Russel Brand nobbled for being a hypocrite
Discussion
Abagnale said:
It was previously run by the Lever family as a philanthropic enterprise on moderated rents. Factually, they eventually did seek market rents, elliptically by selling to Westbrook partners & that's where the residents find themselves today.
Interesting, I wonder why this part of the story is never mentioned in the press, seems to be the crux of the issue.CamMoreRon said:
Guam said:
Indeed
Whilst on the topic again and my issue with his anti capital rants (well supported by many it would seem)
Guido links to this from last year, from the mail agreed, but when Guido links to stuff he usually has the back story in my experience.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2483929/...
Now contrast that with his expressed views on tax avoidance and seizing all their assets for redistribution (if I recall the statement correctly no time to go find a citation right at this moment).
How else would one describe someone apparently does the very thing they complain of?
DM;DR.Whilst on the topic again and my issue with his anti capital rants (well supported by many it would seem)
Guido links to this from last year, from the mail agreed, but when Guido links to stuff he usually has the back story in my experience.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2483929/...
Now contrast that with his expressed views on tax avoidance and seizing all their assets for redistribution (if I recall the statement correctly no time to go find a citation right at this moment).
How else would one describe someone apparently does the very thing they complain of?
Do some homework. Brand has been talking for a while about the clash between his views and his former lifestyle - again, if you paid any attention you would know this.
As I have said a number of times, accusations of hypocrisy are nothing more than a (pathetic) attempt to slander and discredit someone whose opinions you don't agree with, because you have no way of coming back to their actual arguments. As with the kippers and their beloved Farage, I doubt it will put any of his supporters off.
e21Mark said:
I listened to a podcast interview between Brand and Richard Herring last night, where he spoke about people not feeling his comments are relevant because he (Brand) has attained some level of personal wealth. In fact, he states that if it means his giving away his personal wealth, that indeed is what he is prepared to do. I'm sure his detractors will find a new reason to discount his views though.
It depends what the particular views are and what merit each of us sees in them as to whether we discount them or not. At least that's what rational people may do, the mention of 'detractors' seems to imply blanket condemnation of his views which is certainly not my perspective. If Brand said that his view on taxation included the unfairness of 1% of people paying 30% of all income taxes on just 13% of income then I would agree with that view, Brand or not. Given that so far he has adopted the kind of populist ill-thought-out sixth-form revolutionary rhetoric not normally associated with intelligent informed comment, the chance of agreeing with his view on political matters is slim but not zero. turbobloke said:
It depends what the particular views are and what merit each of us sees in them as to whether we discount them or not. At least that's what rational people may do, the mention of 'detractors' seems to imply blanket condemnation of his views which is certainly not my perspective. If Brand said that his view on taxation included the unfairness of 1% of people paying 30% of all income taxes on just 13% of income then I would agree with that view, Brand or not. Given that so far he has adopted the kind of populist ill-thought-out sixth-form revolutionary rhetoric not normally associated with intelligent informed comment, the chance of agreeing with his view on political matters is slim but not zero.
You may consider yourself to be rational, but I think many would disagree. You clearly see yourself as some paragon of rational thought, but you clearly have a strong personal & emotional investment in certain issues (just like the rest of us do) so no matter how often you refer to yourself as a "rational person" you are just as irrational as the rest of us. Personally, I don't think Brand should give up any of his (moderate) wealth and I don't believe it makes him a hypocrite for holding on to it. He can carry on setting a good example by donating the proceeds from books / appearances etc to good causes and that's all he needs to do IMO.
CamMoreRon said:
turbobloke said:
It depends what the particular views are and what merit each of us sees in them as to whether we discount them or not. At least that's what rational people may do, the mention of 'detractors' seems to imply blanket condemnation of his views which is certainly not my perspective. If Brand said that his view on taxation included the unfairness of 1% of people paying 30% of all income taxes on just 13% of income then I would agree with that view, Brand or not. Given that so far he has adopted the kind of populist ill-thought-out sixth-form revolutionary rhetoric not normally associated with intelligent informed comment, the chance of agreeing with his view on political matters is slim but not zero.
You may consider yourself to be rational, but I think many would disagree.The fact that you see yourself as speaking for many is hilarious.
CamMoreRon said:
You clearly see yourself as some paragon of rational thought
Paragon - irrelevant and snidey, practitioner - yes indeed, try it yourself and see how you get on.CamMoreRon said:
Personally, I don't think Brand should give up any of his (moderate) wealth and I don't believe it makes him a hypocrite for holding on to it. He can carry on setting a good example by donating the proceeds from books / appearances etc to good causes and that's all he needs to do IMO.
He'll be so glad.I've only just become aware of this:
http://wakeuptothematrix.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/...
Does this change anyone's views?
http://wakeuptothematrix.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/...
Does this change anyone's views?
turbobloke said:
It depends what the particular views are and what merit each of us sees in them as to whether we discount them or not. At least that's what rational people may do, the mention of 'detractors' seems to imply blanket condemnation of his views which is certainly not my perspective. If Brand said that his view on taxation included the unfairness of 1% of people paying 30% of all income taxes on just 13% of income then I would agree with that view, Brand or not. Given that so far he has adopted the kind of populist ill-thought-out sixth-form revolutionary rhetoric not normally associated with intelligent informed comment, the chance of agreeing with his view on political matters is slim but not zero.
I'd say Brands arguments concerning the hypocrisy of the top 1% are pretty convincing.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmSAvSfuiig#t=236
I'd also suggest that this is might be why you're expending so much energy on him. Not only do his arguments in the clip ring true but they appeal to the young and that's a demographic that really terrifies you.
turbobloke said:
CamMoreRon said:
You clearly see yourself as some paragon of rational thought
Paragon - irrelevant and snidey, practitioner - yes indeed, try it yourself and see how you get on.Bringing this back towards the original comment.. the argument was that Brand giving all of his wealth away wouldn't make any difference to how his detractors viewed his opinions. You claim that, being a rational person, you would start to listen to what he had to say as long as it was sensible; but whether or not something is "sensible" is a highly subjective thing, and it's very likely that anyone who rejected Brand's ideas on the basis that it didn't make "sense" to them is unlikely to change that just because he made himself broke like the rest of us. You aren't evaluating the argument, you are just rejecting it because it conflicts with your ideals & beliefs, and that is irrational behaviour.
CamMoreRon said:
turbobloke said:
CamMoreRon said:
You clearly see yourself as some paragon of rational thought
Paragon - irrelevant and snidey, practitioner - yes indeed, try it yourself and see how you get on.Deification....of Brand, now there's a thought
I've met Brand a couple of times through work and always found him personable, polite etc. I don't watch his stand up or read his books, but I do know him to be an extremely generous and caring individual.
Personally, I do not hold with the view that he is a hypocrite for speaking out against the establishment, just because he has a few quid in the bank. If that were so, surely we couldn't speak out on poverty if we had food in our kitchen cupboards? It does appear though, that those shouting the loudest to try and put Brand down, are the ones with the most to lose were those he supports able to affect change.
I know very little about politics myself and struggle to trust any of the parties. The expense scandals showed them pretty much all to be as self serving and untrustworthy as each other. They played the system to their own advantage, with little or no concern for those that they supposedly serve.
Why are papers like The Sun so concerned with trying to belittle Brand by banging on about his tax avoiding landlord? Why not chase the landlord himself?
I hope more people will start to look more closely at what goes on within our political parties and Brand is certainly trying to encourage this.
Personally, I do not hold with the view that he is a hypocrite for speaking out against the establishment, just because he has a few quid in the bank. If that were so, surely we couldn't speak out on poverty if we had food in our kitchen cupboards? It does appear though, that those shouting the loudest to try and put Brand down, are the ones with the most to lose were those he supports able to affect change.
I know very little about politics myself and struggle to trust any of the parties. The expense scandals showed them pretty much all to be as self serving and untrustworthy as each other. They played the system to their own advantage, with little or no concern for those that they supposedly serve.
Why are papers like The Sun so concerned with trying to belittle Brand by banging on about his tax avoiding landlord? Why not chase the landlord himself?
I hope more people will start to look more closely at what goes on within our political parties and Brand is certainly trying to encourage this.
Abagnale said:
Magog said:
Does anyone know why the previous landlords of the estate didn't seek to charge market rent? As far as I can tell they weren't a social landlord.
It was previously run by the Lever family as a philanthropic enterprise on moderated rents. Factually, they eventually did seek market rents, elliptically by selling to Westbrook partners & that's where the residents find themselves today.e21Mark said:
I've met Brand a couple of times through work and always found him personable, polite etc. I don't watch his stand up or read his books, but I do know him to be an extremely generous and caring individual.
Personally, I do not hold with the view that he is a hypocrite for speaking out against the establishment, just because he has a few quid in the bank. If that were so, surely we couldn't speak out on poverty if we had food in our kitchen cupboards? It does appear though, that those shouting the loudest to try and put Brand down, are the ones with the most to lose were those he supports able to affect change.
I know very little about politics myself and struggle to trust any of the parties. The expense scandals showed them pretty much all to be as self serving and untrustworthy as each other. They played the system to their own advantage, with little or no concern for those that they supposedly serve.
Why are papers like The Sun so concerned with trying to belittle Brand by banging on about his tax avoiding landlord? Why not chase the landlord himself?
I hope more people will start to look more closely at what goes on within our political parties and Brand is certainly trying to encourage this.
Good points, well made.Personally, I do not hold with the view that he is a hypocrite for speaking out against the establishment, just because he has a few quid in the bank. If that were so, surely we couldn't speak out on poverty if we had food in our kitchen cupboards? It does appear though, that those shouting the loudest to try and put Brand down, are the ones with the most to lose were those he supports able to affect change.
I know very little about politics myself and struggle to trust any of the parties. The expense scandals showed them pretty much all to be as self serving and untrustworthy as each other. They played the system to their own advantage, with little or no concern for those that they supposedly serve.
Why are papers like The Sun so concerned with trying to belittle Brand by banging on about his tax avoiding landlord? Why not chase the landlord himself?
I hope more people will start to look more closely at what goes on within our political parties and Brand is certainly trying to encourage this.
BrabusMog said:
CamMoreRon said:
Really? It seems his gripe is with private landlords and he lives in a rented flat.
You keep clutching your hypocrisy straw though..
He is a monumental bell end though.You keep clutching your hypocrisy straw though..
I went to see his stand up show off the strength of his Ponderland series and he stormed off before the end of his (not funny and very political) set because he got heckled a few times.
HOw can you take Brand seriously. He attacks Murdoch over his dodgy tax affairs when there is nothing illegal about them. Brand should ask the Government about the tax regs and not even the UK government. Try the US government. He attacks Hugo Boss yet chooses another Nazi collaborator (Mercedes) as his ride of choice. He wears Hugo Boss clothing himself. He may have a point on some of his chosen targets but he loses all credibility when he opens his gob and puts his foot in it.
pork911 said:
because celeb.
Check out the video I posted to Turbobloke above. I think Brand gives a very convincing argument as to why The Sun is after him; he represents a direct threat to Murdoch himself and, therefore, must be destroyed at all costs.
It also points to the reason why Turbobloke might expending so much effort on this thread. He knows Brand represents an existential threat to his interests.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff