Russel Brand nobbled for being a hypocrite
Discussion
Guam said:
Oh the only one trying to switch the argument was you, when you tried to introduce the Strawman of making it about me (the old let he that is without sin citation might have been simpler and less banal old son).
Neither old, nor your son afaik. But let's be clear, I did ask you four times to answer a question before you acceded. Slippery old eel. Don't worry, it's all good knockabout fun.
Guam said:
I like that."And there is always the easy-but-true charge of Hollywood hypocrisy. Sure, it’s amusing that Brand rages about corporations and an economic system that has allowed him to loaf around a mansion muttering about the rich. More low hanging fruit: the $37 Russ-as-Che-Guevara t-shirts available on his website. Or how about when he was ejected from a Hugo Boss event for a spittle-flecked rant about Hugo Boss’s complicity with the Nazi regime, never recognizing the irony of his triumphant escape in a black Mercedes?"
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.
Oakey said:
oyster said:
Is he asking people to boycott those companies whilst using them himself? If he was then that would be hypocrisy.
How about 'bashing bankers' whilst taking their money for investment in his films?https://www.accountancylive.com/bank-basher-russel...
Guam said:
oyster said:
As I understand it, he campaigns for those multi-nationals to pay more tax. Just becaise he takes that view, why should that preclude him from then using the services of such multi-nationals? How is that hypocritical?
Is he asking people to boycott those companies whilst using them himself? If he was then that would be hypocrisy.
Here's a thought go away and review his collected rants over the last few years, check out the protests he attends, try and decipher his drivel if you can (he won an award today for his singular lack of eloquence and clarity) Is he asking people to boycott those companies whilst using them himself? If he was then that would be hypocrisy.
The Sun has him branded as a hypocrite on their front page, over him paying huge amounts of rent to what they allege are tax avoiding landlords.
It is just not this humble poster who views him as a hypocrite it would appear (the meaning being posted above to assist you in your review of my posts).
Imagine 2 scenarios:
Scenario 1: Brand campaigns for people to boycott some landlords and not rent properties from them because they avoid certain taxes that some people believe they should pay. He rents a property from just such a landlord.
Scenario 2: Brand campaigns for some landlords to pay some of the taxes they currently avoid that some people believe they should pay. He rents a property from just such a landlord.
Which is hypocritical?
oyster said:
OK let me explain where I'm coming from, using the landlord example you've provided from the Sun.
Imagine 2 scenarios:
Scenario 1: Brand campaigns for people to boycott some landlords and not rent properties from them because they avoid certain taxes that some people believe they should pay. He rents a property from just such a landlord.
Scenario 2: Brand campaigns for some landlords to pay some of the taxes they currently avoid that some people believe they should pay. He rents a property from just such a landlord.
Which is hypocritical?
It doesn't matter which is hypocritical, if either of them are.Imagine 2 scenarios:
Scenario 1: Brand campaigns for people to boycott some landlords and not rent properties from them because they avoid certain taxes that some people believe they should pay. He rents a property from just such a landlord.
Scenario 2: Brand campaigns for some landlords to pay some of the taxes they currently avoid that some people believe they should pay. He rents a property from just such a landlord.
Which is hypocritical?
1 - Brand renting from a private landlord doesn't detract anything from the point that landlords should not be avoiding taxes. It's perfectly acceptable to be expecting landlords to pay their taxes while still renting property - claiming that renting a house removes your entitlement to expect landlords to pay tax is a logical fallacy.
2 - As above. Even if he is in full knowledge that his landlord avoids tax it doesn't nullify the expectation for landlords to pay their taxes - to claim otherwise is a logical fallacy.
/ thread.
Brand is an absurd parody of self importance, a graphic illustration of the hypocritical , pompous theatre of champagne socialism.
He and is ilk are stuck too far up their own pipe, just to see how ridiculous they really are . Whats even more absurd, they actually beleive themselves, surely, a pinnacle of self delusion. Having said that, being as Socialsm is a lie perpetrated for those same deluded and weak of mind individuals who spout its nonsense, they are perhaps deserving of pity for so little awareness of the real world.
Vote Labour, vote loony. You know it makes sense!!! <twitch>
He and is ilk are stuck too far up their own pipe, just to see how ridiculous they really are . Whats even more absurd, they actually beleive themselves, surely, a pinnacle of self delusion. Having said that, being as Socialsm is a lie perpetrated for those same deluded and weak of mind individuals who spout its nonsense, they are perhaps deserving of pity for so little awareness of the real world.
Vote Labour, vote loony. You know it makes sense!!! <twitch>
Guam said:
oyster said:
You haven't really understood the meaning of hypocrisy have you?
Can you find a source or quote where Russel Brand has campaigned for rich people to give their wealth away?
He's an odious cretin possibly, but to accuse someone of hypocrisy without understanding the meaning is a bit sad.
Far from my lacking understanding if one believes this from Wikki (and any number of Online dictionaries), I seem to understand it very well, perhaps you should take time out to peruse a dictionary before criticising others for lack of understanding.Can you find a source or quote where Russel Brand has campaigned for rich people to give their wealth away?
He's an odious cretin possibly, but to accuse someone of hypocrisy without understanding the meaning is a bit sad.
He is hypocritical on so many levels its unreal.
This will be in the thread somewhere already but having just got in from a long trek (nothing starry) to hear that Brand has today been announced as a winner of a Plain English 'award' - albeit an award for his barely comprehensible gobbledigook, the antithesis of plain English - this is a timely and apt award and richly deserved. No doubt the Plain English people and the rest of us need to look up a few more definitions
burwoodman said:
Axionknight said:
A hypocritical, holier than thou, prick of a man, I much preferred him when he stuck to being a crap comedian, now he walks around criticising all and sundry whilst being no better himself I really cannot abide the man.
Couldn't have said it better myself. turbobloke said:
Guam said:
oyster said:
You haven't really understood the meaning of hypocrisy have you?
Can you find a source or quote where Russel Brand has campaigned for rich people to give their wealth away?
He's an odious cretin possibly, but to accuse someone of hypocrisy without understanding the meaning is a bit sad.
Far from my lacking understanding if one believes this from Wikki (and any number of Online dictionaries), I seem to understand it very well, perhaps you should take time out to peruse a dictionary before criticising others for lack of understanding.Can you find a source or quote where Russel Brand has campaigned for rich people to give their wealth away?
He's an odious cretin possibly, but to accuse someone of hypocrisy without understanding the meaning is a bit sad.
He is hypocritical on so many levels its unreal.
This will be in the thread somewhere already but having just got in from a long trek (nothing starry) to hear that Brand has today been announced as a winner of a Plain English 'award' - albeit an award for his barely comprehensible gobbledigook, the antithesis of plain English - this is a timely and apt award and richly deserved. No doubt the Plain English people and the rest of us need to look up a few more definitions
burwoodman said:
Axionknight said:
A hypocritical, holier than thou, prick of a man, I much preferred him when he stuck to being a crap comedian, now he walks around criticising all and sundry whilst being no better himself I really cannot abide the man.
Couldn't have said it better myself. 
.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.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.Rents in London are far too high because property prices are far too high not because landlords are making extortionate profits, the margins are usually wafer thin. I don't know what the answer is but I know that state subsidy won't help, subsidy will just fuel the higher house prices = higher rent = higher house prices = higher rent spiral.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff