| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 21:10 - Dec 18 with 1421 views | Lord_Bony |
Russell
 |  |
|  |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 21:24 - Dec 18 with 1394 views | reddythered |
Well, the winner isn't Brand.
The "RBS" guy I'd say is almost certainly a contractor. Indeed, Brand should be on his side given RBS routinely ask contractors to take a 10% cut on the contracted rate.
Brand as usual fails to answer the points raised because he's unable to.
"Well, Mr Brand I'm afraid to say you've got cancer."
"It's all the bankers fault".
Still, Brand hates bankers so much he loves to screw them over. Or more accurately, as Jemima Goldsmith recently showed, he loves to screw them. Can just imagine a cozy family meal. "Well, Russell, how are things between you and my daughter". "Well, they're are good as they can be considering you're a twisted evil capitalist banker persecuting the poor, the real workers... oh, do you know any good movie related tax avoidance schemes by the way?" |  |
| |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 21:36 - Dec 18 with 1380 views | jackrabbit |
Brand has the intellect of a child and the incoherence of an undergraduate member of the university Socialist Society. His arguments are naive, superficial and juvenile, not to mention he is a total hypocrite. If he feels like he has something to offer the world of politics then let him enter politics properly, instead of indulging in publicity-seeking stunts. There's a big Election next year Russell - there's your chance. Let's see if all those Twitter followers will translate into votes. |  | | |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 21:41 - Dec 18 with 1373 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 21:24 - Dec 18 by reddythered |
Well, the winner isn't Brand.
The "RBS" guy I'd say is almost certainly a contractor. Indeed, Brand should be on his side given RBS routinely ask contractors to take a 10% cut on the contracted rate.
Brand as usual fails to answer the points raised because he's unable to.
"Well, Mr Brand I'm afraid to say you've got cancer."
"It's all the bankers fault".
Still, Brand hates bankers so much he loves to screw them over. Or more accurately, as Jemima Goldsmith recently showed, he loves to screw them. Can just imagine a cozy family meal. "Well, Russell, how are things between you and my daughter". "Well, they're are good as they can be considering you're a twisted evil capitalist banker persecuting the poor, the real workers... oh, do you know any good movie related tax avoidance schemes by the way?" |
Contracted rates are hugely inflated for most of the types of roles in banking, at least the skilled ones anyway. The contractors will often be earning more ph than many FTE's. Guess the risk is in you dont know where your next job is coming from when the contract ends. Appealing if you have some cash behind you i suppose.
The whole point of his little tantrum was to ask the CEO about whether his "£3.2m golden hello" was fair. If he'd done any research he would know hes spouting high level, incomplete bollocks. Anyone who has an idea about the structure of that package will know he will see hardly any of that.
What Brand should be asking is why anyone who works for a business which posts a loss on the year end P&L receives anything at all for bonus, at the very least those at manager grade and above. They lost cash as a business, therefore why are people being rewarded? |  |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 21:41 - Dec 18 with 1372 views | Parlay |
Brand wins.
There is obviously no other answer, he is stating facts.
Its just fashionable now to slate him. |  |
| |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 21:47 - Dec 18 with 1367 views | Dr_Winston |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 21:36 - Dec 18 by jackrabbit |
Brand has the intellect of a child and the incoherence of an undergraduate member of the university Socialist Society. His arguments are naive, superficial and juvenile, not to mention he is a total hypocrite. If he feels like he has something to offer the world of politics then let him enter politics properly, instead of indulging in publicity-seeking stunts. There's a big Election next year Russell - there's your chance. Let's see if all those Twitter followers will translate into votes. |
Brand certainly isn't stupid. He's found a gimmick which attracts a certain fanbase that idolises but doesn't ask too many questions and he's milking it for all he's worth. |  |
| Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair, or f*cking beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back. |
| |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 21:56 - Dec 18 with 1351 views | reddythered |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 21:41 - Dec 18 by Parlay |
Brand wins.
There is obviously no other answer, he is stating facts.
Its just fashionable now to slate him. |
Yeah, because it's fashionable to only critique those who are perceived as evil. | |
| |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 22:04 - Dec 18 with 1338 views | reddythered |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 21:41 - Dec 18 by PozuelosSideys |
Contracted rates are hugely inflated for most of the types of roles in banking, at least the skilled ones anyway. The contractors will often be earning more ph than many FTE's. Guess the risk is in you dont know where your next job is coming from when the contract ends. Appealing if you have some cash behind you i suppose.
The whole point of his little tantrum was to ask the CEO about whether his "£3.2m golden hello" was fair. If he'd done any research he would know hes spouting high level, incomplete bollocks. Anyone who has an idea about the structure of that package will know he will see hardly any of that.
What Brand should be asking is why anyone who works for a business which posts a loss on the year end P&L receives anything at all for bonus, at the very least those at manager grade and above. They lost cash as a business, therefore why are people being rewarded? |
I'm more than aware of contracting rates, intimate some might say ( damn, turning into Brand there ).
Contracting isn't a case of just sitting there raking the cash in. You're running a business after all - some permie wage slaves fail to realise contract rates your company negotiates - often through agencies rather than direct which adds it's own overhead - is company money, not your own. Hence yer VAT, PAYE/NI, Corporation Tax et al... your company handles sick pay, leave... don't work, can't invoice after all.
But anyways, I'd have thought Brand would be on the side of contractors because the logic still remains that RBS et al in the banking sector dictate you accept a rate cut with little notice or contract gets terminate. I'd know enough to fight that whilst sticking to my guns and walking out the door. FTE's pretending to be contractors on the other hand...
Brand does't care about the question you raise at the end. Doesn't suit his agenda. Why would he, the plebs buying into his 6th form politics don't want to rabble rouse against middle class people, which they either come from or aspire to be. No, you have to demonise particular individuals. Those at the top will do. After all, Fred Goodwin was an easy target for the Labour government to criticise whilst ignoring the fact they approved the package in the first place. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 22:17 - Dec 18 with 1319 views | Parlay |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 21:56 - Dec 18 by reddythered |
Yeah, because it's fashionable to only critique those who are perceived as evil. |
There doesn't need to be a critique, he is not in a film, he has not cooked a meal, he has not played in a band. He is a guy standing up for what he believes in.
Its easy to stand there and sneer saying "ooh look at him doing this, look at him doing that, he looks silly doing this, that or the other".
Fact is what he says is factually correct. The fact he is rich, the fact he has a fanbase and the fact people like to attempt to being him down a peg or two makes absolutely no difference at all. | |
| |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 22:20 - Dec 18 with 1307 views | skippyjack |
Bankers did make critical errors in their perceived profession.. was it all intentional? Of course it was.. they burst their f*cking own bubble.. because they're incompetent.. unprofessional.. egotistical megalomaniacs.. not living within their already 'luxurious' means.. but their intentions were for other means anyway.. |  |
| The awkward moment when a Welsh Club become the Champions of England.. shh
The Swansea Way.. To upset the odds. | | Poll: | Best Swans Player |
| |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 22:32 - Dec 18 with 1288 views | reddythered |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 22:17 - Dec 18 by Parlay |
There doesn't need to be a critique, he is not in a film, he has not cooked a meal, he has not played in a band. He is a guy standing up for what he believes in.
Its easy to stand there and sneer saying "ooh look at him doing this, look at him doing that, he looks silly doing this, that or the other".
Fact is what he says is factually correct. The fact he is rich, the fact he has a fanbase and the fact people like to attempt to being him down a peg or two makes absolutely no difference at all. |
Brand doesn't stand up for what he believes in.
If he believes the "poor" need his representation to fight evils perpetuated by "them", well, it's a tad hypocritical to write thoughts ( without solutions ) in a book generating him profits under the evil capitalist system.
It's hypocritical portraying him as a representative of the poor whilst trying to milk them for cash - see the "Russ / Che" T-shirts for purchase on his web site.
The fact is, what Brand says often isn't factually correct; often dumb. Remeber his Hugo Boss / Nazi spat? When he ranted about Hugo Boss being complicit with the Nazis - only to drive off in a f***ing Mercedes? Irony much?
Or what about his masterpiece, "Revolution"? Researched by Johann Hari. Might want to google him up, a very interesting choice of person to reveal "truth".
Want to complain about bankers bonuses, which are commercial decisions? Don't then complain when your tax arrangements are questioned.
Brand is a self-serving publicist. This current stage - which he'll forget about 5 years down the line - is to generate him money. When playing adult politics, he's way out of his league. 6th form politics, playing to the gallery isn't an alternative to the current system, it's perpetuating the adversarial name calling the present system encourages. | |
| |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 22:42 - Dec 18 with 1269 views | PozuelosSideys |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 22:04 - Dec 18 by reddythered |
I'm more than aware of contracting rates, intimate some might say ( damn, turning into Brand there ).
Contracting isn't a case of just sitting there raking the cash in. You're running a business after all - some permie wage slaves fail to realise contract rates your company negotiates - often through agencies rather than direct which adds it's own overhead - is company money, not your own. Hence yer VAT, PAYE/NI, Corporation Tax et al... your company handles sick pay, leave... don't work, can't invoice after all.
But anyways, I'd have thought Brand would be on the side of contractors because the logic still remains that RBS et al in the banking sector dictate you accept a rate cut with little notice or contract gets terminate. I'd know enough to fight that whilst sticking to my guns and walking out the door. FTE's pretending to be contractors on the other hand...
Brand does't care about the question you raise at the end. Doesn't suit his agenda. Why would he, the plebs buying into his 6th form politics don't want to rabble rouse against middle class people, which they either come from or aspire to be. No, you have to demonise particular individuals. Those at the top will do. After all, Fred Goodwin was an easy target for the Labour government to criticise whilst ignoring the fact they approved the package in the first place. |
On his site/in the response he mentions why he has gone there re. the £3.2m. That was his excuse, that was his question. He never got to ask.
Agreed about the contracting/perma-slaves. Happens everywhere. Previous roles of mine have gone in to the costing of that kind of thing. The amount spent on them is staggering. Agencies generally profiting massively. Business are cutting back tho. Clever employees renegotiate their terms when the contract ends and find themselves in the same role with a salary way above market, perma. (dunno why im telling you this, you clearly already know!)
I like Brand, hes outspoken and stands up for what he believes in. Bit like his stance on the decrim of drugs. But when you start seeing the simpleton logic being applied to kickstart the bandwagon, its disappointing and loses credibility. Its the lowest common denominator again, much like the standard politician. All mouth, no substance and a race to see who can make the most noise and not much else. | |
| "Michu, Britton and Williams could have won 3-0 on their own. They wouldn't have required a keeper." | | Poll: | Hattricks |
| |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 22:45 - Dec 18 with 1263 views | Parlay |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 22:32 - Dec 18 by reddythered |
Brand doesn't stand up for what he believes in.
If he believes the "poor" need his representation to fight evils perpetuated by "them", well, it's a tad hypocritical to write thoughts ( without solutions ) in a book generating him profits under the evil capitalist system.
It's hypocritical portraying him as a representative of the poor whilst trying to milk them for cash - see the "Russ / Che" T-shirts for purchase on his web site.
The fact is, what Brand says often isn't factually correct; often dumb. Remeber his Hugo Boss / Nazi spat? When he ranted about Hugo Boss being complicit with the Nazis - only to drive off in a f***ing Mercedes? Irony much?
Or what about his masterpiece, "Revolution"? Researched by Johann Hari. Might want to google him up, a very interesting choice of person to reveal "truth".
Want to complain about bankers bonuses, which are commercial decisions? Don't then complain when your tax arrangements are questioned.
Brand is a self-serving publicist. This current stage - which he'll forget about 5 years down the line - is to generate him money. When playing adult politics, he's way out of his league. 6th form politics, playing to the gallery isn't an alternative to the current system, it's perpetuating the adversarial name calling the present system encourages. |
Of course he believes in them.
If we weren't allowed to post our views on problems without offering solutions then you wouldn't have this forum to post on for one, it would be redundant. Its so cheap and one eyed to say "he is anti capitalism so a hypocrite for earning money". He is against the system, until that time comes where the system changes he is in it whether he likes it or not. The profits from the book are apparently going to the creation of a non profit based drug addicts cafe. Nobody is forcing the poor to buy a book, russells book is not a tax, it is priced reasonably and available to anyone who wants it.
I do indeed remember his Hugo Boss rant, that was factually correct, and still is. You seem to have the opinion that something isn't factually correct if you can find a hint of irony. If only it were that simple. People love to say "6th form politics" and any other jibe to discredit him, but he has done more than anybody else in recent history to engage the youth in politics and is doing a bloody good job. He is not a politician and has held his own and more in a field unfamiliar to him.
People hate a man that speaks with conviction, even if they agree they will find a way to disagree as they dont like how it is being presented. I find the same on a smaller scale in this forum, the more confident you appear in your convictions the more people will fall over themselves to try to bring you down a peg or two even if what you are saying is obviously correct.
Human nature. | |
| |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 22:54 - Dec 18 with 1256 views | reddythered |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 22:42 - Dec 18 by PozuelosSideys |
On his site/in the response he mentions why he has gone there re. the £3.2m. That was his excuse, that was his question. He never got to ask.
Agreed about the contracting/perma-slaves. Happens everywhere. Previous roles of mine have gone in to the costing of that kind of thing. The amount spent on them is staggering. Agencies generally profiting massively. Business are cutting back tho. Clever employees renegotiate their terms when the contract ends and find themselves in the same role with a salary way above market, perma. (dunno why im telling you this, you clearly already know!)
I like Brand, hes outspoken and stands up for what he believes in. Bit like his stance on the decrim of drugs. But when you start seeing the simpleton logic being applied to kickstart the bandwagon, its disappointing and loses credibility. Its the lowest common denominator again, much like the standard politician. All mouth, no substance and a race to see who can make the most noise and not much else. |
Well, the point was made that the people he wanted to question didn't work there- a simple thing to find out. Clearly, a clever stunt knowing he'd be refused access to the building to then spin into a documentary as "see! they are hiding from me".
Agencies do bill massively. You've the client-agency contract, you've then a contract for services between the agency and the contractors company. If the client doesn't insists on a fixed markup then yes, agencies do take the piss - I've seen then take 50% of the agreed client rate in some cases, thankfully rare.
"Clever employees renegotiate their terms when the contract ends". Well, not clever - if they are true contractors then they can never employess - if they aren't running their companies as true legit companies then they fall foul of IR35 as disguised employees. And if they leave contracting to become permie doing the same role or vice versa at the same client, well, that's something HMRC would be very interested in... christ I'm boring tonight.
I don't believe Brand stands up for what he believes in. I believe Brand stands for whatever he believes will keep him in the limelight ( his comedy certainly wouldn't ) and make him money in the process. When it comes to any serious contestation of his points, he simply cannot defend them effectively bcause he's little substance. I'd caveat that - the decrim of drugs I do believe he's sincere upon due to his life experiences. | |
| |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 23:14 - Dec 18 with 1245 views | Parlay |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 22:54 - Dec 18 by reddythered |
Well, the point was made that the people he wanted to question didn't work there- a simple thing to find out. Clearly, a clever stunt knowing he'd be refused access to the building to then spin into a documentary as "see! they are hiding from me".
Agencies do bill massively. You've the client-agency contract, you've then a contract for services between the agency and the contractors company. If the client doesn't insists on a fixed markup then yes, agencies do take the piss - I've seen then take 50% of the agreed client rate in some cases, thankfully rare.
"Clever employees renegotiate their terms when the contract ends". Well, not clever - if they are true contractors then they can never employess - if they aren't running their companies as true legit companies then they fall foul of IR35 as disguised employees. And if they leave contracting to become permie doing the same role or vice versa at the same client, well, that's something HMRC would be very interested in... christ I'm boring tonight.
I don't believe Brand stands up for what he believes in. I believe Brand stands for whatever he believes will keep him in the limelight ( his comedy certainly wouldn't ) and make him money in the process. When it comes to any serious contestation of his points, he simply cannot defend them effectively bcause he's little substance. I'd caveat that - the decrim of drugs I do believe he's sincere upon due to his life experiences. |
You have not seen the documentary. You are not looking at this impartially at all, you have made a stance on brand and will attack him even for things you have never seen or he hasn't even done. He hasn't presented his filming for us to see what he said.
You cannot make a judgement to what someone believes in and what they don't, or indeed their intentions as your argument becomes even more pointless than the one you are decrying. It is based on nothing more than a personal dislike or an annoyance. Thats all well and good but in terms of forming a fair debate, its stage is as weak as a sinkhole.
As i said, brand is not a politician and doesn't claim to be one. He is pointing out what is wrong with the current system and the injustices it raises to the surface. He has done more than any single politically associated figure in British recent history to engage people into the plight of UK politics and has held his own and made people look rather stupid along the way in a field unfamiliar to him.
People will take a cynical view, they always do. But nothing ever changed by staying the same. | |
| |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 23:35 - Dec 18 with 1215 views | Lord_Bony |
Fair point.
Love him or loath him Brand talks a lot of sense and is a good figurehead for the young and displaced in society to raise the points they feel no one is listening to. | |
| |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 23:41 - Dec 18 with 1205 views | reddythered |
Well, if you want to go down the "You haven't seen the documentary" route, then that's all well and good. Wanting to speak to somebody who didn't work there however can only be viewed as the result of two courses - wanting to create a stunt or incredibly poor research.
If the research is indeed poor, then what else is Brand going to be wrong on?
Am I cynical about the documentary - well yes. Some of Brand's grandstanding lead me to fear his documentary will be akin to Michael Moore efforts, where grains of truth are cover with stunts and manipulative editting.
Brand has not done anything to engage in the political scene; telling people to not vote isn't engaging in any way shape or form. He has no substance behind his views other than glib comments. He does not hold his own as shown on Question Time - expected the audience to lap up every comment, sat there with a face like a smacked arse when some of the audience didn't whole heartedly agree with him.
I do agree that politics needs to change. I just think it needs somebody better than Brand to do it because his approach is aimed at the lowest common denominator; leads to more politics of hate than politics of change. | |
| |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 23:48 - Dec 18 with 1190 views | Lord_Bony |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 23:41 - Dec 18 by reddythered |
Well, if you want to go down the "You haven't seen the documentary" route, then that's all well and good. Wanting to speak to somebody who didn't work there however can only be viewed as the result of two courses - wanting to create a stunt or incredibly poor research.
If the research is indeed poor, then what else is Brand going to be wrong on?
Am I cynical about the documentary - well yes. Some of Brand's grandstanding lead me to fear his documentary will be akin to Michael Moore efforts, where grains of truth are cover with stunts and manipulative editting.
Brand has not done anything to engage in the political scene; telling people to not vote isn't engaging in any way shape or form. He has no substance behind his views other than glib comments. He does not hold his own as shown on Question Time - expected the audience to lap up every comment, sat there with a face like a smacked arse when some of the audience didn't whole heartedly agree with him.
I do agree that politics needs to change. I just think it needs somebody better than Brand to do it because his approach is aimed at the lowest common denominator; leads to more politics of hate than politics of change. |
Lol | |
| |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 23:48 - Dec 18 with 1190 views | Parlay |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 23:41 - Dec 18 by reddythered |
Well, if you want to go down the "You haven't seen the documentary" route, then that's all well and good. Wanting to speak to somebody who didn't work there however can only be viewed as the result of two courses - wanting to create a stunt or incredibly poor research.
If the research is indeed poor, then what else is Brand going to be wrong on?
Am I cynical about the documentary - well yes. Some of Brand's grandstanding lead me to fear his documentary will be akin to Michael Moore efforts, where grains of truth are cover with stunts and manipulative editting.
Brand has not done anything to engage in the political scene; telling people to not vote isn't engaging in any way shape or form. He has no substance behind his views other than glib comments. He does not hold his own as shown on Question Time - expected the audience to lap up every comment, sat there with a face like a smacked arse when some of the audience didn't whole heartedly agree with him.
I do agree that politics needs to change. I just think it needs somebody better than Brand to do it because his approach is aimed at the lowest common denominator; leads to more politics of hate than politics of change. |
So you are saying Brand went into the wrong building so if he got that wrong then he must have got other things wrong. Come on now.
You are by all means entitled to be skeptical about the documentary that may it may not even be aired. But to judge him on it prior to its release is surely far more ridiculous than any of the things you are putting to Brand himself?
Not having a go at you but it does seem your personal dislike is getting in the way of things. | |
| |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 23:49 - Dec 18 with 1174 views | perchrockjack |
A good figurehead.?. Dear god | |
| |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 23:56 - Dec 18 with 1159 views | reddythered |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 23:48 - Dec 18 by Parlay |
So you are saying Brand went into the wrong building so if he got that wrong then he must have got other things wrong. Come on now.
You are by all means entitled to be skeptical about the documentary that may it may not even be aired. But to judge him on it prior to its release is surely far more ridiculous than any of the things you are putting to Brand himself?
Not having a go at you but it does seem your personal dislike is getting in the way of things. |
Nope, I didn't say he *must* have got other things wrong. When he gets simple things wrong, then by logic how can you have confidence other things cannot possibly be wrong? You can't.
My big problem with Brand is he's ranting "things are wrong, things are wrong" without giving any realistic solutions. When asked why he won't stand for public office, replying "I don't want to risk becoming one of them" solves absolutely nothing.
I've just seen nothing, read nothing from Brand where he's able to give concrete, detailed solutions to the malaises as he sees them. Ironically, that's a tactic used by the politicians he despises - don't commit to anything.
So where's the difference other than Brand's bank balance will increase? | |
| |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 00:01 - Dec 19 with 1149 views | Lord_Bony |
He does nt have to give solutions,that s not his job.
He is merely raising awareness of a lot of relevant issues at the moment that should be addressed .
..that is enough | |
| |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 00:03 - Dec 19 with 1144 views | Parlay |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 23:56 - Dec 18 by reddythered |
Nope, I didn't say he *must* have got other things wrong. When he gets simple things wrong, then by logic how can you have confidence other things cannot possibly be wrong? You can't.
My big problem with Brand is he's ranting "things are wrong, things are wrong" without giving any realistic solutions. When asked why he won't stand for public office, replying "I don't want to risk becoming one of them" solves absolutely nothing.
I've just seen nothing, read nothing from Brand where he's able to give concrete, detailed solutions to the malaises as he sees them. Ironically, that's a tactic used by the politicians he despises - don't commit to anything.
So where's the difference other than Brand's bank balance will increase? |
You don't have confidence or no confidence, you take what he says and make a decision on whether he is right or not. I don't listen to someone and decide whether to listen or not based on if they made a mistake of going into a wrong building or not otherwise nobody would listen to anybody in this world.
I understand the frustrations with Brand not providing a solution but its not his job to. Like i said, everybody points to how things aren't right with our club but nobody stands for manager or believes they need a workable solution or their opinion is irrelevant. There are major flaws in the system and some people are getting screwed, this isn't a byproduct of the system, that is a decision. The redistribution of wealth is something that could happen under this system.
