Russell Brand Throws A Hissy Fit After Being Asked About The Price Of His Home

[jaysabi]

Its good news for brand really, the argument by the sun is terrible, brand gets more hits off the back of it.  They are either stupid or want to send people his way.

I don't think The Sun puts that much thought into it honestly. It's kind of a case where they have to manufacture news to sell their rag of a paper, and what passes for news better these days than a classic case of class warfare hypocrisy?  EXPOSED!

[Wilikon]

Its good news for brand really, the argument by the sun is terrible, brand gets more hits off the back of it.  They are either stupid or want to send people his way.

Brand should let poor people visit his home, making his point even more valid. He will get exponentially more hits and make more money on the back of the naive. Win-Win for him 

[practicaldreamer]

Murdoch would gladly destroy the likes of Russell Brand at the drop of a hat.

  He would attempt to do this by, what is colloquially known in the trade as, "monstering" him.
   [I thought the Leveson Enquiry was supposed to address these issues - but as it turns out, Leveson was merely granting us the illusion of democratic accountability (whilst in practice being wholly ineffectual)]

Nick Davies explains the process in his book "The Hack Attack" :-

    "And when Murdoch’s men bully, their victims really feel it. All these members of the power elite have seen what Murdoch’s news outlets can do, using their stories in the same way muggers in back alleys use their boots, to kick a victim to pulp. “Monstering”, they call it – a savage and prolonged public attack on a target’s life, often aimed at the most private and sensitive part of their existence, their sexual behaviour, inflicting maximum pain and maximum humiliation.

A monstering from Murdoch’s droogs is a terrible experience. If the damage they did were physical – visible – the courts could jail them for years. As it is, they inflict grievous emotional harm, the kind of injury from which some victims simply never recover. Indeed, there are some who have been left suicidal by the experience.

Once it starts, the monstering cannot be stopped by the victim.....

.....Eventually, the monstering stops, usually because some new target has arrived; or because the target has been destroyed. Sometimes, even destruction is not enough. In his diary, Alastair Campbell recalls the ferocious monstering that was given to the then transport secretary, Stephen Byers, in the spring of 2002, which continued even after he had resigned: “It’s like they get a corpse but then are disappointed there is nothing left to try and kill, so they kill the dead body too.”

The fear of this monstering generates power far beyond the relatively small number of victims who are attacked. All those in the power elite are prone to fear Murdoch, because none can be sure that they will not be next to be kicked by the tabloid boot."


       Don't buy into Murdochs monstering - boycott his media outlets by your purchasing power.

Otherwise, it could be you next.

[jaysabi]

       Don't buy into Murdochs monstering - boycott his media outlets by your purchasing power.

Otherwise, it could be you next.

Oh, if only I had 1% of the life necessary to be legitimate Murdoch take-down target...

[practicaldreamer]

       Don't buy into Murdochs monstering - boycott his media outlets by your purchasing power.

Otherwise, it could be you next.

Oh, if only I had 1% of the life necessary to be legitimate Murdoch take-down target...

LOL - yes, me as well.

Even so, how about -

"Shameless Bitcoin Jay scams hooker with phoney lefty lucre"



TBH, we are all fucked when a good man/woman is undermined/destroyed/exploited for the sake of Murdochs sales revenue - wether we as individuals take the onslaught doesn't really matter.

[BitCoinNutJob]

       Don't buy into Murdochs monstering - boycott his media outlets by your purchasing power.

Otherwise, it could be you next.

Oh, if only I had 1% of the life necessary to be legitimate Murdoch take-down target...

Hes an old idiot who probably cant please a woman sexually anymore, being him or one of these other rich old guys is probably fun for a little while only.  Aim for a little cash and chill.

[Wilikon]

       Don't buy into Murdochs monstering - boycott his media outlets by your purchasing power.

Otherwise, it could be you next.

Oh, if only I had 1% of the life necessary to be legitimate Murdoch take-down target...

Hes an old idiot who probably cant please a woman sexually anymore, being him or one of these other rich old guys is probably fun for a little while only.  Aim for a little cash and chill.

One wishing to be as rich as 1% of murdoch's $$.. The other one wishing to replace him in his bed.. No wonder russel brand has such royal fans, gauche caviar for sure....


Looks like this thread is about Other People's Property now 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJgFU3U4X_Y

[spazzdla]

Murdoch would gladly destroy the likes of Russell Brand at the drop of a hat.

