Russel Brands "The Trews"

[tonyh29]

I don't know about that.

Some of the points he makes in his blog are decent enough (especially the ones questioning Brand's 'my money has been made privately' stuff) but it does degenerate in to a personal rant about Brand because his lunch wasn't piping hot.

[blandy]

Exactly snowy, and to be fair, Brand caused his lunch to be cold.

[snowychap]

 

I don't know about that.

Some of the points he makes in his blog are decent enough (especially the ones questioning Brand's 'my money has been made privately' stuff) but it does degenerate in to a personal rant about Brand because his lunch wasn't piping hot.

 

You're going to have to run that one by me in a bit more detail unless you're of the opinion that the blogger's whole piece was intended as a single elaborate irony; in which case, I think it (and its author - Mr Kynaston Wotsit (no hyphen) from Bangor) are being imbued with qualities that they don't have.

Edit: Or was the joke Blandy's comment? I'm confused. I'm going back to bed.

Edited December 17, 2014 by snowychap

[Demitri_C]

he speaks alot of sense against murdoch in his latest vid, hopefully people realise now what a vile human being he is and boycott his products

[Risso]

he speaks alot of sense against murdoch in his latest vid, hopefully people realise now what a vile human being he is and boycott his products

Don't worry Dem, I won't be buying any of Brand's books any time soon.

[PauloBarnesi]

he speaks alot of sense against murdoch in his latest vid, hopefully people realise now what a vile human being he is and boycott his products

 

Did he not use to write for the Sun?

[TrentVilla]

 

he speaks alot of sense against murdoch in his latest vid, hopefully people realise now what a vile human being he is and boycott his products

 

Did he not use to write for the Sun?

 

 

Brand? I don't think so, not that I read that rag so I could be wrong.

 

He has previously successfully sued them though so I can't imagine he was ever high on their Christmas card list.

Exactly snowy, and to be fair, Brand caused his lunch to be cold.

 

His lunch was cold? He should really have made more of a point about that the poor chap.

[Wainy316]

He used to win The Sun's 'Top Shagger' award.

[PauloBarnesi]

Think the current issue of Private Eye does.

 

The Guardian

 

The gloves are off in Brand versus the Sun. On Saturday, the never-knowingly-underexposed comedian wrote a piece for this paper accusing the Sun on Sunday of printing lies about his personal life, and comparing Rupert Murdoch to Hitler. Brand had previously tweeted his intention to sue the tabloid. This week, the red-top struck back, with an article entitled 20 reasons why Russell Brand is the Biggest Hypocrite in Britain – a piece it was so keen to broadcast, it suspended its online paywall. Its accusations? That Brand's anti-capitalist arguments don't square with his £9m fortune. That he has written extensively for the Sun and frequently publicly praised the paper. That his book and TV series were published and broadcast by Harper Collins and Fox respectively – both owned by Rupert Murdoch, of course. Brand was soon back on Twitter, returning blows: "The S*n call me a hypocrite on their website for attacking them," he wrote. "For this story they've removed their paywall. Now that's hypocrisy." Touché.

 

 

Brand should have self published his book rather than getting it done by Random House/Penguin

[Oaks]

Think the current issue of Private Eye does. The Guardian 

The gloves are off in Brand versus the Sun. On Saturday, the never-knowingly-underexposed comedian wrote a piece for this paper accusing the Sun on Sunday of printing lies about his personal life, and comparing Rupert Murdoch to Hitler. Brand had previously tweeted his intention to sue the tabloid. This week, the red-top struck back, with an article entitled 20 reasons why Russell Brand is the Biggest Hypocrite in Britain – a piece it was so keen to broadcast, it suspended its online paywall. Its accusations? That Brand's anti-capitalist arguments don't square with his £9m fortune. That he has written extensively for the Sun and frequently publicly praised the paper. That his book and TV series were published and broadcast by Harper Collins and Fox respectively – both owned by Rupert Murdoch, of course. Brand was soon back on Twitter, returning blows: "The S*n call me a hypocrite on their website for attacking them," he wrote. "For this story they've removed their paywall. Now that's hypocrisy." Touché.

  Brand should have self published his book rather than getting it done by Random House/Penguin

If he's so into this 'revolution'he should have put it online for free.

[Risso]

Disappointingly, Brand's reply to the cold Paella bloke is spot on:

 

 

 

"Hello Jo, thanks for your open letter, I do remember you from the melee outside RBS and firstly, I’d like to say sorry for your paella getting cold. It’s not nice to suffer because of actions that are nothing to do with you. I imagine the disabled people of our country who have been hit with £6bn of benefit cuts during the period that RBS received £46bn of public bail-out money feel similarly cheesed off.

I can’t apologise for the RBS lockdown though mate because, I don’t have the authority to close great big institutions – even ones found guilty of criminal activity.

