russell brand - C or D?

Take it to the jonathan ross thread

he did - http://www.theguardian.com/stage/theatreblog/2008/jul/16/russellbrand

not as high profile a stunt as prank calling someone to boast about sleeping with their granddaughter but the fact that he did BOTH...

Well, again, it's not a "fact".

All the initial reports of the call appeared in tabloid newspapers (Sun, Mail, Mirror) and describe him calling the police.

By the time the story spread elsewhere (i.e. the Guardian article you link to here, which links to the Mail piece as its source), this has turned into an "emergency rape line set up by police".

Five years later, I see it mentioned all over the place that he was trolling Rape Crisis or something.

Here's the call, to the police, as in the original reports. Just the normal police line, which rings for a long time before being answered:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iwAIxb5M_M

It's not that funny or anything, but still. He probably shouldn't be calling the police and joking about polka-dotted rapists or whatever, but this is not the act that you were describing.

I can't say that I know exactly how sexist Russell Brand is. He certainly sometimes speaks about women in curious ways. But he definitely ends up being misreported about this an awful lot, for all kinds of reasons. Another example:

"SEX-MAD comic Russell Brand was told off by Billy Connolly after he refused to start filming until a wardrobe girl flashed her boobs at him."
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/showbiz/tv/4469260/Russell-Brand-refuses-to-film-What-About-Dick-until-wardrobe-girl-flashed-boobs-at-him.html

"That [widely reported] story," says Connolly evenly, "is a total invention. A complete fabrication. It's total bollocks. It never happened. Russell was very well-behaved, and I found him very interesting."
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/comedy/features/yin-and-yang-how-billy-connolly-calmed-down-just-dont-mention-piers-morgan-8412113.html

brand loyalty

yomp

not as high profile a stunt as prank calling someone to boast about sleeping with their granddaughter but the fact that he did BOTH...

He did neither. It was Jonathan Ross what did the "boasting"

"curious ways" hmmm

Krul article absolutely brilliant btw

no seriously fuck off russell brand, we can find someone else who can blather about revolution

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/news/russell-brand-accused-of-homophobic-slur-after-he-tells-cambridge-students-shut-up-you-harry-potter-pfs-9058126.html

Literally unbelievable.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/02/russell-brand-rewrites-fairy-tales-childrens-books?CMP=twt_fd

http://i.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/4/2/1396432449155/-Russell-Brand-at-the-clo-012.jpg?width=620&height=-&quality=95

Bloke (re-)writes stories based on old folk tales.

Outrageously following in the footsteps of, ooh, how many?

Accelerating the contradictions. That always works out well.

gu.com/p/428me/tw

slightly amazed he didn't make that new statesman white men thing

this thread's been pretty quiet.

it's probably really unfashionable to say this, but i largely agree with Brand on most things. Recent suspect Truther things (which have been blown out of all proportion anyway) aside, pretty much the only thing I disagree with is that you shouldn't vote.

thing

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/oct/27/revolution-review-russell-brand-beverly-hills-buddhist?CMP=twt_gu

on Twitter DL was saying that he can comes across as chippy and bullying and i agree, he does he does talk over people and can be crazy pass-ag.

but then again so does every wacko right-wing reactionary equivalent. i hate to say it but when you've got BoJo, Farage and how many others constantly spouting rubbish in the press and media, i almost feel as though the left needs some sort of equivalent outspoken loony just to stop it from being drowned out.

Like, Brand's whole schtick is abhorrent, many of his arguments are flawed and his methods are potentially damaging. But the fundamentals of what he's arguing - the current political system being bankrupt; too much power in the wrong places; corruption through-and-through; severe disillusionment among young people; significant change needed in order to stop politics falling-in on itself - are undeniably shared by a large number of people.
And yet he's pretty much the only high-profile figure who is out there arguing the case. The tactics are brash and blunt as a stone, but I don't really see anyone else shouting this loudly - certainly not the Greens, definitely not the Lib Dems, and all the other smaller left-wing parties are too busy arguing with each other to get a look in.
Meanwhile, right-wingers have the lion's share of shouty, opinioned maniacs willing to throw themselves to the lions with over-the-top, headline-grabbing viewpoints, and yet no matter how ridiculous they seem, they don't seem to do their causes too much harm at all. In fact it seems the louder they shout, the more exposure their causes get.
It seems that it doesn't seem to matter what you say, it's how loudly you say it. Brand has a voice like a foghorn, and while right-thinking people will be quick to point out his flaws, I'd be wary of calling him un-useful to left-wing causes. If anything, he is introducing left-leaning ideas to a mainstream platform by using his profile to express it in the most extreme language possible.
Event he no-voting thing; I mean, it's not like everyone was out there voting anyway. I doubt voting members of the public will be swayed not to vote by Brand. I also get the feeling that, if anything, he is encouraging non-voters to reassess whether or not they should vote, or at least become more politically engaged.

otm

picturehouse cinemas screened a live broadcast of him in conversation with owen jones, I was there seeing a different film that got out at the same time and there were people from socialist worker selling copies outside, trying to take advantage of the revolutionary fervour brand and jones inspired. I wonder how many copies they sold.

