Russell Brand - Moving Right

Dion said:
Which is why it was so tacky.
Click to expand...
So tacky, it's unacceptable.

Don't worry, I fixed it just for You. <3

2hzo4kw.jpg
 
NinjaFletch said:
It is though, I'm sorry. But it is.

I live in Hertfordshire, its one of the safest Tory seats you can get. A vote for any one other than the Tory's is a wasted vote.

Lets put that into context, we had a turnout of 70.6% last election and a winning margin of 27.8%. Even if every other person who didn't vote in the constituency came out and voted Lib Dem (runners up) it would have been good enough for a winning margin of less than2%.

Thats not even to mention the fact that the supposed 'left wing alternatives' (of which the idea the Lib Dems are one is absolutely laughable) didn't even bother to field a candidate here, if I didn't want to vote for the big three my choices were the BNP or UKIP.

The idea that its worth my time voting is hilarious, I'm completely disenfranchised. There is nobody to vote for that supprts my views and, even if there was, my vote does not count and won't influence politics in this country.
Click to expand...

I believe if people voted for polices, politics would look very different, but unfortunately people don't.
 
Eboue said:
Is capitalism really producing those mental health problems and depression?


I would argue science and technology are a benefit that is at the very least enhanced by capitalism.
Click to expand...

100℅ agree. I tgink the argument is that capitalism has outgrown its use in that regard, and technology doesn't necessarily need capitalism -at least in its current form - to enhance it.

Van Piorsing said:
He has no solution. He's just there for your entertainment so you can clap hands like a tard when he speaks about problems WE ALL KNOW ABOUT.
Click to expand...

You think the average Joe is aware of just how big wealth inequality is, or the extent of which politicians are in the pockets of international conglomerates? Those being just two examples of things Russell Brand has drawn a lot of people's attention to.
 
Last edited:
soap said:
You think the average Joe is aware of just how big wealth inequality is, or the extent of which politicians are in the pockets of international conglomerates? Those being just two examples of things Russell Brand has drawn a lot of people's attention to.
Click to expand...
Not gonna underestimate the average Joes. They're usually on the first line when the real revolt starts while Russel Brand wants to take us back to days of socialism from a back seat of his car while making Youtube videos.

If we're talking about truly revolutionizing things why these so called 'saviors' can't come up with something new ? Why we have to go back to a system that historically failed in so many countries ?

I definitely agree on expanding the consciousness. In that regard he got talent to do that and really seems like a polite and funny guy which helps him get desired attention... to the moment he start talking about solutions and then everything is just falling apart.
 
Van Piorsing said:
Not gonna underestimate the average Joes. They're usually on the first line when the real revolt starts while Russel Brand wants to take us back to days of socialism from a back seat of his car while making Youtube videos.

If we're talking about truly revolutionizing things why these so called 'saviors' can't come up with something new ? Why we have to go back to a system that historically failed in so many countries ?

I definitely agree on expanding the consciousness. In that regard he got talent to do that and really seems like a polite and funny guy which helps him get desired attention... to the moment he start talking about solutions and then everything is just falling apart.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying the average Joe is stupid, if they were, Brand wouldn't be getting the attention he is, because most people wouldn't give enough of a shit. If you're telling me that he hasn't drawn thousands of people's attention to just how self serving mainstream politicians and media are then I strongly disagree. It's hardly a novel concept that politicians are full of shit and will more or less say whatever they think has the best chance of keeping them in power. Most people figured that out a while ago. The extent and depth of it though? I certainly didn't know Brand's often referenced stat about 6 heirs of Walmart having more money than the poorest 80 million Americans, so I can only assume a lot of other people didn't either.

He's at least a bit vague on solutions from what I've seen i suppose. Haven't read his book - from what I gather, he's pointing readers toward other people's ideas on how the planet could be better run, while obviously presenting it in his own comedic way so that its easier to digest. That's basically what he's doing with his TV appearances and YouTube channel too, and for me, that in an of itself if more than enough to give the bloke credit for. Of coursehe doesn't have all the answers, but to quote the man himself... "That's like me saying, "that building's on fire!", and you say "well go and put it out then!""
 
soap said:
I'm not saying the average Joe is stupid, if they were, Brand wouldn't be getting the attention he is, because most people wouldn't give enough of a shit. If you're telling me that he hasn't drawn thousands of people's attention to just how self serving mainstream politicians and media are then I strongly disagree. It's hardly a novel concept that politicians are full of shit and will more or less say whatever they think has the best chance of keeping them in power. Most people figured that out a while ago. The extent and depth of it though? I certainly didn't know Brand's often referenced stat about 6 heirs of Walmart having more money than the poorest 80 million Americans, so I can only assume a lot of other people didn't either.

