[Closed] "It was paella, by the way. From Fernando's in Devonshire Row."

Great writing, raises some very interesting points....

Thanks, enjoyed that. Mr Brand is confirming his cockwomble status more each week.

[i]Absolutely fantastic piece of writing[/i]

It really isn't, it's a waffling whataboutry piece by a bloke who can probably afford to miss a posh lunch or two. Others, (because of the behaviour of who he works for) aren't so lucky

Others, (because of the behaviour of who he works for) aren't so lucky

you see, I like Russell Brand, and I like what he stands for, but his insistence that the bankers are to blame for EVERYTHING is frankly not true, and becoming a little bit boring.

I agree with the guy on question time. Either stand for parliament or do something worthwhile, or it's time to shut up. Turning up at RBS with a camera crew has no worthwhile or positive outcomes.

Not going to bother reading it but it seems to me Mr Brand was starting to drop out of the limelight for a bit so he must have woken up one morning and thought "I know, I'm going to try and become the biggest arsehole in the UK - even bigger than Joey Barton".

Congratulations Russell.

It really isn't, it's a waffling whataboutry piece by a bloke who can probably afford to miss a posh lunch or two. Others, (because of the behaviour of who he works for) aren't so lucky

Agreed, thought it was whiny drivel, he's trying very hard, too hard, but great writing it isn't.

emsz - I'd have more respect for Brand if he were doorstepping Tony Blair, George Bush etc al about their foreign policies in the past and even more if he picked any number of current government leaders around the world about their current domestic policies.

But he isn't.

He's picked an easy target because he knows it's a popular thing to do, places him in no danger, allows him to carry out the majority of his stunts in the country he lives in and fits it in around his lucrative day jobs.

What ever the rights on wrongs of what RBS did in the past, turning up at some random office building demanding answers is going to benefit no one but the Brand brand.

I agree with the guy on question time. Either stand for parliament or do something worthwhile, or it's time to shut up.

Surely there are many ways to work for good which don't involve standing for Parliament? What Brand says may be correct or it may not be, but it isn't diminished by his not being an MP.

DrJ, thats why I said "Or do something worthwhile"

yes he's getting people talking, but talk is cheap. He talks about a Revolution, but you can bet your last quid he won't be the one to start it...

I agree with the guy on question time. Either stand for parliament or do something worthwhile, or it's time to shut up.

Standing for parliament would be a pointless in his case.

As an independent MP (assuming he got in, of course), he'd had virtually zero power / influence over anything. All he'd be able to do would be the odd appearance to promote the causes he (apparently) cares about. Since he does this already, and has none of the need for parliamentary niceties impeding him, I don't see what it would add

Additionally, I imagine he'd be a shit MP for most of the rest of things, as I suppose he wouldn't want to interrupt his (I suspect fairly brief) current career while it's paying so well and would have little time for MP "work".

well, here we are talking about Russell again, and the things he says as does. So his publicity campaigns are working on some level, aren't they?

I don't think he needs to be an MP to raise awareness and start people talking does he?

scaredypants, see previous post 🙂

Define "worthwhile". Some might say writing your ideas down in a bestselling book qualifies.

I quite like the sentiment and another take on the 'phenomenon' that is Russell Brand, but this is not great writing. Indulgent at best and just poorly phrased and grammatically inept, in I guess an attempt at humour. Very similar to Mr B himself I guess.

Define "worthwhile".

I'd suggest a campaign against tax avoidance by celebrities, sportsmen & other over-paid 'public figures'.

I thought it was a funny read, a nice counter to the **** that is Brand. All too often people that work in banks are made out to be evil capitalists and nothing more, and Brand plays on that tabloid-level sentiment.

Crikey some of you lot are pompous ! It was funny and Brand is a complete knob

Too many commas - it's like he has a breathing problem.

If I was in his shoes when Brand stuffed his nose in my face I would've leaned forward and kissed him. Y'know, a big sloppy wet one.

This is the chap.

If you don't like RB, then he is obviously behaving like an obnoxious arsehole. If you like him, then the other bloke makes a 'snidey' comment thinking he can just stroll off and then gets all huffity when RB doesn't let that happen. So heads inside for some blogging served cold.

Alternatively, they're both tosspots.

I do actually like Russell Brand, but I wholly agree with the sentiment in Jo's letter. I also liked the writing, although I agree with Teasel, the syntax is a little awkward in places.

I have a lot of sympathy for the guy, I worked for RBS from 2001 until 2009 when I was made redundant along with thousands of others - had I ever got involved with the US sub-prime industry? No - about 20 people out of the 200k or so RBS employees at the time where.

Did I decide to buy Ambro when the whole world knew is was a huge festering bucket of toxic debt? No, that was 'the board' people who I'd never even seen, let alone talked to.

But come 2008, whilst we're being told inside the office that we're not likely to have jobs next year and the 'performance related' part of my salary had been taken away, even though I'd held up my end of it - outside people calling us fat cats and much worse - like it was our fault?

