Russel Brand nobbled for being a hypocrite
Discussion
I like Brand at least he raises points with belief and conviction and actually has a point of view. If you've made money from entertainment or fame who have you hurt in making your profits? No one I'd say in fact you've made some happier / grateful.
Sounds like the landlord is essentially evicting people by increasing rent way beyond what is reasonable, it might be legal but is it morally right, would you fight and complain if you were a tenant?
Sounds like the landlord is essentially evicting people by increasing rent way beyond what is reasonable, it might be legal but is it morally right, would you fight and complain if you were a tenant?
Scootersp said:
I like Brand at least he raises points with belief and conviction and actually has a point of view. If you've made money from entertainment or fame who have you hurt in making your profits? No one I'd say in fact you've made some happier / grateful.
Sounds like the landlord is essentially evicting people by increasing rent way beyond what is reasonable, it might be legal but is it morally right, would you fight and complain if you were a tenant?
The landlord is investing money in the apartments by renovating them. Is that morally wrong? Sounds like the landlord is essentially evicting people by increasing rent way beyond what is reasonable, it might be legal but is it morally right, would you fight and complain if you were a tenant?
Otispunkmeyer said:
rant mode is the leftists debate weapon... as soon as you are challenged and you have no come back because in reality you know the square root of jack s
t about the topic at hand, you just rant and shout over your opponent until they give in. Works for those pedaling AGW.
As an aside, square rooting jack st (or sod all), which we'll assume to be a small number much < 1, would actually come out at a higher value than jack st. So not sure why people use the phrase "square root of sod all"
Nice rant: You are a secret leftist, I claim my prize.t about the topic at hand, you just rant and shout over your opponent until they give in. Works for those pedaling AGW.As an aside, square rooting jack s
t (or sod all), which we'll assume to be a small number much < 1, would actually come out at a higher value than jack st. So not sure why people use the phrase "square root of sod all"Stevanos said:
trashbat said:
If you really wanted to overthrow capitalism, why wouldn't you use the resources of it against it?
Erm, because for most people that would be seen as double standards at the very least. By your logic, nobody living within a given system can ever criticise it without being a hypocrite. Eg Nigel Farage can't criticise the EU because he lives in the EU...
Bonkers.
The question of whether the causes he attaches himself to have any merit is separate to the question of whether he is an insufferable hypocrite. If the news is "Brand has an opinion", though, it's perfectly reasonable to ask how sincere that opinion is. If, for example, he wants to criticise the existence of "the 1%", it is entirely within his power to remove himself from it. If he's not willing to do so, you have to question his integrity and the sincerity of his opinions.
He's a very rich man playing at the politics of inequality, which means I don't really give a flying one what his opinion is.
He's a very rich man playing at the politics of inequality, which means I don't really give a flying one what his opinion is.
Stevanos said:
The landlord is investing money in the apartments by renovating them. Is that morally wrong?
I assumed that the interviewers line of questioning meant there wasn't a straight forward reposte to the tenants complaints, if there is then I apologise. isn't there normally a sinking fund or something on rented blocks that means large expenditure/repairs is partly paid for by the rent of many years previously? In order to smooth out rents and ensure large blips/corrections are not required.King said:
said: Seeing that nearly everyone on the western world lives under capitalism, it would be impossible to criticise it from the outside. Brand can't help being rich if people want to give him money. Do you expect him to give it all away before he criticises capitalism.
By your logic, nobody living within a given system can ever criticise it without being a hypocrite. Eg Nigel Farage can't criticise the EU because he lives in the EU...
Bonkers.
The reason most people live under capitalism is that it is a success story that is slowly but surely bringing millions of people out of poverty, sure it is not perfect but it is working and in fact it is working better and more quickly now than it did a few years ago even. If you asked the people of truly Socialist/Communist run countries what they would prefer (assuming they had not been censored or brainwashed) I think capitalism would be a popular way forward for them. By your logic, nobody living within a given system can ever criticise it without being a hypocrite. Eg Nigel Farage can't criticise the EU because he lives in the EU...
