Tuesday, December 16

An open letter to Russell Brand.

Dear Russell,

Hi. I'm Jo. You may remember me. You may even have filmed me. On Friday, you staged a publicity stunt at an RBS office, inconveniencing a hundred or so people. I was the lanky slouched guy with a lot less hair than you but (I flatter myself) a slightly better beard who complained to you that you, a multimillionaire, had caused my lunch to get cold. You started going on at me about public money and bankers' bonuses, but look, Russell, anyone who knows me will tell you that my food is important to me, and I hadn't had breakfast that morning, and I'd been standing in the freezing cold for half an hour on your whim. What mattered to me at the time wasn't bonuses; it was my lunch, so I said so.

Which is a great shame, because I'd usually be well up for a proper barney with you, and the points you made do actually deserve answers. Although not — and I really can't emphasise this enough, Russell — not as much as I deserve lunch.

Before I go any further, I should stress that I don't speak for RBS. I'm not even an RBS employee, though I do currently work for them. What follows is not any sort of official statement from RBS, or even from the wider banking industry. It is merely the voice of a man whose lunch on Friday was unfairly delayed and too damn cold.

So, firstly, for the people who weren't there, let's describe the kerfuffle. I didn't see your arrival; I just got back from buying my lunch to discover the building's doors were locked, a film crew were racing around outside trying to find a good angle to point their camera through the windows, and you were in reception, poncing around like you were Russell bleeding Brand. From what I can gather, you'd gone in and security had locked the doors to stop your film crew following you. Which left us — the people who were supposed to be in the building, who had work to do — standing around in the cold.

My first question is, what were you hoping to achieve? Did you think a pack of traders might gallop through reception, laughing maniacally as they threw burning banknotes in the air, quaffing champagne, and brutally thrashing the ornamental paupers that they keep on diamante leashes — and you, Russell, would damningly catch them in the act? But that's on Tuesdays. I get it, Russell, I do: footage of being asked to leave by security is good footage. It looks like you're challenging the system and the powers that be want your voice suppressed. Or something. But all it really means, behind the manipulative media bullshit, is that you don't have an appointment.

Of course, Russell, I have no idea whether you could get an appointment. Maybe RBS top brass would rather not talk to you. That's their call — and, you know, some of your behaviour might make them a tad wary. Reputations are very important in banking, and, reputation-wise, hanging out with a guy who was once fired for broadcasting hardcore pornography while off his head on crack is not ideal. But surely a man who can get invited onto Question Time to discuss the issues of the day with our Lords & Masters is establishment enough to talk to a mere banker. And it would be great if you could. Have you tried, Russell? Maybe you could do an interview with one of them. An expert could answer your questions and rebut your points, and you could rebut right back at them. I might even watch that. (By the way, Russell, if you do, and it makes money, I would like a cut for the idea, please. And I'm sure it would. Most things you do make money.)

But instead of doing something potentially educational, Russell, you staged a completely futile publicity stunt. You turned up and weren't allowed in. Big wow. You know what would have happened if a rabid capitalist had just turned up unannounced? They wouldn't have been allowed in either. You know what I have in my pocket? A security pass. Unauthorised people aren't allowed in. Obviously. That's not a global conspiracy, Russell; it's basic security. Breweries have security too, and that's not because they're conspiring to steal beer from the poor. And security really matters: banks are simply crawling with highly sensitive information. Letting you in because you're a celebrity and You Demand Answers could in fact see the bank hauled in front of the FCA. That would be a scandal. Turning you away is not. I'm sorry, Russell, but it's just not.

Your response to my complaint that a multimillionaire was causing my lunch to get cold was... well, frankly, it was to completely miss the point, choosing to talk about your millions instead of addressing the real issue, namely my fucking lunch. But that's a forgivable mistake. We all have our priorities, Russell, and I can understand why a man as obsessed with money as I am with food would assume that's what every conversation is about. Anyway, you said that all your money has been made privately, not through taxation. Now, that, Russell, is actually a fair point. Well done.

Although I can't help but notice that you have no qualms about appearing on the BBC in return for money raised through one of the most regressive taxes in the country, a tax which leads to crippling fines and even jail time for thousands of poor people and zero rich people. But never mind. I appreciate that it's difficult for a celeb to avoid the BBC, even if they're already a multimillionaire and can totally afford to turn the work down. Ah, the sacrifices we make to our principles for filthy lucre, eh, Russell? The condoms and hairspray won't buy themselves. Or, in my case, the pasta.

And then there is that film you're working on, isn't there, for which I understand your production company is benefitting from the Enterprise Investment Scheme, allowing the City investors funding your film to avoid tax. Was that the film you were making on Friday, Russell, when you indignantly pointed out to me that none of your money comes from the taxpayer? Perhaps it had slipped your mind.

And, of course, you've been in a few Hollywood films now, haven't you, Russell? I take it you've heard of Hollywood Accounting? Of course you have, Russell; you produced Arthur. So you are well aware that Hollywood studios routinely cook their books to make sure their films never go into taxable profit — for instance, Return Of The Jedi has never, on paper, made a profit. Return Of The fucking Jedi, Russell. As an actor, and even more so as the producer of a (officially) loss-making film, you've taken part in that, you've benefitted from it. (While we're on the subject, I hear great things about Hollywood's catering. I hope you enjoyed it. Expensive, delicious, and served (at least when I dream about it) nice and hot.)

But still, you're broadly right. Leaving aside the money you make from one of the most regressive of the UK's taxes, and the tax exemptions your company uses to encourage rich City investors to give you more money, and the huge fees you've accepted from one of the planet's most notorious and successful tax avoidance schemes, you, Russell, have come by your riches without any effect on taxpayers. Whereas RBS got bailed out. Fair point.

Here's the thing about the bailout of RBS, Russell: it's temporary. The plan was never to bail out a bank so that it could then go bust anyway. That would be too asinine even for Gordon Brown. The idea was to buy the bank with public money, wait until it became profitable again, then resell it, as Alastair Darling clearly explained at the time. And that is still the plan, and it does appear to be on course. Not only that, but it looks as if the government will eventually sell RBS for more than they bought it for. In other words, the taxpayer will make a profit on this deal.

Of all the profligate pissing away of public money that goes on in this country, the only instance where the public are actually going to get their money back seems an odd target for your ire. What other government spending can you say that about, Russell? What other schemes do they sink taxpayers' money into and get it all back, with interest? And how many people have you met who have actually been right in the middle of working to make a profit for the taxpayer when you've interrupted them to cause their lunch to get cold?

As for bonuses, well, I'll be honest: I get an annual bonus. I'm not allowed to tell you exactly how much it is, but I will say it's four or five orders of magnitude smaller than the ones that make the headlines. It's very nice — helps pay off a bit of credit card debt (remember debt, Russell?) — but, to put it in terms you can understand, I'd need to work for several tens of thousands of years before my bonuses added up to close to what you're worth.

But here's the key thing you need to know about bonuses, Russell: they come with conditions attached. My salary is mine to do with as I will (I like to spend a chunk of it on good hot food). My bonus my employer can take back off me under certain conditions. Again, I do not speak for RBS, so cannot say anything about the recent FX trading scandal or PPI or any of that shit. But, in general terms, bonuses have conditions attached, such as "And we'll claw back every penny if we discover you were breaking the rules." And yes, it does happen. The only bonuses that make the news are the ones that get paid. But, every year, bonuses either don't get paid or are even taken back off staff for various reasons, including misconduct. I'd've thought, Russell, that anyone who wanted bankers to be accountable would approve of the scheme.

And now, if I may, a word about your manner.

Much as I disagree with most of your politics, I've always rather liked you. You do a good job of coming across as someone who might be fun to be around. Turns out, that's an illusion.

Because, you see, Russell, when you accosted me, you started speaking to me with your nose about two inches from mine. That's pretty fucking aggressive, Russell. I'm sure you're aware of the effect. Putting one's face that close to someone else's and staring into their eyes is how primates square off for a fight. Regardless of our veneer of civilisation, when someone does that to us, it causes instinctive physical responses: adrenaline, nervousness... back down or lash out. (Or, apparently, in the case of the celebrity bikes you like to hang out with, swoon.) I'm sure that, like turning up with a megaphone instead of an appointment, such an aggressive invasion of personal space makes for great footage: you keep talking to someone in that chatty reasonable affable tone of yours, and they react with anger. Makes them look unreasonable. Makes it look like they're the aggressive ones. Makes it look like people get flustered in the face of your incisive argument. When in fact they're just getting flustered in the face of your face.

I've been thinking about this the last couple of days, Russell, and I can honestly say that the only other people ever to talk to me the way you did were school bullies. It's been nearly a quarter of a century since I had to deal with such bastards, so I was caught quite off my guard. Nice company you're keeping. Now I think about it, they used to ruin my lunchtimes too.

One last thing, Russell. Who did you inconvenience on Friday? Let's say that you're right, and that the likes of Fred Goodwin need to pay. OK, so how much trouble do you think Fred faced last Friday as a result of your antics? Do you think any of his food got cold, Russell? Even just his tea? I somehow doubt it. How about some of the millionaire traders you despise so much (some of whom are nearly as rich as you, Russell)? Well, no, because you got the wrong fucking building. (Might want to have a word with your researchers about that.) Which brings us back to where we came in: a bunch of admittedly fairly well paid but still quite ordinary working people, admin staff mostly, having their lives inconvenienced and, in at least one case, their lunches quite disastrously cooled, in order to accommodate the puerile self-aggrandising antics of a prancing multimillionaire. If you had any self-awareness beyond agonising over how often to straighten your fucking chest-hair, you'd be ashamed.

It was paella, by the way. From Fernando's in Devonshire Row. I highly recommend them: their food is frankly just fantastic.

When it's hot.

467 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 467 of 467
Tony - FoodsforLife said...

Well you would say that, you are a banker after all.

That's banking where they get it horribly wrong and get rewarded for it.

That's banking where they get away with doing things that ordinary people get put in prison for.

That's banking where the victims get to pay a massive pension for the perpetrator

Thank you to you and your friends for proving the Public's stereotypical selfish image of many of those that work in banking is true - you don't care about anyone or anything apart from yourselves

The unspoken voice of middle England said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Jo, why didn't you just eat your food outside? Oh, maybe you were inconvenienced by not picking up a fork?

Anonymous said...

Most of the comments here are aggressive name calling against Brand. Calling him self-serving, when he's campaigning for equality and fairness. He may be a rich ego maniac, but what would you prefer - rich egomaniacs who campaign to make the world better, or rich egomaniacs who rake in cash at the expense of taxpayer and don't offer anything to society in return. Apparently you are only allowed to campaign for equality if you are poor! We all live in a society that is run by money, we all want an easier life and a better job. There is one argument that people keep falling back on, oh you have money, so you can't complain against other people that have money because your a hypocrite. So, it's okay to steal money and not talk about the problems of society, but it's not okay to have money and campaign for fairness?
None of the posts here actually address the issues he raises, they are mainly just expressions of personal dislike. The goal is not to change the world in one rant at a bank, it's to change public conciousness over time. I'm not saying capitalism is all bad, but anyone with any clarity of vision can see it's gone way too far down the road off give all to the have alls.
Maybe RBS will be sold at a profit, austerity and cuts that hit the poorest hardest are planned to continue regardless.

Ben Zedrine said...

Why is the only person responding with negativity ,to a well thought out and very funny piece of writing? Anonymous? Anonymous one of those Mask Wearing Anti -Capitalists that come out in their 'Gangs' to represent 'us' common working folk? Unfortuanteley Anon.(you don't mind Anon. do you? So labourious typing the whole word out, especially when your name's probably Dave), Brand is a Celeb that thrives on attention (as they all do). His ego needs to be fed, hence we get the wealth (fairly distributed mind) of Media Coverage of your beloved Russell (chest hairs et al)..... the thing is, is the folk of this fair isle of ours aren't stupid. They're not the mindless buffoons that Brand and his type think they are. The whole 'Revolutionary' stance of Brand (for Chrissakes we even have Guevaraesque images of him all over the place), has back fired badly. Question time was debacle. Brand on the same panel as Farage? Here was his chance (his one and only chance), to be taken seriously as a Social Commentator and all we got was some half-assed attempt at 1.Trying to look irresistible while remaining almost aloof (this is classic Brand) and interested while the camera wasn't on him 2. Some feeble, schoolboy insults (Pound-shopEnoch Powel) traded around while he couldn't even look Farage in the eye 3.Then made to look a complete twat by the most obvious of audience plants in the history of Light Entertainment (well......it is Question Time). I hate to burst anyone's bubble here about dear old Russell....but things won't end well for Mr. Brand. When you take on the 'System' it's best to when the skeletons in cupboard have been well paid and buried (Buried real deep). I've got an inkling that Mr.Brands 'Skeletons' are all waiting very patiently outside some Fleet St. Editor's office right now, hoping the Lawyers can get around some loophole allowing them to share their storys with the world. Watch this space............................................... ;)

tjbb said...

Ben Zadrine, talking about keeping your name anonymous.Wouldn't it be funny if your name was actually Ben?

jkat said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

Alex Macfie said...

No, I think he's slagging women off because they have s*x with Russell Brand. I wouldn't use Jo's language on this, but I would warn any female friend of mine off a chap like Russell Brand, and would be very disappointed in her if she did sleep with him.

Anonymous said...

Loadsa money rbs contractor has cold lunch

Anonymous said...

How you can determine that the blog is pack of lies from that video extract is beyond me. Just shows the idiot being an idiot once again. Brand is a self promoting and very clever person. He does however have his own agenda, that is to make money by coursing controversy.

Paul Robson said...

"what would you prefer - rich egomaniacs who campaign to make the world better"

the only person Brand is campaigning for is Brand. I do wonder if he wants to be the UKs Grillo.

"There is one argument that people keep falling back on, oh you have money, so you can't complain against other people that have money because your a hypocrite."

No, that's a sideline. The main argument is that he spouts ignorant drivel.

It's not drivel in the sense that (say) a Labour man might say Cameron spouts drivel, or a Tory might say Milliband does - it's genuine incoherent drivel. It doesn't actually make sense.

Anonymous said...

This response absolutely nails it http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/russell-brand-jo-rbs-open-letter.html

Anonymous said...

"Reputations are very important in banking" LMAO - gold.

Anonymous said...

that is an excellent response in the west yorks post and it should be doing the rounds of the media not this attention seeker. it is becoming increasingly obvious when you read through this how the main objective of this priviliged guy who just hasn't had the attention he wants, is to block debate. sadly when people make valid, fact based points about the economy this guy's acolytes (multiples?) retreat back to cat calling cliches or claiming to have a considered opinion you must love russel brand. how often do people have to say they don't. he has had his 5 minutes. that was all this was about. time to move somewhere were serious debate is actually taking place.

Your Mum said...

oh fuck off you ponderous cunt

Paul Robson said...

anotherangryvoice's blog post is abject nonsense. 97% of debt is created by banks creating money and charging interest on it. Buffoon even doesn't realise there's two types of debt ; public debt and private debt.

I'm undecided whether it's a joke or not, by leftie rant standards (very low) it's bad. Whoever wrote this is either having a joke or is unable to make any sort of coherent argument.

Paul Robson said...

Hell, this angryvoice blog is either a brilliant satire or a complete numpty. We now have

"UK Government borrowing to fund bailouts and the nationalisation of failed banks amounts to an incredible £1,376 billion (91% of GDP)"

No, it didn't. Dimwit can't tell the difference between borrowing and guaranteeing a debt.

It's full of such nonsense. He uses the favourite Leftie argument of quoting borrowing as a % of GDP and claiming it hasn't gone up much (if you pick it right it goes down).

Clue stick chummy, if GDP is booming, and borrowing as a % of GDP is fairly stable, then borrowing is booming at the same rate...... it's kinda basic arithmetic.

Paul Robson said...

"that is an excellent response in the west yorks post"

it's virtually entirely wrong. His explanation of debt is just bizarre. Icke-Lizardian.

A lot of it is "do too" argument, a classical logical fallacy. He complains about the film tax thing, for example, by saying "well, RBS made money out of Mexican gun running" (paraphrase). Might be true, but it doesn't fix the criticism of Brand at all for using tax avoidance, and he's also making the exact same argument he is complaining about.

It's the same argument as saying you should be let off a murder charge because the bloke next to you killed three people.

Anonymous said...

'buffoon' 'ponderous cunt' 'icke-lizardian''lefty rant''dimwit' 'dummy'... wow even 'fuck off' (always a good argument)
cages rattled, true colours etc.. as has been said, nothing to see here but privilege and bullying

Paul Robson said...

It's perfectly reasonable to call someone a buffoon and a dimwit as long as you explain why ; i.e. the bloggers ignorance of debt, currency, support, well as far as I can see from reading it he doesn't know anything about anything, he just writes down buzzwords and phrases he thinks sounds good but doesn't understand.

So it should be no surprise that he supports Russell Brand.

Anonymous said...

a use of rhetoric and buzzwords without any insight, economic arguments that can't be backed up with an actual understanding of economic and social realities, i'm sorry but it seems there is only yourself, the original author and a couple more who agree with him who have used these tactics. your points were debated by those who disagreed without bullying or reference to someone who has nothing to do with the argument. time to stop digging the hole

Paul Robson said...

As an example:

"UK Government borrowing to fund bailouts and the nationalisation of failed banks amounts to an incredible £1,376 billion (91% of GDP)"

is simply wrong. This figure is actually about the current National Debt, give or take a few billion.

Chummy doesn't understand the difference between borrowing and guaranteeing.

Some money, probably about £100bn or so was actually *spent* on the banks, mostly around 2008 obviously. Some of this (RBS) is recoverable, some (Crock) largely is not.

What HMG actually did was to guarantee the deposits in the banks. This is basically the same concept as if you guarantee the rent for someone (as parents do sometimes) i.e. if the person who should pay the rent doesn't, you pay it instead.

The point is this is theoretical future money (and beyond the 2008 stuff there is virtually nothing), so what they are saying is, if the banks go down, we will cover it. It's designed to stop a run on the banks (remember the queues outside the Crock ?), even though it was largely unnecessary, as the standard deposit guarantee (then about £35k ?) would cover most of the population.

The £1.4tn is the total potential possible loss, e.g. every asset in every bank suddenly becomes worthless. This won't happen (mass anarchy would break out way before this).

Chummy seems to think that this figure and the national debt are the same thing, probably because they are the same number (roughly), even though a fair amount of that debt was run up before 2007/8.

Only about £100bn of it is bank debt (and that has some offset value against the banks assets, though things like the Crocks bad books, about £31bn I think, are never going to be recovered), the rest of it is borrowing money to mostly waste on the public sector and partly so we can pretend we can live beyond our means.

This is why the deficit is fairly stable, decreasing slowly from about £160bn under Brown to £100bn now.

Actually the future debts to worry about are things like PFI which Brown loved because they were off book fiddles.

(Chummy is wrong about that as well. It wasn't a Brown invention, it was created by David Willetts and used by the Major govt in a very small way (about £7bn over that gov'ts lifetime). It would be fair comment that its use exploded under Brown)

Paul Robson said...

"economic arguments that can't be backed up with an actual understanding of economic and social realities"

Economic arguments are independent of Social realities.

What this sort of thing usually means is "I can't accept this argument because it is unfair".

Indeed it might be, but fairness is not involved in raw economics. "Social realities" may well drive the implementation of economics, but they can't be used to avoid reality.

There is an old saying about wishful thinking achieving nothing, but can destroy the wisher, and there is a lot of truth in it.

One cannot make a fair or rational decision without factually accurate analysis. The blog, many like it, are simply factually wrong.

I could write all day, but it takes a lot of writing to explain why - above there is an explanation of why his claim about debts is wrong which is about 30 times as long as the original comment.

What you want may well be admirable, but is not realistically achievable.

Refusing to affect facts because they don't fit your view of how the world should be do not work.

If I'm wrong, (e.g. the 8.19 post, tell me why). Relying on expressions like "of rhetoric and buzzwords without any insight, economic arguments that can't be backed up with an actual understanding of economic and social realities" are actually just a way of avoiding any sort of rational discussion by pleading to emotion.

Anonymous said...

or maybe someone has studied economics to a level that means they know snatching a few phrases and pieces of jargon out of the sky is pointless unless you have the time to discuss the complex social and political issues that will always govern economic change. when people do this 'monetarism' it usually is part of a political agenda.
it is also fairly obvious the case that calling people idiots is a way of shutting debate, and rephrasing what was said into something you feel you can argue with is a sign you are out of your depth. you believe these things are cyclical! and you call others dimwits

Anonymous said...

and as we can probably assume your argument is to downplay the mismanagement and corruption that went on, let us break your points down into the reality. money was 'guaranteed' and people encouraged and allowed to borrow money that wasn't supported through investment in actual production or skills. this went on among people educated to understand it was not sustainable and also that they would not be the ones suffering when the 'free market??' collapsed. social and politicial reality not some magic money god who does things without us being able to stop him

Paul Robson said...

"UK Government borrowing to fund bailouts and the nationalisation of failed banks amounts to an incredible £1,376 billion (91% of GDP)" is a direct quote from the web page referenced.

As far as I can see you are barely sentient.

I would love to debate with you, but you haven't actually written anything beyond saying "social and political issues" and the like. They are important in implementation of a (hopeful) solution but not in addressing facts.

The statement is simply factually incorrect.

Your posts (assuming its the same anonymous, it sounds like the same person) just ramble on about things that aren't remotely related to anything very much.

You seem to view your definitions of reality (e.g. the rambling about borrowing) as some sort of reality. They are not.

Anonymous said...

I think my last post was incredibly direct. economic crises can only naturally be caused by a deficit of skills and materials. anything else is the result of manipulation and the only reason you would assume that takes place is for a political or social gain. 'spending beyond our means' has been spouted as a catch all since those who sought to gain advantage using the economy realised that traditional Keynesian economics would loosen their conrol. it is meaningless. we all live constantly in debt to provide us with housing, health and many other things we can't actually afford in most randomly selected economic periods. well being is actuall linked into debt. all that is going on at the moment is political manouevering. a healthy economy will only grow from production, security and well being. all of these things are now needlessly under attack in my opinion. where you stand on that is up to you, but i can't respect an argument that talks of the 'inevitability' of a lack of it all as though it isn't something they desire

Anonymous said...

Brilliant

Anonymous said...

You might feel proud with your ramblings to Russel Brand but only last week your bank told me that they no longer need customer funds because you have enough reserves to please the bank of England and also you are being supplied with cheap money from the government,so I doubt it but you should feel ashamed working for a bank with no morals.

Anonymous said...

Paella isn't supposed to be eaten hot you uncultured oik. The flavours are best luke warm.

keithpp said...

The open letter of Jo the Banker (if we wish to be pedantic, Jo the Analyst), is some of the most pathetic juvenile drivel I have read. Dear, oh dear, his overpriced paella was getting cold, he was being inconvenienced. If he did wish to vent his spleen, it should have been directed at the over zealous security who put the building in lock down. Jo the Banker has a security pass. Why did he not show it to security and demand to be let in?

Jo the RBS banker complains his overpriced paella is getting cold due to overzealous RBS security putting the bank in lock down.

What of the tens of thousands who cannot afford overpriced paella and are reliant on food banks?

What of the tens of thousands who cannot afford overpriced paella because they are sanctioned on a whim by evil bastards in Job Centres who take a sick pleasure in seeing others suffer?

We should have let RBS go bust, not bailed out. Put the bankers on the Dole. Why are no bankers in prison?

HSBC, money laundering for Mexican Drug Cartels. Not a single banker in prison.

Jo the Banker does not have to work for RBS, he could do something useful, but I dare say greed is a motivating factor.

A couple of weeks ago, we had The Sun smearing Russell Brand because he had the audacity to highlight the plight of tenants on the New Era Estate who are facing eviction after their estate was acquired by a rapacious US property company.

Now it is the turn of the Daily Mail, which claims Russell Brand stormed the building. Since when has walking into a building and asking to interview the boss been storming a building? If you really wanted to push the boat out, could call it doorstepping, something with which Daily Mail hacks would be all too familiar.

Nor was it as claimed by the Daily Mail, a publicity stunt. It was an attempt to obtain an interview for a documentary on the banks.

Nor was it Russell Brand who closed down the bank, as falsely claimed by Daily Mail and Jo the Banker. Did Russell Brand have a picket of anarchists, did Russell Brand super glue the doors or lock himself to the doors? No, it was the over zealous bank security.

Russell Brand at least has had the courtesy to apologise to Jo the Banker that his overpriced paella was getting cold. Surely the apology should come from the over zealous bank security that put the building in lock down?

Paul Robson said...

"we all live constantly in debt to provide us with housing, health and many other things we can't actually afford in most randomly selected economic periods"

Your understanding of economics is simply bizarre. You seem to think your own wierd prejudices are somehow factual because they are - this above statement is clearly not true.

