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!