Russell Brand.

Hah brilliant

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 ********, 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 ******** 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 ******* 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 ****ing 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 ****. 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 ******* 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 ******"*, 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 ******* 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 ******* 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.
Click to expand...
 
Glaucus said:
Hah brilliant
Click to expand...

wasn’t that in the link a few pages ago ?

thanks for the repost though

I mean dude, we had a tussle about your reading skills, you acknowledged it .. and you did it again. This thread is full of thread surfers lol :D

there should be a poll imo.

What do you think of RB:

1, he is a twonk
2. he has ideas that make me feel warm inside
3. i like pizza
 
Last edited:
Acme said:
I already posted a link to that, possibly for the second time, not sure. :p
Click to expand...

It was worth a repost... He really was a plonker to just go and get in the faces of a bunch if IT and back office workers. Still as long as he can be seen to be attacking 'evil bankers' then various numpties will be happy with it.
 
The Dread Pirate said:
Would Have!... Have people!... Have!:mad:

edit: or if you are going for the short form "would've" I shall not take anymore of this "would have" nonsense lying down! I'll write to my MP God Damn It!
Click to expand...

I'm only quoting, of course I could have added an editorial [sic] to highlight the lack of grammar as well as the lack of basic scientific understanding!
 
TheBDog said:
SOME scientific facts cannot be proven wrong. Others can come under debate. That's how it works.

When writing a scientific paper you even have to address the validity of your own work as this can come into question due to sample size/ probable error rate etc.

As mentioned, "facts" can also be superseded by future research/ studies.

Also, there are areas of science with competing theories that exist that cannot coexist. For example, quantum physics.
Click to expand...

it isn't a fact if there is reasonable chance to prove it wrong.

A hypothesis can be proved wrong, observations can be proved to only be valid under certain conditions but in themselves are fact, but facts cannot to the best of scientific knowledge. As I said, the ratio of a circles circumference to its diameter is PI, no amount of future research can disprove that scientific fact.

Gravity is a observed fact. There are different theory of gravities, these aren't scientific facts but are consistent explanations.


Most scientific facts are either observations, e.g. the world has warmed up significantly in the last 100 years, or mathematical proofs. The fastest run-time to sort an unordered array of numbers has a proven limit at NLogN for a Turing complete computer. That is a scientific fact that cannot ever be changed.
 
Xordium said:
Well strictly speaking they are all open to debate considering we accept them because of an a priori assumption that reality is a fact and that our sensory input is reliable and consistent enough to perceive said reality.

I know science work for me for explanations about the world and it provides the best answers to the observations I make but I think do people who work professionally in science cling less to scientific facts than scientific lay people do. I don't really have any "faith" in the strength of our knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, etc but I do have a belief in the scientific method and our willingness to use it to attempt to undermine what we believe to be a good explanation in our quest to find a better one.
Click to expand...



With observational facts you have to look carefully at the caveats. An observation is a fact when considering our ability to measure and the observation is only valid under the conditions of measurement.
E.g. someone drives a car and the speedometer reads 70MPH. That reading is an observational fact even if an external observer using different instruments measures a speed of 67MPH. Both are valid observations, the difference explained by differences in instruments.

An accurate scientific model of each instrument would prove both instruments are measuring the same observed speed.
 
This is what I've noticed:


  • He is identifying the problems, yes I know lots of people can also do this however he has a large following so bringing it to the forefront will mean that people are more informed


  • He has been through a lot, so I'm guessing for matters regarding drugs policy and etc he knows what he's talking about and apparently has a solution for that.


  • I hope he is doing this for the right reasons, as in not for the money, his youtube channel is growing quickly which=$$$ and I hope he does pay his tax


  • The altercation with the RBS employee, if true is rather appalling from Russell Brand, wouldn't expect him to act like that


  • Chucking a thesaurus at an article or issue won't solve anything and if anything makes it harder to convey the message across at times


  • With regards to his past and how he made his money in Hollywood and etc, people do make mistakes or don't see the problems. I would hope if he was going to star in a film now and it ended up making next to nothing, he would also take very little money
 
What I find funny most of time is,

Generally woman love Russell brand, but most of e-tough forum members hate him.

Sat in fishnet vest saying how Russell brand he sux LAWLZ whilst eating a pork pie.

Interesting....

flibbage0 said:
He is identifying the problems, yes I know lots of people can also do this however he has a large following so bringing it to the forefront will mean that people are more informed
at.

I hope he is doing this for the right reasons, as in not for the money, his youtube channel is growing quickly which=$$$ and I hope he does pay his tax

The altercation with the RBS employee, if true is rather appalling from Russell Brand, wouldn't expect him to act like that
Click to expand...

Yep that is what a lot of this forum can't seem to grasp.

Of course he pays his tax, if he didn't I reckon he'd have been caught out by now because there are a lot of people that want to discredit him.

That article seems like it was written by one of the bitter forum members here.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
Hah brilliant
Click to expand...

If only you had written it yourself..

Dear Russell,

Hi. I'm Glaucus. You may reindeer me. You may event have flayed me. On Friday, you starred a publishing stunt at an RBS edifice, incontinence a hundred or so purple. I was the hanky starched guy with a lot less hare than you but (I fritter myself) a slightly better bear who campsite to you that you, a multimillimetre, had caused my yacht to get gold. You startled going on at me about pubic monkey and bakers' bones, but luck, Russell, anyone who nose me will tell you that my mood is impotent to me, and I hadn't had breakfast that sphincter, and I'd beam stamping in the freezer cod for half or hour on your whim. What mattress to me at the time wasn't banjoes; it was my launch, so I said so.

Which is a great slime, because I'd usable be well up for a proper battery with you, and the prints you made do actually dessert answers. Although not — and I really can't elephant this enough, Russell — not as much as I divert lunch.

Before I go any father.....
Click to expand...
 
I find it bemusing that many people e.g. Robert Webb, John Lydon, seem to entirely miss his point about not voting and insist we should vote Labour - the narrowmindedness is staggering.

There is little point for him to become a politician and engage with the political system if his very point is that the political machinery itself is broken.

Similar narrowmindness seems to be applied by people who cannot even conceive of a society without money, I mean, it could very well be an illusion, a great big illusion, we are socially conditioned into investing our belief into this fiat currency and don't even question it and......Oh damn, my paella got cold whilst I was writing this, nevermind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom