Russell Brand v The Sun

[Abagnale]

Guam said:

That was not my particular complaint with the guy as you know, perhaps you should stay with the individual points rather than trying to muddy the water, as others have indicated the courts will likely decide whether that issue is appropriate in terms of the tag Used by the sun, he has indicated legal action is to follow, I am content (as indicated further up the thread to await that judgement), in my opinion as cited on the other thread I think he is a Hypocrite in large measure due to his dealings with the Likes of news corp and taking their dosh. whilst slagging off multi national enterprises such as the much despised News Corp.

He cant have it both ways, now I believe that's the fourth time I have made that point, so either you are not paying attention or are trolling now or need intervention, you choose.

Muddying the water though, is what you do, not I. QED when you've avoided the question yet again, along with Turbo I note. So it's clear then that you & Turbo both agree with me that since The Sun's central allegation that Brand is a hypocrite because he rents a house from a questionable landlord cannot be proved by the newspaper one way or the other as the facts stand, neither of you can in logic go along with the assertion of hypocrisy per the thread.

So, with that in the bank, you both conveniently move on to to other aspects - he's paying big bucks to rent & that's hypocrisy, he wrote for the Sun & that's hypocrisy. He hasn't sued yet, therefore the allegation is true. With you two, it's like trying to plat piss. This was all said over the weekend - you have one line of argument closed off & you simply open another. It's hilarious, although obviously not as hilarious as signing off every response with the insinuation that I'm mentally ill.

[KareemK]

turbobloke said:

Guam said:

turbobloke said:

You may not be alone. No hate was involved in making this post

Indeed, I doubt I have looked at a copy of the Sun for 40 years (or thereabouts).

You and me both, I even got news of the survey that caused some people to reveal their stats ignorance from another forum not the newspaper in question.

Not that I avoid free access online newspapers if there's anything topical and interesting by way of a scoop. Not much of that in some locations then! I even access the FT online, but not The Times.

^^^

King said:

Turbobloke and Mini Me

[turbobloke]

KareemK said:

Guam said:

Guam said:

Poll Data Here

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uplo...

For the avoidance of doubt and guidance of the Unwell

That was the sum total of the post!

As a stand alone post its fine but it's not relevent to the Sun's poll on him being a hypocrite so ultimately fails the test of usefulness to this argument.

Circumstantial evidence m'lud, so not totally out of place - the reason I posted the political influence survey was as an example of YouGov using neutral phrasing in a poll that included Brand. Before you jump in I appreciate that this proves nothing about the hypocrite poll, but then it proves nothing one way or the other. Even so it remains as an example that, as one would expect, a reputable polling outfit has a reputation and most probably wants to keep it! Any luck in your search for THE questions?

[King Cnut]

Guam said:

Seriously?

That,s the best you have?
Ageism, what kind of modern understanding young politically aware type are you?

Look at the numbers and follow the money, Einstien. That's 797 people under 40 and 1346 over 40.

Ageism includes being frightened of young people.

[Abagnale]

King said:

Ageism includes being frightened of young people.

[KareemK]

turbobloke said:

KareemK said:

Guam said:

Guam said:

Poll Data Here

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uplo...

For the avoidance of doubt and guidance of the Unwell

That was the sum total of the post!

As a stand alone post its fine but it's not relevent to the Sun's poll on him being a hypocrite so ultimately fails the test of usefulness to this argument.

Circumstatial evidene m'lud, so not totally out of place, the reason I posted the political influence survey was as an example of YouGov using neutral phrasing in a poll that included Brand. Before you jump in I appreciate that this proves nothing about the hypocrite poll, but then it proves nothing one way or the other. Even so it remains as an example that, as one would expect, a reputable polling outfit has a reputation and most probably wants to keep it! Any luck in your search for THE questions?

No luck at all which by default I'd suggest means the question was either skewed or not pertinent and the inference The Sun are making that the majority of their readers agree that Brand is a hypocrite over this particular (tax dodging) issue is false.

Until I see the question, which is strangely difficult to find, it is the only conclusion one can draw.

How about you, any joy?

