Russell Brand.........

Herr Tubthumper said:

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.

Click to expand...

Buzzer said:

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.

Click to expand...

Mellotron said:

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).

Click to expand...

MattBackHome said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hastings gull said:

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?

Click to expand...

Buzzer said:

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.

Click to expand...

Herr Tubthumper said:

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

Click to expand...

Hastings gull said:

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?

Click to expand...

Herr Tubthumper said:

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.

Click to expand...

Hastings gull said:

Herr Tubthumper said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Guinness Boy said:

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?

Click to expand...

Creaky said:

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.

Click to expand...

Lower West Stander said:

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

Click to expand...

Herr Tubthumper said:

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.

Click to expand...

Guinness Boy said:

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?

Click to expand...

Herr Tubthumper said:

Hastings gull said:

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.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

cunning fergus said:

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.

Click to expand...