Russell Brand - Moving Right

It's unrealistic not to do contribute to things you disagree with when it's the system you live within you disagree with. Otherwise we might as well dismiss any environmentalist who doesn't live in a cave.

That's a very simplistic way of looking at things though isn't it?

There's a huge difference between an environmentalist living in a house with necessary amenities like running water and heating, and a celebrity figure that claims to be anti capitalist, who voices strong opinions against tax avoiding companies whilst himself apparently avoiding tax, and takes part in protests against the gentrification of London whilst also renting property using one of the schemes he is protesting against?
 
That's a very simplistic way of looking at things though isn't it?

There's a huge difference between an environmentalist living in a house with necessary amenities like running water and heating, and a celebrity figure that claims to be anti capitalist, who voices strong opinions against tax avoiding companies whilst himself apparently avoiding tax, and takes part in protests against the gentrification of London whilst also renting property using one of the schemes he is protesting against?
This is the first I'm hearing of him avoiding tax. And it's not really much of a jump, renting a place doesn't disqualify you from criticizing how it works. You can't expect him to lead an anti capitalist life in a capitalist society, you're being unreasonable.
 
This is the first I'm hearing of him avoiding tax. And it's not really much of a jump, renting a place doesn't disqualify you from criticizing how it works. You can't expect him to lead an anti capitalist life in a capitalist society, you're being unreasonable.

It's being reported in the press today, as per my above comment. Yes, I accept that it may well be a load of crap, but it does tie in with the meltdown earlier in the week when he was asked about it during his rant.

I'm not expecting him to live in an anti capitalist society either, I just find it hard to accept when he makes a career out of living in a capitalist society (celebrity culture is inherent with capitalism), and that he actively demonstrates against these practices whilst at the same time reaping the benefits of them.

It can only be put down to greed IMO - he could easily not support either practice, but chooses to and hopes that people don't find out, seemingly. That makes him a hypocrite.
 
You don't have to make it sound like he's doing the worst thing ever, he's just living a life that's to be expected in his circumstances.

And as far as I can tell, it's his landlord who avoids tax. So I refer you to my earlier question, how the feck is that his fault? It's like saying anyone who doesn't research where their socks come from isn't allowed to have an opinion that's against sweatshops.
 
You don't have to make it sound like he's doing the worst thing ever, he's just living a life that's to be expected in his circumstances.

And as far as I can tell, it's his landlord who avoids tax. So I refer you to my earlier question, how the feck is that his fault? It's like saying anyone who doesn't research where their socks come from isn't allowed to have an opinion that's against sweatshops.

His landlord is the offshore company, rather than an actual landlord if the reports are to be believed. That's the point - he is speaking out against companies based outside of the UK who buy up London properties and price the 'ordinary' folk out of owning homes there, but neglects to mention he rents directly from them himself.

I'm not making it sound like the worst thing ever; I'm merely pointing out that it completely negates his argument when he is part of the problem. The best way to try to instigate change is to lead by example, not to take part in an anti capitalism demonstration, only to leave it early to sit in a ViP section of a club drinking champagne with his celebrity friends, as he was pictured doing a couple of weeks ago.
 
Sorry, you're just chatting shit. He's doesn't have to like the structure of a company in order to use it. Otherwise, we'd all have to be labelled pro-sweatshops and slave labor.
 
Sorry, you're just chatting shit. He's doesn't have to like the structure of a company in order to use it. Otherwise, we'd all have to be labelled pro-sweatshops and slave labor.

:rolleyes:

I think you're missing the point by some way here judging by your responses, and as such it's pointless debating it with you.
 
A contrarian view on Brand:

Has Russell Brand really destroyed the lefty weft?
Nope – he’s merely the bastard child of the left's own self-induced decay.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsit...y-destroyed-the-lefty-weft/16081#.VIBm1sn8Urg

...In this young millennium, the problem for those of us who still, probably a bit forlornly, consider ourselves left-wing, maybe even Marxists, is not that some gobshite whose funniest joke is that he thinks he’s the new Dudley Moore wrote a book filled with political Tourette’s. No, it’s that what now passes for the left has abandoned what we might describe as the two core ideas of one-time radical thought: that ordinary people are capable of running not only their own lives but society itself, and that the problems facing mankind are social ones, not natural ones. The left once embodied a faith in mankind to use his mind and his hands to create a world of plenty, to exploit nature’s resources in the name of creating what Sylvia Pankhurst described as ‘plenty for all… a great production that will supply all’. Not anymore. Now the left demonises production (it harms the planet) and consumption (it makes us mentally ill) and has embraced the very naturalistic nonsense about scarcity and limited resources that a cockier left once explicitly challenged. And the left once trusted that the man in the street (and woman) was capable of determining his destiny without requiring the scaffolding of state or the moral hectoring of priests to constantly guide him on his way. Not anymore. From Brand’s concern that corporations have captured our minds to other leftists’ bleating about the brainwashability of the tabloid-reading hordes - whose minds are ‘orchestrated from the shadows’ - the left now libels the little people, believing they must constantly have their awareness raised by experts, celebs and advertising-immune Occupiers...
 
He's incredibly articulate. To claim that he isn't is just preposterous. It doesn't matter how much you dislike him, you should be objective enough to recognise that. It's the equivalent of bitching about what a twat Luis Suarez is and then saying "and for those who think he's actually a good footballer, wow."

He uses a lot of unnecessarily long words and flowery language to make it appear that he he is more intelligent than he really is and to cover up the fact that his arguments are weak.

That is not articulate in my book.
 
He is just incredible dumb. Simple as that. In know 12 year olds, that have a better knowledge about politics, economy, ethics and all the other stuff he is talking about. Obviously he has all the right to express his thoughts, but ist concerning if people really listen to him.


Sorry, you're just chatting shit. He's doesn't have to like the structure of a company in order to use it. Otherwise, we'd all have to be labelled pro-sweatshops and slave labor.

he isnt "chatting shit".
If I know that a company acts against my moral ideas, I dont buy anything from this company, if I have resonable alternatives. Your average Joe might have a hard time to do that, but Russell Brand is a rich lad with lots of time. If he is talking the talk he should be walking the walk; at least when is realisticly possible for him. That said he might get a pass. I doubt that he has the mental capacity to understand his tenancy contract.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, you're just chatting shit. He's doesn't have to like the structure of a company in order to use it. Otherwise, we'd all have to be labelled pro-sweatshops and slave labor.

But surely when Brand says.... ‘If they don’t pay tax, we’ll reclaim their assets and give them to the people that work there.’ ....and then rents his house from just such a company he's showing himself up as being a bit of a dickhead isn't he?
 
He is just incredible dumb. Simple as that. In know 12 year olds, that have a better knowledge about politics, economy, ethics and all the other stuff he is talking about. Obviously he has all the right to express his thoughts, but ist concerning if people really listen to him.




he isnt "chatting shit".
If I know that a company acts against my moral ideas, I dont buy anything from this company, if I have resonable alternatives. Your average Joe might have a hard time to do that, but Russell Brand is a rich lad with lots of time. If he is talking the talk he should be walking the walk; at least when is realisticly possible for him. That said he might get a pass. I doubt that he has the mental capacity to understand his tenancy contract.

:lol:
 
Anyone who listened to his radio shows from the start knows this whole revolution thing was a silly idea borne almost entirely out of ego. But that's not to say he hasn't now become a bit better informed and socially conscious, although I usually just want him to stop talking when he starts banging on - his "don't vote, yeahhhhhh" was a spectacular study in celebrity-influenced idiocy - as he can never just stick to simple, logical concepts. He always has to go further and introduce some sort of daft element even when he wants to be taken seriously.

All of that said, while I don't think he's necessarily the best example of a figurehead for this sort of movement , he seems to have his heart in the right place. I see him as being a bit like Joey Barton. At least he's trying, even if he gets lost in himself at times. The real problem is the people who genuinely subscribe to the ideas of these sorts of people just because they're celebs.
 
But surely when Brand says.... ‘If they don’t pay tax, we’ll reclaim their assets and give them to the people that work there.’ ....and then rents his house from just such a company he's showing himself up as being a bit of a dickhead isn't he?

You can bet your arse he owns an apple laptop and has shopped at amazon, so he's definitely open to accusations of hypocrisy. I think that's harsh, though. How many of us has owned/used those two brands but also believe that these two corporations should be more rigorously taxed? I know I'm guilty as charged in this regard but it would be harsh to call me a dickhead (although many on redcafe might not agree!)
 
Anyone who listened to his radio shows from the start knows this whole revolution thing was a silly idea borne almost entirely out of ego. But that's not to say he hasn't now become a bit better informed and socially conscious, although I usually just want him to stop talking when he starts banging on - his "don't vote, yeahhhhhh" was a spectacular study in celebrity-influenced idiocy - as he can never just stick to simple, logical concepts. He always has to go further and introduce some sort of daft element even when he wants to be taken seriously.

All of that said, while I don't think he's necessarily the best example of a figurehead for this sort of movement , he seems to have his heart in the right place. I see him as being a bit like Joey Barton. At least he's trying, even if he gets lost in himself at times. The real problem is the people who genuinely subscribe to the ideas of these sorts of people just because they're celebs.

A bigger problem than the issues he talks about? To me the thing I find the most surprising about people who attack or insult Brand is that they're so willing to completely bypass all the actual horrible stuff that other people are doing that he's talking about just to insult him.
 
Careless is probably a better word for Brand - although I do think he is a dickhead as well :)
If you are going to start throwing stones you should really check you're not standing in a greenhouse first.......

If he terminates his contract with his landlord and moves out then I'll admit that perhaps he is more invested in this than I first thought, but if he doesn't then he's just another blow-hard who might like the idea of a concept, as long as it doesn't interfere with his own precious life too much.
 
You can bet your arse he owns an apple laptop and has shopped at amazon, so he's definitely open to accusations of hypocrisy. I think that's harsh, though. How many of us has owned/used those two brands but also believe that these two corporations should be more rigorously taxed? I know I'm guilty as charged in this regard but it would be harsh to call me a dickhead (although many on redcafe might not agree!)

Now listen here dickh....sorry, I'll start again ;)

@The Purley King got it right and Brand is most definitely is a hypocrite Pogue. It's got to be embarrassing for him to be shown up as supporting just the kind of landlord he's now demonstrating against.
 
Has anyone actually read the piece in the Sun? All I've seen is headline snippets about him paying rent to a property development firm who have overseas accounts.

What he is objecting to, specifically, here is a development company buying out an estate with a view to evicting the existing tenants (most of whom have been living there a long time and are not very well off) then refurbishing it to sell or renting their homes on for a much more substantial profit. The fact they're an offshore company with headquarters in Jersey isn't what is being complained about.

I've no idea the background to the rental of his flat. It's quite possible that there weren't any previous tenants or that they willingly sold it to the current landlord for a healthy profit. Either way, I don't its all that comparable with what he is protesting against.
 
A bigger problem than the issues he talks about? To me the thing I find the most surprising about people who attack or insult Brand is that they're so willing to completely bypass all the actual horrible stuff that other people are doing that he's talking about just to insult him.
No. Clearly the point I'm making is that Russell Brand or his ilk aren't the issue when talking about this celebrity soap box culture, it's the mindless dickwits that follow them based solely only who they are.
 
Last edited:
Careless is probably a better word for Brand - although I do think he is a dickhead as well :)
If you are going to start throwing stones you should really check you're not standing in a greenhouse first.......

If he terminates his contract with his landlord and moves out then I'll admit that perhaps he is more invested in this than I first thought, but if he doesn't then he's just another blow-hard who might like the idea of a concept, as long as it doesn't interfere with his own precious life too much.

I think relying on individuals to live harmoniously with their ideals in a society that makes doing so not beneficial is the wrong way of looking at things.
 
Poor Sam can't win. Would you rather she lobbed some vol au vents at them from her ivory tower?

Yes, as long as I was there with a net.
 
Yes, as long as I was there with a net.
They're a bit 80s as party food goes, thinking about it. Maybe breaded fish goujons for you.
 
They're a bit 80s as party food goes, thinking about it. Maybe breaded fish goujons for you.

I'm not aspirational enough for those, guv.
 
"Darling, there's one of those Welsh persons climbing the tower..."
"Have we got any insecticide?"
"Can't speak now - too busy knitting balaclavas for alcoholic donkeys."
 
Pathetic is very apt. Sometimes I wonder who is writing these things, considering I thought you had to he reasonably smart to be a journalist and how competitive it must be to work somewhere like The Sun, is there a point where they employ someone and then coach them to write complete and utter shit?
 
I think relying on individuals to live harmoniously with their ideals in a society that makes doing so not beneficial is the wrong way of looking at things.

Why? If he feels so strongly about it then he shouldn't contribute to the problem himself. It would be like me saying "I have a huge problem with the way McDonalds mistreats their cattle", with a mouthful of Big Mac.
 
His landlord is the offshore company, rather than an actual landlord if the reports are to be believed. That's the point - he is speaking out against companies based outside of the UK who buy up London properties and price the 'ordinary' folk out of owning homes there, but neglects to mention he rents directly from them himself.

I'm not making it sound like the worst thing ever; I'm merely pointing out that it completely negates his argument when he is part of the problem. The best way to try to instigate change is to lead by example, not to take part in an anti capitalism demonstration, only to leave it early to sit in a ViP section of a club drinking champagne with his celebrity friends, as he was pictured doing a couple of weeks ago.

He rents a property and you want to blame him for his landlords actions?
 
If 36% of Sun reader think he is funny then amongst those who can read longer sentences his popularity must be higher. Even if only 40/45% of Britain think he is funny that would be a pretty decent demographic for his work. Time for a new standup DVD? It will sell well.
 
He rents a property and you want to blame him for his landlords actions?

No, but if he's going to speak out so vocally against this kind of thing, it would make sense for him not to be contributing to the issue, no?

As mentioned above, if the reports are true (and it's looking more likely as more sources now seem to be picking it up and reporting on it) I find it very hard to believe he's never questioned why he's paying his rent into an account based in the Virgin Islands, why it seems relatively cheap for the area of London/type of property it is, or who his landlord is.

For someone who claims to be so against the things mentioned in the discussion, you would think he would make sure he's not a part of it before getting on his soapbox.
 
No, but if he's going to speak out so vocally against this kind of thing, it would make sense for him not to be contributing to the issue, no?

As mentioned above, if the reports are true (and it's looking more likely as more sources now seem to be picking it up and reporting on it) I find it very hard to believe he's never questioned why he's paying his rent into an account based in the Virgin Islands, why it seems relatively cheap for the area of London/type of property it is, or who his landlord is.

For someone who claims to be so against the things mentioned in the discussion, you would think he would make sure he's not a part of it before getting on his soapbox.

Probably because he isn't.

His landlord might be avoiding tax by basing their headquarters in Jersey but they'll almost certainly be getting their tenants to pay money via a UK bank account.