Paxman v Brand

What's with the current BBC love in with Russell Brand? On MOTD in the crowd, then allowed to embarassingly hijack Allardyce's interview - a moment which they gleefully replayed on the sports news on 5live this morning?

Apparently he ditched turning up at a march in London yesterday to take corporate seats at West Ham. How does that his in with his current stance?

What's with the current BBC love in with Russell Brand? On MOTD in the crowd, then allowed to embarassingly hijack Allardyce's interview - a moment which they gleefully replayed on the sports news on 5live this morning?

 

Apparently he ditched turning up at a march in London yesterday to take corporate seats at West Ham. How does that his in with his current stance?

The man's a pillock and shouldn't be given the airtime.

What's with the current BBC love in with Russell Brand? On MOTD in the crowd, then allowed to embarassingly hijack Allardyce's interview - a moment which they gleefully replayed on the sports news on 5live this morning?

 

Apparently he ditched turning up at a march in London yesterday to take corporate seats at West Ham. How does that his in with his current stance?

So he can't go and watch football because of his political viewpoint?

Bizarre

This is the first time I've watched the video in the OP. Paxman was criticising Brand for his lack of substance yet offered nothing whatsoever himself. Whatever one makes of the content of that interview, it is plain to see that Paxman has become a charicature of the people he has interviewed for so many years.

So he can't go and watch football because of his political viewpoint?

 

Bizarre

Not saying he shouldn't go just that he should buy his own ticket rather than knobbing about with the alleged tax avoiding porn baron owners at West Ham.

Not saying he shouldn't go just that he should buy his own ticket rather than knobbing about with the alleged tax avoiding porn baron owners at West Ham.

He gets invited as a guest of the owners most weeks, has a season ticket too I think. Not quite sure why that's relevant though, he's a man going to watch his team play like most other men do on a weekend.

What's with the current BBC love in with Russell Brand? On MOTD in the crowd, then allowed to embarassingly hijack Allardyce's interview - a moment which they gleefully replayed on the sports news on 5live this morning?

 

Apparently he ditched turning up at a march in London yesterday to take corporate seats at West Ham. How does that his in with his current stance?

Typical Daily Mail approach. Man attacks establishment.

Let's expose him as he doesn't hold true to his leftish values by walking around in sackcloths, avoiding all contact with anyone who hold counter viewpoints and while we are at it should donate all his money to charity. Damn hypocrite.

Oh and interested where the 'apparently' came from reference the march. Classic smearing with no evidence I'm sure.

Typical Daily Mail approach. Man attacks establishment.

Let's expose him as he doesn't hold true to his leftish values by walking around in sackcloths, avoiding all contact with anyone who hold counter viewpoints and while we are at it should donate all his money to charity. Damn hypocrite.

 

Oh and interested where the 'apparently' came from reference the march. Classic smearing with no evidence I'm sure.

Apparently came from someone on twitter that I can't be bothered to look up which is why I put that caveat.

As for your first paragraph, yeah that's obviously what I think. Christ.

What's with the current BBC love in with Russell Brand? On MOTD in the crowd, then allowed to embarassingly hijack Allardyce's interview - a moment which they gleefully replayed on the sports news on 5live this morning?

 

Apparently he ditched turning up at a march in London yesterday to take corporate seats at West Ham. How does that his in with his current stance?

I'm guessing that by planning to gate-crash the post-match interview, he felt that he might reach a wider audience - and perhaps even find himself being discussed in the back-waters of a Saints' Internet forum.

His actions got me to watch the Evan Davis' interview, so mission accomplished?

Typical Daily Mail approach. Man attacks establishment.

Let's expose him as he doesn't hold true to his leftish values by walking around in sackcloths, avoiding all contact with anyone who hold counter viewpoints and while we are at it should donate all his money to charity. Damn hypocrite.

 

Oh and interested where the 'apparently' came from reference the march. Classic smearing with no evidence I'm sure.

I dont care about any of this. He comes across like some jumped up 6th form student on speed and I find him hugely irritating. The media are obsessed by people like Brand because they are good copy and divide opinion. It is a shame they cant pick people who are less controversial and up their own backsides more intelligent and personable. Julie Burchill is another media whore who has made a whole career about being "outspoken" and "controversial." It is not big and it is not clever.

I like Stewart Lee's evaluation of the Paxmand - Brand interview; "It was like a chmpanzee throwing it's own excrement at a foghorn"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/11189039/The-rise-of-Brandy-Wandy-signals-the-end-for-Silly-Mili.html

Oh dear, what a fusillade of hatred against poor old Brandy Wandy. I have before me a slew of Sunday papers and in almost all there is abroadside against Russell Brand, the crinkle-tressed comedian. Commentators from Left and Right denounce him as a prancing, prinking, pompadoured popinjay; a know-nothing narcissist and Beverly Hills Buddhist who indulges in Dave Spart-like rants against capitalism while cheerfully admitting that he “can’t get his head around economics”.He is attacked for being a show-off, a bore and, above all, a hypocrite; in the sense that his new book, Revolution, is published by a gigantic Anglo-German media conglomerate. One Observer reviewer accuses him of “discrediting Left‑wing thought” and ends by pleading for him to find a new career. “The sooner he leaves the better,” he fulminates.

Well, who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel? I want to offer three reasons for siding with Russell against the Brand-bashers: and the first is that so much of this vituperation is obviously motivated by jealousy: of his success, his easy good humour, his string of beautiful and intelligent girlfriends, his Hollywood lifestyle, etc.

The second is that he genuinely seems like a nice chap. A while ago he came to film Question Time in City Hall and made a good impression on everyone – chatting in the lift, introducing us to his mother etc – even if someone afterwards said that he did nip off to the gents for a long time. But the third and most important reason for approving of Russell Brand is that he is such fantastic news for the Tory party. Of course his manifesto is nonsense – as I am sure he would be only too happy, in private, to admit. Among the measures he apparently advocates inRevolution are the abolition of taxation, the end of voting and the closure of all businesses with a turnover of more than $37 million – that being the GDP of Tuvalu, the world’s smallest country.

What he is calling for, in other words, is total global chaos and destruction. It is also true that much of the book consists of gibberish. A fairly representative sentence runs: “The significance of consciousness itself as a participant in what we perceive as reality is increasingly negating what we understood to be objectivity.” Yes, it is bilge; but that is not the point. Who cares what he really means or what he really thinks? The crucial thing about Russell Brand is that he seems to be popular – to strike a chord with people. After the long years of the post-crunch recession, there are many of a radical temper – especially young people – who are hoping for a prophet, for a new way, for someone who will show how humanity can subvert the long and imperfect reign of essentially free-market global capitalist democracy. It goes without saying that most of these people are on the Left. They want (or claim to want) a more “equal” society, to put down the mighty from their seat, to exalt the humble and meek – and so on.

“The significance of consciousness itself as a participant in what we perceive as reality is increasingly negating what we understood to be objectivity.”

This will be an easy read then.

“The significance of consciousness itself as a participant in what we perceive as reality is increasingly negating what we understood to be objectivity.”

 

This will be an easy read then.

Is he saying that subjectivity overcomes objectivity? I supose it all depends on how you look at it

I'm guessing that by planning to gate-crash the post-match interview, he felt that he might reach a wider audience - and perhaps even find himself being discussed in the back-waters of a Saints' Internet forum.

 

His actions got me to watch the Evan Davis' interview, so mission accomplished?

The gatecrashing looked staged and the BBC probably happy for it to be the case because it means more people are likely to watch their content - just as you did.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/oct/26/revolution-russell-brand-digested?CMP=twt_gu

I'm a Brand fan. He may not have a long-term plan, is undoubtedly reactionary, but he talks about interesting concepts and most importantly, has an audience. He was doing the companion show to Big Brother the last year I watched it. I thought he was off his f**king head on class A's on air, but there was no doubt the f**ker was engaging and genuinely standout in a sea of safe presenters. Here is an example.

