BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman

Subject: BS: Russel Brand V's Paxman
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 24 Oct 13 - 07:45 AM

I thoroughly enjoyed this video of Brand being interviewed by Paxman, I wanted to cheer. I think Paxman tried to do his usual thing, but was totally dominated by Brand who gave an impassioned, heartfelt and eloquent call for revolutionary systemic political change. I can think of one or two posters here who will cheer him on too.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YR4CseY9pk

Subject: RE: BS: Russel Brand V's Paxman
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Oct 13 - 01:13 PM

Russell Brand is bright, an articulate speaker, and though he has pulled a few really bone-headed stunts in the past, he is someone who is well-worth listening to. His critical thinking skills are top-notch.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Russel Brand V's Paxman
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 24 Oct 13 - 03:12 PM

Spot on SRS!

Subject: RE: BS: Russel Brand V's Paxman
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Oct 13 - 03:32 PM

Brand is a bullying cunt. He should be exterminated.

Subject: RE: BS: Russel Brand V's Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 24 Oct 13 - 03:40 PM

His beard looks cooler than yours though. ..

Subject: RE: BS: Russel Brand V's Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Oct 13 - 03:52 PM

Oh bollocks, I agree with Dick.

Subject: RE: BS: Russel Brand V's Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Oct 13 - 03:56 PM

I'll qualify my previous post - I agree with Dick that Brand's a vile bullying scrote. But I'd draw the line at extermination, I believe that we have to be better than that.

Subject: RE: BS: Russel Brand V's Paxman
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 24 Oct 13 - 04:09 PM

i thought he was quite an irritating and not funny comedian and then something seems to have happened - probably getting off the drugs. i've read a few of his recent articles and found him very articulate and interesting. his article on thatcher's death was the best thing i read on that subject by a long way - reasonable and nuanced. i don't entirely agree that we shouldn't vote - the current government are vicious and corrupt and need opposing in every way possible, but surely no - one could object to his criticisms of free market capitalism. he doesn't have a very coherent answer about what we should do about the fact that the entire world economy is run for the benefit of a tiny number of wealthy westerners but he is absolutely right to speak up about it - i wish there were more of us with his passion an energy for speaking truth to power.

by the way, what is a scrote? who is he bullying?

Subject: RE: BS: Russel Brand V's Paxman
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Oct 13 - 05:00 PM

You don't know the trick that he and Wothy pulled? You need to get out more. He needs several more millenia in purgatory before being allowed out in public.

Subject: RE: BS: Russel Brand V's Paxman
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 24 Oct 13 - 05:58 PM

Get out more? I think it's time to get over it. No-one was harmed. It's not like he stole a loaf of bread or anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Russel Brand V's Paxman
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Oct 13 - 06:05 PM

No-one was harmed.

What about Andrew Sachs and his granddaughter?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Russel Brand V's Paxman
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 24 Oct 13 - 06:19 PM

I imagine they got over it long ago, rather like other folks should. I don't have to approve to think that it's time the public ceased obsessing over such *shocking* DM style petty soap opera trivia and listen to the very sensible things people - including Brand - have to say about the actually incredibly huge political issues faced by the majority of people today.

Subject: RE: BS: Russel Brand V's Paxman
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Oct 13 - 07:55 PM

Maybe he just grew up.

I think you owe him another listen, Richard. He is sober now, and that makes a huge difference. His articulate conversation is staggering. He can pull out more excellent, precise words to describe exactly what he means, more quickly, than anyone I've heard in a long time. I'd love to hear a conversation between Brand and Bill Clinton, another speaker like that (though Clinton doesn't talk as fast). Those two would set a new standard for literate discussion. And Brand would probably blow away most other politicians.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: michaelr
Date: 24 Oct 13 - 09:02 PM

Haven't a clue who Wothy, Andrew Sachs, or his granddaughter are. But I think that Brand is spot on, absolutely right. The only thing I'm not so sure about is that there will be a revolution.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 Oct 13 - 11:48 PM

There was a scandal with a radio show where he was a guest or a DJ and they pulled a phone call prank that turned out to be rather cruel. If you ever watched the program Fawlty Towers, Sachs played Manuel, the Spanish-only speaking waiter. He is now elderly and his granddaughter figured in the call. It was stupid.

Brand and everyone else in that event has apparently moved on. He sobered up and is an actor in addition to the comedy, and using his brains now in writing commentary.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 12:44 AM

"Wothy" was the nickname of Jonathan Ross, a BBC anchorman-interviewer ought-to-have-been nonentity, who lisped & couldn't sound his Rs, whence "Wothy": one of those irritating talentless people who manage to make themselves well-known just for being well-known. He & his friend Brand ('alternative'* comedian - another of the same: despite his having now apparently come off the dope [oh, big deal!] — he still seems to spout jejune adolescent ideological platitudes of the sort normal people have grown out of by age 20) took against Mr Sachs because he wouldn't appear on one of their programmes, so telephoned him on air during a BBC programme some time in 2008 to tell him they had shagged his teenage granddaughter, & then put the calls online where they went viral, & the BBC for some reason took it up as a great joke. I think I have recalled most of the details right. There's a wiki entry where you can read all about it, "The Russell Brand Show prank telephone calls row", where the whole sordid affair is described in all its shallow tastelessness. So what if you think they should have 'got over it', Sister? I see no reason decent people should have done. Perhaps you think we should have 'got over' Fred West or the Moors Murders by now? Or Auschwitz & the Gulag? They were a long time ago too, weren't they.

~M~

*so-called IMO because whatever it is they might gob up, it sure as hell isn't comic...

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: michaelr
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 12:47 AM

Ah yes, I remember FT. Not Cleese's finest hour.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 01:51 AM

Well said, Michael, and right on the button.

I wonder how SRS would feel if it had been her own grand-daughter whose sex-life was disclosed to her by a pair of overgrown, giggling schoolboys-who-never-grew-up on a national radio programme with millions of listeners? Would you have 'got over it by now' and still be singing that filthy wretches praises, eh Maggie?

As for 'his articulate conversation is staggering' it was nothing of the sort. It was puerile loud-mouth bluster, and everything he trotted out reminded me of many coffee-bar conversations my school-friends and I had back in our fifth-form days, where we spouted off about 'revolution' without any understanding of what revolution really means.
He proposed lots of problems but, apart from "don't vote" and the 'revolution' horse-puckey, he did not propose any answers.

FFS, 99% of the population of the UK knows what the problems are - unlike that overpaid dirty scumbag, we live them day to day - what we need are answers, REAL answers. And "don't vote" and 'revolution' don't provide the answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 01:59 AM

And anyone with at least one working grey cell can see that it was nothing to do with serious political dialogue, and everything to do with preening self-publicity.

Over and out.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: DMcG
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 03:03 AM

I'm sure I have at least two working grey cells.

Of course self publicity is a part of it - it's phenomenally rare for anyone to be on television where that isn't a factor. And yes, that whole business with Sachs was appalling.

Neither of which has anything to do with whether what he said makes sense. Now, to me this whole business about a revolution being on its way sounded a ill thought out, but all of the rest was well worth hearing and thinking about. Even if you happen not to agree, it is substantial enough that you can consider precisely why you disagree, rather than simply disengauging.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 04:08 AM

Thanks to having seen (on TV) and heard (on radio) Russell Brand before, I have decided (not just based on the Andrew Sachs incident) that he has nothing I wish to hear. When I know he is due to appear on a show I start checking what is on other channels, or catching up on DVDs.
I may be doing him a disservice. He may have grown-up and moved on. But on past experience I have better things to do than spend time giving him the chance to redeem himself. His 'entertainment' career should have ended when he showed no remorse over the Andrew Sachs incident. His continued career just goes to prove the adage "You can fool some of the people all of the time ..."

Cheers

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: andrew e
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 04:28 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJVbccKJwEw

Russell does give a few answers here.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Stu
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 05:20 AM

I agree that his Thatcher piece was superb.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 05:24 AM

I don't think being made the subject of a unpleasant joke can be compared to being tortured to death, but I guess that's me! And despite the evident concern of members here, I think the young woman in question was emotionally resilient enough to get over it: Sach's granddaughter
Frankly I'm amazed this is still a talking point for some.

Otherwise I'm glad to see that some posters can separate the two matters as they are entirely unrelated. His ideas on spirituality are a bit wooly and wrong-headed. But his criticisms of the current ineffectuality of our political system to genuinely represent the needs and will of the people are spot on. I enjoyed his positive attitude towards revolution, I also think that the masses need inspiration like that speakers such as Brand offer to stir a belief in the power of people to make changes to the system rather than assuming nothing can be done about the corruption and dominion of plutocracies at the top of the pile serving themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 05:25 AM

I'll have to look up the Thatcher piece, thanks for the heads-up folks.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 05:30 AM

Yes his mind is very sharp. In the 70s, when there was much revolution talk in smoke-filled upstairs rooms in East London pubs (I was there and I was hoping for The Revolution too!), there'd be a Brand-style rant about once every meeting. We'd either smile kindly upon the ranter or get up to remind the ardent fellow that it's all about the nitty-gritty tactical details of getting down to real action. Hopeful rhetoric is all fine but in the end it's just speechifying. Let's see him making himself unpopular outside a factory gate or two!

Steve (whose friend Blair Peach was also in those smoke-filled rooms!)

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 05:42 AM

I think the role of speakers like Brand is to change prevailing paradigms of collective apathy and powerlessness and instil the belief in people more generally that something can indeed be done. Every movement needs charismatic motivational speakers for people to get behind and provoke action. Folks who chat in pubs don't garner the same kind of audiences that celebrities do. And while I loathe celebrity culture, when individuals who decide to use their position to speak about things that matter there is a power in that. One that the PTB don't like too much as the assassinations of figures like Diana and Lennon attest to (yes, I tend to think they were assassinated for being inconvenient trouble makers)

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 06:24 AM

Well, I tend to think that Lennon was shot by a lone nutter and that Diana was killed by a pissed driver meself, but hey ho. Incidentally, we weren't exactly chatting over pints. We were having union meetings, doing things such as planning unofficial strikes and pickets.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Will Fly
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 07:53 AM

Brand is a brand - and the self-promotion of Brand is a the promotion of a brand.

When I see him on the barricades of the revolution he favours, I might afford him some credibility. It's very easy to criticise the current social order and environment - which I detest - but it's not rocket science, and there are many thoughtful articles out there besides Brand's. Having a loud and articulate mouth is not a solution in itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 08:53 AM

Don't really want to drift this on to Diana; but every time the point about 'a pissed driver' comes up, I feel it a duty, as a matter of respect to the memory of that greatly maligned man, to point out that he was a   respected professional driver entrusted with a distinguished passenger. Such a man would never have allowed himself to get pissed on such an occasion. If you disbelieve the conspiracy theories, then pray explain how he became so.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 09:06 AM

I think there's no necessary link between barricades,'the masses' being better off and revolutions. It would make an interesting political studies exam question: 'The Tea Party is a Revolutionary party. Discuss'.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,DMcG
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 09:07 AM

Oops, cookieless! That's me, above.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Will Fly
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 09:38 AM

Michael - also without wishing to hijack this thread, I find myself shaking my head at your belief in a Diana conspiracy theory.

You challenge us to say how the driver of the car (Paul) became drunk - simply because you believe that "respected professional driver entrusted with a distinguished passenger. Such a man would never have allowed himself to get pissed on such an occasion."

Well, that's just an assertion on your part. For my part, it's my belief that a respected professional driver etc. could just as likely have slipped up - even Homer nods - and been in a less than fit state on that occasion. The British inquest judge concluded that there wasn't a shred of evidence to prove that Diana had been killed by any other reason than through the condition and misjudgement of the driver and the fact that none of the occupants of the car was using a seat belt.

I respect your personal view of the case - but it's your assertion, and no factual basis on which to challenge us to an alternative theory. I have to say that, if I were of a devious and murderous disposition, and in a position to be able to plot the death of an unwanted Royal, I can think of many other more subtle and less tendentious ways to carry out the operation.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 10:49 AM

A reminder that I did say, for both cases, "I tend to think that..." Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: akenaton
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 11:38 AM

I have always thought him an ignoramus, both in his treatment of Mr Sachs and his populist pronouncements on matters political and social.

On you tube there is a video of him being comprehensively shredded by Peter Hitchins, on the legalisation of drugs and all things "liberal"

I believe in attacking the Capitalist System whenever possible, but would prefer to follow someone better armed for debate than the addled Mr Brand.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 11:41 AM

We must differ on that, clearly, Will. Just remember that a reputable hire-chauffeur with a high-class business has his professional reputation to consider at all times. I honestly believe that a distinguished surgeon conducting a delicate operation on a VIP would be as likely to go heavily on the piss in the hour leading up to it.

I would add that that coroner clearly qualifies, like some others whose names have arisen from time to time, for the coveted "Mandy Rice-Davies Say What You'd Better Or The Buggers Might Just Get You Too" award. They have a US equivalent, tho not too sure after whom they name it, of which the unfortunate Miss M[Norma-Jean]M fell foul in not all that many million miles away circumstances...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 11:42 AM

I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical.

--Thomas Jefferson

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 11:52 AM

And just consider how some people might have felt about the immediate Heirs-but-one to the Throne being presented with step-siblings of somewhat dubious alien extraction...

As to an unlikely means; what other could have led so inexorably to that useful inquest verdict to let anyone who might have been involved off the hook?

And I would add, most vehemently, that, believe it or not, in pretty well all cases I loathe, detest & despise conspiracy theories ~~ They did, so, land on the Moon, not in the Nevada Deaert; Myra Hindley did die & was buried, they didn't avoid public protest by letting her out on the quiet and burying an empty coffin...

But I make an exception for Diana's & Marilyn's unbelievably convenient-to-the-powers-that-be deaths, just because they were so incredibly [I choose the word carefully] convenient.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 11:58 AM

step-half-siblings

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 12:04 PM

Michael, you're hijacking the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 12:09 PM

"if I were of a devious and murderous disposition, and in a position to be able to plot the death of an unwanted Royal, I can think of many other more subtle and less tendentious ways to carry out the operation."
.,,.

Details where typing-finger is, Will? ---

N A M E   T W O...

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 12:12 PM

Sorry SRS ~~ I have done - tho would appreciate answer to last one from Will...

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Will Fly
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 02:14 PM

Michael - read the accounts of KGB murder activities in Western countries in the high Cold War period - and matters are much more sophisticated these days. Poison, disease, etc...

My argument has little to do with Diana per se. It's really questioning the theoretical proposition:

Because I don't believe in A as being the cause of B, you must find an alternative (C) as the cause of B.

Whereas I could equally say:

I don't believe in C as being the cause of B, so you must find an alternative (?) as the cause of B.

Both as valid as each other - therefore neither is an absolute proof... :-)

End of thread hijack!

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Van
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 04:24 PM

As soon as this pub closes the revolution starts - to quote Alex Glasgow. I don't think Brand was talking about that tipe of revolution but what is happening in British politics. The major parties are largely composed of professional politicians who have done little else than be politicians. They have lost touch with the electorate and small parties like the Greens, UKiP, EDL, etc, are picking up support. A change is taking place in British politics and we may not have opposition politics in the way we have had in the past. God help us when you see how a coalition works under our system.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 06:21 AM

There is a facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/IAgreeWithRussell?fref=ts

On it I posted that I would consider thinking of him as a man of conscience only after he had properly apologised to Sachs and Baillie, and procured Woth to do likewise - and had made substantial donations to the charities of their choice.

Guess what - less than half an hour later my post was gone. Big hero!

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 06:51 AM

I'm also fairly certain that Paxman was not at all 'defeated' or 'walked all over' by The Disgusting One. His entire demeanour during the whole of the piece appeared to indicate that he'd decided to allow Brand free rein to bluster and babble his schoolboy pseudo-politico-bullshit and make a complete c**t of himself.

The ruse worked admirably.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 08:12 AM

Hmm when Andrew Sachs apologises to Spanish people for forging his entire career on a racist parody, then maybe I'll take any offence the phone stunt may have caused him more seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 08:21 AM

What on earth was 'racist' about Manuel, CS? -- a brilliant portrait of an unfortunate man manoeuvred into embarrassing situations not of his own making by a bully displaying the worst sort of British arrogance. If there was a racist performance in that brilliant series [I'm sorry for whoever it was above who didn't get the joke], it was Cleese's, not Sachs's. But the whole thing was a sitcom, which, as the designation implies, is a sort of running joke. You know, Sister? JOKES? You've heard of them?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 08:22 AM

Gosh Backwoodsman, you do seem to have gotten a bit excited by it all! I suppose that's a good thing, at least the interview has provoked lots of strong reactions!

