/QUOTE]

I am sure that she can -it is just that I was giving you an example, which is far more preferable to your usual sweeping and unsubstantiated statements, which here again characterise your post. Would you include yourself as a dull and tedious type? What arrogance, to talk of other people whom you don't know, in such a manner. By the way, I doubt very much that the tedious middle classes, as you describe them, would indulge in "envious" swipes at RB. IF he were being called a champagne socialist, I am sure that his hypocrisy would be uppermost in people's minds, and certainly not envy of him.

1) I'm dull and tedious. I can only talk about 3 subjects and only have two jokes. 2) champagne socialist implies hypocrisy so I'm not sure of the point you are making here.

 

[Creaky]

Five quotes and no one's managed to answer a simple question. Would the vulnerable of this country be worse off if the banks had not been bailed out. Yes / no. Who's first?

I don't think the 'vulnerable' would have been worse off if the banks hadn't been bailed out - I do however think that if the banks hadn't been supported there would have been a lot more people in the 'vulnerable' category.

 

[Buzzer]

I don't think the 'vulnerable' would have been worse off if the banks hadn't been bailed out - I do however think that if the banks hadn't been supported there would have been a lot more people in the 'vulnerable' category.

That doesn't makes sense, I'm afraid. Vulnerable means exposed to risk. Those who by your definition were at risk of becoming vulnerable must already be vulnerable.

I think. Not sure. Head spinning. Might be a circular argument.

 

[rogersix]

No - but making an effort to understand it better rather than silly publicity stunts would help.

there is every probability that you will fail to comprehend what is happening to you as you plummet through life

 

[cunning fergus]

So, in summary we should be grateful for the obscene payouts as the goverment get some tax back? Nice. And it also completely misses the point that this money would still be generating taxes and arguably more benefit and value if it were distributed in a more democratic manner.

Where have I said we should be grateful for anything and what obscene payouts have I referred to?

The point I am making, as you well know, is that the bankers were just PART of the problem, they were not the ONLY problem.

Attacking the bankers in the way Brand does, lets the politicians who were as negligent off the hook, and ignores the politicians' part in the whole debacle.

Being anti banker is also the view of the current polictical estanblishment, hardly a groundbreaking attitude, there is a question of degree, however:

"Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne said in his Autumn Statement, on December 3, 2014: "Instead of returning the foreign exchange fines paid by the banks to the City, we are using that windfall for a £1.2 billion investment in GP services across the UK", and that "Libor fines will continue to support our military and emergency service charities with support for our armed services benevolent charities, the Gurkhas, and £10 million for veterans with hearing problems."

Its good political copy so even the Tories are happy to stick the boot in.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I used "vulnerable" because if I'd referenced the disabled again Herr Tubthumper's head would have exploded in a blast of ironic rage
.

 

[rogersix]

Five quotes and no one's managed to answer a simple question. Would the vulnerable of this country be worse off if the banks had not been bailed out. Yes / no. Who's first?

obviously the question is how to stop these unsavoury types repeating their blag; you first

 

[Hastings gull]

chasing their own tails and have little to offer apart from a few envious snipes at Russell Brand and the best they can ****ing come up with is "champagne socialist."[/QUOTE

My point again was that the tedious middle classes would hardly be envious of someone like RB -he is far too annoying for that. What would concern them far more, might be his hypocrisy, and "champagne socialist" is the best that they could come up with, as you sneeringly observe.

 

[rogersix]

Where have I said we should be grateful for anything and what obscene payouts have I referred to?

The point I am making, as you well know, is that the bankers were just PART of the problem, they were not the ONLY problem.

Attacking the bankers in the way Brand does, lets the politicians who were as negligent off the hook, and ignores the politicians' part in the whole debacle.

Being anti banker is also the view of the current polictical estanblishment, hardly a groundbreaking attitude, there is a question of degree, however:

"Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne said in his Autumn Statement, on December 3, 2014: "Instead of returning the foreign exchange fines paid by the banks to the City, we are using that windfall for a £1.2 billion investment in GP services across the UK", and that "Libor fines will continue to support our military and emergency service charities with support for our armed services benevolent charities, the Gurkhas, and £10 million for veterans with hearing problems."

Its good political copy so even the Tories are happy to stick the boot in.

it has been widely touted that thatch/rayguns/bliars de-regging of the financial institutions is wot dunnit

 

[DJ Leon]

There's quite a lot of people on here that seem to think a rich man shouldn't be able to talk about, and campaign for, the poor. That's ironic given that this is a forum dominated (currently) by people criticising professional footballers / managers.