Brand's bank will increase no matter what he does. If it wasn't this then it would be something else, he could do more sell out comedy tours, its an easy gig. | |
| |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 01:39 - Dec 19 with 1100 views | Catullus |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 22:45 - Dec 18 by Parlay |
Of course he believes in them.
If we weren't allowed to post our views on problems without offering solutions then you wouldn't have this forum to post on for one, it would be redundant. Its so cheap and one eyed to say "he is anti capitalism so a hypocrite for earning money". He is against the system, until that time comes where the system changes he is in it whether he likes it or not. The profits from the book are apparently going to the creation of a non profit based drug addicts cafe. Nobody is forcing the poor to buy a book, russells book is not a tax, it is priced reasonably and available to anyone who wants it.
I do indeed remember his Hugo Boss rant, that was factually correct, and still is. You seem to have the opinion that something isn't factually correct if you can find a hint of irony. If only it were that simple. People love to say "6th form politics" and any other jibe to discredit him, but he has done more than anybody else in recent history to engage the youth in politics and is doing a bloody good job. He is not a politician and has held his own and more in a field unfamiliar to him.
People hate a man that speaks with conviction, even if they agree they will find a way to disagree as they dont like how it is being presented. I find the same on a smaller scale in this forum, the more confident you appear in your convictions the more people will fall over themselves to try to bring you down a peg or two even if what you are saying is obviously correct.
Human nature. |
Done more to engage tge youth in politics, how? By encouraging people to not vote....oh come on.
He questions anybody who made money, but hates having his finances looked into. Whenever he's questioned, he starts throwing insults around.
How can a man with his history try to claim any moral high ground? I wonder how much of his money actually goes to charity. As a percenrage? I bet it's less than me, and I'm broke.
He took money for appearing on QT, what happened to that fee?
Are top level bankers corrupt, yes. Is Brand the answer, never in a million years. If he actually had the courage of his convictions, he would stand for office. Ive heard his lame duck ecxuse "I don't want to become one of them" wasn't it? Well how do you change anything by hiding from it?
He's happy to mouth off (from his very well funded ivory tower) but if he wants what he says, then stand up and be counted.
I won't hold my breath. | |
| |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 01:50 - Dec 19 with 1087 views | Parlay |
| Bank analyst v Russell Brand - who do YOU think wins the argument? on 01:39 - Dec 19 by Catullus |
Done more to engage tge youth in politics, how? By encouraging people to not vote....oh come on.
He questions anybody who made money, but hates having his finances looked into. Whenever he's questioned, he starts throwing insults around.
How can a man with his history try to claim any moral high ground? I wonder how much of his money actually goes to charity. As a percenrage? I bet it's less than me, and I'm broke.
He took money for appearing on QT, what happened to that fee?
Are top level bankers corrupt, yes. Is Brand the answer, never in a million years. If he actually had the courage of his convictions, he would stand for office. Ive heard his lame duck ecxuse "I don't want to become one of them" wasn't it? Well how do you change anything by hiding from it?
He's happy to mouth off (from his very well funded ivory tower) but if he wants what he says, then stand up and be counted.
I won't hold my breath. |
He said vote if there is something worth voting for. If you believe he was encouraging people not to vote then by proxy you must concede there is nothing worth voting for. His wealth is personal and not made from taxes or indeed taking money from the underserved. His show on youtube "thetrews" has more followers than any of the political twitter or social media feeds out there, to suggest he is not having a positive effect on the youth of Britains interest in politics then that is just naive.
This whole, he has made money here and he has made money there argument is so old hat and doesn't really hold any weight. We are in a capitalist society, he is against that but cannot change it, whist we are in this capitalist society then of course he will get paid work, to suggest otherwise is lunacy.
Nobody is saying Brand is the answer, neither is he for that matter. He is not a politician, surely by that theory everyone who votes and thus has an opinion on the way the country is run should also stand for office? He is currently the mouthpiece for the underserved areas of society, nothing more, nothing less and is doing an excellent job almost single handedly. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