Being direct is irrelevant if you write nonsense and things like "I can't respect an argument that talks of the 'inevitability' of a lack of it all as though it isn't something they desire".

It's yet another "I refuse to even look at any argument that doesn't fit in with my personal prejudices".

Which is odd, because your endless claims at best are questionable and at worst are nonsense. Their main purpose appears to be allow you to lump blame where your prejudices think it belongs.

Anonymous said...

you asked for debate andcan only keep saying 'i don't get it'. if you don't then accept it and ask for clarity. this is how debate occurs. nothing wrong with not being able to see a point but it is arrogance as well as greed that has got us here.
how about you provide an explanation of the fundamentals of an economy so I cn find out what your stumbling block is.
Debt is such a fundamental component otherwise we don't move beyond direct barter.
'living beyond your means' displays the most simplistic understanding.
you seem to be avoiding the question you can't answer which is to explain what impacts on economies that isn't social or political.
this 'recession' is man-made. you want to blame people or fate, others want to place blame on those who continue to gain and avoid the fallout. not prejudice just a sensible overview

Anonymous said...

Brilliant, no.
Stellar. Even hypernovae in nature. One just doesn't cut it, need more than one in proximity.
Russel did reply, to which I did refer to him as a village idiot for good reason.
Still, I've been known to gallop through reception, laughing maniacally as they threw burning banknotes in the air, quaffing whiskey, and brutally thrashing the ornamental paupers that they keep on diamante leashes.
Regrettably, the only paupers I had available were myself and my wife. I've cut back on my whiskey consumption to more sane levels, as I really disliked brutally thrashing myself (there are three chances I'd do that to my wife. Slim, fat and none.). I'm now down to one supertanker a week.*
OK, not quite that much, but see the boot note...
When a man becomes so full of himself, he's ate too much of his own excrement and hence, becomes the excrement.
I work in a building that has dual usage. One is a datacenter, the other is several security operations centers for client and corporate networks. If someone, even our national leader were to just waltz in, we'd go into security lockdown. If I were out smoking, I'd be shivering in the cold, if inside, I'd literally have difficulty going to the rest room and would likely do the unejoyable using the office trash can for such purpose.

* Some think that I'm nearly immune to alcohol. Typically, they're people I have drank with, on occasion, neighbors who noticed my recyclables. The latter err on one part, the fail to realize how lazy I am. I'm a former systems administrator. The trash goes out when you trip on it on the way out of the office. Fortunately, my wife keeps the house clean, it's my computer center region of the house that she's prohibited from cleaning.
As for those who drank with me, well, I've tested myself to three liters of distilled spirits and my liver function remained normal. My mental function suffered significantly. Fortunately, I don't drink anything at all in any neighborhood of such amounts.
One petrol delivery tank is sufficient. Half for me, half for my wife. We *do* still have to put up with one another after 33 years. ;)**

** Actually, I've been known to either not drink at all or go up to 2 liters of whiskey a week. It all depends upon the weather, as my nation has a bit of a problem with letting people be prescribed pain relief that works for severe pain. Arthritis set in, courtesy of an overly long military career.
Well, life sucks, but it sure beats the alternative.
I know that as a true fact, as a lot of good friends have died over the years. Not a one has come back and beaconed me onward to "the good life/nonlife).

Anonymous said...

Dear! Dear! A lot of thickos on here who haven't a clue - blame everything on the left or right etc and too stupid to go and do a simple bit of research that will tell you that everything is controlled and has been set up by the ELITES to keep people divided and fighting among themselves.

All of the political parties, capitalism, communism, socialism etc etc etc are controlled by these Elite Private Bankers, Royalty, Religions - especially the Vatican - to control and rob EVERYONE of their wealth and resources.

Afraid I think that Brand is a fraud working on behalf of the Elites trying to get the people to start a revolution that will play into the hands of these Elites and bring in the totalitarian police state much quicker than is being done at present.

The author of this blog is so wrong in his belief that the bail out of the RBS and other banks is about saving them - it is a huge scam - the tax payers are not going to be making any profit if it is ever sold off as the £billions being put into these banks is being laundered right back out of the back door into off shore accounts.

The banks are just simply massive robbing centres on behalf of these Elites above - not lending anyone a single penny and charging massive interest on that NOTHING especially with regard to the house buying PONZI SCHEME SCAM where the corrupt government keeps policies going to get the house prices as high as they can so that the banks etc can rip even more money out of the mugs buying the houses and where all of the people working for the banks get their corrupt bonuses.

The banks are all going to be taken to the Queens Bench Court for the mortgage - means DEATH GRIP - interest scam soon so it will soon be curtains for these SCAM banks.

http://paisleyexpressions.blogspot.co.uk/

Billy Carlin
Banned form Google/Youtube for putting out the truth.

Anonymous said...

Billy Carlin, both you and Russell Brand are bang on. You should both stand as Independents next year and wipe the floor with the establishment. And no, im not joking.

John P said...

Fantastic - a phoney nailed.

Dire Realist said...