[Axionknight]

Guam said:

If you knew me, you would know I cant be described as Mini anything

Fat, eh?

[KareemK]

Guam said:

KareemK said:

No luck at all which by default I'd suggest means the question was either skewed or not pertinent and the inference The Sun are making that the majority of their readers agree that Brand is a hypocrite over this particular (tax dodging) issue is false.

Until I see the question, which is strangely difficult to find, it is the only conclusion one can draw.

How about you, any joy?

Not yet, but I am still trawling, not sure if TB has found anything.

I find it odd that the specific question has not been posted as part of the general survey on celebs and political influence (which presumably it was tagged on to)?

That survey you posted was just before all of this blew up no?

[Abagnale]

Guam said:

No there is that delusion creeping in, I don't know, as I am not privy to that information, I cant know what if anything he knew of the arrangement, he may have been fully cogniscent of who his landlords were, or he may not. So I am content to find out whether or not he pursues this and the knowledge (or otherwise) of who is landlords are is tested in court. It seems perfectly rational to me.

That is not avoiding any question except in your mind.

You just dont like the answer, you seem to want some folk to come off the fence one way or another, when it is not possible to make a judgement due to insufficient information.

Not a hypocrite then. Got it. Shame it flies in the face of this you so gleefully linked. I mean this volte-face could be described as hypocritical of you.

Guam said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2857221/Mi...

Class and not before time

Daily Heil said:

Millionaire comedian and former Mr Katy Perry, Russell Brand pays thousands a month to his tax-exile landlords despite campaigning against rocketing rent prices

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2857221/Mi...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[CamMoreRon]

turbobloke said:

Quite the opposite...and yet another metoo jumping in on the irrelevant personal angle. Nothing better to say, clearly.

It isn't irrelevant. Let me repeat this for you, since you conveniently chose to ignore it:

CamMoreRon said:

I am accusing The Sun of manipulating the sample. I am also accusing The Sun of misrepresenting the outcome as a sign that "THE NATION" is on their side.

As proof: I could commission a YouGov survey and send the link off to all of my friends who I think would agree with me. Following your logic, in this instance the result would be valid - despite being biased heavily in favour of the outcome I want and having a small un-representative sample - because it was carried out by an independent party. Is that really the argument you support?

Sure it's an inconvenient question for your arguments.. but I'd like to know your answer, as I'm sure many others would. So tell me - is this the argument you support?

[King Cnut]

Guam said:

Quick! Look over there! I don't want you to notice this but I'm desperately trying to divert attention from the fact I'm losing the argument and making myself look somewhat foolish.

EFA

[turbobloke]

CamMoreRon said:

turbobloke said:

Quite the opposite...and yet another metoo jumping in on the irrelevant personal angle. Nothing better to say, clearly.

It isn't irrelevant. Let me repeat this for you, since you conveniently chose to ignore it:

CamMoreRon said:

I am accusing The Sun of manipulating the sample. I am also accusing The Sun of misrepresenting the outcome as a sign that "THE NATION" is on their side.

As proof: I could commission a YouGov survey and send the link off to all of my friends who I think would agree with me. Following your logic, in this instance the result would be valid - despite being biased heavily in favour of the outcome I want and having a small un-representative sample - because it was carried out by an independent party. Is that really the argument you support?

Sure it's an inconvenient question for your arguments.. but I'd like to know your answer, as I'm sure many others would. So tell me - is this the argument you support?

There is no disagreement here, to a degree.

What I've been pointing out is that there is as yet no evidence that YouGov sent questions to or telephoned The Sun employees or readers. It is, frankly, a ludicrous proposition for a polling outfit to do such a thing.

If The Sun had wanted to undertake a poll of its readers, employees, website visitors or whatever, then a poll on their website would have been easy to set up. Going to a third party is a statement in itself.

Even so, as you will have seen from the posts between myself and KareemK, the nature of the questions asked is important, as much as who was asked.

There are some of us looking into this atm. What I have NOT been saying is that there is currently proof that the questions were neutral OR that the sample was one of YouGov's general population sets. My point though is that anything from the other side is also lacking in proof. The original accusations of sample size implications (which were shown to be wrong) and sampling were from you and I replied to those.

The angle I have taken is one of a balance of probabilities, that YouGov would use a standard population sample and phrase questions neutrally, but at the moment there are at least two PHers looking for the questions and details of the sample. If they did conspire over who was asked, their reputation would arguably be permanently damaged. This in my view makes it unlikely. The matter of question phrasing is another matter

In brief, the fantasy scenario posted by you CamMoreRon cannot be ruled out but then neither can fairies at the garden of your bottom. Or something like that.

[KareemK]

It's official, the UK don't think he's a hypocrite

http://www.scoopnest.com/out/?url=http://t.co/Vz70...

(wait until it loads the data, take the test and await the result)

748 people surveyed (68% don't agree with the sun) and if Scoopnest says so thats good enough for me!

What? It's legit, surely?

[turbobloke]

KareemK said:

It's official, the UK don't think he's a hypocrite

http://www.scoopnest.com/out/?url=http://t.co/Vz70...

(wait until it loads the data, take the test and await the result)

748 people surveyed (68% don't agree with the sun) and if Scoopnest says so thats good enough for me!

What? It's legit, surely?

Was the poll conducted by YouGov or another established polling outfit with a reputation to protect?!

Any progress with THE questions used for THE YouGov poll? Nothing obvious out there afaics.

[KareemK]

turbobloke said:

Any progress with THE questions used for THE YouGov poll? Nothing obvious out there afaics.

Nope and I'm told that even as a subscriber to the Sun's website you won't get that information - just the so-called 'result'.

[Abagnale]

Guam said:

Nope not at all, one relates to him being buttonholed by A C4 Journalist, which I thought was apposite and about time somebody pulled him up

This has been shown repeatedly to be irrelevant, since it's perfectly possible to be wealthy & still support social causes. See Lord Sainsbury et al so I question your judgement.

Guam said:

This thread is about the specific allegation raised in the Sun when they outright called him one rather than raised it as a question (as in the interview) I appreciate the difference is nuanced, but it is there nonetheless.

Yes it is & the answer has been provided over & over, so I question your judgement.

Guam said:

My feelings as I keep stating are driven by his rants in revolution and statements re capitalism whilst banking the dosh from several Multinationals (not the least of which is news corp) in my opinion that makes him a hypocrite, keep pressing you will get the same answer, on the specific issue regarding his landlord as stated I don't know (neither do you), I am waiting to find out.

Again then we both agree no hypocrisy is proved. So once again, I question your judgement.

Calling into question my mental state at every turn is water off a ducks back to me. You do seem to do it at every turn though, which in context is quite telling, it suggests strongly that you have little solid argument to go on & the above really shines sunlight on that.

Pages of argument devoted to the mechanics of a poll which asked if he was funny or not seems more illustrative to me than anything intended by you or your buddies.

[Abagnale]

Guam said:

you seem desperate that I should feel other than I do

I dislike ideologically driven distortions & you are an exponent of that.

From your perspective, that seems to be mental illness, that you believe that is proof to me that I'm on the right track.

[Abagnale]

I don't think so, it's tantamount to making this thread about you...or me & that's not happening.

Suffice to say I'll be along to knock your weedy arguments out of the park whenever it takes my fancy. It is after all, a very easy pastime.

[Abagnale]

Guam said:

So basically you have no bloody clue lol

You yet again post utter bks driven from the inner recesses of your mind, regarding my Ideology yet when called don't have the stones to front it and be shown up for what you are.

You are knocking nothing out the park as there is nothing to knock out, I think he is a hypocrite based on his own writings and his actions over the years I also think he does a disservice to those on the left (interestingly there are those at the Guardian who appear to agree as I indicated in a link I posted).

When you come up with something that isn't deluded you know where to find me.

Fantastic, the best yet.

[Abagnale]

I'll be like Guam & say I've given the answer clearly. But I'll concede Ideology & maybe go with irrational polemic.

Get back to me when you can contradict it AND stay above personal insults. It's the grown up way to go & unfortunately your shocking behaviour does have a way to go with that.