Jeremy Paxman vs Russell Brand

[mu0n]

Net worth of over £10m quid.

Bought a £2.2m house with his ex...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12387...

Wears Hugo Boss jacket... 6 months later has a pop at them about making uniforms for the Nazi's.

For someone who cares about the planet, he drives some very eco friendly motors:





Claims he's a liberal lefty who cares about the world.

Goes back and forth to LA when with his ex-wife... god knows how many flights.

Becomes Hollywood star. The epitome of the sort of 'establishment' he appears to be against.

For a 'man of peace' he's also been arrested at least a couple of times for charges of violence in the US.

Anything to keep his name relevant?

[DaveCWK]

Nothing worse than a privileged leftie

[VinceFox]

personally, i think he's got a point.

good on him.

[turbobloke]

VinceFox said:

personally, i think he's got a point.

good on him.

Certainly he has points, including self-publicity and vanity.

As to good on him, there's very little credit due for being controversial...except in terms of self-publicity and vanity.

He's entitled to indulge his fantasy political posturing as per any other hypocritical champagne socialist celebrity fawned at by the BBC.

[mattnunn]

turbobloke said:

Certainly he has points, including self-publicity and vanity.

As to good on him, there's very little credit due for being controversial...except in terms of self-publicity and vanity.

He's entitled to indulge his fantasy political posturing as per any other hypocritical champagne socialist celebrity fawned at by the BBC.

Being called a "trivial man" by a BBC stalwart constitutes fawning does it?

[turbobloke]

mattnunn said:

turbobloke said:

Certainly he has points, including self-publicity and vanity.

As to good on him, there's very little credit due for being controversial...except in terms of self-publicity and vanity.

He's entitled to indulge his fantasy political posturing as per any other hypocritical champagne socialist celebrity fawned at by the BBC.

Being called a "trivial man" by a BBC stalwart constitutes fawning does it?

Being invited to make a searingly honest self-indulgent programme on drugs for BBC Three does.

Being on Newsnight at all goes way above Brand value.

[VinceFox]

turbobloke said:

mattnunn said:

turbobloke said:

Certainly he has points, including self-publicity and vanity.

As to good on him, there's very little credit due for being controversial...except in terms of self-publicity and vanity.

He's entitled to indulge his fantasy political posturing as per any other hypocritical champagne socialist celebrity fawned at by the BBC.

Being called a "trivial man" by a BBC stalwart constitutes fawning does it?

Being invited to make a searingly honest self-indulgent programme on drugs for BBC Three does.

Being on Newsnight at all goes way above Brand value.

they asked him to.

[MajorProblem]

Well he's loaded and he's banged the st out of Katy Perry, he can't do no wrong in my eyes.

[turbobloke]

VinceFox said:

turbobloke said:

mattnunn said:

turbobloke said:

Certainly he has points, including self-publicity and vanity.

As to good on him, there's very little credit due for being controversial...except in terms of self-publicity and vanity.

He's entitled to indulge his fantasy political posturing as per any other hypocritical champagne socialist celebrity fawned at by the BBC.

Being called a "trivial man" by a BBC stalwart constitutes fawning does it?

Being invited to make a searingly honest self-indulgent programme on drugs for BBC Three does.

Being on Newsnight at all goes way above Brand value.

they asked him to.

Where did I say he wasn't asked? The BBC paying him (anything, including unwarranted attention) was entirely my point.

[VinceFox]

turbobloke said:

VinceFox said:

turbobloke said:

mattnunn said:

turbobloke said:

Certainly he has points, including self-publicity and vanity.

As to good on him, there's very little credit due for being controversial...except in terms of self-publicity and vanity.

He's entitled to indulge his fantasy political posturing as per any other hypocritical champagne socialist celebrity fawned at by the BBC.

Being called a "trivial man" by a BBC stalwart constitutes fawning does it?

Being invited to make a searingly honest self-indulgent programme on drugs for BBC Three does.

Being on Newsnight at all goes way above Brand value.

they asked him to.

Where did I say he wasn't asked? The BBC paying him (anything, including unwarranted attention) was entirely my point.

i think he has as much right to be on there and to vent his opinions as anyone else. the bbc have people on all the time whose opinions i think are utter bks, nice to see someone for once asking questions and raising debate in a direction we don't often see.

[turbobloke]

VinceFox said:

turbobloke said:

VinceFox said:

turbobloke said:

mattnunn said:

turbobloke said:

Certainly he has points, including self-publicity and vanity.

As to good on him, there's very little credit due for being controversial...except in terms of self-publicity and vanity.

He's entitled to indulge his fantasy political posturing as per any other hypocritical champagne socialist celebrity fawned at by the BBC.

Being called a "trivial man" by a BBC stalwart constitutes fawning does it?

Being invited to make a searingly honest self-indulgent programme on drugs for BBC Three does.

Being on Newsnight at all goes way above Brand value.

they asked him to.

Where did I say he wasn't asked? The BBC paying him (anything, including unwarranted attention) was entirely my point.

i think he has as much right to be on there and to vent his opinions as anyone else. the bbc have people on all the time whose opinions i think are utter bks, nice to see someone for once asking questions and raising debate in a direction we don't often see.

He has no more right than Bert and Doris at number thirty-six.

The BBC indulges him because he's a celeb and his views align reasonably well with the BBC's culture but that's not a valid excuse. In terms of balance his trendy lefty doggerel is over-represented already, so what the BBC needs if anything is more people on air spouting views you think are utter bks - to restore some semblance of balance.

[VinceFox]

turbobloke said:

VinceFox said:

turbobloke said:

VinceFox said:

turbobloke said:

mattnunn said:

turbobloke said:

Certainly he has points, including self-publicity and vanity.

As to good on him, there's very little credit due for being controversial...except in terms of self-publicity and vanity.

He's entitled to indulge his fantasy political posturing as per any other hypocritical champagne socialist celebrity fawned at by the BBC.

Being called a "trivial man" by a BBC stalwart constitutes fawning does it?

Being invited to make a searingly honest self-indulgent programme on drugs for BBC Three does.

Being on Newsnight at all goes way above Brand value.

they asked him to.

Where did I say he wasn't asked? The BBC paying him (anything, including unwarranted attention) was entirely my point.

i think he has as much right to be on there and to vent his opinions as anyone else. the bbc have people on all the time whose opinions i think are utter bks, nice to see someone for once asking questions and raising debate in a direction we don't often see.

He has no more right than Bert and Doris at number thirty-six.

The BBC indulges him because he's a celeb and his views align reasonably well with the BBC's culture but that's not a valid excuse. In terms of balance his trendy lefty doggerel is over-represented already, so what the BBC needs if anything is more people on air spouting views you think are utter bks - to restore some semblance of balance.

are you wearing a blazer? don't think, just answer.

[turbobloke]

VinceFox said:

turbobloke said:

VinceFox said:

turbobloke said:

VinceFox said:

turbobloke said:

mattnunn said:

turbobloke said:

Certainly he has points, including self-publicity and vanity.

As to good on him, there's very little credit due for being controversial...except in terms of self-publicity and vanity.

He's entitled to indulge his fantasy political posturing as per any other hypocritical champagne socialist celebrity fawned at by the BBC.

Being called a "trivial man" by a BBC stalwart constitutes fawning does it?

Being invited to make a searingly honest self-indulgent programme on drugs for BBC Three does.

Being on Newsnight at all goes way above Brand value.

they asked him to.

Where did I say he wasn't asked? The BBC paying him (anything, including unwarranted attention) was entirely my point.

i think he has as much right to be on there and to vent his opinions as anyone else. the bbc have people on all the time whose opinions i think are utter bks, nice to see someone for once asking questions and raising debate in a direction we don't often see.

He has no more right than Bert and Doris at number thirty-six.

The BBC indulges him because he's a celeb and his views align reasonably well with the BBC's culture but that's not a valid excuse. In terms of balance his trendy lefty doggerel is over-represented already, so what the BBC needs if anything is more people on air spouting views you think are utter bks - to restore some semblance of balance.

are you wearing a blazer? don't think, just answer.

Whatever that means it's the expected personal angle as opposed to anything relevant, adding irony to the mix.

[VinceFox]

turbobloke said:

Whatever that means it's the expected personal angle as opposed to anything relevant, adding irony to the mix.

well said.

[turbobloke]

VinceFox said:

turbobloke said:

Whatever that means it's the expected personal angle as opposed to anything relevant, adding irony to the mix.

well said.

Thanks!

[VinceFox]

turbobloke said:

VinceFox said:

turbobloke said:

Whatever that means it's the expected personal angle as opposed to anything relevant, adding irony to the mix.

well said.

Thanks!

i've lost count of which one of us is being ironic. i suspect it's you but i have no proof.

[turbobloke]

VinceFox said:

turbobloke said:

VinceFox said:

turbobloke said:

Whatever that means it's the expected personal angle as opposed to anything relevant, adding irony to the mix.

well said.

Thanks!

i've lost count of which one of us is being ironic. i suspect it's you but i have no proof.

Some folk will remember one of Brand's other recent appearances on Newsnight - he's clearly got the personal angle well sorted as an inspiration to his more sycophantic followers.

No kiss took place

[DJRC]

mattnunn said:

superkartracer said:

As bad as the system is, people eat and have roofs over their heads, what does he want? War... bring it on and see how the general populous beg for the old system to return.

The French revolution was not a war, the Bolshevik revolt was not a war (well perhaps a bit), the various overnight revolutions in Eastern Europe were not wars. The balance of wealth and power is sooooo heavily in the hands of so few that a true social revolution that actually was built on a solid support from the masses and a shared vision of the future would be over in seconds and fairly bloodless, in my opinion.

Are you insane? Have you got any idea of the bloodshed involved in the French and Bolshevik revolutions???
Not just that but the French revolution plunged Europe into civil war for 25 yrs!!! The Bolshevik revolution directly empowered a regime which killed more of its own people within 50 yrs than the entire reign of the Tsars put together!!!

And these are your templates???????????????????????????

Son, whichever barracade you find yourself on I can gaurantee Ill be on the other side. Not because of any ethical notions of being "right", but it sure as fk will be safer!

[Art0ir]

qube_TA said:

He's an idiot, but I find him entertaining which is his job so I have no complaints.

I'm sure Paxman enjoys interviewing him as it's always quite animated.

However Brand is typical in not having any consideration or interest to why the world is as it is, he just thinks it's all wrong and needs to be different, but doesn't know what would need to change or what it would have to change to to improve. Yes capitalism, the free market, profit doesn't suit everyone, but removing all of that for some quasi-communist ideal has never yielded success. China might be on its way to owning the world but it's not like the Chinese population are all reaping the rewards of this success.

[Mermaid]

Review a year from now - he will have made no impact and will have lost interest, and wealth gap he talks about and is part of will be the same - he will not have given away any of his money.