  He would attempt to do this by, what is colloquially known in the trade as, "monstering" him.
   [I thought the Leveson Enquiry was supposed to address these issues - but as it turns out, Leveson was merely granting us the illusion of democratic accountability (whilst in practice being wholly ineffectual)]

Nick Davies explains the process in his book "The Hack Attack" :-

    "And when Murdoch’s men bully, their victims really feel it. All these members of the power elite have seen what Murdoch’s news outlets can do, using their stories in the same way muggers in back alleys use their boots, to kick a victim to pulp. “Monstering”, they call it – a savage and prolonged public attack on a target’s life, often aimed at the most private and sensitive part of their existence, their sexual behaviour, inflicting maximum pain and maximum humiliation.

A monstering from Murdoch’s droogs is a terrible experience. If the damage they did were physical – visible – the courts could jail them for years. As it is, they inflict grievous emotional harm, the kind of injury from which some victims simply never recover. Indeed, there are some who have been left suicidal by the experience.

Once it starts, the monstering cannot be stopped by the victim.....

.....Eventually, the monstering stops, usually because some new target has arrived; or because the target has been destroyed. Sometimes, even destruction is not enough. In his diary, Alastair Campbell recalls the ferocious monstering that was given to the then transport secretary, Stephen Byers, in the spring of 2002, which continued even after he had resigned: “It’s like they get a corpse but then are disappointed there is nothing left to try and kill, so they kill the dead body too.”

The fear of this monstering generates power far beyond the relatively small number of victims who are attacked. All those in the power elite are prone to fear Murdoch, because none can be sure that they will not be next to be kicked by the tabloid boot."


       Don't buy into Murdochs monstering - boycott his media outlets by your purchasing power.

Otherwise, it could be you next.

Some people need to be flayed alive to send a messag.

[BitCoinNutJob]

       Don't buy into Murdochs monstering - boycott his media outlets by your purchasing power.

Otherwise, it could be you next.

Oh, if only I had 1% of the life necessary to be legitimate Murdoch take-down target...

Hes an old idiot who probably cant please a woman sexually anymore, being him or one of these other rich old guys is probably fun for a little while only.  Aim for a little cash and chill.

The other one wishing to replace him in his bed..

who said that?

[Wilikon]

       Don't buy into Murdochs monstering - boycott his media outlets by your purchasing power.

Otherwise, it could be you next.

Oh, if only I had 1% of the life necessary to be legitimate Murdoch take-down target...

Hes an old idiot who probably cant please a woman sexually anymore, being him or one of these other rich old guys is probably fun for a little while only.  Aim for a little cash and chill.

The other one wishing to replace him in his bed..

who said that?

Russell brand is a good rich guy and can sexually please any woman, because he is not murdoch. That is what I get from his cheerleaders here so far.

At least we can all agree he has no sense of humor and never had... 

[BitCoinNutJob]

lol ok great... see ya

[patt0]

Its good news for brand really, the argument by the sun is terrible, brand gets more hits off the back of it.  They are either stupid or want to send people his way.

Brand should let poor people visit his home, making his point even more valid. He will get exponentially more hits and make more money on the back of the naive. Win-Win for him 

You're not making much sense here. : / So what if he's rich and has a great home? If he gave all that up, would that change a lot for other people? Maybe it would help a couple of people, but not much more. For real change to happen, more people need to be active and informed about problems in society, and I think that is what he is doing right.

[Wilikon]

Its good news for brand really, the argument by the sun is terrible, brand gets more hits off the back of it.  They are either stupid or want to send people his way.

Brand should let poor people visit his home, making his point even more valid. He will get exponentially more hits and make more money on the back of the naive. Win-Win for him 

You're not making much sense here. : / So what if he's rich and has a great home? If he gave all that up, would that change a lot for other people? Maybe it would help a couple of people, but not much more. For real change to happen, more people need to be active and informed about problems in society, and I think that is what he is doing right.

London used to be a big and a dirty place because of heavy industries. Rich people would build amazing castles and manors away from London. The working class would try to live as close as possible to their factory.

Fast forward 90 Years. England does not produce anything anymore. Now it is fashionable to be rich and live in London. Homes owned by the descendants of that old working class are pushed to sell and move out (the value is up, taxes, cost of living in the capital, etc). That put more and more pressure to the (above poor not quite) middle class.

Before, rich people chose to stay away from the capital as much as possible, poor people had no choice. Now rich people like russell brand can have a home in the capital AND have a home away from the capital. Poor people in 2014 still have no choice. Because he is famous other rich cheerleaders may even elect to buy near where he lives, pressuring poor people around him even more.

I have NOTHING against russell brand's money, to the contrary. He is supposed to be talented and was compensated for it, a lot of people love him for obscure reasons. He did not steal his money.

But russell brand is the very definition of what gauche caviar looks like... 

[practicaldreamer]

Hold the front page - RB has given away his house and wealth 

  "Backward Brand blows fortune on crack and smack", reveals old friend.

[patt0]

Its good news for brand really, the argument by the sun is terrible, brand gets more hits off the back of it.  They are either stupid or want to send people his way.

Brand should let poor people visit his home, making his point even more valid. He will get exponentially more hits and make more money on the back of the naive. Win-Win for him 

You're not making much sense here. : / So what if he's rich and has a great home? If he gave all that up, would that change a lot for other people? Maybe it would help a couple of people, but not much more. For real change to happen, more people need to be active and informed about problems in society, and I think that is what he is doing right.

London used to be a big and a dirty place because of heavy industries. Rich people would build amazing castles and manors away from London. The working class would try to live as close as possible to their factory.

Fast forward 90 Years. England does not produce anything anymore. Now it is fashionable to be rich and live in London. Homes owned by the descendants of that old working class are pushed to sell and move out (the value is up, taxes, cost of living in the capital, etc). That put more and more pressure to the (above poor not quite) middle class.

Before, rich people chose to stay away from the capital as much as possible, poor people had no choice. Now rich people like russell brand can have a home in the capital AND have a home away from the capital. Poor people in 2014 still have no choice. Because he is famous other rich cheerleaders may even elect to buy near where he lives, pressuring poor people around him even more.

I have NOTHING against russell brand's money, to the contrary. He is supposed to be talented and was compensated for it, a lot of people love him for obscure reasons. He did not steal his money.

But russell brand is the very definition of what gauche caviar looks like... 

So your critique of him is only that he has things in common with other rich people, while doing work to help others and expose problems in society. But you didn't answer my point, what difference would it make if he only had a house in the suburbs or whatever? Would he be able to help more people that way, if that is what he wants to do?

[Wilikon]

Its good news for brand really, the argument by the sun is terrible, brand gets more hits off the back of it.  They are either stupid or want to send people his way.

Brand should let poor people visit his home, making his point even more valid. He will get exponentially more hits and make more money on the back of the naive. Win-Win for him  

You're not making much sense here. : / So what if he's rich and has a great home? If he gave all that up, would that change a lot for other people? Maybe it would help a couple of people, but not much more. For real change to happen, more people need to be active and informed about problems in society, and I think that is what he is doing right.

London used to be a big and a dirty place because of heavy industries. Rich people would build amazing castles and manors away from London. The working class would try to live as close as possible to their factory.

Fast forward 90 Years. England does not produce anything anymore. Now it is fashionable to be rich and live in London. Homes owned by the descendants of that old working class are pushed to sell and move out (the value is up, taxes, cost of living in the capital, etc). That put more and more pressure to the (above poor not quite) middle class.

Before, rich people chose to stay away from the capital as much as possible, poor people had no choice. Now rich people like russell brand can have a home in the capital AND have a home away from the capital. Poor people in 2014 still have no choice. Because he is famous other rich cheerleaders may even elect to buy near where he lives, pressuring poor people around him even more.

I have NOTHING against russell brand's money, to the contrary. He is supposed to be talented and was compensated for it, a lot of people love him for obscure reasons. He did not steal his money.

But russell brand is the very definition of what gauche caviar looks like...  

So your critique of him is only that he has things in common with other rich people, while doing work to help others and expose problems in society. But you didn't answer my point, what difference would it make if he only had a house in the suburbs or whatever? Would he be able to help more people that way, if that is what he wants to do?

I said him and other rich people (who may not care about poor people or care much more than him) make property values go up, putting more and more pressure to sub-middle class people living in London.

Russell brand is a burden for the poor as far as cost of living in London.

He would have helped much more had he decided to live on a 30 million yacht yearlong, away from old dead working class places that used to produce stuff, now replaced by hip internet startups and venture capitalists (I have nothing against them either).

I tried to make my thought as russell-cheerleader-brain compatible as possible. If you still do not get it, I would understand how russell brand got so rich  

[Wilikon]

Art and commerce battle for the soul of London's Soho after the closure of famed burlesque and sex clubs and skyrocketing property prices




Madame Jojo's is dead, but the risque London institution is not passing quietly.

The closure of the venerable burlesque nightclub has ignited a battle between developers, residents and entertainers for the soul of Soho, the city's late-night hub, red-light district and creative heart.

As soaring London property prices fill once-scruffy areas with glass condos and office buildings, protesters including actor Benedict Cumberbatch are rallying to try to stop Soho going the way of New York's Times Square, a tourist playground with the rough edges removed.

'I think it's a robbery. It's a robbery from the people who visit Madame Jojo's, and it's a robbery of the people who perform there,' said musician Tim Arnold, standing in front of the club's locked doors and unlit sign.

A singer-songwriter who performs as the 'Soho Hobo,' Arnold has enlisted friends and fellow performers including Cumberbatch, actor-comedian Stephen Fry and Roger Daltrey, lead singer of The Who, to try to reverse the closure.
Arnold has Soho blood in his veins. His grandmother was a performer in circuses and variety shows. His mother was a 'Windmill Girl' at Soho's first nude revue club, the Windmill Theatre.

Arnold has seen many music venues close over the years, but losing Madame Jojo's was the last straw. Everyone from Adam Ant to Adele has performed at a venue famed for its art deco interior and eclectic lineup of DJs, musicians, comedians, burlesque shows, drag acts and cabaret nights.

'All areas of culture cohabit in Soho,' said Arnold, who sees the club as a symbol of the area's diversity. 'That's the success of it. It's a microcosm of what really we'd all like the world to be.'

The club was closed in late November after an altercation in which bouncers attacked an unruly customer with a baseball bat. But local officials had already approved the site for demolition and redevelopment as a 'high quality' complex of retail outlets, restaurants, offices and apartments.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2866581/Art-commerce-battle-soul-Londons-Soho.html


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is very good news for russell brand and his real estate capital, and other I am fighting for the poor on TV and Youtube-socialists like him...

[oprahwindfury]

I think Russell Brand comes off as a little off putting and I never really liked him but in this instance I'd have to give it to him. He kinda has a point in the video. He doesn't have to come out there and speak on behalf of those that were struggling to get housing. It was his choice to speak. He could've just done what every other celebrity does on their off-day--smoke cigars, do blow, whatever they do. I think the reporter was just trying to get a rise outta him but he handled it pretty well imo.

[Wilikon]

I think Russell Brand comes off as a little off putting and I never really liked him but in this instance I'd have to give it to him. He kinda has a point in the video. He doesn't have to come out there and speak on behalf of those that were struggling to get housing. It was his choice to speak. He could've just done what every other celebrity does on their off-day--smoke cigars, do blow, whatever they do. I think the reporter was just trying to get a rise outta him but he handled it pretty well imo.

Brand only helps his pocket and the value of his real estate first. To be on TV and having a microphone on his face is what he does for a living, like a porn star buying new knee pads every week, with a microphone on her face. What do you think he does when he is off air or off youtube then? Not smoking cigar? Not do blow?

Buying off lands and properties with his cash then put those poor people in is what he DOES NOT do 

[jaysabi]

I do not believe writing 0bama or Obama or obama or OBama makes any kind of difference.

This is clearly not true. If it didn't matter, you wouldn't take the extra effort to intentionally misspell the name every time.

Obviously the thread is about if 0bamacare is better than the invention of slice bread or an abomination. Some people think it is great, others keep looking into the abyss of the number zero and expect an explanation to why Wilikon writes 0bamacare with a zero... No one cares, but everyone, including the ones who hate my posts, gets it...

I care. I was wondering why you did it, as I've never seen it done before but it was obviously intentional. While I had my theory about it, I didn't necessarily assume to know your motivation for doing it, which is why I asked. In any event, I have my answer now. I wasn't asking to ridicule you or debate the merits of it, just to understand.

Hm. I really did not believe you were trying to ridicule Wilikon as he is but a puppet purely created to have a 'good' time on the bitcointalk forum. My explanation was clear I thought. Yes I am not a fan of obama and to let anyone knows it I write 0bama. There is not much to it really.


As this is not my thread I would hate to be impolite and derail it more with a back and forth here. But you are welcome to move to any of my threads as I am not afraid to derail them myself No need for private messages as I do not care for them.

Now... Back to that evil 0bamacare shall we  

Hijacking, as suggested so as not to further derail someone else's topic. Quote is from other topic.

So is "Wilikon" a pseudo-character? Based on your political beliefs, but exaggerated? Or something like that?