|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Dec 12, 2014 1:13:55 GMT
I don't own a goggle box so went to the boozer to watch QT. It was a set up... they put Brand amongst some fine Cougars... what was he supposed to do but pass notes to them... He'll be up Mordant {the Ministeress of Fire} as we speak, then the journalist, the Labour lady... Dimblebum and Farage will have to watch. Russell's single agenda let him down tonight, so what? keep kicking Russ. An interesting admission that....the bit about you not owning a TV . This year was was the first time that there was an actual decline in people owning Or watching TV's .... They reckon that this is as a result of people using laptops instead . Can I ask what your reason is for not having one ...? Just interested . I don't need one.
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Dec 12, 2014 1:30:06 GMT
Don't worry about it then is my advice ... Why is it nonesense? ....because you haven't a clue ? .....I understand that things may be above your understanding .....I'm not worrying ..are you ?...dear me ? More fog and silliness, dear me indeed.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 1:31:39 GMT
Why is it nonesense? ....because you haven't a clue ? .....I understand that things may be above your understanding .....I'm not worrying ..are you ?...dear me ? More fog and silliness, dear me indeed.[/ Ho hum
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Dec 12, 2014 2:01:33 GMT
More fog and silliness, dear me indeed.[/ Ho hum Intellectual assumed snobbery? ![(question)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/XXiVCR8ugEQgztLfqFjy.gif)
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 12, 2014 8:20:02 GMT
I thought on balance he came across well and gave a good account of himself. Farage on the other hand...well I think the wheels are coming off. "pound shop Enoch Powell".. excellent.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 12, 2014 8:46:16 GMT
I've couple of points to make regarding his input so far, I like and agree with a lot of what he has to say but he's not immune from criticism so I'll be completely honest - he answered the question from the gentleman regarding standing for election abysmally. I'm really surprised because to me it seems like he hadn't prepared for such a question and just said the first thing that came into his head, he should've known better in my opinion. I'd also just like to add that although the gentleman asked a valid, reasonable question regarding standing for election his contempt for Brand regarding disabled people whilst his praise of Farage was baffling, Brand has never 'attacked' disabled people at all. Just a final point on this Brands answer would have been much better if he had correctly said that none of the current political parties share his ideology so how could he possibly stand for election at the moment. - regarding immigration, I always think of the famous Star Wars line 'these aren't the droids you're looking for' for me it's such a side issue compared to other more pressing issues. Personally I can see what Russell was trying to do by attacking Farage and his 'city banker mates' as well as corporations because immigrants aren't the reason for the economic state we're in, I think he was trying to be clever and avoid the topic of immigration altogether but I don't think he managed to pull off what he thought he was going to do, it didn't come across very well. - Regarding the NHS I thought he was correct. I've stopped watching for now but I'll pick up the rest tomorrow and give some more honest opinions. - him referring to Nigel Farage as a pound shop Enoch Powell was amusing I've stopped watching for now but I'll pick up the rest tomorrow and give some more honest opinions. watch it carefully. He didn't attack brand over disabled people. He attacked brand over farages alleged attacks on disabled people Farage said he has never attacked disabled people. Pound shop Enoch Powell. Very funny as a comedian. Not so much when he wants to be taken seriously as a campaigner. The first question was about pettiness in politics. On that program brand was as petty as they come And party political ideology is irrelevant to brand standing for election. He could stand for any party he chooses or as an independent. Just to respond to a few of your points Salop - regarding the disabled issue I'd misheard what was said so thank you for clearing it up for me - I understand what you're saying but Brand standing for election without a party wouldn't be the right thing to do, him standing for election also isn't necessary and I'll address this further
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 8:46:46 GMT
I thought he looked a complete tit and got slaughtered.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 12, 2014 8:49:19 GMT
I thought he looked a complete tit and got slaughtered. Yes...Farage had a bad night.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 8:55:35 GMT
I thought he looked a complete tit and got slaughtered. Yes...Farage had a bad night. Like i said earlier , the admiration of Brand says a lot about a man.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Dec 12, 2014 9:18:29 GMT
Yes...Farage had a bad night. Like i said earlier , the admiration of Brand says a lot about a man. Care to expand on what it says? As for admiration? No not really. He did however speak a lot of truth last night. Inconvenient truth for some eh?
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Dec 12, 2014 9:38:48 GMT
Like i said earlier , the admiration of Brand says a lot about a man. Care to expand on what it says? As for admiration? No not really. He did however speak a lot of truth last night. Inconvenient truth for some eh? He was also massively misinformed, the tax take on bankers bonuses via personal taxation is higher than the tax take if banks had higher profits without them. Pre written cue cards with his jokes and “facts” to get across and generally he looked like a rabbit caught in the headlights. The one thing not to come out of his mouth when talking about how to pay for things was to increase the top rate of tax on people like him and his mates, no he wanted someone else to pay for it.
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Dec 12, 2014 9:42:37 GMT
As soon as the man with the stick owned him he was quiet. Most of his time on that program was spent attacking ukip I'm not a ukip supporter but farage was very good tonight on QT I've couple of points to make regarding his input so far, I like and agree with a lot of what he has to say but he's not immune from criticism so I'll be completely honest - he answered the question from the gentleman regarding standing for election abysmally. I'm really surprised because to me it seems like he hadn't prepared for such a question and just said the first thing that came into his head, he should've known better in my opinion. I'd also just like to add that although the gentleman asked a valid, reasonable question regarding standing for election his contempt for Brand regarding disabled people whilst his praise of Farage was baffling, Brand has never 'attacked' disabled people at all. Just a final point on this Brands answer would have been much better if he had correctly said that none of the current political parties share his ideology so how could he possibly stand for election at the moment. - regarding immigration, I always think of the famous Star Wars line 'these aren't the droids you're looking for' for me it's such a side issue compared to other more pressing issues. Personally I can see what Russell was trying to do by attacking Farage and his 'city banker mates' as well as corporations because immigrants aren't the reason for the economic state we're in, I think he was trying to be clever and avoid the topic of immigration altogether but I don't think he managed to pull off what he thought he was going to do, it didn't come across very well. - Regarding the NHS I thought he was correct. I've stopped watching for now but I'll pick up the rest tomorrow and give some more honest opinions. - him referring to Nigel Farage as a pound shop Enoch Powell was amusing I've stopped watching for now but I'll pick up the rest tomorrow and give some more honest opinions. Finally the penny begins to drop ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/KYqg3pYeaerc5lD_P7BR.gif)
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 12, 2014 9:54:01 GMT
There's no doubt Russell Brand started very badly on question time, I didn't think he needed to attack Farage as much as he did (it did come across as petty), and I as I've said previously he answered the question from the gentleman with the cane very badly. In plus points I agreed with him on the NHS and also on education, I think he raised a very good point regarding tuition fees. So to use a footballing analogy he had a very poor 1st half but I feel he turned things around and did himself justice in the 2nd half.
I'm all for people encouraging a debate and providing criticism where its due, but some people got far too carried away about his performance and they are guilty in some cases of not criticising fairly and also of not framing things in the correct context and I'll explain why.
- regarding being petty Brand was as guilty as anyone else - but there were plenty of other nonsense and petty stuff aimed at him to. One example is the lady that brought up his twitter followers and told him he should stop being so negative about things, its such a bizarre and daft thing to say to someone who is a campaigner/activist.
- the standing for election question was a reasonable, valid question and Brand didn't answer it very well at all but there's a few points to make here.
Firstly if you're going to ask that question I don't think it's fair to aim that question solely at Brand. There was a journalist sitting alongside him for whom, if we're being fair, it was also just as relevant to ask that question of, just like it would be a reasonable and valid question to ask anyone who appears on Question Time as a panelist and isn't a politician but I think we all know its highly unlikely that anyone else will get asked that question.
My second point regarding this is that some people seem to want to blur the lines between being a politician and being an activist/campaigner which again isn't really fair is it. I absolutely think there's a place in our society for people like Brand, like journalists/commentators/campaigners/activists and even us the ordinary people to voice their views/opinions without actually having to stand for election before their views can be taken seriously. Anyone who believes otherwise is very much mistaken, debates like the ones we're engaging in now should be encouraged.
- I can understand why based on last nights performance people think he's out of his depth but again I don't think people are being fair and looking at the bigger picture. To use a football analogy again it's possible to have one bad game (which he did last night) but still have a good season. One bad game doesn't mean you're a bad side, it just means you were bad on that particular day. This same logic can be applied to Brand's views if we're looking over an entire season he's got a lot more right than he's got wrong. I've repeatedly asked people to tell me where he's wrong with his views and no-one has been able to do so, to quote Salop;
"no-one is arguing that what he is saying isnt correct"
- With the above in mind I find the snobbery regarding those like myself that have stood up for Brand to be unjustified, there's absolutely no need for it. For some people (and mumf I'm looking at you here in particular) to suggest that people's intellectual capacity and views on politics and are somehow discredited because they happen to agree with Brand to be a petty, nonsense argument. Sure you can question if he's genuine, you can question if he's a hypocrite and those I'll gladly debate those topics with you.
Just to make it clear my political views aren't based around Brand, I don't blindly follow and agree with everything he says because I'm a fanboy with no thoughts of my own. It just so happens that Brand shares a lot of the same ideology as myself, ideology that I believed in long before he decided to get involved in political activism.
I think I've held my own reasonably well in this debate and I apologise if I've ever come across as patronising or 'holier than thou' because I think its good to debate and its good to find out the reasons why people hold their beliefs. What I'd actually love for is to mumf to respond to this post in particular and actually but a decent argument forward in this debate because you've failed badly so far chap.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 12, 2014 9:57:26 GMT
Care to expand on what it says? As for admiration? No not really. He did however speak a lot of truth last night. Inconvenient truth for some eh? He was also massively misinformed, the tax take on bankers bonuses via personal taxation is higher than the tax take if banks had higher profits without them. Pre written cue cards with his jokes and “facts” to get across and generally he looked like a rabbit caught in the headlights. The one thing not to come out of his mouth when talking about how to pay for things was to increase the top rate of tax on people like him and his mates, no he wanted someone else to pay for it. I can show you several examples where he's actually gone on record to say he's absolutely fine with being taxed more. There's a lot of misconceptions like this out there which doesn't help at all.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 12, 2014 10:00:59 GMT
Care to expand on what it says? As for admiration? No not really. He did however speak a lot of truth last night. Inconvenient truth for some eh? He was also massively misinformed, the tax take on bankers bonuses via personal taxation is higher than the tax take if banks had higher profits without them. Pre written cue cards with his jokes and “facts” to get across and generally he looked like a rabbit caught in the headlights. The one thing not to come out of his mouth when talking about how to pay for things was to increase the top rate of tax on people like him and his mates, no he wanted someone else to pay for it. Are you taking into account all the money we've spent bailing banks out into that tax calculation regarding bankers bonuses?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 10:07:57 GMT
to be honest i thought Brand did pretty much EXACTLY what Farage has spent the last year doing but didn't do it as well as Farage did......knew full well he was completely out of his depth on many of the questions so when he had no answer resorted to insulting others to make himself look big and throwing in soundbites that weren't even really relevant to the points being made but in the full knowledge they were things that would get applause (the NHS question being an example...after the man had asked the question and said "profit has no place in illness" it was clearly spelled out that the term Privatisation wasn't being correctly used in this situation or in the way that many people think of Privatisation but when it came to him he just threw out pretty much exactly the same quote the questioner had come up with despite it no longer being a valid point, but he knew it would get applause anyway as it was a people pleasing soundbite)...in other words hiding behind what he knew what would go down well with people to disguise his lack of knowledge.
and as many have pointed out the way he handled the guy re: "Stand for election then" was utterly abysmal...to come across like some gladiatorial voice of the common man and then say "Ohhh but i'm scared i might turn out like them" was utterly terrible, cowardly and feeble. i also didn't like the way that when he was first addressed by that bloke who said "You say you're a campaigner..." he responded by saying "I'm a comedian". he was introduced as and the banner printed on screen for him said "Comedian and campaigner" (which he'd have been asked about and had full knowledge of before the show) but when it came down to the crunch (No, i'm just a comedian)
i don't really have much against the bloke in general but last night he was Farage's bitch! handled the whole thing badly and i really don't see how anyone can say he did himself justice later on, he was poor from start to finish. you may as well have had Sarah Millican on there!
just shows how it's easy enough to do little youtube vids where you've spent hours beforehand googling info but when you're put into a live debate in front of an audience with people who you insult and are actually there to have their right of reply then you can be shown up and embarrass yourself. decent enough bloke but thoroughly embarrassed himself last night, it was "sit behind the sofa cringing" TV.
|
|
|
Post by redstriper on Dec 12, 2014 10:18:23 GMT
Good Summary Mick. ps...every time I watch that bojan goal in your signature it looks better and better ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/800541/images/KYqg3pYeaerc5lD_P7BR.gif)
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 12, 2014 10:22:29 GMT
this week has been brilliant, edgepotter spends the week telling us that brand is good, hes popular and relevant and just the person to engage people in politics.
the bbc give him a platform and even put an idiot (farage) on with him to help look good
he makes a complete balls up
and now edge is trying to gloss over his mistakes
well, brand new exactly what was happening hes seen the programand for an intelligent man is stupid in how he played it out
shouting over people irrelevant quotes personal attacks on farage (And to be fair to Farage, he sat there and took it and had a good show.)
edgepotter, you are wrong about standing for election brand has the fanbase, fame and message that would get elected, his one vote in parliment will not make a difference but it will give him a platform
instead of being a comedian percieved as talking shit he could be a public figure making a difference - but its not him he doesnt want to give up his life, its easy to throw a comment out much harder to act on it. OWNED BY THE MAN WITH THE STICK
the FT journalist was spot on people dont see the decent MP's of all parties trying to make a difference, usually with little praise
Brand has missed a chance on that program to back up his rants and he blew it big time. has a chance to make a difference, a chance for a platform really hes not interest.
to steal one his quotes "hes already like one of them"
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2014 10:45:12 GMT
Why is Brand even remotely 'famous' ? What's he ever done ?
This is a serious question btw.I see pictures of him in the tabloids and the odd mention on forums like this and of course that Jonathon Ross phone call but what does he do ? He says he's a comedian.I've never seen him do stand up or act in a tv comedy show.He's no Lee Mack that's for sure.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 12, 2014 10:56:45 GMT
this week has been brilliant, edgepotter spends the week telling us that brand is good, hes popular and relevant and just the person to engage people in politics. the bbc give him a platform and even put an idiot (farage) on with him to help look good he makes a complete balls up and now edge is trying to gloss over his mistakes well, brand new exactly what was happening hes seen the programand for an intelligent man is stupid in how he played it out shouting over people irrelevant quotes personal attacks on farage (And to be fair to Farage, he sat there and took it and had a good show.) edgepotter, you are wrong about standing for election brand has the fanbase, fame and message that would get elected, his one vote in parliment will not make a difference but it will give him a platform instead of being a comedian percieved as talking shit he could be a public figure making a difference - but its not him he doesnt want to give up his life, its easy to throw a comment out much harder to act on it. OWNED BY THE MAN WITH THE STICK the FT journalist was spot on people dont see the decent MP's of all parties trying to make a difference, usually with little praise Brand has missed a chance on that program to back up his rants and he blew it big time. has a chance to make a difference, a chance for a platform really hes not interest. to steal one his quotes "hes already like one of them" Salop mate come on, I haven't glossed over anything I think I've been pretty fair and acknowledged he made himself look bad last night but I fully stand by this point; Firstly if you're going to ask that question I don't think it's fair to aim that question solely at Brand. There was a journalist sitting alongside him for whom, if we're being fair, it was also just as relevant to ask that question of, just like it would be a reasonable and valid question to ask anyone who appears on Question Time as a panelist and isn't a politician but I think we all know its highly unlikely that anyone else will get asked that question.
My second point regarding this is that some people seem to want to blur the lines between being a politician and being an activist/campaigner which again isn't really fair is it. I absolutely think there's a place in our society for people like Brand, like journalists/commentators/campaigners/activists and even us the ordinary people to voice their views/opinions without actually having to stand for election before their views can be taken seriously. Anyone who believes otherwise is very much mistaken, debates like the ones we're engaging in now should be encouraged.
- I can understand why based on last nights performance people think he's out of his depth but again I don't think people are being fair and looking at the bigger picture. To use a football analogy again it's possible to have one bad game (which he did last night) but still have a good season. One bad game doesn't mean you're a bad side, it just means you were bad on that particular day. This same logic can be applied to Brand's views if we're looking over an entire season he's got a lot more right than he's got wrong. I've repeatedly asked people to tell me where he's wrong with his views and no-one has been able to do so, to quoteThere is (even despite his poor performance) still a place for people like Brand to air their views, again I think you're guilty of not putting things into context. Yes Brand didn't didn't acquit himself very well at all, there's no hiding from that you can tell that he's a comedian/actor turned activist that is still learning the ropes. He's got the potential but he hasn't got the required skill set at the moment. Do I think that in order to be taken seriously he'll need to do better in future? Absolutely Does he need to work on things? Yes Is he still speaking up for the things I believe in? Yep Should he still carry on? Absolutely Farage actually looked very good in comparison, its clear that he's a very intelligent man, its easy to see why he's the leader of his party. It should come as no surprise though, he's supposed to be as good at debates as he was last night, its his job. But can I also point out that if you want to look at the rest of what Farage has done and not just base it on last night I can show you many, many examples where he's either said stupid things or looked just as out of his depth as Brand did last night. It's not even just Farage, I could do the same thing with career politicians like David Cameron and Ed Milliband they have all had moments where they've been made to look like absolute mugs and they've been training their whole lives to do it. by the way regarding this "the FT journalist was spot on people dont see the decent MP's of all parties trying to make a difference, usually with little praise"You're spot on, but at the journalist also correctly pointed out many of the good things these MP's try to do don't come to fruition because the current political process doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 12, 2014 11:10:19 GMT
I thought on balance he came across well and gave a good account of himself. Farage on the other hand...well I think the wheels are coming off. "pound shop Enoch Powell".. excellent. do you honestlly believe that after answering a question about pettiness in politics then spending the rest of the show shouting over people, ignoring every other question to shout insults and soundbites, getting owned bey a member of the audience is a good account. this man speaks in front of crowds for a living, he knows the score. it was a car crash of an appearance he got found out lastnight. there is more to the this politics malarky than going on newsnight saying the system needs to change. i genuinely await his next appearance because by then he may have actually learned something and you will see an altogether better performance
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 12, 2014 11:15:30 GMT
I thought on balance he came across well and gave a good account of himself. Farage on the other hand...well I think the wheels are coming off. "pound shop Enoch Powell".. excellent. do you honestlly believe that after answering a question about pettiness in politics then spending the rest of the show shouting over people, ignoring every other question to shout insults and soundbites, getting owned bey a member of the audience is a good account. this man speaks in front of crowds for a living, he knows the score. it was a car crash of an appearance he got found out lastnight. there is more to the this politics malarky than going on newsnight saying the system needs to change. i genuinely await his next appearance because by then he may have actually learned something and you will see an altogether better performance If we're being fair regarding pettiness Farage was guilty of doing the same thing. There was point scoring on both sides.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 12, 2014 11:25:19 GMT
this week has been brilliant, edgepotter spends the week telling us that brand is good, hes popular and relevant and just the person to engage people in politics. the bbc give him a platform and even put an idiot (farage) on with him to help look good he makes a complete balls up and now edge is trying to gloss over his mistakes well, brand new exactly what was happening hes seen the programand for an intelligent man is stupid in how he played it out shouting over people irrelevant quotes personal attacks on farage (And to be fair to Farage, he sat there and took it and had a good show.) edgepotter, you are wrong about standing for election brand has the fanbase, fame and message that would get elected, his one vote in parliment will not make a difference but it will give him a platform instead of being a comedian percieved as talking shit he could be a public figure making a difference - but its not him he doesnt want to give up his life, its easy to throw a comment out much harder to act on it. OWNED BY THE MAN WITH THE STICK the FT journalist was spot on people dont see the decent MP's of all parties trying to make a difference, usually with little praise Brand has missed a chance on that program to back up his rants and he blew it big time. has a chance to make a difference, a chance for a platform really hes not interest. to steal one his quotes "hes already like one of them" Salop mate come on, I haven't glossed over anything I think I've been pretty fair and acknowledged he made himself look bad last night but I fully stand by this point; Firstly if you're going to ask that question I don't think it's fair to aim that question solely at Brand. There was a journalist sitting alongside him for whom, if we're being fair, it was also just as relevant to ask that question of, just like it would be a reasonable and valid question to ask anyone who appears on Question Time as a panelist and isn't a politician but I think we all know its highly unlikely that anyone else will get asked that question.
My second point regarding this is that some people seem to want to blur the lines between being a politician and being an activist/campaigner which again isn't really fair is it. I absolutely think there's a place in our society for people like Brand, like journalists/commentators/campaigners/activists and even us the ordinary people to voice their views/opinions without actually having to stand for election before their views can be taken seriously. Anyone who believes otherwise is very much mistaken, debates like the ones we're engaging in now should be encouraged.
- I can understand why based on last nights performance people think he's out of his depth but again I don't think people are being fair and looking at the bigger picture. To use a football analogy again it's possible to have one bad game (which he did last night) but still have a good season. One bad game doesn't mean you're a bad side, it just means you were bad on that particular day. This same logic can be applied to Brand's views if we're looking over an entire season he's got a lot more right than he's got wrong. I've repeatedly asked people to tell me where he's wrong with his views and no-one has been able to do so, to quoteThere is (even despite his poor performance) still a place for people like Brand to air their views, again I think you're guilty of not putting things into context. Yes Brand didn't didn't acquit himself very well at all, there's no hiding from that you can tell that he's a comedian/actor turned activist that is still learning the ropes. He's got the potential but he hasn't got the required skill set at the moment. Do I think that in order to be taken seriously he'll need to do better in future? Absolutely Does he need to work on things? Yes Is he still speaking up for the things I believe in? Yep Should he still carry on? Absolutely Farage actually looked very good in comparison, its clear that he's a very intelligent man, its easy to see why he's the leader of his party. It should come as no surprise though, he's supposed to be as good at debates as he was last night, its his job. But can I also point out that if you want to look at the rest of what Farage has done and not just base it on last night I can show you many, many examples where he's either said stupid things or looked just as out of his depth as Brand did last night. It's not even just Farage, I could do the same thing with career politicians like David Cameron and Ed Milliband they have all had moments where they've been made to look like absolute mugs and they've been training their whole lives to do it. by the way regarding this "the FT journalist was spot on people dont see the decent MP's of all parties trying to make a difference, usually with little praise"You're spot on, but at the journalist also correctly pointed out many of the good things these MP's try to do don't come to fruition because the current political process doesn't work. fame and activism doesnt mix well i dont buy brand's mistakes last night, he knows the program, he knows how to be on stage. he knows this. this wasnt like putting me or you on th epanel and hoping for the best. hes prepared all week for this, or he fucking well should have. nearly once a month farage puts himself open for ridicule on this program and he often looks stupid. the bbc put him on to help brand, and brand failed miserably hes got 6 months to pick a seat and campaign as an independent, campaign on the issues and learn the ropes once hes in there. this platform will give him credibility, as an MP he will see documents etc that the general public dont see. he will have the platform to raise these issues. id take the Rt Hon Russell Brand MP more serioous on newsnight than Russell Brand comdian, lothario and part time activist. But its all on his terms he can compartment his life when he wants too. for me it doesnt wash its all or nothing IF HE IS SERIOUS I just dont think hes serious, he may believe in the issues but not enough to get involved and tackle them them. Sad really because with 9m twitter followers and 10m people watching his youtube videos there is an appetite to see him try
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 12, 2014 11:28:11 GMT
do you honestlly believe that after answering a question about pettiness in politics then spending the rest of the show shouting over people, ignoring every other question to shout insults and soundbites, getting owned bey a member of the audience is a good account. this man speaks in front of crowds for a living, he knows the score. it was a car crash of an appearance he got found out lastnight. there is more to the this politics malarky than going on newsnight saying the system needs to change. i genuinely await his next appearance because by then he may have actually learned something and you will see an altogether better performance If we're being fair regarding pettiness Farage was guilty of doing the same thing. There was point scoring on both sides. then you dont get it at all them. brand is saying things need to change etc etc then does the exact same thing he is not offering somthing new, hes just doing it in squeaky voice with no tie
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 12, 2014 11:43:39 GMT
If we're being fair regarding pettiness Farage was guilty of doing the same thing. There was point scoring on both sides. then you dont get it at all them. brand is saying things need to change etc etc then does the exact same thing he is not offering somthing new, hes just doing it in squeaky voice with no tie If you're talking about being petty when having debates and not being different to anyone else then you've got a fair point. It's his ideology that's different to the political parties though. Can you see any other parties making a lot of the points he's been making? I haven't and I think its exactly why he's being so vocal about it.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 12, 2014 11:47:41 GMT
Salop mate come on, I haven't glossed over anything I think I've been pretty fair and acknowledged he made himself look bad last night but I fully stand by this point; Firstly if you're going to ask that question I don't think it's fair to aim that question solely at Brand. There was a journalist sitting alongside him for whom, if we're being fair, it was also just as relevant to ask that question of, just like it would be a reasonable and valid question to ask anyone who appears on Question Time as a panelist and isn't a politician but I think we all know its highly unlikely that anyone else will get asked that question.
My second point regarding this is that some people seem to want to blur the lines between being a politician and being an activist/campaigner which again isn't really fair is it. I absolutely think there's a place in our society for people like Brand, like journalists/commentators/campaigners/activists and even us the ordinary people to voice their views/opinions without actually having to stand for election before their views can be taken seriously. Anyone who believes otherwise is very much mistaken, debates like the ones we're engaging in now should be encouraged.
- I can understand why based on last nights performance people think he's out of his depth but again I don't think people are being fair and looking at the bigger picture. To use a football analogy again it's possible to have one bad game (which he did last night) but still have a good season. One bad game doesn't mean you're a bad side, it just means you were bad on that particular day. This same logic can be applied to Brand's views if we're looking over an entire season he's got a lot more right than he's got wrong. I've repeatedly asked people to tell me where he's wrong with his views and no-one has been able to do so, to quoteThere is (even despite his poor performance) still a place for people like Brand to air their views, again I think you're guilty of not putting things into context. Yes Brand didn't didn't acquit himself very well at all, there's no hiding from that you can tell that he's a comedian/actor turned activist that is still learning the ropes. He's got the potential but he hasn't got the required skill set at the moment. Do I think that in order to be taken seriously he'll need to do better in future? Absolutely Does he need to work on things? Yes Is he still speaking up for the things I believe in? Yep Should he still carry on? Absolutely Farage actually looked very good in comparison, its clear that he's a very intelligent man, its easy to see why he's the leader of his party. It should come as no surprise though, he's supposed to be as good at debates as he was last night, its his job. But can I also point out that if you want to look at the rest of what Farage has done and not just base it on last night I can show you many, many examples where he's either said stupid things or looked just as out of his depth as Brand did last night. It's not even just Farage, I could do the same thing with career politicians like David Cameron and Ed Milliband they have all had moments where they've been made to look like absolute mugs and they've been training their whole lives to do it. by the way regarding this "the FT journalist was spot on people dont see the decent MP's of all parties trying to make a difference, usually with little praise"You're spot on, but at the journalist also correctly pointed out many of the good things these MP's try to do don't come to fruition because the current political process doesn't work. fame and activism doesnt mix well i dont buy brand's mistakes last night, he knows the program, he knows how to be on stage. he knows this. this wasnt like putting me or you on th epanel and hoping for the best. hes prepared all week for this, or he fucking well should have. nearly once a month farage puts himself open for ridicule on this program and he often looks stupid. the bbc put him on to help brand, and brand failed miserably hes got 6 months to pick a seat and campaign as an independent, campaign on the issues and learn the ropes once hes in there. this platform will give him credibility, as an MP he will see documents etc that the general public dont see. he will have the platform to raise these issues. id take the Rt Hon Russell Brand MP more serioous on newsnight than Russell Brand comdian, lothario and part time activist. But its all on his terms he can compartment his life when he wants too. for me it doesnt wash its all or nothing IF HE IS SERIOUS I just dont think hes serious, he may believe in the issues but not enough to get involved and tackle them them. Sad really because with 9m twitter followers and 10m people watching his youtube videos there is an appetite to see him try I understand where you're coming from, personally I'd like to see him have a go at politics and being an MP myself. I certainly don't mean this in a nasty way Salop but I hope he can prove people like yourself wrong. I think his message is the right one and so I'd like for changes to be made that address the growing inequality that's ever widening.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Dec 12, 2014 11:48:09 GMT
and how is he supposed to get his ideology across if he is delivering it in the same way - its gets lost in the pettiness
he is not offering anything new, hes not prepared to do anything to change
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 12, 2014 11:56:13 GMT
and how is he supposed to get his ideology across if he is delivering it in the same way - its gets lost in the pettiness he is not offering anything new, hes not prepared to do anything to change I fully agree with you regarding it getting lost in the pettiness I think he could do with taking advice from people like yourself regarding it.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Dec 12, 2014 11:56:32 GMT