Bonkers.
If Mr Farage was making his point whilst resident in Romania or France, I would have to agree with you.
Mr Brand is of course entitled to his views, which we all enjoy the same freedoms to do in a capitalist society, however in being overly opinionated he opens himself up to accusations when his actions do not match-up to his rants, especially when it appears he continues to personally benefit quit nicely off this crusade of his $$$$££££
Edited by Stevanos on Tuesday 2nd December 14:03
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.
You were generous there, Christmas spirit?!trashbat said:
If you really wanted to overthrow capitalism...
If you're Russell Brand you then wake up and continue to shovel cash into your back account (OK) and being a hypocrite about income & wealth (not OK).
Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 2nd December 13:59
Scootersp said:
I assumed that the interviewers line of questioning meant there wasn't a straight forward reposte to the tenants complaints, if there is then I apologise. isn't there normally a sinking fund or something on rented blocks that means large expenditure/repairs is partly paid for by the rent of many years previously? In order to smooth out rents and ensure large blips/corrections are not required.
That could be the case, but from what I can see the rent contracts come to an end next year, probably before the renovations and expansions of the dwellings are complete. It just looks like someone is willing to bring the property in to modern shape and charge the realistic local rent for it once they are done on new contracts. I can understand the peoples upset, but could they sit their for years in property on extremely low rent and expect the NEW landlord to foot the bill on modernising the property. People being priced out of Clerkenwell made Hoxton and Shoreditch infinitely nicer places.
People then being priced out of Hoxton and Shoreditch made Hackney, Dalston and Bethnal Green infinitely nicer places.
Seems to me that people don't defend gentrification enough. I've lived in my flat for 15 years and the whole area is a really nice place to live, with great transport links, great restaurants, destination bars, decent food shops, a great local community and easy access to green space, canals, or the heaving metropolis. It wasn't when I bought my flat. It was a complete sthole.
People then being priced out of Hoxton and Shoreditch made Hackney, Dalston and Bethnal Green infinitely nicer places.
Seems to me that people don't defend gentrification enough. I've lived in my flat for 15 years and the whole area is a really nice place to live, with great transport links, great restaurants, destination bars, decent food shops, a great local community and easy access to green space, canals, or the heaving metropolis. It wasn't when I bought my flat. It was a complete s
thole.Stevanos said:
The reason most people live under capitalism is that it is a success story that is slowly but surely bringing millions of people out of poverty, sure it is not perfect but it is working and in fact it is working better and more quickly now than it did a few years ago even. If you asked the people of Socialist run countries what they would prefer (assuming they had not been censored or brainwashed) I think capitalism would be a popular way forward for them.
If Mr Farage was making his point whilst resident in Romania or France, I would have to agree with you.
Mr Brand is of course entitled to his views, which we all enjoy the same freedoms to do in a capitalist society, however in being overly opinionated he opens himself up to accusations when his actions do not match-up to his rants, especially when it appears he continues to personally benefit quit nicely off this crusade of his $$$$££££
No, people in the west are born under capitalism, they don't get to choose which system they live under. It's like medieval times when, if you were born in the England, you lived in a catholic christian country and you had to be a catholic christian or you'd starve. If you live in a capitalist country you can't choose to be something else.If Mr Farage was making his point whilst resident in Romania or France, I would have to agree with you.
Mr Brand is of course entitled to his views, which we all enjoy the same freedoms to do in a capitalist society, however in being overly opinionated he opens himself up to accusations when his actions do not match-up to his rants, especially when it appears he continues to personally benefit quit nicely off this crusade of his $$$$££££
The UK is in the EU, just as much as France or Romania, therefore by your logic he shouldn't criticise the EU.
Being rich and criticising capitalism is no more hypocritical than being poor and supporting capitalism. By your logic I could say aren't rich enough to support capitalism unless you have over, let's say, £1bn assets...
Edited by King on Tuesday 2nd December 14:11
on Tuesday 2nd December 14:11Guam said:
Abagnale said:
Neither is the Guardian. If you thought in more than binary, your black & white view of the world may open up a little. Black & white by the way is carefully chosen wording - it represents the false choices you offer.
It does not follow logically that because Russell Brand has money, he is not permitted to criticise others in the same position. So, there's one of two possibilities, you either don't understand that in which case I feel a small degree of pity for you, or you wilfully choose to ignore it, in which case I don't.
Ether way, you don't emerge looking very smart.
I constantly read many papers including the Guardian, classic adhom at the end btw, clearly not as smart as someone like you eh?It does not follow logically that because Russell Brand has money, he is not permitted to criticise others in the same position. So, there's one of two possibilities, you either don't understand that in which case I feel a small degree of pity for you, or you wilfully choose to ignore it, in which case I don't.
Ether way, you don't emerge looking very smart.
This story appeared in the mail first so it gets picked first and this is the news forum and it was in the news.
Whether it would get past the editorial team of the Grauniad is questionable at best, its not like they would likely have raised the story now is it.
Guybrush said:
Guam said:
Abagnale said:
Neither is the Guardian. If you thought in more than binary, your black & white view of the world may open up a little. Black & white by the way is carefully chosen wording - it represents the false choices you offer.
It does not follow logically that because Russell Brand has money, he is not permitted to criticise others in the same position. So, there's one of two possibilities, you either don't understand that in which case I feel a small degree of pity for you, or you wilfully choose to ignore it, in which case I don't.
Ether way, you don't emerge looking very smart.
I constantly read many papers including the Guardian, classic adhom at the end btw, clearly not as smart as someone like you eh?It does not follow logically that because Russell Brand has money, he is not permitted to criticise others in the same position. So, there's one of two possibilities, you either don't understand that in which case I feel a small degree of pity for you, or you wilfully choose to ignore it, in which case I don't.
Ether way, you don't emerge looking very smart.
This story appeared in the mail first so it gets picked first and this is the news forum and it was in the news.
Whether it would get past the editorial team of the Grauniad is questionable at best, its not like they would likely have raised the story now is it.
"It does not follow logically that because Russell Brand has money, he is not permitted to criticise others in the same position."
Sure, he and others can and do engage in such antics, this is why many lefty whine merchants are
He's just the usual hypocritical,rich socialists, self publicising . Just like Abbott, Blair, Millipead,Emma Thompson (she who promotes Boddles diamond jewellery!!) etc. See below for the signs,
Does not like capitilism EXCEPT when they make loads of money from it.
Does not like private schools EXCEPT when they want their child to go.
Does not like flipping property to avoid capital gains tax ECEPT when they do it.
Does not like offshore funds and tax efficient measures EXCEPT when they use them.
Believes in inheritance tax EXCEPT when they want to avoid it.
I saw in him once (luckerly didn't pay) and he is a not very funny coked up tt, who has got lucky.
Not un-surprisingly he has jumped on this particular band waggon to promote his book.
. Just like Abbott, Blair, Millipead,Emma Thompson (she who promotes Boddles diamond jewellery!!) etc. See below for the signs, Does not like capitilism EXCEPT when they make loads of money from it.
Does not like private schools EXCEPT when they want their child to go.
Does not like flipping property to avoid capital gains tax ECEPT when they do it.
Does not like offshore funds and tax efficient measures EXCEPT when they use them.
Believes in inheritance tax EXCEPT when they want to avoid it.
I saw in him once (luckerly didn't pay) and he is a not very funny coked up t
t, who has got lucky. Not un-surprisingly he has jumped on this particular band waggon to promote his book.
southendpier said:
I wonder how many families were moved or priced out or sold up in the Hoxton area over the last 20 years before Russell Brand rented his £5000 per month flat?
Property has risen there approx 500% in the last 20 years.
Well, quite. But gentrification is, again, fine when he benefits.Property has risen there approx 500% in the last 20 years.
Seeing a theme here.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff