Russell Brand v The Sun
Discussion
LucreLout said:
Stevanos said:
I hope he loses, fed up with his incoherent rantings.
It is rather embarrassing for a middle-aged man to still be pretending he's a twenty something student. What I really don't understand is how the young are so drawn to his fact free diatribes' which might charitably be called "bulls
t". He's taking them for mugs and making millions out of them, which is the only truly funny thing he's ever done.I liked Crossroads but not as much as I love Russell Brand. I could watch him all the time.
With all the coverage given to him I often think I am
CamMoreRon said:
Right, so your solution is to either live with your parents in to your 40's or to live off the state on emergency housing, if there is even space for you. I would have thought the latter conflicted with your small state ideology rather strongly. You hypocrite.
Why am I not surprised to find that the village idiot, that's you by the way, is a Brand fan.Not everyone's parents can afford to buy them a house, as I seem to recall yours doing. Some people have to rent, and that requires some other people to be landlords. Keeping rent cheap requires competition in housing provision - more landlords, not less.
LucreLout said:
CamMoreRon said:
Right, so your solution is to either live with your parents in to your 40's or to live off the state on emergency housing, if there is even space for you. I would have thought the latter conflicted with your small state ideology rather strongly. You hypocrite.
Why am I not surprised to find that the village idiot, that's you by the way, is a Brand fan.Not everyone's parents can afford to buy them a house, as I seem to recall yours doing. Some people have to rent, and that requires some other people to be landlords. Keeping rent cheap requires competition in housing provision - more landlords, not less.
He coul;d have been telling porkies
You do realise the poster is just lampooning this and other threads don't you ?
CamMoreRon said:
Not at all.
Rental prices are controlled by landlords - therefore unaffordable rent is due to rentier price hikes.
Do you think there is some Evil Panel of Landlords somewhere, looking like Baron Greenback from Dangermouse, setting rental prices?Rental prices are controlled by landlords - therefore unaffordable rent is due to rentier price hikes.
Or are they actually controlled by the market, i.e. what the majority are comfortable with paying to live in a certain area?
CamMoreRon said:
turbobloke said:
Except that it's not 'my solution', so no hypocrisy, it's what's actually happening as opposed to your propagandist drivel.
And that is supposed to prove me wrong.. how, exactly?CamMoreRon said:
The tenants are forced to pay up if they want to live in a house. You seem to be attempting to argue that tenants can always not pay the rent, but what is the alternative? Live in the gutters?
As already pointed out to you, that's quite simplistic, and wrong. All I did was point out another obvious alternative albeit not quite so riddled or even Branded
with armchair revolutionary rhetoric as your offering, namely to live with mum and/or dad. This is what's happening. In addition I gave a link to current arrangements for emergency housing, also not 'my' solution but what's happening now. HTH.Property is just another form of investment. Westbrook have spent a lot of money buying and renovating the properties and are expected to ask for $1200/ month by 2016 at the earliest. All they've done is expect their high risk investments to pay off.
In perspective the average rent in that are is now $1500 at the lower end of the scale. Westbrook have stated existing tenants circumstances will be taken into consideration and lower rates applied for as long as possible.
The tenants have to consider they live in an expensive area for that market and either move or cope with it.
Its the Ease End of London how long did they expect to continue on $500/ month rent for.
In perspective the average rent in that are is now $1500 at the lower end of the scale. Westbrook have stated existing tenants circumstances will be taken into consideration and lower rates applied for as long as possible.
The tenants have to consider they live in an expensive area for that market and either move or cope with it.
Its the Ease End of London how long did they expect to continue on $500/ month rent for.
Greg_D said:
CamMoreRon said:
iphonedyou said:
Non sequitur.
Not at all. Rental prices are controlled by landlords - therefore unaffordable rent is due to rentier price hikes.
For example Brand is paying 4%pa of the market value of his home
a crappy £70k terrace in s
tsville with rent of £450 works out at 8% of market value. Who's the robbing capitalist pig now?
Yields in London can afford to be lower as higher prices are paid for purchases with the expectation of significant capital gains factored in- some foreign buyers are investing purely for the future capital growth and not even bothering to rent out.
LucreLout said:
CamMoreRon said:
Right, so your solution is to either live with your parents in to your 40's or to live off the state on emergency housing, if there is even space for you. I would have thought the latter conflicted with your small state ideology rather strongly. You hypocrite.
Why am I not surprised to find that the village idiot, that's you by the way, is a Brand fan.Not everyone's parents can afford to buy them a house, as I seem to recall yours doing. Some people have to rent, and that requires some other people to be landlords. Keeping rent cheap requires competition in housing provision - more landlords, not less.
Oh, really? And where do you "recall" that from? Or are you just talking out of your arse like usual? Quote me on it, please.. or do some homework and find out where this house I was supposedly gifted is, because I sure as s**t don't remember it happening.
This story sums up what I don't like about Brand (and I did like some of his comedy, before Sachs-gate). He's a humourless c8nt.
His response to subtle jibes is pathetic. Lets face it - it's about a 1/1000th of what Osborne, Cameron, Millipede or Farage put up with on a daily basis but that's what you have to deal with in politics. He can dish it out to weaker targets e.g. grand-daughters of sitcom actors .. but when it goes the other way he shows the class and wit of your average NUS rabble-rouser.
I think he would be positively scary as a politician!
His response to subtle jibes is pathetic. Lets face it - it's about a 1/1000th of what Osborne, Cameron, Millipede or Farage put up with on a daily basis but that's what you have to deal with in politics. He can dish it out to weaker targets e.g. grand-daughters of sitcom actors .. but when it goes the other way he shows the class and wit of your average NUS rabble-rouser.
I think he would be positively scary as a politician!
fido said:
His response to subtle jibes is pathetic. Lets face it - it's about a 1/1000th of what Osborne, Cameron, Millipede or Farage put up with on a daily basis but that's what you have to deal with in politics. He can dish it out to weaker targets e.g. grand-daughters of sitcom actors .. but when it goes the other way he shows the class and wit of your average NUS rabble-rouser.
^^ Precisely.Corpulent Tosser said:
Hypocrite, yeah I am OK with that, I hope he tries to sue and it gets thrown out.
Probably. Brand sued and won a case against the Sun earlier this year, and donated to the Hillsborough families. As such, you be sure the Sun's lawyers were consulted on this piece to ensure the article is 'legally' ok.
He's seems to want it both ways.
On the one hand, he wants to use his celebrity to high-light certain issues but then on the other, he thinks that his celebrity shouldn't be a reason to discuss other issues...
So I guess the hypocrisy is in him complaining that rents are rising due to house prices increasing, whilst at the same time continuing to feed the monster that is the housing bubble in London. I mean, £5k a week for a flat in Hoxton....it used to be cheap social housing for the working classes, until trendy "artists" and edgy "celebs" moved in, gentrified the area and started paying £5k a week rent....the irony.
On the one hand, he wants to use his celebrity to high-light certain issues but then on the other, he thinks that his celebrity shouldn't be a reason to discuss other issues...
So I guess the hypocrisy is in him complaining that rents are rising due to house prices increasing, whilst at the same time continuing to feed the monster that is the housing bubble in London. I mean, £5k a week for a flat in Hoxton....it used to be cheap social housing for the working classes, until trendy "artists" and edgy "celebs" moved in, gentrified the area and started paying £5k a week rent....the irony.
CamMoreRon said:
N'aww.. you have a pet name for me. Cute.
Oh, really? And where do you "recall" that from? Or are you just talking out of your arse like usual? Quote me on it, please.. or do some homework and find out where this house I was supposedly gifted is, because I sure as s**t don't remember it happening.
So you deny your parents helping you with the deposit now, do you?Oh, really? And where do you "recall" that from? Or are you just talking out of your arse like usual? Quote me on it, please.. or do some homework and find out where this house I was supposedly gifted is, because I sure as s**t don't remember it happening.
Yazar said:
As such, you be sure the Sun's lawyers were consulted on this piece to ensure the article is 'legally' ok.
That doesn't really mean much though. Their lawyers will be consulted about headlines/stories that they intend to publish on a daily basis and yet still they get successfully sued - and frequently too.Lawyers can only ever give an opinion, it's judges that decide.
I reckon he's going to become founder of a new religious movement, like L. Ron Hubbard did. He's got the self-delusion ramblings that don't stand scrutiny down to a T, and many young followers seem blind to what us oldies can see is a complete load of pretentious bks. Perfect environment.
ks. Perfect environment.
CamMoreRon said:
Eleven said:
CamMoreRon said:
You seem to be attempting to argue that tenants can always not pay the rent, but what is the alternative? Live in the gutters?
Speaking as an avaricious landlord I should point out that living in gutters is not necessarily an alternative to paying rent. We have tenants living in some very well located gutters and expect them not only to pay rent but pay it promptly. The first sign of getting a bearded comedian to represent their rights for a roof, walls or any of that nonsense is met with immediate and sometimes brutal eviction.
Besides.. you're saying that you turf out tenants who do not pay their rent - even if they were to pay late - so how exactly does that disprove my claim that landlords are the ones controlling prices in the rental market?
Edited by CamMoreRon on Thursday 4th December 11:15
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff