'chi ching'

www.russellbrand.com/tour/

I would assume he's trying to appeal to readers of the New Statesman considering that's where his article was published. Ultimately when you write something you have no control over who reads it and how they respond to it, all you can do is write the best article of which you're capable.

well out of a group of 14-19 years only certain amount actual could, so your point is?

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Remind me who is the associate editor of the New Statesman?

Cousin_Frothy wrote:

dawnbreak wrote:
My point is RB wants people to have a revolution of non compliance partly by not voting, so if that's his target audience then he's wasting his time as they hardly vote anyhow.

Cousin_Frothy wrote: Well, it's Jemima Khan, but if she asked me to write an article for them, I would. What I wouldn't do is write something that I don't believe, but I would write for pretty much anyone apart from the BBC if they let me write what I want. There is no reason to suppose that it wasn't a sincere article, which is all that matters.

did you throw your panties at him and he threw them right back , is that your gripe with him.

I'm sorry frothy. I now realise that you're not a sock.





































































You're Andrew Fucking Sachs.

Socks, Sachs
You say tomato, I say tomahtoe

Perhaps Frothy reads Adam Helliker in the Express.

www.express.co.uk/comment/columnists/ada...ad-boy-Russell-Brand

Just goes to show that no matter how much success one achieves, a working class kid is still just an upstart.

The saddest thing is that some of his fellow working class folk can not wait to tear him down. Maybe they just deep down, want things the way they are

mikey mikey wrote:
Nowt like playing the man instead of the ball eh....

Space Bandit wrote:
it's not playing the man and not the ball, what you appear to be doing is concentrating on RB's verbal and written word, and missing out the rest of what is communicated in other ways, if you want to use clichés that's up to you.

If we're going to look at RB's stance for social revolution we need to asses his behaviour not only his written and verbal words, if you want to condemn such holistic observations as 'playing the man not the ball' again that's up to you, what some appear to be doing is watching the 'shiny' whilst the other hand is doing the opposed to the 'narrative'.

The working class kid is hob knobbing with the elite as he slags them off !
I don't need to tear him down, I only look at the inconsistencies between his words and his actions, he tears himself down, I merely highlight his own judgements because he himself appears to not live by them.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
It appears not sincere when RB behaves differently to his words in such ways as hob knobbing with the elite and participating in public spectacles when on both cases his written and spoken 'narrative' is to disagree with such things.
'elites and concentrations of wealth' ...his GF is a millionaire.
'Public spectacles'..... Olympic ceremony.
hypocrite perhaps?



In 2002, Khan was listed at number 18 with £20m on the Evening Standard's young millionaires list.] In 2010, she purchased the country house of Kiddington Hall near Woodstock in Oxfordshire for a reported £15 million
Oh Russy we hate concentrations of wealth don't we darling...

knobmeup wrote:























Yes I thought you were...

































A waste of space.

ka chaaaaa chick ka chaaaaa chick ka chaaaaa chick ka chaaaaa chick ka chaaaaa chick ka chaaaaa chick ka chaaaaa chick ka chaaaaa chick......


Hey!



What's that sound?




Oh, tiz just frothy doing his dotty impression.




Over and over and over and over.....

So if he had some Jeremy Kyle fodder for a girlfriend he'd have a point?

Inverse snobbery much?

oioioi wrote:
He can have a rich GF if he wants, that's not the issue, the issue is he is slagging off concentrations of wealth but his GF is that?

Cousin_Frothy wrote:
What you're doing is making selective assumptions and presenting them as facts. I don't think going out with a particular woman necessarily means he approves of, or hob-nobs with her relatives. I expect there are plenty of us who don't like to be associated with our partner's families and their beliefs.

All this stuff about the New Statesman - nobody who's implying that's dodgy has yet addressed the point I made earlier about John Pilger also writing for them. So is he also guilty by that association of being a sleaze? Or does it just apply to some, as & when it suits, and not others?

Oh, and do you think you could learn to trim your quotes - we don't need all the posts duplicated over & over - unless you're Vera Suza.

Cousin_Frothy wrote:
What's that make you then? You know...considering you just copied the style of a post by a waste of space.....

A wannabe waste of space?