He's at least a bit vague on solutions from what I've seen i suppose. Haven't read his book - from what I gather, he's pointing readers toward other people's ideas on how the planet could be better run, while obviously presenting it in his own comedic way so that its easier to digest. That's basically what he's doing with his TV appearances and YouTube channel too, and for me, that in an of itself if more than enough to give the bloke credit for. Of coursehe doesn't have all the answers, but to quote the man himself... "That's like me saying, "that building's on fire!", and you say "well go and put it out then!""
Click to expand...
Socialism and further unending taxation is like fuel for this fire. This is where he fail ultimately.

Revolution without smart planning and creativity will be just another head of the same dragon that devours chances of prosperity. What he does is recycling the old ideas that in many cases didn't worked in the past.

Still it may be both interesting and entertaining read and the guy is not that old, I guess... In time he may evolve with his ideals to something more serious, hopefully.
 
A banker bites back.


An open letter to Russell Brand.

Dear Russell,

Hi. I'm Jo. You may remember me. You may even have filmed me. On Friday, you staged a publicity stunt at an RBS office, inconveniencing a hundred or so people. I was the lanky slouched guy with a lot less hair than you but (I flatter myself) a slightly better beard who complained to you that you, a multimillionaire, had caused my lunch to get cold. You started going on at me about public money and bankers' bonuses, but look, Russell, anyone who knows me will tell you that my food is important to me, and I hadn't had breakfast that morning, and I'd been standing in the freezing cold for half an hour on your whim. What mattered to me at the time wasn't bonuses; it was my lunch, so I said so.

Which is a great shame, because I'd usually be well up for a proper barney with you, and the points you made do actually deserve answers. Although not — and I really can't emphasise this enough, Russell — not as much as I deserve lunch.

Before I go any further, I should stress that I don't speak for RBS. I'm not even an RBS employee, though I do currently work for them. What follows is not any sort of official statement from RBS, or even from the wider banking industry. It is merely the voice of a man whose lunch on Friday was unfairly delayed and too damn cold.

So, firstly, for the people who weren't there, let's describe the kerfuffle. I didn't see your arrival; I just got back from buying my lunch to discover the building's doors were locked, a film crew were racing around outside trying to find a good angle to point their camera through the windows, and you were in reception, poncing around like you were Russell bleeding Brand. From what I can gather, you'd gone in and security had locked the doors to stop your film crew following you. Which left us — the people who were supposed to be in the building, who had work to do — standing around in the cold.

My first question is, what were you hoping to achieve? Did you think a pack of traders might gallop through reception, laughing maniacally as they threw burning banknotes in the air, quaffing champagne, and brutally thrashing the ornamental paupers that they keep on diamante leashes — and you, Russell, would damningly catch them in the act? But that's on Tuesdays. I get it, Russell, I do: footage of being asked to leave by security is good footage. It looks like you're challenging the system and the powers that be want your voice suppressed. Or something. But all it really means, behind the manipulative media bullshit, is that you don't have an appointment.

Of course, Russell, I have no idea whether you could get an appointment. Maybe RBS top brass would rather not talk to you. That's their call — and, you know, some of your behaviour might make them a tad wary. Reputations are very important in banking, and, reputation-wise, hanging out with a guy who was once fired for broadcasting hardcore pornography while off his head on crack is not ideal. But surely a man who can get invited onto Question Time to discuss the issues of the day with our Lords & Masters is establishment enough to talk to a mere banker. And it would be great if you could. Have you tried, Russell? Maybe you could do an interview with one of them. An expert could answer your questions and rebut your points, and you could rebut right back at them. I might even watch that. (By the way, Russell, if you do, and it makes money, I would like a cut for the idea, please. And I'm sure it would. Most things you do make money.)

But instead of doing something potentially educational, Russell, you staged a completely futile publicity stunt. You turned up and weren't allowed in. Big wow. You know what would have happened if a rabid capitalist had just turned up unannounced? They wouldn't have been allowed in either. You know what I have in my pocket? A security pass. Unauthorised people aren't allowed in. Obviously. That's not a global conspiracy, Russell; it's basic security. Breweries have security too, and that's not because they're conspiring to steal beer from the poor. And security really matters: banks are simply crawling with highly sensitive information. Letting you in because you're a celebrity and You Demand Answers could in fact see the bank hauled in front of the FCA. That would be a scandal. Turning you away is not. I'm sorry, Russell, but it's just not.

Your response to my complaint that a multimillionaire was causing my lunch to get cold was... well, frankly, it was to completely miss the point, choosing to talk about your millions instead of addressing the real issue, namely my fecking lunch. But that's a forgivable mistake. We all have our priorities, Russell, and I can understand why a man as obsessed with money as I am with food would assume that's what every conversation is about. Anyway, you said that all your money has been made privately, not through taxation. Now, that, Russell, is actually a fair point. Well done.

Although I can't help but notice that you have no qualms about appearing on the BBC in return for money raised through one of the most regressive taxes in the country, a tax which leads to crippling fines and even jail time for thousands of poor people and zero rich people. But never mind. I appreciate that it's difficult for a celeb to avoid the BBC, even if they're already a multimillionaire and can totally afford to turn the work down. Ah, the sacrifices we make to our principles for filthy lucre, eh, Russell? The condoms and hairspray won't buy themselves. Or, in my case, the pasta.

And then there is that film you're working on, isn't there, for which I understand your production company is benefitting from the Enterprise Investment Scheme, allowing the City investors funding your film to avoid tax. Was that the film you were making on Friday, Russell, when you indignantly pointed out to me that none of your money comes from the taxpayer? Perhaps it had slipped your mind.

And, of course, you've been in a few Hollywood films now, haven't you, Russell? I take it you've heard of Hollywood Accounting? Of course you have, Russell; you produced Arthur. So you are well aware that Hollywood studios routinely cook their books to make sure their films never go into taxable profit — for instance, Return Of The Jedi has never, on paper, made a profit. Return Of The fecking Jedi, Russell. As an actor, and even more so as the producer of a (officially) loss-making film, you've taken part in that, you've benefitted from it. (While we're on the subject, I hear great things about Hollywood's catering. I hope you enjoyed it. Expensive, delicious, and served (at least when I dream about it) nice and hot.)

But still, you're broadly right. Leaving aside the money you make from one of the most regressive of the UK's taxes, and the tax exemptions your company uses to encourage rich City investors to give you more money, and the huge fees you've accepted from one of the planet's most notorious and successful tax avoidance schemes, you, Russell, have come by your riches without any effect on taxpayers. Whereas RBS got bailed out. Fair point.
Click to expand...
 
Here's the thing about the bailout of RBS, Russell: it's temporary. The plan was never to bail out a bank so that it could then go bust anyway. That would be too asinine even for Gordon Brown. The idea was to buy the bank with public money, wait until it became profitable again, then resell it, as Alastair Darling clearly explained at the time. And that is still the plan, and it does appear to be on course. Not only that, but it looks as if the government will eventually sell RBS for more than they bought it for. In other words, the taxpayer will make a profit on this deal.

Of all the profligate pissing away of public money that goes on in this country, the only instance where the public are actually going to get their money back seems an odd target for your ire. What other government spending can you say that about, Russell? What other schemes do they sink taxpayers' money into and get it all back, with interest? And how many people have you met who have actually been right in the middle of working to make a profit for the taxpayer when you've interrupted them to cause their lunch to get cold?

As for bonuses, well, I'll be honest: I get an annual bonus. I'm not allowed to tell you exactly how much it is, but I will say it's four or five orders of magnitude smaller than the ones that make the headlines. It's very nice — helps pay off a bit of credit card debt (remember debt, Russell?) — but, to put it in terms you can understand, I'd need to work for several tens of thousands of years before my bonuses added up to close to what you're worth.

But here's the key thing you need to know about bonuses, Russell: they come with conditions attached. My salary is mine to do with as I will (I like to spend a chunk of it on good hot food). My bonus my employer can take back off me under certain conditions. Again, I do not speak for RBS, so cannot say anything about the recent FX trading scandal or PPI or any of that shit. But, in general terms, bonuses have conditions attached, such as "And we'll claw back every penny if we discover you were breaking the rules." And yes, it does happen. The only bonuses that make the news are the ones that get paid. But, every year, bonuses either don't get paid or are even taken back off staff for various reasons, including misconduct. I'd've thought, Russell, that anyone who wanted bankers to be accountable would approve of the scheme.

