• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.
Russell Brand really should buy that guy lunch for a week and make a proper apology.
 
Ramon, could you remove that picture, please? It's making me want to punch my monitor.
 
I've joined in on the bullying of Brand in the past but have since realised there is a wider agenda which is targeting Brand at the moment.
Your opinions are being manipulated by the mainstream press. Be aware of this. Read between the lines and ask why.

(and then who, what, where, and when of course)
 
I've joined in on the bullying of Brand in the past but have since realised there is a wider agenda which is targeting Brand at the moment.
Your opinions are being manipulated by the mainstream press. Be aware of this. Read between the lines and ask why.

No, they really aren't. I am quite capable of disliking Brand on his own merits (or lack thereof) and I have disliked him for around a decade. I wouldn't normally give him the time of day, but he's popping up all over the place and making grand claims and publishing revolutionary (ahem!) "manifestos", so it's not like I'd have been depriving him of the oxygen of publicity if I had continued to ignore him.
 
Russell Brand really should buy that guy lunch for a week and make a proper apology.

I agree .. sometimes that's all it takes ..to be fair at least, Russell Brand has offered to take that guy out to lunch to apologise for ruining his hot pasta. I hope 'that guy' accepts on the condition that there's no media involvement at all around any of this .. and most importantly, his pasta HAS to be hot. 'That guy' has standards :cool: ..
 
He's not the Messiah, he's a naughty boy ..

I have to work with an adapt perpetual victim like Russell, aggression one minute when no one's watching followed by accusations of lip quivering unfair treatment when people are. I'm just relieved that so many people can see through this manipulative little prat ... Russell that is, not my co-worker sadly.
 
I've joined in on the bullying of Brand in the past but have since realised there is a wider agenda which is targeting Brand at the moment.
Your opinions are being manipulated by the mainstream press.

Whilst there may be some truth in this - the mainstream media does their best to shut down alternative voices from left and right, it's not unique to Brand - the flipside is that if you wanted to create a figure to ridicule the Occupy-types, Brand would be it. An inarticulate multi-millionaire with no experience of life outside the meejah pretending to be Jesus Christ and Che Guevara rolled into one.

The RBS stunt seems to have backfired. I doubt I'm the only one who is tired of the likes of Brand (and Michael Moore, Mark Thomas etc) showing up at workplaces and making arses of themselves when, unsurprisingly, the CEO refuses to come out and talk to them. Such stunts inevitably end up with the celebrity SJW, far from speaking truth to power, bullying secretaries and security guards and generally coming across very poorly.
 
Is there a decent alternative to Brand highlighting these problems?

Or is he so annoying, it's better let the banks get away with it as quietly as possible?
 
Is there a decent alternative to Brand highlighting these problems?

Or is he so annoying, it's better let the banks get away with it as quietly as possible?

Mr. Brand becoming an effective politician would be a decent alternative other than him just sensationally highlighting these problems that most of us are already aware of anyway. He has said on Question Time he is "scared of becoming one of them" (a politician). He is an inciter offering no solutions so far to these problems other than rallying 'people power'.
 
When he actually achieves something, let me know.
Well there's this - if his presence resulted in the outcome that is.

Proof that Russell Brand's revolution may actually be working

For all his exuberant mannerisms, superfluous rhetoric and apathetic attitude towards voting, it appears Russell Brand has scored his first big campaign win.

The US investors who planned to evict scores of families from the New Era estate in East London so that they could build an up-market development there are on the verge of selling up and moving on.

And the buyer they are thinking of taking up is an affordable housing provider.

Westbrook Partners are thought to be close to sealing the deal with London’s deputy mayor, Richard Blakeway, and the elected mayor of Hackney, Jules Pipe, after negotiation talks this week, the Guardian has reported.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/p...volution-may-actually-be-working-9935076.html
 
I rather suspect that the involvement of the Mayors of London and Hackney Borough might have had more to do with it, a suspicion that is strengthened by the fact that Brand only appears to have learned of the outcome via Twitter.

Also, the story looks like a case of the Independent 'making magic with leftovers' from the Guardian's original story, which placed Brand nearly two-thirds of the way through the piece.
 
Whilst there may be some truth in this - the mainstream media does their best to shut down alternative voices from left and right, it's not unique to Brand - the flipside is that if you wanted to create a figure to ridicule the Occupy-types, Brand would be it. An inarticulate multi-millionaire with no experience of life outside the meejah pretending to be Jesus Christ and Che Guevara rolled into one.

The RBS stunt seems to have backfired. I doubt I'm the only one who is tired of the likes of Brand (and Michael Moore, Mark Thomas etc) showing up at workplaces and making arses of themselves when, unsurprisingly, the CEO refuses to come out and talk to them. Such stunts inevitably end up with the celebrity SJW, far from speaking truth to power, bullying secretaries and security guards and generally coming across very poorly.

I have no genuine strong opinions regarding the guy one way or another, although I don't 'take' to him. I've never met him , and the only film I can recall him in was the new St Trinians in which he was pretty peripheral in what should have been a central role.

However, he seems not to realise that he is being used as a caricature to discredit the 'lefty alternative' (as opposed to the 'righty alternative' characterised by UKIP). In contrast to Farage, who is perfectly aware of the press's approach and - generally - can play back against them better than they do.

Of course, its a balance job - I'm sure Farage is aware that there are numerous people repelled by the beer and fags country squire approach, but he knows they are not his audience. I suspect that Brand doesn't realise there are not many even on the left who are totally comfortable with the early 70's deranged hippy revolutionary approach any more. Especially when said hippy is unashamedly wealthy and seems not entirely sure of the distinction between acting/comedy and real life.

I have experienced the sort of person that Swifty describes that shifts between aggression and tearful victimhood. Normally it requires that they select the audience to which they are playing each role quite cunningly. Showing both sides on mass media would seem to be certain to make the trick ineffective.
 
Last edited:

Love him or hate him, that's actually quite an impressive achievement ... my opinion of Russell Brand has changed because even if other people did get involved at a later stage, Russell was there from the beginning on this fight. He's not off the hook on ruining 'that guy's' hot pasta yet though! lol ... I hope an enterprising pasta restaurant picks up on this and offers Russell and 'that guy' a meal for two on the house ... I get the feeling that they would both turn up and probably also bury the hatchet. :D
 
If Russell Brand turned up to the opening of a supermarket, would you give him credit for the supermarket coming into business?

That's more or less what's just happened here.
 
If Russell Brand turned up to the opening of a supermarket, would you give him credit for the supermarket coming into business?

That's more or less what's just happened here.

No I wouldn't anymore than I'd give him credit for inventing cheese because he's just opened a packet of cheese ..

As much as I dislike the man (phoning a woman's granddad to tell him you've slept with his granddaughter on national radio was unforgiveable), on this occasion, credit where credit's due though .... who was talking about the housing community that's now hopefully being protected before Russell Brand was? .... and yes, he probably did only do it to gain further attention for himself .. or maybe he genuinely cared? .. but it seems to have worked somehow. If anything, are other people now jumping on the bandwagon to claim credit?. Sometimes even an utter arsehole like Brand gets it right occasionally.
 
If Russell Brand turned up to the opening of a supermarket, would you give him credit for the supermarket coming into business?

That's more or less what's just happened here.


On a Quantum level, yes. The supermarket neither existed nor not-existed before he opened it.
 
No I wouldn't anymore than I'd give him credit for inventing cheese because he's just opened a packet of cheese ..

As much as I dislike the man (phoning a woman's granddad to tell him you've slept with his granddaughter on national radio was unforgiveable), on this occasion, credit where credit's due though .... who was talking about the housing community that's now hopefully being protected before Russell Brand was? .... and yes, he probably did only do it to gain further attention for himself .. or maybe he genuinely cared? .. but it seems to have worked somehow. If anything, are other people now jumping on the bandwagon to claim credit?. Sometimes even an utter arsehole like Brand gets it right occasionally.

Lots of people were talking about it before Brand climbed on board, mainly because the estate was sold to one of Britain's most unpopular fat-cat MPs in July (!) which is when all this hoo-hah started. See this Mirror story, for example. It already had a place in the media narrative of oppressed poor versus heartless millionaires.

Since then, there have been numerous demonstrations, a massive petition and a march through central London and as I said the Mayor of London and the Mayor of Hackney Borough have both been involved (and no doubt numerous local councillors who don't have such high profiles).

I'm sure Brand means well, it's just that to paint this as some sort of success for his 'revolutionary' ideas is a bit ... out of place. I think the conspicuous lack of thanks to him from the New Era residents is particularly telling.
 
Lots of people were talking about it before Brand climbed on board, mainly because the estate was sold to one of Britain's most unpopular fat-cat MPs in July (!) which is when all this hoo-hah started.
The fact that I was unaware of this aspect of the story (not that I was following it that closely, granted) perhaps shows the 'usefulness' of Brand in diverting attention away from certain uncomfortable facts. Without him gurning and jumping around, perhaps more attention would have been paid to this MP and his property acquisitions.
 
Fair enough and I wasn't aware of that either so cheers garrick92
 
No worries, but perhaps I am too cynical -- for example, Swifty, your knowledge of the scandal seems to be related to Brand's involvement and I'm sure you're not alone in that, so perhaps some level of credit is due to him for keeping it in the spotlight when the media caravan might (stress "might") have otherwise rolled on. But that's a long, long way from thinking that this is a Brand 'success story'.

The irony of his name has only just struck me. He's a brand called Russell.

(EDIT: Called Swifty "Cochise" for some reason. Going ga-ga.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top