Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
500+ replies, surely
Bit crap that he described the women Brand shags about with as 'celebrity bikes' though.
Other sins in there:
1) nesting brackets inside other brackets
2) Calling the licence fee a tax
3) Claiming to like Russell Brand
and most heinously
4) Writing "I'd've"
would've been better, or
look like the most likeable person in an argument, but that guy manages it.
(unless the whole whiny, entitled, attempt to close down debate thing is meant to be satire)
But it's all about the post count.
Often I agree with you, and I have my issues with this guy, but on balance and coloured by personal experience I think he has a valid point, and that he's in the right.
Basically his thesis is that Brand was staging a PR stunt for his own purposes (albeit to support what is possibly a worthwhile cause) and that in doing so he was disrupting the lives of completely innocent bystanders. And he was also pointing out that he was doing it in a way that was aggressive and intimidating to those innocent bystanders.
You can make the case that cracking a few eggs to further a noble cause is a valid course of action, but it's less clear cut when you're cracking those eggs to make a film, which may or may not further a noble cause.
My personal experience of this comes from when I was working for NATS in air traffic control just prior to the part-privatisation. The comedian/campaigner Mark Thomas sided with those arguing that that would end up with safety being compromised, and to that end he staged a "die in" with relatives of the people who died in the Kegworth crash outside my offices. We weren't much inconvenienced, but we sure as hell were offended, given that nobody in that building was responsible for any air crash ever, and most people in there (me included) were employed solely in the business of making people safer when they travel by air.
Maybe I come across as oversensitive, but I think that guy made the argument rather well. Even though he's obviously a money-grubbing twat with an overinflated sense of entitlement.
'receptionist bothering' (as Chris Morris called it), but surely there's a better way to do it than whining on and on for hundreds of words sounding like a total prick and attempting to close down debate?
At least brand has actually got people talking about some issues, rather than this guy who would rather someone just stopped making him feel a bit guilty.
:-) Good old Chris Morris.
I see from the links at the bottom of that article that Brand has the support of Nick Clegg, George Galloway and Twitter. With friends like that...
"So basically some coward thought he would insert a cheap comment behind someone's back, not wishing to truly engage, but got called out and confronted and is now crying about his entitled lunch and being threatened."
Bear in mind, I can't hear it. the sound on my PC has an intermittent fault.
The license fee is really the worst thing he can come up with? Same old boring argument of "you're a hypocrite". About 20 mentions of Brand's wealth, might as well be a tabloid hack writing this.
Probably to boost post count in here. Or maybe they all sit there laughing at unfunny things all day.
make fortunes is slightly more relevant.
I guess if the Independent had any journalists they could have explored that angle at least.
That guy seems like a bit of a CG
he's not employed by RBS, he just works for them?
and basically contracts to them.
I'm a roofer... Dunn and Reddy Home Improvements. And speaking as a roofer, I can say that a roofer's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs.
marks him out as a contractor. I'd lay odds he's a database grunt.
Russel, could you please send me your home address so I can write you private instead of open letters?