I think a big part of the reason that people are now laying into Brand is because what he is now is quite different from what he was then. It's fine when the jester is making up jokes about a bunch of talent show wannabees. No-one is really taking any notice. He talks about different stuff now, and probably gets a lot of flak because he is over the target. People are drinking the Kool Aid.

People that criticise Brand for not having solutions to the world's myriad problems are missing the point. He'll probably never do that, but he will serve as a lightning rod or inspiration to people who perhaps can, and as I said before, he has an audience.

Personally, I have a great deal of respect for his honesty and eloquence when describing the world's problems, something he's very good at.

Brand was on Radio 4 this morning. Talked a lot without saying anything.

Why does the BBC give him so much air time, and free publicity, it's a joke.

I'd respect him if he practised what he preached, but the fact is he's an Eco warrior socialist who drives around in a 80k Range Rover, has a Hollywood mansion, jets around the world living the high life and hoards millions of pounds of his own means I don't.

I don't disrespect him for doing all that- I just despise the way he does it whilst taking the moral high ground on inequality, climate change etc. Utter hypocrite.

He really is a bore and a complete hypocrite.

The latest thing being reported is that he now denies having sex with a man as his moral code forbids it.

Who the hell cares? (BBC do, clearly)

Who the hell cares? (BBC do, clearly)

Clearly. There's no place for a heterosexual white male in today's BBC.

Indeed Brand does not assert that he has the answers to the present crisis in representation and the crippling inequality and social injustice that is the new normal in society. What he's doing is asking questions, and it those very questions that are obviously striking fear into the hearts of the political class and professional commentariat. This is a good thing and more power to the man for stirring things up.

 

Among the chorus of shrill voices that have denounced Brand in recent weeks, John Lydon and Polly Toynbee stand out. Lydon would seem to have reinvented himself as a professional contrarian, continuing where he left off with the Sex Pistols in embracing form over content. His shrieks of disdain directed at Brand have been notably lacking in anything more than ad hominem attack. Perhaps the real problem Lydon has with the comedian turned political campaigner is more to do with his own personal issues than Russell Brand. I don't know. What is clear is that Lydon comes over as decidedly unpleasant, whose stock in trade is vitriolic abuse.

 

As for the Guardian's Polly Toynbee, this is someone who extended herself in laying into Tony Benn upon his passing before the man's body was cold in the grave, intent on rubbishing his legacy. In this she was carrying on her feud with the Labour Party she left way back in 1981 to form the breakaway SDP, paving the way for Thatcher's re-election in 1983. As such her criticisms of Russell Brand merely validate the man.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/john-wight/russell-brand-politics_b_6046774.html

Good article that - Brand is asking some good questions IMO.

Since when was the ong haired lout been a comedian?

Have the BBC forgiven him for those ewd prank calls he made to Andrew Sachs and Family

Time the BBC were scrapped and a new more accountabe BBC type organisation is created

Since when was the ong haired lout been a comedian?

Since he made people laugh on Big Brother's Big Mouth, perhaps?

Have the BBC forgiven him for those ewd prank calls he made to Andrew Sachs and Family

They all paid their price at the time, iirc. Is it your view that people should be punished forever for telling Manuel that one of them banged his grand-daughter?

Time the BBC were scrapped and a new more accountabe BBC type organisation is created

Accountable to whom?

Brand is clearly "marmite" but I agree, he has an audience. I struggle with the whole narcissistic man-child persona thing he has going on but I guess it works for the ladies!

I will admit I never liked him as a comedian, presenter or 'performer'... never thought all that much of his acting roles either.

But having listened to him speak more recently, as much as I have struggled to like him in the past, I have grown to respect his opinions and have challenged some of my own beliefs as a result.

This being a football forum, perhaps the best analogy I can come up with is to play the ball, not the man. Challenge his statements, challenge his opinions, engage in the debate by all means... that is primarily what he is about after all... but leave the lazy personal judgements to one side.

The biggest criticism I have of everything that surrounds Brand at present is actually not a criticism of him personally at all, but of our media in general... it seems the only way to get an audience in our modern society is to be someone that the media wants to give exposure to, or more precisely, thinks they will get viewers/readers from.

Pap

1.apart from you who else watches big brother

2. of course he shoudnt be punished for ever. so woud you be happy if he banged your daughter and bragged about it and made lewd comments ? and the ony reason they got punished because Andrew Sachs formally raised the issue, thousands of folk moaned and the beeb got fined

3. They dont appear to be accountable , how many BBC hierarchy turned a blind eye to the evi monsters they employed ike savie and hall @

they should report to the news instead of making it

Also I was annoyed last night when aan green stated that chesea were the outstanding team this season. and citeh were the nearest team to be on par with them.

not a mention of saints

SOG

Brand is clearly "marmite"

I think your being a tad disrespectful to marmite. but i know the point you are making

Marmiite is edible

Brand is a turd , who woud want to eat that uness they were suffered from coprophagia.

I will admit I never liked him as a comedian, presenter or 'performer'... never thought all that much of his acting roles either.

 

But having listened to him speak more recently, as much as I have struggled to like him in the past, I have grown to respect his opinions and have challenged some of my own beliefs as a result.

 

This being a football forum, perhaps the best analogy I can come up with is to play the ball, not the man. Challenge his statements, challenge his opinions, engage in the debate by all means... that is primarily what he is about after all... but leave the lazy personal judgements to one side.

 

The biggest criticism I have of everything that surrounds Brand at present is actually not a criticism of him personally at all, but of our media in general... it seems the only way to get an audience in our modern society is to be someone that the media wants to give exposure to, or more precisely, thinks they will get viewers/readers from.

This is the problem, he has no substance all he does is "challenge the status quo" which is Brandese for ***** and moan about the very system that sustains him doing nothing concrete to induce change or even forwarding a legitimate idea of how things might be improved.

Pap

 

1.apart from you who else watches big brother

Back then, millions.

2. of course he shoudnt be punished for ever. so woud you be happy if he banged your daughter and bragged about it and made lewd comments ?

As far as I recall, Brand said Sachs grand-daughter was a great ****, or something similar. I don't think she was particularly arsed, or Sachs particularly in the dark. I wouldn't be happy with the scenario you dreamed up there, but neither am I saying Sachs should be.

Not the worst crime in the world though, is it? Not particularly relevant to what he's saying now, so there is no reasonable cause to bring it up now. Besides, my daughters don't go around dressed like this, or orbit in circles where Brand might be about.

3. They dont appear to be accountable , how many BBC hierarchy turned a blind eye to the evi monsters they employed ike savie and hall @

they should report to the news instead of making it

That's a fair point, and one I often wonder about. Why didn't Esther Rantzen, founder of Childline, report Savile's activities at the time? She knew about him. My best hypothesis is that she knew it wouldn't matter, because it went way beyond the BBC.

Also I was annoyed last night when aan green stated that chesea were the outstanding team this season. and citeh were the nearest team to be on par with them.

not a mention of saints

That's nice, but what's it got to do with Russell Brand?

Viking Warrior........wheres your f*cking L, you great big bellend!

Im with SOG, i would respect Brand a lot more if he went round saying the McCanns had murdered their own child.

pap How do you know that your daughters don't have another load of clothes

like that which they keep at a friends house ? Girls can be quite sneaky

pap How do you know that your daughters don't have another load of clothes

like that which they keep at a friends house ? Girls can be quite sneaky

This was a shít line of questioning when VW started it. The theory is the girls have got something called self-respect and are able to make adult decisions on that basis, especially the one that is actually an adult.

It's not really a discussion point germane to this discussion, because it was irrelevant in the first place.

Congrats on hitting a more impressive nadir than Ludwig on the Russell Brand thread, though.