I don't blame them. I'm pleased to see the left-leaning parties and organisations riding the wave - for now at least. Obviously I'd hate it if personality politics were to continue on like this until a Black Mirror-style cartoon character gets into power, but these kinds of tactics have been used by the right for quite a few years now, and it's the only reason many people vote for, say, Boris Johnson etc... Maybe it's fighting fire with fire, but at least Brand's lunacy is getting subjects like this out in the open and making them seem less like fringe-interest concerns.

no wave that the swp aren't happy to ride and sell papers on

sisters with poices?

not sure that cunty shouty idiot moron leftiness is the necessary antidote for cunty shouty idiot moron rightiness

like I am sure, thats just a rhetorical styling there. I'm rly sure.

you're sure that cunty shouty idiot moron leftiness is the necessary antidote for cunty shouty idiot moron rightiness?

post I had second thoughts about posting removed here

russell brand needs to get in the fucking bin and stay there

lexotm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CugXPmLGfP8#t=60

today I learned that writer and activist russell brand has a youtube series called "trews" and that there have been 173 episodes

although from watching a few minutes of that I would not be surprised if all 173 episodes were made within the last week or so

http://www.scotweb.co.uk/images/sw_image/Q90-304x492-padded/items/sr_swhdr_standard_pc_trews_outfit.jpg?1265401171

Guy gets a forever pass from me for his beautiful Thatcher and addiction essays. But then, Brand seems like one of those particularly British products/institutions that really get the natives riled up, like James or, I dunno, the Levellers.

He's clearly an actual bad person who gets away with it for being charismatic

The guy's already had one brush with the far right so I'd prefer a bit less shouty idiotness before he starts on 'The Cathedral' or some shit

what's the far right brush what?

Guy gets a forever pass from me for his beautiful Thatcher and addiction essays.

These were very very good and written largely before his 'revolution' thing.

So they were ... pre-revolutionary?

He invited a neo-nazi to his book launch debate last week which was promptly cancelled when word got round

I didn't realise until I came across this 2008 interview that he was thinking in this direction even in the Sachsgate/Forgetting Sarah Marshall era. It wasn't discussed much at all iirc.

What Russell wants, he tells me, quite seriously, 'is to restructure, re-evaluate and change every single facet of our society to maximise the common good for as many people as possible'.

What, like Stalin, I ask. He launches into another rattle.

'The thing is, Miranda, that through circumstance or design, I have aligned my success with some quite powerful feelings. And that is now the focus of my life. The material world is a transitory illusion, and if it is, why organise your life around the systems that it imposes? Particularly if those systems have negative consequences for huge numbers of people, and the planet itself. I wonder if there are ways that that can change; I wonder if there are elements in the way that the world is organised that are arbitrary and not absolute and could be altered? And I don't mean normal things like, let's wear a ribbon - I mean the entire economic structure of the planet or the way we look at religion.

'And I'm more than aware that the chap off of Big Brother's Big Mouth is unlikely to single-handedly augment an entirely new global culture. I am quite aware that this is not something I can legislate while I am appearing in the wonderful comedies of Judd Apatow. But when you say: "What do you want?", that is what I want.'

Must be a pretty intense PPE course at Italia Conti then

Billy Bragg has the right idea i think. https://www.facebook.com/billybraggofficial/posts/10152336166432471

"At least he's saying something!!!!" <- give him a few months to start on the Rothschilds eh

When people say facile things like 'he's the ~only high-profile figure~ addressing these issues', it just makes me very, very suspicious of what criteria they use to define "high-profile".

X post Billy 100% OTM. The guy has many many faults but I think people from both sides are quick to be cynical about people like Brand (people like Brand? Who else is like him?). Of course the left has its campaigners and pundits but these are ultimately preaching to the choir. Brand seems like the only person interested in speaking to those who are disinterested, while the vast majority of political figures and commentators spend their time either worrying about how they can snatch so-called 'voters' from the other parties or simply lecturing their own crowd about things they already agree with.
I put scare quotes around 'voters' because it seems that no one is interested in people. In the eyes of the powerful we're measured by our allegiances first, closely followed by our monetary contribution to society. Anyone who doesn't vote doesn't count - not just in terms of having a say in the political landscape, but in the eyes of party leaders too. And it tends to be those with the least contributory value who don't vote, so it goes.
The winning party will be the one that finally takes an interest in people as opposed to voters, and stops measuring people by their perceived contributions to society.

Russell Brand is on the DM permanent hate list, he blows his nose in public, they immediately ring Andrew Sachs for comment.

The ideas in his book are very similar to those expressed by the Beatles in the mid-60s

Yeah imagine a parallel universe where there was no Beatles and so that generation grew up to be entitled shitheads who voted for Thatcher. Think we dodged a bullet there lads

Haha yeah I read that & was like ok writer & activist Russell Brand may not be the best advocate for Buddhism but don't impugn them by appealing to john fucking lennon