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 08:27 AM

And actors, for that matter, make their livings by acting the scripts written for them. It is a piece of unbelievable disingenuous idiocy to imagine that an unsympathetic character [which, as I've said above, this one wasn't anyhow IMO] in any way reflects badly on the actor making an honest penny by playing it.

Surprised at such a piece of stupidity from you, CS. Surely you can do better than that!

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 09:26 AM

Steady Michael!

I think CS is alright and we must be tolerant of other points of view.

In saying that I do see your point.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 09:43 AM

"You know, Sister? JOKES? You've heard of them?"

Sure, but clearly what makes one person laugh can easily cause offence to others, as the radio prank demonstrated - I hope the irony of your comment isn't lost on you. I happen to think Manuel - the stupid bumbling foreigner - is distinctly more offensive as a ridiculous parody of Spanish people than any passing rude comment. Of course such insular racist attitudes were par for the course back in the day and there's no way a programme would be made with a character like Manuel would be produced on British telly now - or if it were it would come in for a lot of criticism - yet the stereotype of "I know nothing" Manuel still persists as a lazy racist trope in British culture today.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 09:53 AM

Not excited, CS, just appalled that that sleazy, repulsive dirty-mouth has managed to con some people into believing he's some kind of Nu-Politik Messiah with something important to say.

FFS, we all know what's wrong. What we need is the solution and, on this performance, he hasn't got it.

Paxman is the consummate political interviewer, and he played The Disgusting One like a fish.

And it didn't take Katy Perry long to work out that Brand's all 'style' and no substance, did it? :-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 11:15 AM

The blame for the Manuel character lies with the writer producer and director. An actor does as he is told.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket looking in
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 01:52 PM

Dunno where to start with this thread.

Other than a beard comment, I have kept quiet. However...

I don't care much for x music, y literature, z celebrity. I can respect their talent though. Likewise, I can admire and love the wonderful cello work of Maurice Gendron, yet accept that the evidence suggests if he were alive today, he'd be sharing a cell with Stuart Hall.

Likewise Russel Brand. He is an articulate intelligent person who makes money. He entertains many many people, not me but many. I don't dismiss talent, although his radio set with Jonathan Ross, which didn't get many complaints till it became big news, let's not forget, was awful and although bitchiness is part and parcel of entertainment, doesn't make their stunt any better. Although, when we say granddaughter, let's not forget we are not talking a little girl with a teddy bear, we are talking a publicist who dropped her knickers for Brand in order to get on in the limelight.

No.

My biggest eye opener on this thread is the pathetic conspiracy theory crap, put about by Michael, who puts himself forward as a rational person, or at least till the cracks appear, as they have done on a few threads lately.

If nothing else, it allows me to dismiss his views in general, because he must be living in a fantasy world. For crying out loud, even Akenhateon is saying we must be tolerant of views! (I draw the line at his though...)

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 02:07 PM

#Ian Mather

This standard-form reply, held in my word-processor memory, is the only response I propose to make to your recent post:—

It is my principle to make no further answer than this to merely abusive posts addressed to me, as I take your last one to be.

No further correspondence will be entered into.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,John from Kemsing
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 02:27 PM

If Brand is calling for a revolution and he gets way then the first one to embrace the guillotine should be that useless, ill-informed prat. I offer my apologies to the US for having to accomodate our export.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 04:51 PM

Have you got a real name for Diana, Norma Jean or any of the others Michael?

This conspiracy theory. ... I am fascinated. Not enough to completely hijack the thread but enough to wonder what Ian Mather has to do with it?

Unless he got the chauffeur pissed. Could happen. Mather enjoys a pint or three. Of course, Michael isn't going to answer. He comes out with something weird then gets allhurt when people roar with laughter. I wouldn't mind. Live and let live and all that. But he seems to think Musket hides Ian in a cupboard so shining a torch on him is clever.

Perhaps Ian killed the Kennedys? Any chance of starting a conspiracy theory concerning my virility and huge willy? Such rumours need credible sources and Michael would wish us to believe he is credible.

You aren't a script writer for Muhammad al Fayed are you? Just wondering. ....

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 08:17 PM

I happen to think Manuel - the stupid bumbling foreigner - is distinctly more offensive as a ridiculous parody of Spanish people than any passing rude comment. Of course such insular racist attitudes were par for the course back in the day and there's no way a programme would be made with a character like Manuel would be produced on British telly now - or if it were it would come in for a lot of criticism - yet the stereotype of "I know nothing" Manuel still persists as a lazy racist trope in British culture today.

I really can't waste any time on this except to say that this comment demonstrates that you know nothing about anything. Don't forget to put your clock back.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 12:03 AM

FWIW, Brand divorced Perry because she was partying hard and doing drugs and he is trying to stay sober.

I suppose since no one else has done something stupid in their past it's perfectly understandable that the Sachs call is set in amber and Brand will never live it down or move forward. Huh.

There are a few actors here in the US who seem to have had embarrassing disasters, yet with a half-life of only a couple of years they're back in good graces and acting up a storm. Let's see how long before Charlie Sheen is back acting. Or Mel Gibson - he's already cycled through a couple of big embarrassments.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: andrew e
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 12:39 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kpviy2Vffrs

I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT IT   

Ralph McTell

I've thought about it
I really have tried
And the answer quite simply
Is that they tell lies
And they've got the power
And what they decide
Affects your life and my life and everybody's life besides.

And I've thought about it
Till my brain says "no more"
I've justified their actions
And I've criticised their wars
And I've watched them balance on the edge of the knife
And it's your life and my life and none of our lives are safe.

From lack of food
Thousands have died.
While farmers burn crops
Just to keep prices high
And from that kind of logic
There's no place to hide!
That could be your life or my life or anybody's life next time.

For the sword of justice
They can find an excuse
But her scales have gone rusty
From not being used
And no blindfold can hide
The tears in her eyes.
For your life, my life, and everybody's life besides.

And if Jesus came back
To lead us again
They'd make sure that he met
The very same end.
Though their names have been changed
They survive to this day
They'll take your life or my life, or anybody's life in their way.

And my guitar protects me
But that's not really true
If you took it away
I'd be just the same as you
And though songs never change things
But they help you decide
To change your life, my life, and everybody's life besides.

And they talk about a revolution.
And they talk about a revolution.
Talk about a revolution . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 01:26 AM

I would, despite my assertion that I wouldn't enter into correspondence on the matter, try to answer Musket's last ~~ IF I HAD BUT THE REMOTEST IDEA OF WHAT HE IS ON ABOUT.

He goes on describing a supposed MO of mine, I think; but expressed in those incomprehensible terms of nods'n'winks and innuendoes that he takes such delight in, that trying to understand & respond is like fighting the chimera or trying to stop a bandersnatch. Just try saying what you mean in terms that any reasonable person could understand, eh Musket...

To summarise: despite his incomrehensibilities, and Will's contradictions, and that obliging inquest verdict, and the fact that I am in general really not a pushover for conspiracy theories, I still don't think Diana's death [or Marilyn's] was/were accidental.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 03:51 AM

Answer the question which you carefully sidestepped, SRS.

Would you have got(ten) over it by now and still be singing the praises of Brand if you were in your 80s and he'd screwed your grand-daughter and revealed the sordid, filthy details to you in front of millions of others, on a national radio programme?

Would you merely regard it as a stupid prank, an 'embarrassing disaster' to be got(ten) over, or would you hate that filthy, loudmouth bastard's guts? I've a strong suspicion it would be the latter. I've also a strong suspicion that you won't 'fess up to it.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket getting bored now
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 04:05 AM

Ok. I suppose I won that one. You did respond. As the latest trick of Michael and his Amazing Backward Poodles is to say I either speak in riddles or just take the piss to get a reaction, I'd best not disappoint them.

You know, threads similar to this make me chuckle. Old men with a rudimentary knowledge of three chords and a lifetime of teenage ambition slowly morphing into sing a rounds in pubs. .. They sit and wonder how someone half their age can be seen as entertaining by millions of people when in their case, those in the bar just raise their voices so you can't hear the noise.

Obviously these celebrities must all be cunts.

Successful ones, but a million newspapers can't all be wrong eh?

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 05:51 AM

Is this person (Ian), to be allowed to step into every threat and shower abuse on members of this forum?
Michael was challenging the views expressed by CS, views she was perfectly entitled to hold. Ian moves in with personal insults and name calling against both Michael and myself.


People wonder why this place is dying on its feet....there is the answer.

Who has the stomach to reason with what is an obvious troll...never thought I would have to say that to the mods or the membership.

Ian....I am tolerant to all views....I am not tolerant towards epidemic rates of disease, or defective legislation.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 06:02 AM

Or gays. Or travellers. Or even scientists judging by one irrational post on another thread the other day.

Back in your hole worm.



People use the word troll on these threads. Now, not having any other type of website to compare it to, (I don't do Facebook or any of the others,) my information was that a troll is someone who anonymously bullies people for no reason than the sense of power it gives them.

Here, the word troll also seems to extend to people who find odious views worthy of challenge, normally applied by the odious ones themselves. Interestingly, those making free use of the word troll normally remain anonymous whilst taking every opportunity to ensure everybody knows the real name and inside leg measurement of whoever they are err... Trolling?

I kind of see the "respect other opinions" idea but no, I can't respect bigotry, no matter how hard I might try, but there again I never try.

Are you back down there yet worm?

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 06:04 AM

No, O Muscovite Warrior, you haven't disappointed me. You are still incomprehensible. Out of interest, don't you get a bit fed up, incessantly muttering enigmatic non-formulations up your own bumhole? Why not try macramé, or canfield-patience, or philately, or glass-blowing, or some other harmless time-passing occupation instead? Then we'd all be spared the bother of trying to interpret -- which I've give up anyhow: largely becoz your thoughts and opinions are of so little interest to me that I'm off to watch our recording of last night's Match Of The Day instead of even trying to engage with this last post. Shall not trouble myself to read any more of yours.

Tara.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 06:17 AM

I never really believed in "trolls" 'till you arrived here Ian, it is often used wrongly to label folks who's opinions do not fit in with the predominant views of the forum members.

Your incessant use of name calling and aggressive personal comments when you seem to have no interest in addressing the point under discussion, mark you down as the genuine article.

This behaviour persists on almost every message you post...against numerous members.....why you have not been kicked off these pages, or at least warned about your posting "style" is beyond me.
You are a wrecker of discussion(I think intentionally) and as such, you are a menace to this particular community.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 06:32 AM

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear! Same old same old, Muskrat. The same old trotting out of barbed comments and outright insults, the same old inventions about those you've chosen to make your victims, the same old diversionary tactics of talking gibberish and bellowing "Bigotry" at every slightest excuse. In short, the tactics of a scoundrel (or someone who enjoys presenting himself as such, even though he's no such thing - you decide).

The 'teenage ambition' stuff isn't worth discussing and yes, you're right, I don't 'get' Brand as a performer of any kind (but my wife does, and I read a book or exercise my rudimentary three-chord knowledge of guitar-playing when he's on the box), but this thread isn't about anyone's teenage ambitions, nor about Brand as an actor/comedian. It's about his appearance as a political commentator, and whether an incident, regarded by some as a 'stupid embarrassment', but by others as a vile and unforgivable act of public cruelty to a nationally-known octogenarian and fellow entertainer, devalues his worth in his new-found role.

I (and I reckon you too) am from a generation who, in the main, we're educated to respect women, parents and old people. I'm proud to say that I find Brand's 'stupid prank' against a woman and an old man utterly beneath contempt, and it speaks volumes about the kind of creature he is - it certainly disqualifies him from being taken seriously in any matters of real socio-political importance in my house (and his fan, my wife, agrees completely on that).

Now, I ask you the same question so neatly sidestepped by SRS - if he had played precisely the same 'silly prank' on you, and in the same circumstances, would you be so ready to forgive and support him now?

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 06:48 AM

I agree with you Backwoodsman. And the words 'silly prank' are totally inappropriate for what was said and done on that programme. It was disgusting, shocking and shameful. I can't imagine that either Sachs or his granddaughter shrugged it off quite easily and forgot about it. No-one would, they'd be horrified and traumatised to say the least. I refuse to watch either Ross or Brand, and turn to another channel straightaway if they are due to appear. As an old person, I can see how standards of decency on TV have fallen over the years. I suppose I sound like Mary Whitehouse, but it's nevertheless true. And the more the BBC treats such things as acceptable, the more standards will fall until anything at all is permitted and we are wallowing in the mire.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Howard Jones
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 08:33 AM

It was very clear that Paxo didn't regard this as a serious political interview. It was a programme filler, based around a publicity stunt by a struggling journal.

Brand is articulate and can be funny (it's his job) but this was adolescent sixth-form political naivety. He can see what's wrong, but has no coherent ideas what to do about it. Paxo quite rightly accused him of being trivial.

Most people in politics can recognise the problems, what separates them is their solutions to them. Brand has none, and when challenged by Paxo he seemed to think it wasn't up to him to provide them. That's not political thought, it's a toddler crying "It's not fair".

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 08:54 AM

I know what you mean Howard.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 09:26 AM

It's a pity some people can't wait to type out abuse, usually without reading what their targets post before doing so. I found Brand and Ross to be less than funny, boorish but at the same time, found the knee jerk reaction to be hilarious, especially in terms of rank hypocrisy.

Brand shags someone. It's newsworthy. Someone says Brand shagged her, it's newsworthy. Brand says he shagged someone, it's newsworthy. Brand and Ross waffle on about shagging and step over the mark. Nobody gives a toss for almost a week.. Then after two complaints were lodged, a newspaper stirs it and all of a sudden, thousands of complaints! Mainly by those who never heard it in the first place. Congratulations to the woman who got the publicity she asked for. Pity how both she and Brand used her connection to her Granddad but there you go, celebrity is about building up and knocking down so it wouldn't occur to any of them the hurt they gave to a serious actor with a low profile, who shunned celebrity shit.

Why is it newsworthy? Well the vitriol towards the bloke on this thread just shows that the media stirs shallow waters.

And in the meantime, the usual idiots on this thread extend their hatred towards fellow Mudcat members, and in the absense of anyone else, it happens to be me. Poor old musket eh? I even seem to take second fiddle to a recording of Match of the Day.

And so I should.

Backwoodsman. I'm not famous, not a celebrity, not as talented as Mr Brand or indeed Mr Sachs. So the question is moot. If my bank balance was based on celebrity, I might roll with the punches more than if my bank balance was based on, say, growing celery and selling it. I'd understand the consequences of selling celery, as opposed to the consequences of public limelight.

As it is, I understand neither. There is no such thing as bad publicity to some people, and the celebrity culture bandwagon certainly sells that point. Although having never watched reality telly, celebrity get me whatever, rigged talent shows or other such nonsense, it goes over my head.

I don't have the fascination with celebrity that many here exhibit. "I hate Brand etc". You must all spend a lot of time reading Hello magazine to display such extraordinary emotion towards a manufactured stunt designed to sell papers and magazines.

Brand has a view! Well he wasn't interviewed in order to fill a few minutes, he was interviewed on order to raise the profile of Paxman, what with Boris being away in China. Poor Paxo wasn't getting the ratings his pay packet craves.

Zzzzzzzz

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 09:54 AM

I agree with BWM.....Although we are on different sides of the fence politically, Peter Hitchins exposed the shallowness of Mr Brand's political understanding, he may be sincere....he may be a self publicist, but he is certainly uncouth and without the degree of political wisdom to influence for the better, the young people he assumes he represents.

This, from Backwoodsman, says it all.


"I (and I reckon you too) am from a generation who, in the main, we're educated to respect women, parents and old people. I'm proud to say that I find Brand's 'stupid prank' against a woman and an old man utterly beneath contempt, and it speaks volumes about the kind of creature he is - it certainly disqualifies him from being taken seriously in any matters of real socio-political importance in my house (and his fan, my wife, agrees completely on that)."

You Ian, have a slight ego problem, of which your "victimhood" is a symptom.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket once more
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 11:59 AM

Worm.

When I want analysis, I'll ask Goofus.







I suppose I am, like everybody else in the world, from a generation, (thats every single generation) that is educated to respect women, parents and old people. I would add that respecting all groups of people, including gay people, people who don't follow the religion of the detractors, people whose colour alone makes a pub go quiet around here when they walk in....

You know Backwoodsman, every generation is the same, acts the same and has the same issues. If anything, media bitchiness is less now than 30 years ago. Comedy is less based on stereotyping and victimising whole groups of society. The Brand / Ross one off, bad as it was for one innocent old man, was the least of media problems that week. Press, police and politicians were, and still may be, using it to slur each other. The Daily M*il was and still is causing schisms in society in order for their tax free owner to line his pockets.

Get a sense of proportion. The innocent young grandchild you are referring to makes a living out of inviting photographers to parties where she drops her knickers or gets stoned in order to get into the papers. She used him as much as he used her. Awful for any Grandparent, sure, but not worthy of chivalry. I believe the term is "bit of a slapper."

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 12:05 PM

Answer the question.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 12:20 PM

I didn't sidestep anything, Backwoodsman. I don't have a grandchild, I don't live in the UK, I don't have a dog in that fight. The fact that you can't get over it says more about you than me. I agree with Musket (whatever he is this time) - you need a sense of proportion. No one was murdered, no one went to jail. It's over, people have moved on.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 12:33 PM

Another sidestep. Why am I not surprised?

I don't have anything to get over, I wasn't the old man Brand and Ross abused in front of millions of listeners. But why should I join you in trying to sweep it under the carpet, pretend it never happened? Ever heard of the word 'empathy'? Look it up.

I have a sense of proportion. I also have standards. Sadly, it appears others don't.

Anyway, another question - is it a part of a Moderator's role to shit-stir in threads?

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 12:50 PM

Second thoughts, don't bother.
It's of no great consequence what any of us think, so I'm out, I'll leave it to the All-Knowing-Ones to have it all their own way. They usually do.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,musket sans er Musket
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 02:32 PM

See. You get there eventually.

If I want to read of people getting serious about celebrity nonsense, I'll read the magazines available at supermarket checkouts.

Out of interest. On another thread, someone castigated me for taking the general views of someone into account when they started a thread on another subject. The same rocket scientist reckons Brand cannot speak about political apathy on account of his shagging a self publicist and doing something stupid to let the world know.

Consistency. Now there's a subject for a thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 02:45 PM

Well, I think Paxman is an idiot!
He just can't see the larger picture!
I've warmed to Brand a lot over the past year or so and find his various interviews on Youtube very interesting/entertaining.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 03:01 PM

From: GUEST,musket sans er Musket - PM
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 02:32 PM
Consistency. Now there's a subject for a thread.

This forum has very few rules, but one of them is that 'Guests' must adopt a single, consistent name. (from the FAQ 9/Jan/07 You may certainly use a pseudonym as a user name, but please use that same name every time you post.)
Are the following all the same person? If so, why have his/her posts been allowed to stand?
GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
GUEST,Musket looking in
GUEST,Musket getting bored now
GUEST,Musket
GUEST,Musket once more
GUEST,musket sans er Musket
Are these six different posters? Or an extreme form of multiple personality disorder?

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,achmelvich
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 03:36 PM

well, this thread has turned from going off the subject to slagging russell brand to slagging each other. very few people seem interested in thinking about what rb was on about, preferring to focus on a stupid prank he did a couple of years ago. of course it was bad - but i would have thought there had already been a thread or two on that subject back then.

anyway - whether you like the guy or not he is expressing a point of view that is rarely heard and always instantly dismissed (incoherent, adolescent etc). there are many men who have committed far worse crimes against humanity than flaky russell. these 1% have profited hugely at everyone's expense and are never called to account for their crimes. those of you who choose to slag off anyone who does challenge this disgusting system are choosing to perpetuate it while toadying up to the bosses. we live in a grossly unfair world and it is our responsibility to try to improve it.

i do vote and don't agree with rb's (lack of) solution - but he has every right to his point of view. politically he is streets ahead of the majority of politicians i hear who are so constrained by compromise and fear of the electorate that they have lost any genuine feeling, compassion or positive purpose.

peace,love and revolution

pete

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 04:27 PM

those of you who choose to slag off anyone who does challenge this disgusting system are choosing to perpetuate it while toadying up to the bosses
I, personally, am not 'slagging off' Russell Brand. I just choose to ignore & avoid listening to him.
Choosing not to listen to one particular person does not equate (in any real terms) with support for the person or system that they are railing against.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 05:00 PM

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/joan-smith-spare-us-the-vacuous-talk-and-go-back-to-hollywood-8906305.html

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: DMcG
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 06:13 PM

When I followed that link there were 231 who strongly agreed with her, and 247 who strongly disagreed with her, with relatively few in between. Bit like this thread, really, with just a shade more effort to look at what he actually said than appears here.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 06:26 PM

Just to mention that the 'Fotherington-Thomas' referred to is, along with the egregious Nigel Moleswsorth, a character in the St Custard's books by GEOFFREY WILLANS: not, as the good lady, Ms Smith, appears to believe, by Ronald Searle, who just drew the piccies.

You would have thought that The Indie would employ a sub-editor who knew enough to correct so grievous an error.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: akenaton
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 06:45 PM

Well DMcG on reading the link, I agreed with some of the things she said and disagreed with others, so the issue is not as simple as you make out.
I don't see how any intelligent person could completely agree or disagree.

I think the point being made here is that Mr Brand is politically illiterate....just like we were back in the sixties when we thought revolution was possible or even wholly beneficial.
Changing our present society into something sustainable will take generations, if it is even possible. The journey will not be in the least enjoyable and will not be a matter of choice, but a matter of necessity.
People of Mr Brand's ilk will not be required....it will be a job for philosophers and artisans....not "artistic" drama queens.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 07:27 PM

Since it has been demonstrated that Brand has no social conscience and has learned no humility, it would tend to follow that he cannot be taken seriously as a voice of conscience. Ghandi he is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 08:25 PM

Backwoodsman, you'll have to dictate what the remark is that you think or others should make that would satisfy you.

Then shove it.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 08:52 PM

Another sidestep. Why am I not surprised?

I don't have anything to get over, I wasn't the old man Brand and Ross abused in front of millions of listeners. But why should I join you in trying to sweep it under the carpet, pretend it never happened? Ever heard of the word 'empathy'? Look it up.

I have a sense of proportion. I also have standards. Sadly, it appears others don't.

You weren't the old boy (who made his dosh out of being in the media circus) that they abused, huh? Bully for you, though you do appear to want to get on your high horse about such media trivia (consider yourself to have been thoroughly manipulated, old chap! :-) ) You "have a sense of proportion", huh? And you think you demonstrate that "sense of proportion" by taking sides with Andrew against Russell and Jonathan? You call that "proportion"? Hey, mate, you've been had! What do you do with your spare time? No, let me guess: you watch endless recordings of Celebrity-Get-Me-Outta-Here... Ha bloody ha!

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 10:06 PM

Well fuck me! Things never change. I just dropped in to see what condition my condition is in. This is absolutely hilarious! When left (relatively) alone, the trolls begin fighting among themselves and sucking each others disks hither and yon, randomly and collectively. Like moths drawn to a flame, they descend into the fire they themselves kindled and fed and proceed to burn each other and themselves.

It is to laugh... certainly not to cry.

Crash, burn and die.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 10:17 PM

OH DEAR! Guest at 10:06 PM was laptopgnu.

laptopgnu is all about spreadin loooooovvvvve.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 10:26 PM

lappygnu again. Do they find it simply irresistable?

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 10:37 PM

Is there any chance that, in keeping with Mudcat protocols, any 'Guest' postings (like the three preceding this) with no attempt to add a name could be removed?

Cheers

Nigel (always happy to post under my own name!)

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 11:22 PM

"Backwoodsman, you'll have to dictate what the remark is that you think or others should make that would satisfy you.

Then shove it.

SRS"

Sorry SRS, I don't do Gibberish, only English. Could you translate the first sentence into something comprehensible please?

I've no wish to dictate anything to anyone, simply to be allowed to express my opinion without being hounded out by individuals who specialise in making mischief, and are now apparently aided and abetted by Moderators whose role should surely be to control, not encourage, the mischief-makers?

And I'd prefer it if people didn't use the old rapist's excuse of "She asked for it" in reference to Sachs's grand-daughter, it never has been an acceptable excuse for the rapist and, likewise, it doesn't excuse Brand's behaviour towards the girl in the incident and it certainly doesn't excuse his behaviour towards an old man who happened to be the girl's grandfather.

I do understand "Then shove it". That little gem leaves me disappointed, I'd have expected a member of the forum's group of Moderators to have more class, but hey-ho, there ya go, I guess your irritable, unprofessional manner and your refusal to give a proper answer to my original question re: how you would feel if you were in Sachs's shoes, are all the answer I need. But any reasonable reader of your response would have to conclude that "Then shove it" is a pretty poor and graceless substitute for "Yep, you got me!".

'Bye y'all. Be happy!

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: gnu
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 11:28 PM

Nigel... I added my name on all three posts indirectly.

pcgnu

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 11:44 PM

Steve Shaw - errrrmmm, I've never watched 'Celebrity Get Me Out Of Here', so I'm afraid the significance of your question is lost on me.

I wish I was as smart as you, SRS and old Musket - it's very hard knowing my stupidity makes me unworthy to have an opinion. Thanks to the kindness and good-hearted ness of these my mentors and benefactors, I now know my place and, in humble penance, I defer to my intellectual superiors. Thank 'ee sirs and madam, for guiding a simple, ignorant fool and showing him the error of his idiot ways (exits, tugging what would be his forelock, if he had one...........).   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,musket not Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 02:05 AM

Congratulations to Mr Parsons for noticing that I am consistent with my name and mention Musket each and every time. I also have an account which just says Musket although I rarely use my study iMac these days and the phone and ipad can't hold cookies and get my work emails etc.

Hence you will have to carry on pandering to my assumed vanity and write posts about me rather than whatever the hell we were originally talking about.

Some of the great orators and debating experts will gladly supply you with my real name. I would say at the slightest provocation but they either don't understand provocation or they get a thrill out of saying my name. A bit like the missus. ....

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 02:57 AM

Assuming I'm the 'great orator' (bloody hell, what a compliment) you're talking about, O Wise One, I don't recall ever giving out your real name, certainly not deliberately, and why would I? You've done it often enough yourself, along with some of the more sordid details of what ought to be your private life, and endless ad nauseam reminders of your importance to the smooth running of the NHS, so it's not exactly a secret is it? I'd guess that most of us know who you are. But as I said earlier, I have standards and I respect other people's privacy (even if they don't respect their own) so if anyone doesn't know who you are, they won't find out from me.

And of course I understand provocation - it wouldn't have mattered if I hadn't, you're a good teacher and I've been well versed in the tactics of provocation over the space of the past three or four threads we've both been involved in. It's a strange thing that one who behaves in such a rude, aggressive, provocative manner here can be such a shrinking violet and amenable, entertaining company in real life. But I can't complain, you did tell me, the first time we met in the old pool room at the Mowbray, that it was your intention and delight to "wind up those twats on Mudcat", so I knew the danger of entering into debate with you here. I confess I didn't expect you to turn your attentions on me and treat me like one of "those twats" but there ya go! I've been provoked by experts, one more is neither here nor there, and if I'm regarded as a twat, well......you know the old saying we used to deflect insults as kids......."it takes one to know one"! :-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: DMcG
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 03:30 AM


Well DMcG on reading the link, I agreed with some of the things she said and disagreed with others, so the issue is not as simple as you make out. I don't see how any intelligent person could completely agree or disagree

I'm not sure I 'made anything out': I simply remarked how polarising the subject is. I can't comment on the intelligence of voters on that article, but at the time roughly 80% either strongly agreed or strongly disagreed, with about 20% not taking an extreme view. Obviously, people who do not care either way tend not to vote on articles, but even so it seems polarised to me.

As I said in my very first post, Brand's comments on revolution seemed ill thought out to me, but that doesn't necessarily make them wrong. I also have a lot of sympathy for ake's views on the importance of and difficulty achieving a sustainable future, but think that is a different, though related, topic. To me the essence of a revolutionary group is not connected with whether they build and man barricades, or defend the masses, but a frame of mind which perceives an elite as corrupt and self-serving, and is prepared for the current structures to be completely overturned, whatever the cost, to create what is seen as a brighter, purer future, possibly returning to some imagined idyll before all these self-servers got in the way.   Now, most revolutionary groups come to nothing but occasionally one gets to the size where it can actually do something which impacts the world. Which is why I put in that throw-away comment on whether the Tea Party is a Revolutionary party - I would say it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 03:57 AM

Russell Brand is one of the most intelligent people in this country and he is not afraid to stand up and say what he thinks, regardless of the outcry that might happen.

He is now opening his eyes to many things going on around the world, not just here at home and once your eyes become open, they never close again.

He's mixed with those at the lowest rung of the ladder for many years, so he knows what it's like to struggle, to be hated and loathed, vilified by mainstream society for being a drug addict or alcoholic...

Russell though, has the compassion, and the firsthand knowledge, to know why so many people end up on Desolation Alley and he's fuming that the Greedy,Corrupt Bastards in this country are getting away with all that they are doing...

He doesn't NEED the money, he has bucketloads of it. He doesn't NEED the publicity, because he's reached the top and he can get it in many other ways...

Here he is on one of the main Anti-Fracking Pages in FB and I'm hoping that Vanessa Vine, who runs this page, may be able to bring Russell aboard in a far stronger way, when she returns from holiday in a fortnight. Josh Fox stepped up to help her recently in her fight against Fracking in the UK, flying over to attend two special showings of 'Gasland' to give his support:

Russell Brand on Fracking and Government Policies

And here is the new FB page 'Russell's Revolution' which some may like to join. The owners of it told me they're hoping to meet with Russell Brand a little later this week to ask him how he'd like it to be run.

Russell's Revolution

Have a good day, y'all and please, use your anger and venom against those who are The Corrupt Bastards in this country, not against Russell, who is actually trying to CHANGE things for the better.

Tell me, Richard, what exactly are YOU and Backwoodsman doing to help?

Also, with regard to the Andrew Sachs 'joke', Russell apologized immediately, from his heart and soul. He felt sick with shame over what he'd taken part in. Back then, he was very easily influenced and a lot 'younger' in his thinking, but he has come on in leaps and bounds in recent years, perhaps with this particular incident being the one to make him take stock of his life and grow up...

Jonathan Ross, however, made NO such apology and just continues on with his drivel, not caring who he hurts, not doing anything 'for the greater good'...


Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 04:14 AM

DMcG.....I agree with much of your last post, but does Mr Brand think along these lines? I doubt it.

It is every bit as dangerous to encourage fruitless "revolution", as it is to continue with the status quo.

People must be made aware of the consequences of any action against a corrupt system, the possibility of failure....they must be encouraged to look beyond "self"....there will be no quick fixes, we may be forced to join them, before we can defeat them.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 04:50 AM

Backwoodsman. You really must stop looking over yer shoulder. . You said it yourself. You don't go around shouting Ian Mather at the slightest provocation. Plus you exist in the real world so winding up or serious comment on Mudcat.org doesn't apply. The list of those who take great delight in making out Musket and Ian Mather are joined at the hip include Saint Michael, heart full Keith, Akenhateon and Jerk the Sea Cadet.

None of them exist in real life and neither does Musket.

Must admit, Musket is fascinated with the bitterness towards celebrity shown by many on this and other threads and to be fair, Ian can't see the fascination either.

An articulate celebrity points out the dangers of political apathy and all of a sudden everybody proves him right by rattling on about randy goths and well known granddads.

Fascinating.

The odd prod, as you rightly point out, helps keep the coals glowing. ..... As to my private life. Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. Just because this site is hosted in The USofA, irony is allowed. ......

Mind you, wasted on most. Earnest discussion is something for The White Bear on a Friday night. You get Ian's views, assuming anyone could ever be interested in them. You won't get NHS views though. I make a point of listening to the views and experience of others. I give information on these threads but never ever views. You'd have to read old copies of HSJ or BMJ to see when I was spouting out opinions.

So... Can we get this absurd debate back to Paxman versus yoof?

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 04:58 AM

Get a grip Lizzie, Mr Brand doesn't need publicity......he needs it more than he needs air, or water.
To people like Mr Brand, publicity is OXYGEN, they are part of the problem associated with this system.....definitely not an answer.
Perhaps you think that he could become a leader of disaffected youth?
Well he could, but would lead them in the wrong direction.

Mr brand is an example of what this system considers success, an example of self-promotion.
The antithesis of socialism.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 05:23 AM

Musket, I may have drawn a wrong conclusion about precisely whom your previous post was targeted at (in all honesty, I don't think I am mistaken, and I do think your latest post is one more example of your moving the goalposts around and talking gobbledygook as a deflection/spoiling tactic in the battle of wits you so clearly (and by your own admission) take such great delight in!) but you would make it much clearer, in a thread like this where people are jumping in and cross-posting, if you indicated to whom you're speaking. But, of course, you don't because the implication of "if the cap fits, wear it" followed by "what on earth made you think I meant you?" suits your way of 'winning' by confabulation!   :-)

You and I both know it!

So, on with the debate about mr. brand (lower case initial letters intended) - I've said all I intend to say about that person, I'll stick to lurking and reading now that greater minds than either yours or mine have joined the fray!   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 06:17 AM

Amen to that.

If you look closely there is a great meeting of minds taking place right now just above this chat. I'll get the popcorn.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 07:48 AM

Salted for me! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 07:56 AM

I have never heard of russell brand before this interview, so i listened and made a judgement on what he was saying without any prejudice, much of what he said i agreed with, i can make no comment about his motives, i can only comment that he said a lot of things i agreed with.
i have always voted, but i understand his point about not voting,if everybody refused to vote it becomes not apathy but a massive statement against the government, it is a point that cannot be dismissed easily. brand dealt with all paxmans attempts to trip him up, and came across very well

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 11:43 AM

Good close reading of the interview, Dick!

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 05:19 PM

I echo SRS. Good call, Dick.

For those that do not know of Brand, search him out on the internUt. He is beyond articulate, funny, provocative. Few equal. This is one of those people who should be heard by all.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 05:24 PM

Are you his uncle, then?

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: akenaton
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 05:56 PM

"if everybody refused to vote it becomes not apathy but a massive statement against the government,"

Jesus H Christ!! It is not the bloody "government" that is the problem, just look what happened under Blair's New Labour.

No matter who you vote for the system always wins, no point in continuing with the game of musical chairs....we need to start changing minds not governments
We need a government, a proper one which governs in the interests of its people.
What about a Dept of Self Sufficiency to deal with all the waste created by our consumer society?
A Dept of Worth to instil some sense of personal and public responsibility and worth in every citizen, not to deal with generations of hopeless, worthless young people.
An education programme to teach our young folks that life is not all about the acquisition of money...that every human being has talents and can make a contribution to a better society.

Mighty oaks from tiny acorns and all that.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: melodeonboy
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 06:12 PM

"Russell Brand is one of the most intelligent people in this country"

God help us!

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 06:24 PM

"Russell Brand is one of the most intelligent people in this country"

Okay, but what does that show?

Jimmy Savile was a member of Mensa. High intelligence does not necessarily equate with being a 'good' person.



Oh dear, I've just realised that in time mentioning Jimmy Savile will become the equivalent of "playing the Hitler card" in a discussion. Never mind, such ploys must start somewhere :)

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 07:30 PM

New Video:

Russell Brand's Spiritual Revolution

Heading up towards 300 shares on my Support Chief Raoni page...

And..this morning, one of my Native American friends (Navajo) messaged me to ask if I'd heard of this man (Russell Brand) as he had just been blown away by Russell's interview with Paxman...

And THAT is the power of Facebook and the internet to change this world right around...Over 7 MILLION viewings on the Paxman interview now...and RISING!

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 08:33 PM

Jesus H Christ!! It is not the bloody "government" that is the problem, just look what happened under Blair's New Labour.


And how's about a Dept of Clichés, just for you?


No matter who you vote for the system always wins


we need to start changing minds not governments


We need a government, a proper one which governs in the interests of its people.


A Dept of Worth to instil some sense of personal and public responsibility and worth in every citizen, not to deal with generations of hopeless, worthless young people.


life is not all about the acquisition of money


every human being has talents and can make a contribution to a better society.

Mighty oaks from tiny acorns...

Got any more? I love your clichés, though I usually try to avoid such things...like the plague...

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 08:45 PM

And THAT is the power of Facebook and the internet to change this world right around...Over 7 MILLION viewings on the Paxman interview now...and RISING!

Yebbut how many people viewed the girl with the yummy squidgy bum in really skimpy knickers doing the hula-hoop to Wii (blimey, I might just have given her another million hits...) Mmmm! Naturally, I saw it about 23.5 times missen, as I had to in the interests of "research". Fing is, Lizzie, Facebook will be dead in a few years, cos it's a bit sick really, innit. And YouTube will thrive, of course, but as a distraction from life's vicissitudes, not as a game-changer. What I'm trying to say to you, gently (as ever with me) is, Lizzie, get real ferchrissake! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 13 - 08:53 PM

I just checked. It's way over 12 million. And that makes 24.5 times for me. Damn this research bug of mine. They've shortened the bloody video, btw. Damn! Will it change the world, Lizzie?

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 29 Oct 13 - 03:01 AM

"Everybody has talents and can make a contribution to society" Yeah, some of them can make nice soufflés.....

Back to the thread. . I know now why I find the comments so funny. Some of the posts remind me of the Harry Enfield and Paul Whitehouse Self Righteous Brothers series of sketches.   

If that Russell Brand was to walk in here with his goth seeking willy and critical views on the state of society and what it has to offer young voters I'd say "Oy Brand No! "

Sorry Backwoodsman, I ran out of popcorn.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 29 Oct 13 - 04:13 AM

It must be terrible to wake up each morning knowing that you're going to be, yet again, a Patronizing Prat, Steve.

You have my sympathy.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Oct 13 - 05:20 AM

"Sorry Backwoodsman, I ran out of popcorn."

Hope it was good? But you just forfeited the beer I was going to supply at the next EFC night! :-)

My views on Brand as a human being are well documented and need no further comment but, notwithstanding those views, I found nothing new in what he said in the Paxman interview, it was naive, simplistic, rambling, and it was the kind of childish, unrealistic stuff that, as Lower-6th 16-year-olds, my mates and I used to babble on about in the Common-Room - prattling on about 'revolution' without ever knowing exactly how to bring it about and what a very dirty, unpleasant, and for some (many even), fatal, business that would be. Other than the airy-fairy 'revolution' suggestion and the exhortation to withhold votes, he proposed not one real solution.

If he'd been on 'Bake-Off', he'd have been knocked down by Paul Hollywood as being 'All Style and No Substance', someone to be admired, even lusted over (although, in my wife's words, "Dog knows why!") by impressionable kids and menopausal women, but not to be taken seriously as any kind of political force.

For Dog's sake, 99% of the population of the UK know precisely what the problems faced by the UK are, and they know why. What they need are strong leaders with strong and realistic solutions, not celebrity air-heads who actually know no more than the rest of us do, but for whom the oxygen of publicity is a guarantee of the continuation of their obscenely lucrative professional lives.

The Messiah, come to redeem us all, he is not.

IMHO, YMMV, that's fine, it's your right.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Oct 13 - 05:31 AM

Oops! Just noticed I said much of that in an earlier post! Oh well, a bit of realism and common sense is always worth repeating.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket thirsty
Date: 29 Oct 13 - 06:22 AM

You know, even serious politicians require people to be impressionable. Me? I reckon it is bravery of the first order to class menopausal women as an identifiable group. I still have two scars on my right arm and half a T shirt to prove it.

Politics has become less substantial, I agree. Mind you, Brand said just that, not that it is rocket science. To a young person, what precisely is the difference between the two parties? And to us who used to tell a difference, are we deluding ourselves?

Brand pointed out an issue and because of who he is, people who would never listen to boring old farts like us heard it. Methinks we are confusing the message with the medium?