Too right

Anonymous said...

"Nothing gets up my nose like that self-aggrandising Jesus impersonator", said Amy Winehouse. Allegedly.

Anonymous said...

Spindrift...Spintwat more like!

FreeSocrates said...

I think you deserve congratulating for using so many words to say precisely nothing.

Anonymous said...

I don't think the man in this video is Jo. Unless he was being ironic when describing himself as having a better beard than Brand.

Sackerson said...

Brand is a blast from the past - about 1968 - 72-ish. And doubtless quite easy to rile, just like the American reporter who questioned Lennon in the 1969 bed-in and got a snarly Liverpudlian response.

On the other hand, your piece I find has a whiff of the disingenuous; artful stuff, all those references to food. Hungry bankers at Christmas... Skilfully done, some good points, and of course RB is not really much good at argumentation, which is why he uses so many words. Expect you'd beat him in a debate. Maybe that's why the BBC gives him airtime, to strike a faux balance between protest and the Establishment and weaken the former's credibility. That and his priapic reputation.

Shame so few people talk about the way the banking industry, encouraged by politicians, has messed up the economy with excessive debt and resource misallocation since at least the 70s, but that's a subject RB isn't up to analysing in his Michael Moore-ish way.

By the way, I'm given to understand it's noradrenaline, not adrenaline, that powers the fight or flight reaction. Either way, I don't blame you a bit for curdling at his invasion of your personal space.

If only there was a less vain and more penetrating advocate than the slightly addled Brand. The PPI and FX rows are tiny thunderrumbles compared to the gathering Force 5 financial hurricane caused by decades of monetary warming. Or maybe I'm wrong and it'll all turn out for the best in the end. Let's leave it to the experts as the economy "recovers", hey?

Anonymous said...

Russell Brand and Owen Jones should both stand as independents for parliament next year. Which is better than the negative yakety yak comments i'm reading on here from the usual arm
chair critics.

Anonymous said...

The fact is, Brand is not the right person to tackle this issue as he is a comedian (in my opinion not a very funny one and don't like his personallity) and people will not take him seriosly. It is quite likely that he is doing this for publicity. However, by doing this he has brought a very important issue to attention yet again. That is positive though the way he has done it and the reason for which he is doing it could be wrong. Having said that, this person is much worst than Brand as he is trying to tell me that his lunch is more important than the lifes of so many people who were affected by the economic collapse, where the banks were the main contributors. Just saying that if the banks would have not caused the collapse something else would have as this hapens cyclicly (something that someone claimed above) is also rubish. I am not aware that RBS has returned the money to the tax payer. What he is writing is misleading. Until that has happened he has no right to promise something like that happening. It almost makes me think that he is paid by the bank to write this rubish or perhaps he will extend his contract for much longer. It is very well written, I must say, it puts Brand in the right place, which is also fine, but it's meaning is rubish and all that nice writing is created just to cover this fact.

Anonymous said...

The fact is, Brand is not the right person to tackle this issue as he is a comedian (in my opinion not a very funny one and don't like his personallity) and people will not take him seriosly. It is quite likely that he is doing this for publicity. However, by doing this he has brought a very important issue to attention yet again. That is positive though the way he has done it and the reason for which he is doing it could be wrong. Having said that, this person is much worst than Brand as he is trying to tell me that his lunch is more important than the lifes of so many people who were affected by the economic collapse, where the banks were the main contributors. Just saying that if the banks would have not caused the collapse something else would have as this hapens cyclicly (something that someone claimed above) is also rubish. I am not aware that RBS has returned the money to the tax payer. What he is writing is misleading. Until that has happened he has no right to promise something like that happening. It almost makes me think that he is paid by the bank to write this rubish or perhaps he will extend his contract for much longer. It is very well written, I must say, it puts Brand in the right place, which is also fine, but it's meaning is rubish and all that nice writing is created just to cover this fact.

The Banks were deregulated by Thatcher in the 80’s and they replaced the State which has been run down by over 30 years of right wing rule in Britain.

Russell Brand is spot on in what he says. None of the three mainstream parties are worth a light now, voting is a farce because the free market ony ever loos after the rich.

Anonymous said...

The fact is, Brand is not the right person to tackle this issue as he is a comedian (in my opinion not a very funny one and don't like his personallity) and people will not take him seriosly. It is quite likely that he is doing this for publicity. However, by doing this he has brought a very important issue to attention yet again. That is positive though the way he has done it and the reason for which he is doing it could be wrong. Having said that, this person is much worst than Brand as he is trying to tell me that his lunch is more important than the lifes of so many people who were affected by the economic collapse, where the banks were the main contributors. Just saying that if the banks would have not caused the collapse something else would have as this hapens cyclicly (something that someone claimed above) is also rubish. I am not aware that RBS has returned the money to the tax payer. What he is writing is misleading. Until that has happened he has no right to promise something like that happening. It almost makes me think that he is paid by the bank to write this rubish or perhaps he will extend his contract for much longer. It is very well written, I must say, it puts Brand in the right place, which is also fine, but it's meaning is rubish and all that nice writing is created just to cover this fact.

The Banks were deregulated by Thatcher in the 80’s and they replaced the State which has been run down by over 30 years of right wing rule in Britain.

Russell Brand is spot on in what he says. None of the three mainstream parties are worth a light now, voting is a farce because the free market ony ever loos after the rich.

Anonymous said...

Brilliant summary of the views I have had of Brand for years!
The bloke is an oxygen thief.

Anonymous said...

ST Remind us all again how much RBS as been fined over the last few years......Are you not ashamed to be working for such an immoral bank?? YOU SHOULD BE

Barclay said...

Exaggerated claims of aggression etc. All brought about from a conversation you instigated by making comments as you passed behind Brand. Lets not forget your misogynistic comments in previous posts, or have you gone back and removed those now?
By all means disagree with Brands views but try and stick to reality.

Anonymous said...

You, Sir, are a genius. My hat's off to you.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for this. Beautifully written.

Henry said...

Here's Russell kissing a special lady.. Its not what he does, its the way that he does it. What could have been tender became a taunt. Pretty bad.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqHphlUZ2jk
Skip to 2.06
Its sad

Steve Elgin said...

What a pathetic load of drivel. Someone's trying to effect genuine change, inequality is rising, immigrants, the disabled and the poor are being vilified and your complaint is that your lunch went cold.

Nice to see that Russell Brand's response to your "open letter" has skewered you and the paucity of your arguments.

technologyrecruiter@outlook.com said...

I loved the whimsical writing style as it is so English; so eccentric. My only concern was that some of the people postings comments did not seem to understand what humorous means.

..........

Furor Teutonicus said...

Strange. If that were me, the cold lunchwould have ended up being shoved in the bastards face, up its nose, and stuffed down its ears. Alonf with a good headbutt as he came to within 6 inches, let alone two, of my nose.

Anonymous said...

Funny and well written, but really, the basis of your argument was that your lunch was made cold. Big fucking deal! One spoilt brat arguing with another. Yaaaawn...

Anonymous said...

I think that Russell Brands 'The Trews' is so 'Spot On' in every way. The man has made his way very quickly through the vacuous 'stardom' of 'celebrity' culture & thanks to his charisma & intelligence he has now found a real place to work. I don't think that this is any kind of advertisement for his next money making scheme (other programs & people' a lot more familiar do that). Already he has probably been responsible for a whole housing estate of people's non eviction in the face of the uninspiring speculative,profit motive so prevalent in, to the detriment of, the world today (Westbrook Estate).
I like the fact that he does not make excuses in his life as to why he can't try something.
You don't have to make excuses if you are honest ( ...& with yourself first). Not making excuses is where clear thought & bravery come from.
There are terrible events & plans taking place in the world today. Inform yourself. Someone missing their own lunch for one day might start to wake them up to the fact that it is our own lack of responsibility, awareness & intellectual trial that allows the policymakers in this world to make the kind of decisions that leave millions without food...or homes. We do live in a democracy & our decisions do make themselves felt.
Our leaders DO represent us..They always have!.....& that says it all....
Damning us in the process!.
I don't believe that stuff about the 1% controlling us. The 1% 'control us' because they get the support of the 50% who would like to join their ranks...(but who never will because the system only takes 1%. There is only room at the top for 1%...'dog eat dog', & that is not civilisation....& wise up).
Russell Brand is being a model democratic citizen, nothing more. The benefits in his life are not stolen, it's just that other people give you more when you try a bit harder to think & act on it publically. It makes you more sexy too.
I like what Russell says because it mirrors exactly what I think. That is why I share his work.
He also makes me laugh, which is a blessing in these times..XX

Blair Gubernath said...

You need to re-read the letter Him. You haven't a clue. Brand is a hypocrite and a MULTIMILLIONAIRE standing in front of a bank preening like a child does NOTHING to reform banking bad habits as YOU see them. Sneering and childish behavior only accomplish one thing...great entertainment for YouTube. And Brand IS a bully. A bully who does not keep his money under his mattress but IN A BANK!! Have him protest in front of his OWN BANK!!!!

Michael said...

Russell Brand is spot on. None of the three mainstream parties are for the ordinary Joe in this country any more, so there is no real point in voting for continued free market policies without State intervention

I would like to see Russell Brand stand against the system as an Independent for parliament. That would be putting his mouth where his money is.

Anonymous said...

What a pathetic little piece.
Wow, your pathetic overpriced urban splash lunch got cold!
Millions of London residents could dream of being able to afford it, hot or cold, you selfish clarksonite short-termist third-rate blogger.

Squander Two said...

Little?

jedibeeftrix said...

thanks, you made my day.

Max said...

Ah the typical facetious scumbag you are. Nobody gives a toss about your lunch and if you believe Russell treated you like a bully then god help you in tough times. haha

Squander Two said...

> Nobody gives a toss about your lunch

Hey, you're the one writing about it two months later.

Anonymous said...

What a shame. Some food got cold. Eat it cold then. Get some perspective!!

Anonymous said...

Bang on. Brand's a rich twat with a big hypocritical mouth.

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 467 of 467   Newer› Newest»