'Bonuses' are just a tabloid headline - what you really have in banking is 'performance related pay' and frankly the world would be a much better place if everyone was on a similar scheme - what it means if you get paid a living wage - for me, even though I was 30 and working 60-70 hours a week in a high stressed, difficult job was £20k a year - if I was good at my job and worked hard I could theoretically earn £50k, but that was exceptional - £35k - £40k was the norm. If I did a bad job, or just went through the motions like so many people I've seen since I left the industry I would be out on my ear - so there you have it - it rewards hard work and punishes slacking.

People say - "it promotes risk taking" well banking is all about risk - if you risk nothing, then you gain nothing - it's about taking educated risks, but more importantly spreading those risks to try to ensure no-lose-gamble situation - personally I was in the glamorous world of Asset Finance, I lent money so small businesses could buy vans, or printing presses or lathes or whatever - I knew some of those business would go bust, so would refuse to pay and some would be fraudulent - it's a numbers games really - yeah I was I suppose gambling with other peoples money - but it didn't happen, then business doesn't happen - most, if not all businesses use finance to trade - everyone is gambling with other peoples money.

/rant

I'd suggest a campaign against tax avoidance by celebrities, sportsmen & other over-paid 'public figures'.

You mean the type with offshore investments, a property portfolio, and directorships of 'tax efficient' film based investment companies?

He should hire someone to play him in public.
Get the message across without the smugness.

Johnny Ball?
People like him.

I notice in that video of the event that the distance between their noses is not the claimed 2" but a considerably greater 8 - 9.

Quite rare for a guy to underestimate a measurement...

puerile, self-aggrandising, prancing multimillionaire

People say - "it promotes risk taking" well banking is all about risk - if you risk nothing, then you gain nothing - it's about taking educated risks, but more importantly spreading those risks to try to ensure no-lose-gamble situation

The only problem with that is that it's not so much of a risk when the business is deemed 'too big to fail'. Those few that have taken all the risk can pass the consequences of failure onto everyone else. It makes a mockery of the free market.

What a whiney cock bag.

What a whiney cock bag

Easy for you to say. It wasn't your rice that got cold.

But come 2008, whilst we're being told inside the office that we're not likely to have jobs next year and the 'performance related' part of my salary had been taken away, even though I'd held up my end of it - outside people calling us fat cats and much worse - like it was our fault?

I'm holding onto my job with my fingernails, due to cuts in public spending caused by the banking crisis. So you'll forgive me if I'm not overflowing with sympathy...

The only problem with that is that it's not so much of a risk when the business is deemed 'too big to fail'. Those few that have taken all the risk can pass the consequences of failure onto everyone else. It makes a mockery of the free market.

this. it's been demonstrated that RBS was a poor business, badly run, and in any kind of free market, but for a huge slice of welfare, courtesy of the taxpayer would have gone to the wall.

it's about taking educated risks, but more importantly spreading those risks to try to ensure no-lose-gamble situation

that sounds nice in theory, but in reality, RBS made the biggest loss in history, its shareprice fell by 98%, wiping out pensions and savings by the thousand, and was then gifted roughly £1500 by every taxpayer in the country.

Of course you personally didn't decide to buy ABN Amro and mince about in a private jet, but overall, the banking sector (admittedly it was mainly a few c**ts at the top) basically tanked our economy, took the cash that should have been going on schools and hospitals, and quite frankly can stop blubbering that we don't really trust it any more.

There's a lot of ill-will out there, and it's going to take time to build up the trust of the public again.

[i]due to cuts in public spending caused by the banking crisis[/i]

I suspect the current government would be making these cuts regardless.

Looking at the Tory plans for the next parliament it's only just begun 🙁

You mean the type with offshore investments, a property portfolio, and directorships of 'tax efficient' film based investment companies?

Absolutely.

ransos - Member

But come 2008, whilst we're being told inside the office that we're not likely to have jobs next year and the 'performance related' part of my salary had been taken away, even though I'd held up my end of it - outside people calling us fat cats and much worse - like it was our fault?

I'm holding onto my job with my fingernails, due to cuts in public spending caused by the banking crisis. So you'll forgive me if I'm not overflowing with sympathy...

Where as I've got every sympathy because I've been in your position.

As for the reason why you're up shit creek - the 'banking crisis' was just the straw that broke the camels back - as with every recession before it was caused by unchecked consumer debt - RBS, Lloyds, Barclays could have all fallen and the world could have shrugged it off - banks have fallen before.

But our entire economy is based around people buying shit from the far east with money they don't have, underpinned by over-inflated house prices - once the cheap and easy credit was taken away the whole thing falls down.

Well honestly Brand is a cock, and by the look of the video still hanging round with his mate charlie - nobody can talk that quick for that long naturally. A wannabe Stephen Fry ie perceived to be some mythical font of knowledge.

To be honest interrupt my lunch for that long and I'd have lamped him one

our entire economy is based around people buying shit from the far east with money they don't have, underpinned by over-inflated house prices - once the cheap and easy credit was taken away the whole thing falls down.

But consumers weren't racking up Credit Default Swaps by the trillion, or naked shorting left right and centre. And even the boom in consumer debt was only really facilitated by the invention of the CDO. Which, IIRC, didn't the bank who invented the CDO stop trading them because they felt it was too risky?

If the problem was caused by an oversupply of 'cheap and easy credit', as you say, then surely the fault lies with the people supplying that credit. It's disingenuous to blame the layman for not understanding the machinations of high finance, it was a failure of risk management on the part of the banks. To argue that the banks had no choice but to sell cheap credit to anyone who came knocking just doesn't make sense.

I do find it slightly hypocritical that banks are ridiculed in the fashion they are when, lets face it, consumer greed played a major part in the situation we found ourselves in.

Likewise I didn't hear much complaining when times were good, and everyone and their dog was spending the banks money like it was going out of fashion

Amongst all the suffering, lets not pretend that bank employees have had it easy. Lets put the tiny minoity who are responsible for much of the bank's woes to the side for one moment. They are also the ones that left with many millions. Most people that work for a bank like RBS will earn less than 20k/year. Many of these folks have faced uncertainty for years, and many thousands lost there jobs.. None of these guys were in any way responsible for the banks actions.

Likewise I didn't hear much complaining when times were good, and everyone and their dog was spending the banks money like it was going out of fashion

Really? loads of people were complaining about the housing bubble, it was just largely washed over by the right wing mainstream media who even still try to sell it as a good thing. The reality actually was despite the victim blaming culture that has sprung up to deflect blame from the banking industry, that most of that credit was spent on basic homes and left the average worker with very little left over to splurge on all those fantasy (non existent)luxuries after paying the mortgage.

I do find it slightly hypocritical that banks are ridiculed in the fashion they are when, lets face it, consumer greed played a major part in the situation we found ourselves in.

Sooo what the banking side (give workers minimum wage force them to get proper recompense by achieving sales targets, lobby government to relax lending regulations) suggests is good we may have discovered (yet again) is not good for the long term economy.

As banking is essential to a capitalist society perhaps the leaders of the banking industry have a responsibility to manage things wisely and not fall down the short termist greedis good philosophy. I would suggest that proper bankers understand their real responsibility and their role in society.

Obviously Brand, as a proper Socialist Worker style left winger, puts his own take on it. At least it raises the debate amongst people.

Really? loads of people were complaining about the housing bubble, it was just largely washed over by the right wing mainstream media who even still try to sell it as a good thing. The reality actually was despite the victim blaming culture that has sprung up to deflect blame from the banking industry, that most of that credit was spent on basic homes and left the average worker with very little left over to splurge on all those fantasy (non existent)luxuries after paying the mortgage.

I'd like to see some evidence of that to be honest - from memory around 25% of UK dept is outwith mortgages - a sizable amount. Likewise the housing boom can't be blamed on the banks soley, there were numerous factors that contributed.

I'm not trying to defend the banks, but Uk consumers rode the wave until it crashed.

I'm not trying to defend the banks

I should hope not seeing as you're a person that clearly knows the difference between right and wrong 😉

it's not exactly evidence, but i was certainly complaining about the housing bubble! 😆

most of my peers (bar the most successful half a dozen) were, too, and i think it's a fair bet that the same goes for anyone who is now under about 35ish.

It's a popular refrain, the 'we had it so good because lots of people had iPhones' thing, but i'm unsure how true it really holds. Certainly there were the TV property shows encouraging those who were already well off to fill their boots, but on the other hand the housing bubble did nothing for the young or the poor. You only have to google for 'generation rent' to see that it's now pretty much accepted thinking that the housing bubble shafted the under 40s in the UK. Some people probably had a whale of a time, but my suspicion is that they're the same people who also write for newspapers and were on the property ladder before about 2002...

are there any people here, under 35 or so, that feel they did particularly well out of the 2000s? Genuine Q...

@doris, the crises would have existed just the same without the cdo, or he credit decaukt swap or any other modern financial instrument. For every bank mKing a loan there was a government, company or indiviudal keen (desperate ?) to borrow

The letter by the way is amusing in oarts and scary in others, its quite interesting to hear of Brands abuse behaviour, all for TV

I've read far worse written blog posts. And have yet to have my view altered that Russell Brand is in dire need of some ritalin and some R&R.

The financial crisis was not solely caused by any one thing - it's a system too complex for anyone, lease of all economists, to be able to explain and understand. There were many factors, from light touch financial regulation, through the collective easy access to credit of individuals, businesses and local and national governments, to a whipped up societal frenzy of buying and borrowing and mortgaging and spending.

No-one likes to blame themselves - so the bankers are the easiest target for responsibility deflection.