I need a new keyboard as the L key is f***** Ludwig

Pap the point I was trying to make would you as a father be ****ed of if some scroat like celeb was boasting about humping your daughter . Andrew Sachs was livid when brand phoned Sachs

Or are you saying it's okay for a celeb to make such comments . I see rio Ferdinand has been suspended for make a derogatory comment about a woman on twitter .

I guess you find ferdinands twitter comment acceptable ?

I need a new keyboard as the L key is f***** Ludwig

 

Pap the point I was trying to make would you as a father be ****ed of if some scroat like celeb was boasting about humping your daughter . Andrew Sachs was livid when brand phoned Sachs

Or are you saying it's okay for a celeb to make such comments . I see rio Ferdinand has been suspended for make a derogatory comment about a woman on twitter .

 

I guess you find ferdinands twitter comment acceptable ?

It was a shít point which was answered on a technicality. It continues to be a shít point. Her grand-dad reads this site, you classless fúck.

In a year I'll probably have forgotten about it. Does that answer your question?

Interesting thread this. I took my daughter t see him live and I hated every second of it.

More and more these days I find myself admiring what he says.....there has to be better ways of doing things. There is no point in voting really, none of the parties are that different etc. Most politicians have the interests of the few at heart, corporations or the City.

The media fears him, as I imagine the secret services do in case he stirs up the population and I see the backlash against him as part of an orchestrated campaign to put him down.

Interesting thread this. I took my daughter t see him live and I hated every second of it.

 

More and more these days I find myself admiring what he says.....there has to be better ways of doing things. There is no point in voting really, none of the parties are that different etc. Most politicians have the interests of the few at heart, corporations or the City.

 

The media fears him, as I imagine the secret services do in case he stirs up the population and I see the backlash against him as part of an orchestrated campaign to put him down.

The media fears him so much he's in every newspaper and all over the TV pretty much all the time.

He's was on Match of the Day hugging Big Sam the other day.

"The Media" see him no more than decent box office. Nothing to fear here.

Mark Steel has an excellent take on some of Brand's critics.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/if-you-think-russell-brands-new-book-is-confused-you-should-read-what-his-critics-have-to-say-about-it-9829224.html

The most effective complaint about Brand’s call to arms is that it’s confused. Of course it is, it’s all over the place. “He poses only questions but has no solutions,” it’s claimed. Which is also true, but in a world in which it’s accepted by all major parties that banks and giant corporations and vast inequality are inevitable and can’t be curtailed, the most radical act can be to ask why.

 

 

Similarly, if the house is burning down, you can yell, “Oi! We need to scarper from the smokey-wokey or we’re destined to become victims of the old asphyxiation my lovelies!”, or you can reply, “Oh how long-winded and confused. In any case I don’t see you offering any solutions as to how you would wire the electrics more safely. Sod you, I’ll stay here where it’s cosy.”

Interesting thread this. I took my daughter t see him live and I hated every second of it.

 

More and more these days I find myself admiring what he says.....there has to be better ways of doing things. There is no point in voting really, none of the parties are that different etc. Most politicians have the interests of the few at heart, corporations or the City.

 

The media fears him, as I imagine the secret services do in case he stirs up the population and I see the backlash against him as part of an orchestrated campaign to put him down.

I fear you may be confusing style with substance.

If you watch any of his recent interviews (although 'performances' might be a more apt term) as soon as Brand is confronted with a difficult question he can't really answer he immediately attempts to divert attention away by resorting to phoney aggression, or even inappropriate levels of intimacy with the interviewer. As debating tactics go this unorthodox approach can be quite effective in a off-putting kind of way, but behind all that bluff and bluster I question whether he has very much to say.

But we may live in a age when all the main parties are fighting over the same (middle) ground and therefore style has finally become not only more important than substance, it is perhaps now the only thing that can lift an increasing disinterested British public out of their apathy - as the ever upward career trajectory of that other great unorthodox politician of our time Boris Johnston shows.

I fear you may be confusing style with substance.

 

If you watch any of his recent interviews (although 'performances' might be a more apt term) as soon as Brand is confronted with a difficult question he can't really answer he immediately attempts to divert attention away by resorting to phoney aggression, or even inappropriate levels of intimacy with the interviewer. As debating tactics go this unorthodox approach can be quite effective in a off-putting kind of way, but behind all that bluff and bluster I question whether he has very much to say.

 

But we may live in a age when all the main parties are fighting over the same (middle) ground and therefore style has finally become not only more important than substance, it is perhaps now the only thing that can lift an increasing disinterested British public out of their apathy - as the ever upward career trajectory of that other great unorthodox politician of our time Boris Johnston shows.

Brand won't lift people out of apathy alone, but some of the topics he is talking about will have huge public appeal. I doubt very much that Boris Johnson will ever talk about mass debt cancellation, for example.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/10/28/russell-brand-david-graeber-debt-capitalism_n_6059552.html

If you're going to judge the bloke on his content, I'd advise watching his own YouTube channel instead of Evan Davies trying to get him up on conspiracy ropes.

...

It's hard to argue against some of the things he says IMHO have a look.....

It's hard to argue against some of the things he says IMHO have a look.....

 

 

 

I think a big part of the problem with Brand haters, particularly those on the left, is that he openly questions the validity of institutions and systems that govern our lives. Whether they have a right to exist, or at the very least, whether they should have the power that they do. These are questions that many don't bother asking at all, or worse, actively act as apologists for.

I have a problem with the flawed logic:

You can vote and still end up having a revolution. Especially, if as is claimed, the former achieves nothing. Not to vote seems rude in the extreme given the sacrifices made to gain it. Not voting is not a revolutionary act, its just sulking.

Having said that, his main thesis is correct. Huge numbers have no representation and there is no option for real/meaningful change. On that basis, more power to his fatuous elbow. Oh, and mentioning Boris Johnson in the same breath as Russell Brand is like comparing a charmless snakeoil salesman from eighteenth century Mississippi with a court jester. Too different and ones a massive cu.nt.

He's an odd one.

In between some of the bonkers stuff he comes out with some real home truths.

I was never a fan of his 'comedy', always regarded him as a bit of a tit, next thing you know he makes perfect sense.

So for me he makes some very valid points, but he needs to edit out some of the madness that clouds the issue and his credibility.

I'd rather hear him talk on how the media is conning us, rather than hear any politician who just churns out spin approved from above.

He's an odd one.

In between some of the bonkers stuff he comes out with some real home truths.

I was never a fan of his 'comedy', always regarded him as a bit of a tit, next thing you know he makes perfect sense.

 

So for me he makes some very valid points, but he needs to edit out some of the madness that clouds the issue and his credibility.

 

I'd rather hear him talk on how the media is conning us, rather than hear any politician who just churns out spin approved from above.

Think it depends on how much you watch. I've seen a lot of his Trews stuff; the bloke does comments vids where people knock his points and he responds to them.

Few are under any illusions about the media. It's controlled, agenda-driven and is directed by governments (Beeb, RT) or corporations (Murdoch and the rest). Anyone that takes MSM at face value is a fking idiot, and if you need any evidence of that, all you really need to do is look at something like Hillsborough and observe how the media served the official narrative of that day. These aren't even new concerns.

Why does Brand not set up his own party and try to win a mandate at the ballot box. If he is such a revolutionary he could dip into his vast pockets and bankroll his own campaign.

Personally I would not vote for somebody who thought it was funny to ring up an old man live on air and ridicule him for having slept with his granddaughter. It suggests that underneath all of the bohemian eccentricity lurks a nasty bully.

Think it depends on how much you watch. I've seen a lot of his Trews stuff; the bloke does comments vids where people knock his points and he responds to them.

 

Few are under any illusions about the media. It's controlled, agenda-driven and is directed by governments (Beeb, RT) or corporations (Murdoch and the rest). Anyone that takes MSM at face value is a fking idiot, and if you need any evidence of that, all you really need to do is look at something like Hillsborough and observe how the media served the official narrative of that day. These aren't even new concerns.

Don't believe everything you read, kids.

Says the most gullible man on the Internet.