Russell Brand

[EFCNIK]

I'd rather see nik vs davek, tho we may need a physical barrier of some kind

Bloody hell where have you been for the last 5 years?

Less of a debate, more of him making racial remarks about me and me trying to calm the modz down when they've threatened to ban him because of it.

 

[neil999]

Bloody hell where have you been for the last 5 years?

Less of a debate, more of him making racial remarks about me and me trying to calm the modz down when they've threatened to ban him because of it.

So when and where?

 

[EFCNIK]

So when and where?

You'll have to ask him that mate although I'm sure he's ashamed of himself.

 

[njligernj]

I have absolutely no doubt. I like brand although I disagree with him on a lot of things. The man has passion and he believes what he believes. I can respect that. It just amuses me because everything he's saying pretty much sums up got. Yet everyone's calling brand a knob? Hmmmm.

To be fair there are people in this thread who have said they like him. Those who don't are louder ... which is always the way. I like him FWIW.

To be fair, I can't understand why anyone wants to read a tabloid of any ilk, much less the Sun, but that hardly makes Brand the saviour of our times, does it?

Who says he is? But why couldn't he be? I'll take a saviour anyway I can get it and if it's him then so be it. People love finding weird reasons to hate celebrities and it's often very "oh he thinks he's so ..." (how the hell do you know what he thinks?!?!) ... it's exactly as illogical as the people we all make fun of who unquestionably worship celebrities ... but it comes with a lot less social disapproval to **** them off than to adore them.

 

[njligernj]

A lot of people treat him as a hero for it but watch it back and tell me if he says anything of any meat or substance.

So Russell Brand is held to a higher standard than politicians who make a career out of talking a lot and saying nothing of any meat or substance?

Almost every criticism in this thread is based on assuming things about him (he wants to be this, he thinks he's this, he's pretending to be someone he isn't ... yet the people haven't got a sweet clue what he thinks about himself, what he wants to be or who he actually is).

In fact a good portion of the comments here are in the same vein as the MSNBC anchors or Paxman ... if that's what he deals with all the time then he handles himself unbelievably well in those situations ... most people would go utterly mental having to deal with that many people constantly treating them like that.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

"Why couldn't it be?"

Because none of what he says is ever grounded in actual fact, nor is it fleshed out in any kind of detail. It's largely rhetorical soundbites wrapped up in flowery language.

Don't know the first thing about him as a man, so certainly don't hate him, but I do disagree with a lot of what he says, and the way he says it.

And for the record, politicians are by and large a rotten bunch, on that I will agree with him.

 

[bignev23]

Brand is more of an ar*e than the polititians we already have.

 

[davek]

Brand: he'd never put the hard yards in, you just know it.

It's one thing being interviewed by tv and radio and getting on with his lavish lifestyle after the recording button switches to off, another thing entirely to put it to practice. Although I think he's been clever about that by saying nothing's worthwhile and voting is a sham and we just need a revolution (very abstract).

I stand to be corrected.

 

[njligernj]

"Why couldn't it be?"

Because none of what he says is ever grounded in actual fact, nor is it fleshed out in any kind of detail. It's largely rhetorical soundbites wrapped up in flowery language.

So a lot like Jesus then?

If you watch his interviews it's a battle for him to anything but defend himself -- the talking heads never let him get into much detail. He's not saying he should be in charge (as far as I'm aware) but that a more intelligent approach to the way we govern ourselves is needed. Beyond that ... he's not running for office so we're unlikely to get much more insight in a five minute interview on a talk/news show. I assume he says more in his live show if you wanna go check it out.

 

[magicjuan]

So a lot like Jesus then?

If you watch his interviews it's a battle for him to anything but defend himself -- the talking heads never let him get into much detail. He's not saying he should be in charge (as far as I'm aware) but that a more intelligent approach to the way we govern ourselves is needed. Beyond that ... he's not running for office so we're unlikely to get much more insight in a five minute interview on a talk/news show. I assume he says more in his live show if you wanna go check it out.

That's the way I read it, Anyone calling for change to what exists has to fight instant prejudices and opinions, that is why politicians stage campaigns so that perceptions can be managed and opinions manipulated.
The legislation currently sitting in parliament would (theoretically) make Brand's statement unlawful and him open to arrest and prosecution.
So, we either promote the ability and right to voice contrary opinion or give up completely, Brand I believe is fighting for the former

 

[Bruce Wayne]

So a lot like Jesus then?

If you watch his interviews it's a battle for him to anything but defend himself -- the talking heads never let him get into much detail. He's not saying he should be in charge (as far as I'm aware) but that a more intelligent approach to the way we govern ourselves is needed. Beyond that ... he's not running for office so we're unlikely to get much more insight in a five minute interview on a talk/news show. I assume he says more in his live show if you wanna go check it out.

I guess that's the problem with the medium he's choosing. There are plenty of other ways to get a message across though, and to do so in ways that allow you to fully flesh out your thoughts. I mean we're doing that right now. It wouldn't be that hard for him to start a blog and write whatever he wanted, giving himself a full platform to discuss his thoughts without daft TV folks getting in his way.

The way he's doing it is akin to expecting anything meaningful from PMQs. The platform simply isn't designed for it, and therefore it generates meaningless waffle and insults instead.

As you've probably gathered from my thoughts in the various political threads on here, I'm far from happy with the status quo either, but accept that there are people and organisations going about change in the right way. They're acting on their convictions rather than talking about them.

 

[Clint Planet]

I thought Brand tore Paxman a new arsehole. He was brilliant. He might be irritating but he is fiercely intelligent and his point about a disenfranchised electorate is completely relevant.

 

[Royal]

Why anyone would ever trust someone that rich to be genuine in their claims of being a socialist is beyond me.

 

[Tubey]

I thought Brand tore Paxman a new arsehole. He was brilliant. He might be irritating but he is fiercely intelligent and his point about a disenfranchised electorate is completely relevant.

But he's doing nothing about anything. He's just yelling a lot and looking like an oddball whilst doing so.

I like him in general and agree he's intelligent etc. but I can't for the life of me understand why he's suddenly this pin-up for the disenchanted.

 

[richie26188]

Why anyone would ever trust someone that rich to be genuine in their claims of being a socialist is beyond me.

It would be alot easier for him to say nothing.

He makes valid points, he connects with the younger generation in a way which many cant. Some of what he says is hot air but its getting people who otherwise wouldnt give two hoots talking about politics - this in the long run can only be a good thing.