The locking of the doors and your tarnished lunch came about as the result of orders from “the faceless bosses” upstairs after I wandered in on my own while we secretly filmed from across the street – then security swarmed, all the doors were locked and crowds gathered outside. I must say Jo; it felt like RBS had something terrible to hide. But more of that in a minute.

Neither was I there for publicity, although you could be forgiven for thinking that; for many years I have earned my money (and paid my taxes) by showing off. If I needed negative publicity (and, believe me, that’s all talking publicly about inequality can ever get you) I could get it by using the “N word” on telly, or putting a cat in a bin, or having a romantic liaison with the lad from TOWIE.

I was there with filmmaker Michael Winterbottom making a documentary about how the economic crises caused by the banking industry (RBS were found guilty of rigging Libor and the foreign exchange) has led to an economic attack on the most vulnerable people in society. I don’t want to undermine your personal inconvenience Jo, I’d be the first to admit that I’m often more vexed by little things; iPhone chargers continually changing makes me as angry as apartheid – so I can’t claim any personal moral high ground, but a chance to make a film that highlights how £80bn of austerity cuts were made, punishing society’s most vulnerable during the same period that bankers awarded themselves £81bn in bonuses was irresistible.

The mob upstairs at RBS who exiled you with your rapidly deteriorating lunch have had £4bn in bonuses since the crash. Do they deserve our money more than Britain’s disabled? Or Britain’s students who are now charged to learn? Is that fair?

They were some of the questions I was hoping to ask your boss – but we got no joy through the “proper channels” so we decided to just show up.

Not just to RBS, but also to Lloyds, HSBC and Barclays. I know that the regular folk on the floor aren’t guilty of this trick against ordinary people; they’re like anyone, trying to make ends meet. As you point out though, it’s hard to get to the men at the top so we were forced into door-stopping and inadvertent lunch spoiling. The good news is that this film and even this correspondence will reach hundreds of thousands of people and they’ll learn how they’re being conned by the financial industry and turned against one another – that’s got to be a good thing, even if it makes me look a bit of a twit in the process and the national dish of Spain is eaten sub-par.

Now I’ll be the first to admit your lunch has been an unwitting casualty in this well-intentioned quest but I couldn’t resist the opportunity to ask new RBS boss Ross McEwan if he thinks it’s right that he got a £3.2m “golden hello” when the RBS is sellotaped together with money that comes from everyone else’s taxes. I wonder what he would’ve said? Or whether it’s right that Fred “the shred” (he shredded evidence of impropriety) Goodwin gets to keep his £320k a year pension while disabled people have had their independent living fund scrapped.

And it’s not just RBS mate. Lloyds, Barclays, Citibank and HSBC have all been found guilty of market rigging and not one banker has been jailed.

Trillions of public money lost and stolen and no one prosecuted. Remember in the riots when disaffected youth nicked the odd bottle of water or a stray pair of trainers? Criminal, I agree. 1800 years worth of sentences were meted out in special courts, to make an example. Some crime doesn’t pay, but some crime definitely does. My school mate Leigh Pickett, a fireman is being told that he and his colleagues won’t be able to collect their pension until five years later than agreed, five more years of backbreaking, flame engulfed labour – why? Because of austerity. Put simply Jo, the banks took the money, the people paid the price.

I was there to ask a few questions to the guilty parties, now I know that’s not you, you’re just a bloke trying to make a crust and evidently you like that crust warm – but again, it wasn’t me who locked the RBS, I just asked a few difficult questions and the place went nuts. The people that have inconvenienced homeowners, pensioners, the disabled and ordinary working Brits are the same ones who inconvenienced you that lunchtime. They’ve got a lot to hide, so they locked the doors. You said my “agro demeanor” reminded you of school. Your letter reminded me of school too, when the teacher would say, “because Russell’s been naughty, the whole class has to stay behind”.

I’d never knowingly keep a workingman from his dinner, it’s unacceptable and I do owe you an apology for being lairy. So Jo, get in touch, I owe you an apology and I’d like to take you for a hot paella to make up for the one that went cold – though you could say that was actually the fault of the shady shysters who nicked the wedge and locked you out, I’d rather err on the side of caution. When I make a mistake I like to apolgise and put it right. Hopefully your bosses will do the same to the people of Britain."

[snowychap]

This is where I have a problem with Brand.  To just carp on the sidelines,  to say "I know how things should be" but then not giving people a chance to show their support for that is basically saying "I know this will not get huge support and then when it doesnt it's basically dead in the water.  Things will not change and I want change to be my way and when I dont get the support my argument will cease well i cant risk that so I'll still just carp thanks"  It's showing a fear to consult and persuade not having enough faith in your argument that others will too.

People should not mistake others not voting as support for removal of the system altogether when it is more likely that they have not been persuaded by one group of people over another.

I have a number of problems with your post on the subject but chief amongst them is that it is a reactionary defence of a political system from a vested interest.

We shouldn't be surprised (or censorious - at least, not just for this reason) because it is logical for those people who feel that their interests are served by the political system (and those in it) to defend it. It is also quite easy to see how the natural tendency for these interests would be to guide the conversation away from apathy or disenchantment or both and suggest that reduced turnouts are to do with people not having the right choice for them in the right system and following on from this it would also seem logical that they would suggest that a different opinion (even, or especially, one which criticizes the system and the people involved in it) should take part and put this argument up to the electoral test.

It is here, though, that one begins to encounter problems.

The above only really works if that electoral test is a level playing field, a simple battle between ideas and arguments rather than a battle between entrenched views, long term political and organizational associations and a criticism of them as well as a battle between the resources that support those opponents. Even if we ignore the psychology of such a battle, the resources issue (not just funding but just as importantly local activists, volunteers and so on) is such a barrier to entry existing in electoral politics (especially the higher up the ladder one goes - the number of independents who are elected as councillors in contrast to the few elected as MPs would seem to support that notion) that to willfully ignore it in making the challenge should raise alarm bells.

The only thing to gain from referring to Bell and Taylor here would be to point out that the end of their parliamentary careers has more significance as to the general point than their elections (i.e. that it was the particular circumstances surrounding the elections of each, including the withdrawal of opposition of some parties, that allowed them to get elected rather than just the winning out of their respective messages).

UKIP have been around since 1993 (and was formed by veterans of the political system, wasn't it?) and yet have only recently been able to make significant electoral inroads (perhaps helped just as much by hefty donations and, with no little irony, subsidy from the EU as by a debate on 'immigration') - I don't think it lacks significance that their two MPs are Tory defectors (I'm not so sure how new candidates would have fared in those respective by-elections).

The LibDems electoral support (in terms of national share of the vote in GEs) hasn't actually changed a great deal over their life (it has been between 18% and 23%) or against the results of the Alliance, it's just that their proportion of seats won has increased (for a number of reasons but mostly through targeting of seats and, very importantly, 'boots on the ground', i.e. lots of grass roots party activists - perhaps often involved in some unpleasant campaigning if reports are accurate).

The challenge to Brand, therefore, whilst on the face of it appearing quite reasonable, should probably be seen as one where those making the challenge are setting the other up to fail ('when I don't get the support my argument will cease') with the knowledge of just how difficult it is to break in to that world and with the desire to have their world view reinforced because of it.

Edited December 19, 2014 by snowychap

[blandy]

Brilliant post, snowy

[PauloBarnesi]

Private Eye writes about Brand’s ex- Jemima Khan, and her acquisition of Kiddington Hall for £15million. Or rather she didn’t, a Cayman Islands company called Kidslane Ltd did. Of course Khan is the daughter of Sir Jimmy Goldsmith, a man who probably did not pay all of his tax. Eye understands that much of Revolution was written there. 

 

You couldn’t make it up.

[Jon]

Private Eye writes about Brand’s ex- Jemima Khan, and her acquisition of Kiddington Hall for £15million. Or rather she didn’t, a Cayman Islands company called Kidslane Ltd did. Of course Khan is the daughter of Sir Jimmy Goldsmith, a man who probably did not pay all of his tax. Eye understands that much of Revolution was written there. 

 

You couldn’t make it up.

[Jon]

I would also say that maybe one can better understand privilege, and garner thoughts of how unjust and self serving it all is, if one has experienced it at first hand, as Brand may have done for a period whilst with Khan.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

[Genie]

 

Edited December 22, 2014 by Genie

[tonyh29]

 

Private Eye writes about Brand’s ex- Jemima Khan, and her acquisition of Kiddington Hall for £15million. Or rather she didn’t, a Cayman Islands company called Kidslane Ltd did. Of course Khan is the daughter of Sir Jimmy Goldsmith, a man who probably did not pay all of his tax. Eye understands that much of Revolution was written there. 

 

You couldn’t make it up.

I don't see a massive problem here, I have to say.

 

I had this debate with my rather right wing mother in law the other night.

 

Basically, I cannot see why a 'socialist', or a person espousing revolutionary ideas and ideals, has to live as a troll underneath a canal bridge, in order for their views to be worthy or genuine. Anthony Wedgewood Benn was born into a position/life of relative prosperity and privilege, and his left wing views hardened as he got older and had more experience of the capitalist and govenmental machine. I really don't understand why someone must be poor or live in squalor to hold ant-establishment views.

 

 

well quite  .. Boat race clearing in the woods came from a highly privileged background as I recall 

 

but on the same logic does this mean that not all Tories are evil ,steal from babies are ideologically driven  etc a view that you tend to endorse posters for making in the Bolitics thread with "likes" 

[sharkyvilla]

Worth a like in both threads haha