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 13 - 07:31 AM

Thank for the Capital Letters, Lizzie, just like them thar Christians do with Jesus's He, Him and His. It's good that you recognise a Messiah when you see one.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 Oct 13 - 07:56 AM

Can't argue there, Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Oct 13 - 10:58 AM

""Hmm when Andrew Sachs apologises to Spanish people for forging his entire career on a racist parody, then maybe I'll take any offence the phone stunt may have caused him more seriously.""

A whole career C.S.?

Twelve episodes in two series of six hardly amounts to anything approaching a career.

It is a tiny part of his 54 years as an actor on Radio, TV and Film.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 29 Oct 13 - 11:02 AM

Oops, Forgot!    Theatre too!

Fawlty Towers was twenty five years after the start of that career.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Oct 13 - 03:01 PM

"Brand is a bullying cunt. He should be exterminated."

Au contraire! It is Paxman with his sneer that is the bully. Brand is lucid
and he is right. The present political system is unsustainable.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 29 Oct 13 - 03:04 PM

So the Manuel character was racist? I know there has been some hot air on this thread but that is the most pathetic balls yet. I wish people would use the built in dictionary computers provide before using words normally said by grown ups. It isn't hard.

As we seem to be getting nostalgic for the series, my favourite was "you have rats in Spain don't you? Or did Franco have them all shot? "

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Will Fly
Date: 29 Oct 13 - 06:44 PM

"Hor d'oeuvres - hor d'oeuvres which must be obeyed at all times!"

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Oct 13 - 02:49 AM

'Flowery Twats'! Excellent!

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Oct 13 - 07:02 AM

"I'm a doctor and I want my sausages."

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Edthefolkie
Date: 30 Oct 13 - 08:41 AM

I watched the Paxo-Brand "conversation" for approx. 5 min and gave up.

Russell may think he has a facility with words, (or maybe it's just logorrhoea) but I don't think he'll write a successor to The Pilgrims's Progress just yet. I can't quite see him storming the barricades any time soon either.

"Will you stop talking about the war?"
"Me! You started it..."
"We did NOT start it."
"Yes you did — you invaded Poland!"

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 Oct 13 - 04:03 PM

HERE is an intelligent response to Brand's performance, by a fellow comedian who actually understands the dangers of celebrities, who are idolised by a great many impressionable young people, calling for 'Revolution' and urging their young followers to disengage from the political process.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 13 - 08:37 AM

Trivial enough pedantic point: It is repeatedly said Manuel comes from Barcelona. People from Barcelona are likely to tell you they are not "Spanish", they are Catalan.

The stuff with Jonathan Ross and Andrew Sachs was stupid and unpleasant and cruel, but it's over and done and it can't be undone. Everybody does stupid stuff, and often enough unpleasant and cruel stuff. It doesn't define us for life and mean we're rubbish.

Russell Brand is quite remarkably articulate, both when speaking live and writing. In among the fireworks there's a lot of sense, well disguised much of the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket getting nostalgic
Date: 07 Nov 13 - 10:09 AM

Watery farts

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,CS
Date: 07 Nov 13 - 10:14 AM

Do you really have to share with us the current state of your bowels?
I'm pretty sure I speak for everyone when I say that it's not welcome information.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Nov 13 - 10:50 AM

I suppose that's one kind of nostalgia...

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Nov 13 - 08:03 PM

Well I suppose that Russell has at least started something. Discuss...

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket getting nostalgic
Date: 08 Nov 13 - 01:16 AM

They could have had more fun with the anagram at the beginning of each episode than they did. I only seem to recall flowery twats and watery farts.

Regarding the original topic, I notice Paxman is now agreeing with the broad thrust of Brand's argument.

Not often I agree with Nick Clegg but he was right to say that if Paxman is so bored with politics, why does he accept a million pounds a year plus of public money to trivialise and ridicule it?

I don't know which face Clegg was wearing but he should put it on more often.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Iain
Date: 08 Nov 13 - 01:29 AM

Interesting that both the interviewer and interviewed have both stated that they do not vote.
Could it be that they realise that all politicians are puppets and the puppet masters place them in front of the electorate for selection.
Essentially it does not matter who you vote for, the agenda is already in place no matter what side of the spectrun is elected. A vote today is an exercise in futility as it achieves zilch. So long as the electorate are anaethesised with cheap lager and soaps nothing will change.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Nov 13 - 03:56 AM

Nick Clegg has a bit of a nerve complaining about people thinking politicians like him are liars who break their word without hesitation. He's done more to make people believe that than perhaps anyone else.

The thing about the tuition fees u-turn was that it wasn't a matter of a manifesto pledge being broken - they are always provisional aspirations. It was a personal individual promise cynically torn up.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 08 Nov 13 - 06:00 AM

Yeah but he has a nerve saying anything in essence. Doesn't make it less of a valid point. The good people of Sheffield shall decide if he needs a nerve or not at the next election.

In a more general sense, if you don't exercise your vote you have a nerve moaning. You deserve the government you get.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Nov 13 - 07:18 AM

Hmmm. Just come back to this thread after a couple of weeks. Didn't realise my comment about Andrew Sachs would cause such consternation. For the record, I mentioned him and his granddaughter in response to the comment "No-one was harmed". If you believe revealing the details of private sex lives to the grandparent of one party, in public, is not harmful, then I agree. It did no harm. If, however, you believe that public embarrassment of this type can be harmful to the recipient of the 'joke' then, sorry, it did harm someone. Up to yourselves of course.

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Nov 13 - 09:57 AM

Interesting that both the interviewer and interviewed have both stated that they do not vote.

Er, that is not quite true. Paxman said that he did not vote on one occasion and he felt very uncomfortable about it. He said that if you don't vote, even by at least writing "none of the above" on the ballot paper, you forfeit the right to have any say about things. I agree with that and I always vote, even though I'm usually looking for the least bad option. People died fighting for the right to vote. If there's a democratic deficit (a point which I agreed with Brand about), then we won't fight that by refusing to vote. Look how the hypocritical hawks gleefully descend whenever a union votes to strike on a low turnout. I live in a place where a socialist getting voted in is about as likely as me getting a date with Rhihanna. But I'll still be voting.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Nov 13 - 06:51 PM

I live in a place where a socialist getting voted in is about as likely as me getting a date with Rhihanna

Interestingly (or maybe not) enough, Steve, I have not long since moved from Salford where, it is said, if you put a red rosette on a pig it would get elected. Sadly, even though I tend to lean to the left in politics, this made the local council amongst the most corrupt I have ever come across. As they say, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I am more than interested to see how my new local council (Craven) compare. Up to now they seem pretty efficient but, compared to Salford, a bowl of spaghetti would look organised.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 09 Nov 13 - 01:53 AM

Power corrupts, but so does impotence. The ability of local councils to actually do anything, rather than act as agents for central government, has been so reduced and circumscribed, with all parties colluding in this, that it's virtually impossible in many cases to get decent and competent councillors.

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket getting nostalgic
Date: 09 Nov 13 - 02:42 AM

Aye Dave. I come from The People's Republic of Bolsover and can empathise with your Salford views. I don't know about now but 10 years ago the average age of councillor was 69. All were labour and with two independents, one of whom resigned from the torys in order to stand. Where I live now they yo yo a bit but in the wonderful words of Spike Milligan "Excuse the mess, we have the conservatives in. "

I should keep my trap shut. Our MEP is that Godfrey Bloom idiot. ....

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Nov 13 - 12:50 PM

Well my mum was born and bred in Salford, lived in Silk Street and went to Our Lady Of Grace, and me grandad worked in the docks. Gran worked at Halls sweet factory in Whitefield. I think there's a Morrisons there now. I lived in Radcliffe and went to school in Bolton (they made me go there cos it was a Catholic one!)

See, we 'ad it tough...

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Nov 13 - 04:30 PM

Aye, but when you tell 'em they wont believe you. Who'd think it that today we would be sat here drinking Chateau de Chateauley...

Subject: RE: BS: Russell Brand vs Paxman
From: GUEST,Musket evolving slowly
Date: 10 Nov 13 - 03:55 AM

Aye and Chateau de Boddingtons is brewed in Milton Keynes these days. ..

According to the can anyway.

Anyone interested in Paxman? Thought not.