And now, if I may, a word about your manner.

Much as I disagree with most of your politics, I've always rather liked you. You do a good job of coming across as someone who might be fun to be around. Turns out, that's an illusion.

Because, you see, Russell, when you accosted me, you started speaking to me with your nose about two inches from mine. That's pretty fecking aggressive, Russell. I'm sure you're aware of the effect. Putting one's face that close to someone else's and staring into their eyes is how primates square off for a fight. Regardless of our veneer of civilisation, when someone does that to us, it causes instinctive physical responses: adrenaline, nervousness... back down or lash out. (Or, apparently, in the case of the celebrity bikes you like to hang out with, swoon.) I'm sure that, like turning up with a megaphone instead of an appointment, such an aggressive invasion of personal space makes for great footage: you keep talking to someone in that chatty reasonable affable tone of yours, and they react with anger. Makes them look unreasonable. Makes it look like they're the aggressive ones. Makes it look like people get flustered in the face of your incisive argument. When in fact they're just getting flustered in the face of your face.

I've been thinking about this the last couple of days, Russell, and I can honestly say that the only other people ever to talk to me the way you did were school bullies. It's been nearly a quarter of a century since I had to deal with such bastards, so I was caught quite off my guard. Nice company you're keeping. Now I think about it, they used to ruin my lunchtimes too.

One last thing, Russell. Who did you inconvenience on Friday? Let's say that you're right, and that the likes of Fred Goodwin need to pay. OK, so how much trouble do you think Fred faced last Friday as a result of your antics? Do you think any of his food got cold, Russell? Even just his tea? I somehow doubt it. How about some of the millionaire traders you despise so much (some of whom are nearly as rich as you, Russell)? Well, no, because you got the wrong fecking building. (Might want to have a word with your researchers about that.) Which brings us back to where we came in: a bunch of admittedly fairly well paid but still quite ordinary working people, admin staff mostly, having their lives inconvenienced and, in at least one case, their lunches quite disastrously cooled, in order to accommodate the puerile self-aggrandising antics of a prancing multimillionaire. If you had any self-awareness beyond agonising over how often to straighten your fecking chest-hair, you'd be ashamed.

It was paella, by the way. From Fernando's in Devonshire Row. I highly recommend them: their food is frankly just fantastic.

When it's hot.
Click to expand...
 
:lol: Fantastic read. Although it killed me waiting so long to find out what his food actually was.
 
That letter is absolute genius.
This man should have a newspaper column. I would read it every day.
 
I thought this line was excellent.
Putting one's face that close to someone else's and staring into their eyes is how primates square off for a fight. Regardless of our veneer of civilisation, when someone does that to us, it causes instinctive physical responses: adrenaline, nervousness... back down or lash out. (Or, apparently, in the case of the celebrity bikes you like to hang out with, swoon.)
Click to expand...
 
Pogue Mahone said:
A banker bites back.
Click to expand...

If you actually look at his key points there's little I agree with:

- Protests shouldn't inconvenience people other than those they are directed at
- The BBC is a regressive tax
- The RBS bailout is a positive for the taxpayer
- A lot of handwaving regarding Brand having benefited from tax/tax avoidance
- That the bonus culture is fine as they can be clawed back

I do think it was a pointless publicity stunt but come on, do you actually agree with the letter?
 
Ah, so he's making some sort of anti capitalism movie. His political posturing and incessant need to thrust his face into any TV camera he can see (and other peoples faces, by the sound of it) makes much more sense now.

I stand by what I said earlier in the thread; he's a hypocrite, and a bell end.
 
Untied said:
If you actually look at his key points there's little I agree with:

- Protests shouldn't inconvenience people other than those they are directed at
- The BBC is a regressive tax
- The RBS bailout is a positive for the taxpayer
- A lot of handwaving regarding Brand having benefited from tax/tax avoidance
- That the bonus culture is fine as they can be clawed back

I do think it was a pointless publicity stunt but come on, do you actually agree with the letter?
Click to expand...

I do think Brand is - at best - naive to have earned his fortune from working in an industry where tax avoidance is so endemic - not to mention actually owning a film production company that is primarily funded by tax breaks - at the same time as holding forth about the evil of corporations that exploit legal loopholes to avoid paying tax. So that's definitely a fair point.

The BBC license fee is a bit more far-fetched but I do know a lot of people find it one of the more irritating and unfair taxes that we have to pay. Especially when there's an apparent inability to accept that not everyone who wishes to own and watch a TV has any interest in watching the BBC but you're forced to pay a license fee regardless. As far as Russell Brand is concerned, he could choose not to accept paid work for the BBC if he's going to campaign about unfair taxes, forced on an unwilling populace (which he is)

The RBS bailout might be a positive for the tax-payer. I think that's a fair point. It's possible that the UK government (and, indirectly, the UK tax-payer) could end up making money on the deal. Which is not something you can say about most other 'investments' that UK tax dollars are poured into (the NHS IT debacle being one that really boiled my piss when I lived in the UK)

The rest is a mix of some reasonable points, some unreasonable points and a generally witty and articulate rant. The type of thing Russell Brand might write, as it happens. Just a little less polysyllabic and over-egged.
 
Last edited:
Pogue Mahone said:
I do think Brand is - at best - naive to have earned his fortune from working in an industry where tax avoidance is so endemic - not to mention actually owning a film production company that is primarily funded by tax breaks - at the same time as holding forth about the evil of corporations that exploit legal loopholes to avoid paying tax. So that's definitely a fair point.
Click to expand...
To be fair to Russell, this is a stretch. The Enterprise Investment Scheme that the letter mentioned isn't some loophole that allows business owners to hide profits away from the tax-payer, it's a HMRC approved scheme designed to help new businesses find investors, which seems to have worked for his company. You could argue that someone like Brand wouldn't need to rely on such a scheme but I've no idea how easy it is to set up an anti-capitalist film production company. The fact that Wes Brown (wtf?) is one of his largest investors suggests conventional routes to set this up weren't that accessible.
 
ThierryHenry said:
To be fair to Russell, this is a stretch. The Enterprise Investment Scheme that the letter mentioned isn't some loophole that allows business owners to hide profits away from the tax-payer, it's a HMRC approved scheme designed to help new businesses find investors, which seems to have worked for his company. You could argue that someone like Brand wouldn't need to rely on such a scheme but I've no idea how easy it is to set up an anti-capitalist film production company. The fact that Wes Brown (wtf?) is one of his largest investors suggests conventional routes to set this up weren't that accessible.
Click to expand...

I've invested in something similar in Ireland myself. You're right that it's about individuals avoiding paying tax, rather than corporations. Still, it does fly in the face of his rhetoric about tax avoidance in general.
 
One thing I hate about Brand is his 'debating' style, as mentioned in that letter.

His close to the face, shouting, changing the subject, and generally acting like a bit of a tosser.
 
Reds-of-Ulster said:
One thing I hate about Brand is his 'debating' style, as mentioned in that letter.

His close to the face, shouting, changing the subject, and generally acting like a bit of a tosser.
Click to expand...

He says the word 'mate' too often as well. Maybe he means it genuinely, but every so often I get the impression he's doing to try and sound like a typical normal bloke.
 
Mind you, thinking about it, the whole "bail-out might end up in profit for UK government" things is completely wrong. The banking crash was about so much more than the money it cost, directly, to bail out the banks. It triggered a fairly hefty recession. Which has had a direct and prolonged negative effect on millions of people that can't ever be taken back, no matter how much money is earned from the eventual sale of RBS.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I've invested in something similar in Ireland myself. You're right that it's about individuals avoiding paying tax, rather than corporations. Still, it does fly in the face of his rhetoric about tax avoidance in general.
Click to expand...
I still think this is wrong. It's a long way from the idea of tax avoidance that people like Brand are rallying against, it's an example of the way the government uses the tax system to encourage investments in areas they wish to give a helping hand. Easy to see how people will spin this to paint him as a hypocrite, but I don't think it fits in this case.
 
ThierryHenry said:
I still think this is wrong. It's a long way from the idea of tax avoidance that people like Brand are rallying against, it's an example of the way the government uses the tax system to encourage investments in areas they wish to give a helping hand. Easy to see how people will spin this to paint him as a hypocrite, but I don't think it fits in this case.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think you're probably right.

The more I think about this, the more I swing back to the Brand camp (this one time, in Brand camp..) It's quite possible that he is being a hypocrite (albeit almost certainly unintentionally) but that shouldn't mean we ignore the issues he raises, or take away from the good intentions he has in raising them. All the Brand bashing in the media this last while is mean-spirited IMO and this is really just more of the same.

I enjoyed the rant though. I always enjoy a good rant.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
I do think Brand is - at best - naive to have earned his fortune from working in an industry where tax avoidance is so endemic - not to mention actually owning a film production company that is primarily funded by tax breaks - at the same time as holding forth about the evil of corporations that exploit legal loopholes to avoid paying tax. So that's definitely a fair point.
Click to expand...

As with the Sun front page though, the criticism isn't of Brand directly. First it was that he paid a tax-avoiding landlord, now it's that he has been paid by tax-avoiding companies. If you ask me neither fact renders his criticism of systemic tax avoidance hypocritical, nor does taking advantage of tax breaks explicitly intended to encourage the creative industries.

Pogue Mahone said:
The RBS bailout might be a positive for the tax-payer. I think that's a fair point. It's possible that the UK government (and, indirectly, the UK tax-payer) could end up making money on the deal. Which is not something you can say about most other 'investments' that UK tax dollars are poured into (the NHS IT debacle being one that really boiled my piss when I lived in the UK)
Click to expand...

But that doesn't take into account the wider damage its failure caused to the economy. The guy writing the letter knows this or should know this. I'll give a shit analogy in which RBS is like a bridge. The people running the bridge were incentivised to look only to short-term profits and self-interest and so they abused the bridge, taking home millions in pay/bonuses, and even engaging in criminal activity, all without any consideration for the welfare of those using the bridge. When it collapsed the taxpayer stepped in to rebuild the bridge. The fact that we can eventually sell on this new bridge for a profit will not make up for the losses incurred by the bridge being out of action. Those responsible for its collapse kept their fortunes, the incentives in the system have hardly changed, meanwhile the living standards of those who used the bridge have fallen.

Pogue Mahone said:
The rest is a mix of some reasonable points, some unreasonable points and a generally witty and articulate rant. The type of thing Russell Brand might write, as it happens. Just a little less polysyllabic and over-egged.
Click to expand...

If I'm being very unfair it actually functions as a better caricature of a banker than anything Brand might write: Nothing else matters so long as I get my lunch
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Aye, I've pretty much backed down on all those points. See above. I do that sometimes. That's the price of being reflexively contrary. Occasionally backing the wrong horse.
Click to expand...

Yeah I did see. I didn't want to discard my post once it was written though :angel:
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Mind you, thinking about it, the whole "bail-out might end up in profit for UK government" things is completely wrong. The banking crash was about so much more than the money it cost, directly, to bail out the banks. It triggered a fairly hefty recession. Which has had a direct and prolonged negative effect on millions of people that can't ever be taken back, no matter how much money is earned from the eventual sale of RBS.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct, i think the "bail out" term is used as a catch all for those that don't really know what they are going on about.
 
Alright reply, well done. Russell's pretty naive ("They’ve got a lot to hide, so they locked the doors"... sigh), but he's doing a lot of good work that will eventually be applauded. I worry that he takes everything too personally to keep it up, someone as media savvy as he is will only get hurt by the constant attacks coming his way. Still, the publicity that he's bringing to a range of different causes can only be a good thing.

I just hope that there's some substance to that film, and he's learned some lessons from the (as far as I can tell from tiny extracts) dreadful book...
 
How long before the Uk realises that the first past the posts system isn't very democratic? Even our compulsory voting (or attendance at least as you can spoil your paper or not mark it - technically not allowed but impossible to stop or prove who does so) with preferential runoff system is better.

Better still would be compulsory voting with half of all MP's being lected directly by first past the post or perhaps some sort of preference runoff system and half by proportional representation thus giving a value to every vote cast and retaining majority governments if anyone is persuasive enough to deserve it.
 
It amazes me that people criticise Brand for not having all the answers yet repeatedly vote for people who haven't even found the questions yet. If we don't have people pointing out that the King has no clothes nothing will change.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
Russell's response.

http://www.russellbrand.com/2014/12/8164/

Not a lot to disagree with.
Click to expand...

So basically he turned up with a film crew somewhere where he wasn't welcome without an appointment and they told him to feck off. I'm surprised that Russell seems surprised that this happened. It seems like a pretty normal thing to happen. If someone came to my workplace we'd do the same on principle. Claiming that it means they have something to hide is baseless and just furthers an agenda.
 
He turns up because they are refusing requests for interviews. And they don't want to hide what they have done, they just want to avoid talking about it in the hope that we all forget that they ripped us off to the tune of many billions of dollars and yet still have jobs with huge bonuses instead of many of them being in prison where they belong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.