Have you ever worked in a psychiatric hospital? I have...of course depression isn't made up, who said it was? Save your sympathy for young people getting their legs blown off on the front line..not wearing baseball caps back to front selling drugs. If people choose to do certain things then they must expect certain consequences. But the people I feel most sorry for are their kids..brought into this world by scum. You must see the irony in that post Wizzard. {I don't think sympathy is a particularly helpful emotion, but surely it's possible to have sympathy for both victims of war, and victims of an unjust society. Not really sure why you brought soldiers in to it.} I'm surprised that having worked in a psychiatric setting that you're prepared to be so dismissive of people and label them 'scum'. There's some superficial {mis}understanding of 'Sociology' going on in some of the posts here. Seems to be a mix-up between the cliche of 'do-gooders', and what Sociology actually is/does. Drugs? Structural inequalities, lack of opportunity and education, and an overwhelming desire to escape from the shite that folk have to endure often perpetuates problem drug use. There's plenty of drug use that isn't deemed problematic. I've worked with young people in care and leaving care {amongst other stuff} . These people are massively over represented in prisons/prostitution/drug use/teenage pregnancy/mental health/unemployment etc. They're basically children who've been abandoned by their parents and by a society that largely doesn't care. They're not really scum, and rarely 'choose' their path, it often becomes cyclical: poor housing, lack of chances etc etc. That's a very good post Cheesefreeex. Young people leaving care are massively over represented in prisons/prostitution/mental health etc etc They are children who have largely been abandoned by their parents and end up in societies dustbin. And this is a generational problem..young people with no parental role models becoming parents themselves. It would cost less to put a child through Eton and Harrow as a boarder than it does to put them through the Care System' and at the end of it they would be extremely well educated and 'connected' rather than incarcerated in yet another institution. Something is obviously going badly wrong. You are right..I should not have used the word 'scum'. What I was referring to were the people who rob and abuse their own neighbours who are in exactly the same position as them but do not resort to such behaviour. Some people, given almost the exact circumstances and events, can behave in very different ways. My experience of psychiatry is that most people are genuine and need help.
|
|
|
Post by edgepotter on Dec 12, 2014 12:06:39 GMT
You must see the irony in that post Wizzard. {I don't think sympathy is a particularly helpful emotion, but surely it's possible to have sympathy for both victims of war, and victims of an unjust society. Not really sure why you brought soldiers in to it.} I'm surprised that having worked in a psychiatric setting that you're prepared to be so dismissive of people and label them 'scum'. There's some superficial {mis}understanding of 'Sociology' going on in some of the posts here. Seems to be a mix-up between the cliche of 'do-gooders', and what Sociology actually is/does. Drugs? Structural inequalities, lack of opportunity and education, and an overwhelming desire to escape from the shite that folk have to endure often perpetuates problem drug use. There's plenty of drug use that isn't deemed problematic. I've worked with young people in care and leaving care {amongst other stuff} . These people are massively over represented in prisons/prostitution/drug use/teenage pregnancy/mental health/unemployment etc. They're basically children who've been abandoned by their parents and by a society that largely doesn't care. They're not really scum, and rarely 'choose' their path, it often becomes cyclical: poor housing, lack of chances etc etc. That's a very good post Cheesefreeex. Young people leaving care are massively over represented in prisons/prostitution/mental health etc etc They are children who have largely been abandoned by their parents and end up in societies dustbin. And this is a generational problem..young people with no parental role models becoming parents themselves. It would cost less to put a child through Eton and Harrow as a boarder than it does to put them through the Care System' and at the end of it they would be extremely well educated and 'connected' rather than incarcerated in yet another institution. Something is obviously going badly wrong. You are right..I should not have used the word 'scum'. What I was referring to were the people who rob and abuse their own neighbours who are in exactly the same position as them but do not resort to such behaviour. Some people, given almost the exact circumstances and events, can behave in very different ways. My experience of psychiatry is that most people are genuine and need help. I'm glad you've posted this wizzard because now I understand your view much better and I think you're talking a lot of sense. What you've talked about above, most people being genuine and needing help is certainly why I studied my degree. Incidentally although I said it was based on sociology it was actually a combination of criminology and sociology and I feel it was a very rewarding topic study. I do echo what Cheesefreeex said, I think there's a misunderstanding of what sociology is trying to achieve.
|
|