I'm not surprised they don't want to talk to him. He's a bell end. That doesn't equal having something to hide.
Russell Brand - Moving Right
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
I'm not surprised they don't want to talk to him. He's a bell end. That doesn't equal having something to hide.
Yet they plainly do, bell end or no bell end. And it seems rather extrene behaviour when a "no comment" would have done.
Not one of the feckers ended up in prison. Unbelievable. Or rather not.
Not one of the feckers ended up in prison. Unbelievable. Or rather not.
It's really not though. He turned up at a random place he had no business being with no appointment, with a film crew and they rightly told him to go away.
It's a non story spun into an agenda. Sure the issues that are being raised are legitimate, but this one instance is a case of nothing out of the ordinary happening.
Most people that turn up at any establishment in the world demanding answers from the bosses without an appointment get told to piss off. Just because we agree with the questions being asked doesn't change that.
Told to piss off or invoke a total building lock down? At best a PR disaster
It depends which way you look at it. On the other hand it could simply be to stop his camera crew entering which would be fair enough.
It could be a PR disaster but it's not anything sinister. It would be the same in most establishments.
It could be a PR disaster but it's not anything sinister. It would be the same in most establishments.
If they have nothing to hide it is an utterly incompetent PR disaster.
You would have to be very naive to truly believe they have nothing to hide.
You would have to be very naive to truly believe they have nothing to hide.
I don't believe they have nothing to hide. I just believe that telling somebody who turns up with a camera crew with no appointment demanding to speak to you to go away doesn't equate to having something to hide. It's just standard business practice. That doesn't mean they've nothing to hide, but it's not an admission of guilt as is being made out. It's perfectly normal.
It sounds like a complete non-issue of an event twisted to suit an agenda.
It's blatantly a PR stunt by Brand and I don't see how RBS could have acted any differently.
He was filming a documentary about the banking crisis and in order to avoid the whole thing being a bunch of graphics and moody shots of the exterior of banks he decided to rock up, cause a kerfuffle and get some footage of him poncing around the lobby ("as if he was Russell bleeding Brand") It's documentary 101 from the Michael Moore school of documentary-making. A visual hook to provide some images to go along with the narrative. From the bank's point of view, security is paramount so if there's even a tiny risk of some kind of breach then the shutters come down pronto.
Very harsh to imply it was intended as some sort of ego trip by Brand or a massive PR cluster-feck from RBS. They both behaved reasonably considering their (very different) objectives.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with whether or not Brand's concerns about the behaviour of the banks are valid (IMO they are) or whether the blogger has any right to be aggrieved about his cold paella (IMO he doesn't) When you work for corporations that are likely to attract protestors and acts of civil disobedience then you have more of a chance of occasional mild inconvenience than someone who works for, say, a charity. If that's a problem for yer man, he shouldn't work for a bank. And I say this as someone who has has abuse screamed at him by long-haired studenty types on more than one occasion.
He was filming a documentary about the banking crisis and in order to avoid the whole thing being a bunch of graphics and moody shots of the exterior of banks he decided to rock up, cause a kerfuffle and get some footage of him poncing around the lobby ("as if he was Russell bleeding Brand") It's documentary 101 from the Michael Moore school of documentary-making. A visual hook to provide some images to go along with the narrative. From the bank's point of view, security is paramount so if there's even a tiny risk of some kind of breach then the shutters come down pronto.
Very harsh to imply it was intended as some sort of ego trip by Brand or a massive PR cluster-feck from RBS. They both behaved reasonably considering their (very different) objectives.
Of course, none of this has anything to do with whether or not Brand's concerns about the behaviour of the banks are valid (IMO they are) or whether the blogger has any right to be aggrieved about his cold paella (IMO he doesn't) When you work for corporations that are likely to attract protestors and acts of civil disobedience then you have more of a chance of occasional mild inconvenience than someone who works for, say, a charity. If that's a problem for yer man, he shouldn't work for a bank. And I say this as someone who has has abuse screamed at him by long-haired studenty types on more than one occasion.
By not shutting a whole building down perhaps? If it was just a publicity stunt it sure worked with the able help of the bank. Send some bloke out to say lots of stuff with little substance and it is sorted.
But that isn't really the way banks, or any big company works.
Had he burst into Parliament demanding answers with a camera crew, it would have also cause a security lock down, because that is what happens when people who don't have security passes burst into a secured area.
Except he didn't. He went into the public area of a bank bailed out to the tune of billions of pounds by taxpayers like him. And they lost their minds.
Storm 
The Torygraph is becoming a big a joke as the Mail with garbage journalism like that.
The Torygraph is becoming a big a joke as the Mail with garbage journalism like that.
The New Era Estate has been sold to a charity by the American property developers who owned them, Brand does do some good
I like him, and I think there needs to be a lot more people doing what he's doing.
I don't think it''s relevant whether he's a bellend or annoying. He went to the same school as me and I've always found him insufferable...on TV and in person, but he's standing up for the little guy at a time when anyone else with any influence is more interested in sweeping the little guy into the gutter then shitting all over him.
No doubt he gets some kind of kick from all the attention, but can someone actually explain, without sounding like a laughable delusional wanker, how what he's trying to do isn't a good thing? They can't. The best effort was some self contradicting idiot who mainly whined about Brand causing his sandwich to go cold.
To be honest any discussion or argument where Russel Brand comes across as the sensible/correct one is worrying enough in itself to deserve attention.
This happpened at our work a couple of weeks ago when some guy turned up with a megaphone...excpet he didn't get told to feck off. He was offered a meeting with the manager responsible for his concerns and with the local MP.
That's a load of nonsense in general actually. You can generally walk into any public establishment demanding answers and either speak to the person responsible there and then or at least get a meeting agreed with them. Especially if the concerns are genuine. It just makes you look like a twat and annoys everyone else there, which is why it doesn't tend to ever happen unless there's a good reason.
I don't think it''s relevant whether he's a bellend or annoying. He went to the same school as me and I've always found him insufferable...on TV and in person, but he's standing up for the little guy at a time when anyone else with any influence is more interested in sweeping the little guy into the gutter then shitting all over him.
No doubt he gets some kind of kick from all the attention, but can someone actually explain, without sounding like a laughable delusional wanker, how what he's trying to do isn't a good thing? They can't. The best effort was some self contradicting idiot who mainly whined about Brand causing his sandwich to go cold.
To be honest any discussion or argument where Russel Brand comes across as the sensible/correct one is worrying enough in itself to deserve attention.
This happpened at our work a couple of weeks ago when some guy turned up with a megaphone...excpet he didn't get told to feck off. He was offered a meeting with the manager responsible for his concerns and with the local MP.
That's a load of nonsense in general actually. You can generally walk into any public establishment demanding answers and either speak to the person responsible there and then or at least get a meeting agreed with them. Especially if the concerns are genuine. It just makes you look like a twat and annoys everyone else there, which is why it doesn't tend to ever happen unless there's a good reason.
So this means it's normal? Your work would have been well within their rights to.
You can't generally just walk into any huge corporation and demand to speak to the bosses who are generally pretty busy going about the work they're paid to do without an appointment and film the whole thing without warning. That's why it doesn't tend to happen. That's why people get asked to leave, because it's batshit mental.
Where do you work? Anywhere I've worked would have escorted him off the premises.
If they had a greed to an interview rather than repeatedly refusing point blank he wouldn't have had to. Their reaction was then ludicrous and demonstrated just how isolated from reality they are.
And they would have reaped the same shitstorm of publicity. The penalty for dealing with it so badly beforehand.
It's not normal but it's what you risk happening when you refuse to address a situation that is either wrong or likely to cause upset.
I wouldn't say our work would have been well within their rights to remove him, because people who work there have an accountability and responsibility for the decisions they make, and escorting anyone who turns up asking awkward questions from the premises without even offering them a channel of communication is the opposite of that. You can only do that if you're above your own laws, which puts you firmly as the one in the wrong camp.
I can understand being uncomfortable talking while the cameras were there, but I can't imagine anyone ever turning up at our place and being bundled off without even being given a chance of meeting/talking to someone in private. It'd be a really stupid thing to do unless there was something to hide...the press would get hold of it and it'd get loads more attention that it otherwise would have, kind of like what has actually happened with Brand
tbh I kind of agree with the post near the start of this thread saying Brand's heart is in the right place but him and his supporters come across as naive studenty types.
The thing is though. Naive studenty types tend to be fairly intelligent people who aren't so much at a stage of not understanding politics, as they are at a stage of understanding politics perfectly fine but not yet having their views biased by personal circumstances or selfishness.
For example, I'd sooner join a bunch of hippies camping outside a bank in protest of greed, than waste my time arguing people should be allowed to be greedy criminals without facing scrutiny or punishment, as long as they're good at it.
Brand has seemingly come to the same conclusion and is actually trying to do something with it, so good on him. Other people will sit there criticising him, but don't bat an eyelid themselves over issues that actually they know he's probably right about.
The thing is though. Naive studenty types tend to be fairly intelligent people who aren't so much at a stage of not understanding politics, as they are at a stage of understanding politics perfectly fine but not yet having their views biased by personal circumstances or selfishness.
For example, I'd sooner join a bunch of hippies camping outside a bank in protest of greed, than waste my time arguing people should be allowed to be greedy criminals without facing scrutiny or punishment, as long as they're good at it.
Brand has seemingly come to the same conclusion and is actually trying to do something with it, so good on him. Other people will sit there criticising him, but don't bat an eyelid themselves over issues that actually they know he's probably right about.
Agreed. It is like criticising Geldof et al for raising funds to fight Ebola because you think he is knob while doing feck all about it yourself. At least they are doing something.
They're under no obligation to speak to some random bell end with a penchant for theatrics who turns up out of the blue. He isn't an authority on anything.
Even if they refused an interview for whatever reason that Brand likely wouldn't give two shits about, it doesn't mean that you then take matters into your own hands and turn up with a camera crew.
Regarding their reaction I just can't agree. You're acting like he walked in calmly and asked if he could make an appointment with the boss which would have been reasonable. He turned up with a crew recording everything and caused a circus. That's what's ludicrous and isolated from reality. In noodles example it's the same. If you can't get answers, turning up with a megaphone is batshit mental and nobody in their right mind would do that. On occasions like these, asking someone to leave who is causing a scene and recording the whole thing with the intention of broadcasting is a completely reasonable response to an unreasonable action.
I agree that there should be a discussion, but you just don't go about it like that.
He had already repeatedly asked for an interview and they had refused. They got what they deserved. Actually they didn't as prison is what many of them deserve. Now that the economy is back on its feet we (the Government) should be suing the banks and the individuals that caused this and bankrupting them. Plus criminal charges all round would be nice. Never going to happen as they went to the right public school, Uni and dining club.
Reportedly, and I can't agree that that's what they deserve, since they're under no obligation to speak to him in the first place given that he has about as much authority as Mr Bean. They would only deserve it if they actually had an obligation to speak to him. He's welcome to try, but if he doesn't get his own way then an exaggerated response like he went and did isn't reasonable.
Our feelings on matters don't give us free licence to then do what we like about them. It's the same logic that people use when talking about torturing criminals because they deserve it. 'What they deserve' is often based on what you happen to think or feel and not much else. That's not how we work as a society nor should it be. What we believe someone deserves doesn't then mean that's what should happen.
He caused a scene because he didn't get his own way. That's neither reasonable nor deserved. It's petulant and childish.
You have free licence to ask anyone questions. And I like that he made a scene. Since nobody else seems to give a toss we must rely of a comedian. We have a huge and increasing problem with big business being above the law and we just seem happy for it to happen as long an nobody makes an embarrassing fuss.
Fair enough, I respect your opinion and how you feel but I can't agree. I prefer people trying to make change not to act like children otherwise I can't take them seriously.
The problem is that the alternative is that nothing gets done. Corporate criminals get away with it again and again. People like Murdoch rule the world. This has to change.
The problem and point you seem to be missing here is that no one seems to be an authority to this lot. They don’t even follow their own rules which they set for themselves.
Presumably if someone robbed your house, and the police told you they weren’t going to do anything about it even though you knew who it was and where they lived, you would consider yourself the one in the wrong if you then turned up at their house asking why they robbed your stuff? Because this would be "batshit crazy", right?
If I turned up at his house with a megaphone disrupting the street then I'd completely understand if somebody told me to feck off or called the police. If I turned up at his house asking him why he took my stuff then no I wouldn't, but that's not what Brand or the guy in your example did.
There is a large difference in the manner in which you conduct yourself which is my point. One is a reasonable way, and the other isn't and as such they were within their rights to refuse to speak to him. The dislike of bankers and their ways makes it very easy to immediately attribute everything they ever do to some kind of hidden agenda set out to screw us out of something but that doesn't make it true.
He tried communicating reasonably. We already established that.
So you would knock on the door and if the person didn’t answer, what, shrug your shoulders and go home, rather than be less reasonable?
You’ve somehow decided to be more outraged at someone turning up at a bank and being a menace, than at people stealing billions of pounds from the public and being above punishment even when they get caught. Even though this is in fact the only reason this person turned up being a menace in the first place.
Do you watch programs like Rogue Traders and get really annoyed at the part where they confront the person ripping people off? Or is this some special rule that only applies to bankers and/or Russel Brand?
I don’t know about you, but the “it isn’t true” line of argument to me is a little bit thin. Like a child denying they ate the chocolates off the tree when they still have half of them smeared all over their face.
Reportedly. Is it actually established?
I wouldn't stand there with a megaphone causing disruption to everybody else. I'm staggered that you think that's reasonable.
That if someone turned up outside your house with a megaphone shouting at your neighbours house, you wouldn't care. This is a ridiculous comparison. At any time that somebody causes a disruption, people are well within their rights to try and have it stopped. No matter how true the last part of your post is, as I said before some random guy who has no authority at all with a penchant for theatrics going into a random establishment demanding to speak to very busy people without an appointment with a camera crew in tow wanting to record the entire thing is not a reasonable act and as such they're well within their rights to tell him to get lost, as any establishment would be. Saying 'well it serves them right because they didn't want to talk to him normally' just isn't the way things work.
He's not really a random guy.
Well yeah. He said he did. So unless we’re accusing him of being a liar, when he’d have no reason to lie, it seems a pointless thing to put a question mark over.
This is a really silly comparison now (I started it, I apologise, but there’s no going back), but I reckon if this happened outside my house, I’d be interested to know why and upon finding out, would probably sympathise with the megaphone man. It’s a reaction to a completely unreasonable situation, not the cause of it.
Yeah but you said that before already and it doesn’t really address the point that you are willing to criticise him for this yet refuse to acknowledge why he would feel the need to do it…or why he would have the ammunition to do it.
It is the same as watching Rogue Traders or Watchdog and somehow being furious at the program for exposing the people/businesses on it, rather than the people/businesses themselves. It makes absolutely no sense. He isn’t “some random bloke who’s turned up at some random building” He’s turned up there because the bank has stolen loads of money from the public and he was asking why.
Great, great post - simple, but absolutely bang on. I totally agree with the sentiment here.
Seconded (or thirded I guess). Blows my mind when I see people without a pot to piss in actually defending greedy super-rich elites. Don't know if its that the media are excellent at pushing their agenda or what.
Yup, it's the conspiracy. Me and my few installed shills here are working hard through Bilderberg funding to stop Russell Brand and his socialism agenda.
You've uncovered us. Great job. I'm really impressed. 9/11 was an inside job, Sandy Hook was a staged hoax with actors and Bill Cosby is a hero.
Now my benefactors shall exterminate me in FEMA camp 2 for being exposed.
We can but hope.