In a democracy, a demonstration is a right, however it would be very dangerous for any government of the day to take any notice of it. Would you like to see laws enacted off the back of a Sharia Law for Uk or an EDL march?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/cele...side-bank.html
Classy, attacking working class people trying to earn a living
Then he should stand for parliament and reform the system then shouldn't he? The opportunity is there for the public to elect him if they want.
What?
Did you watch the video? Brand squeezed the man's arm. That's it. It is the worst example of 'physical force' I have ever seen, and certainly doesn't imply he's in favour of brute force power-grabbing!
He caused the bank to close and interrupted those peoples day. What did they do to deserve that?
He's more than doing his political bit as a citizen. The man gave up a film career to become a full time activist.
Fine, he is perfectly entitled to do that. Just like I am perfectly entitled to think he is a bully and a hypocrite.
As he has no mandate from the people, he is just one man with his own private opinions. That is fine, he is entitled to his view, however when he starts disrupting other peoples lives just to proclaim his own personal view, then he becomes a trouble maker.
Demonstrations and protests are a pillar of democracy.
Really? Any links/citations to back this up?
Brand is a democrat. He just believes most elected representatives are servants to big capital rather than to the people.
Watch and judge for yourself.
Now I know you didn't watch the video you linked to, because the fellow who was 'disrupted' was the one to engage Brand in conversation.
I thought brand was a socialist? A champers quaffing one, but a one party state revolutionist nonetheless.
I thought brand was a socialist? A champers quaffing one, but a one party state revolutionist nonetheless.
Socialists can be democrats too!
And as far as I know, no, I've never seen him advocating a one-party state.
There are two people in this thread who have already demonised Brand but refused to listen to what he has to say. It's really better to hear him out and make your own judgements rather than rely on the opinions of a self-interested, broadly rightwing press.
I've heard him.
Brand is nothing. A so called comedian that has jumped onto a bandwagon rolled out by the BBC
His political dogma is non existent. He reminds me of a Chris Eubank type figure who believes memorising a few meaningless sentences is a sign of an intellect and not a charlatan.
The funniest thing I've seen was the startled look on Question Time when he came under attack. He was told to stand for election "I'd be worried I'd become one of them mate" - the laughs of mockery startled and frightened him. The joke was on the privileged Brand whose ideals of wealth distribution apply to anyone but him.
Why the bbc think a 40 year old wealthy hedonistic socialite like Brand is hip and cool is beyond me. Still they thought the same of the equally repellant Jonathan Ross - Brands buddy when it comes to bullying and snide remarks.
He's a bit like Bez without the dazed look. I don't think anybody needs a mandate to challenge the establishment, indeed it is what should be expected from artists of all Persuasion's, maybe he is just highlighting the dissatisfaction the majority who choose not to vote at many elections feel.
Yep. Don't particularly care for him myself, but we should really be pretty concerned that so many don't want to vote, for whatever reason.
Yep. Don't particularly care for him myself, but we should really be pretty concerned that so many don't want to vote, for whatever reason.
I have nearly always voted Labour. Not sure about this time.
My wife always voted for Lib Dems. Never again.
So who is left? What I want is for the borders to be slightly tightened. Bring in the skills that we need but get rid of those that sponge off our system. We do need to bring in quite a few as our population is getting older and less babies are now being born....mainly because the working families can't afford to have them. But we have to be more careful as we don't have the infrastructure.
Someone who will sort the judges out. They let rapists and murderers as well as the prolific thieves stay in the country because of their human rights. But what about the human rights of those that the crimes are committed against? We should be like other countries where they get convicts shipped out. Not let them stay because they got some woman pregnant and then never bothered with the kid.
I want someone to sort out the aid that we give out. Like we send it to India whilst they pay for nuclear weapons. We even pay private companies untold millions each year to distribute aid. How much of it gets to where it needs to be?
Tax? Low middle earners get hit the most. Straight after the 40% bracket comes the loss of child benefit. And whilst on the child benefit I would like it stopped for people who come to the country just to claim the benefit that then go back to where they come from but keep the child benefits although they are not here anymore.
I am happy to pay a bit more tax....as long as it goes where it should. But all it would cover is more tax cuts for the rich. The Labour mansion tax is wrong. It would force people that are property rich/cash poor to move. It isn't fair at all.
Anyone know who is offering what I want?
I have nearly always voted Labour. Not sure about this time.
My wife always voted for Lib Dems. Never again.
So who is left? What I want is for the borders to be slightly tightened. Bring in the skills that we need but get rid of those that sponge off our system. We do need to bring in quite a few as our population is getting older and less babies are now being born....mainly because the working families can't afford to have them. But we have to be more careful as we don't have the infrastructure.
Someone who will sort the judges out. They let rapists and murderers as well as the prolific thieves stay in the country because of their human rights. But what about the human rights of those that the crimes are committed against? We should be like other countries where they get convicts shipped out. Not let them stay because they got some woman pregnant and then never bothered with the kid.
I want someone to sort out the aid that we give out. Like we send it to India whilst they pay for nuclear weapons. We even pay private companies untold millions each year to distribute aid. How much of it gets to where it needs to be?
Tax? Low middle earners get hit the most. Straight after the 40% bracket comes the loss of child benefit. And whilst on the child benefit I would like it stopped for people who come to the country just to claim the benefit that then go back to where they come from but keep the child benefits although they are not here anymore.
I am happy to pay a bit more tax....as long as it goes where it should. But all it would cover is more tax cuts for the rich. The Labour mansion tax is wrong. It would force people that are property rich/cash poor to move. It isn't fair at all.
Anyone know who is offering what I want?
I take your point, but Farage isn't really the Common Man is he.Cameron (and the others) should realise that every vote for UKIP is a failure on their part. It stems from the fact they are more interested in looking after the rich rather than the common man.
I would vote for you.....
I take your point, but Farage isn't really the Common Man is he.
I know. My point is that Farage is part of the Establishment, so ultimately will look after himself and his own kind. He is the uiltimate political opportunist, and yet people for it as they buy the media (see establishment) lie that we live in broken Britain.No. But he tells the man on the street what he wants to hear. But would you trust him to run the country? I wouldn't.
I know. My point is that Farage is part of the Establishment, so ultimately will look after himself and his own kind. He is the uiltimate political opportunist, and yet people for it as they buy the media (see establishment) lie that we live in broken Britain.
I agree... if UKIP do one thing I hope it is that they give the major parties a wake up call about what people really think about them and take it on board. Hopefully they will get no more than 5/6 MP's.
I don't want them to get any - but they will.
He's a comedian popular enough to warrant world tours, mostly doing sell-outs. He's a bestselling author, hosted a very popular R2 show, and the movies he's participated in have grossed over $1bn. And now he's an activist with nearly 10m followers and 1m subscribers to his political video blog, outstripping the reach of most of the mainstream media.
He's clearly not nothing.
Disagree. He's often loquacious, but also sharp and spontaneous. Few people can wield the sort of influence he does without having a fair bit upstairs. As for his dogma - he's a critic of greed, exploitation, corruption and criminality by a ruling elite. That's a creed for high Tories as well as Brand.
What makes you say that? He may be wealthy, but he's not a hypocrite if he's willing to pay a higher rate of tax.
It doesn't have to be 'in front of you'. I don't get the appeal of Mrs Browns' Boys, but it's hugely popular. Brand has a massive reach and it's worth making an effort to understand why.
I tell you what, people not voting is one thing, but the downright stupidity of some of the "general public" being stopped in the street and asked to comment on the election is scary. I saw a brummie woman on central news say she's voting labour cuz her benefits would go up! A vote for labour is a vote for a bigger plasma TV for white dee. Genius. It's up there with "I vote ukip to get the foreigners out".
So popularity with a certain type makes him worth listening to?
I assume therefore you'd apply the same to Jeremy Clarkson if he decided to enter the political arena?
Yes brand is spontaneous. It was rib ticklingly hilarious when he decided to dress as Bin Laden the day after 9/11. I thought his phone call to the elderly Andrew Sachs boasting he had sex with his granddaughter was spontaneity in the extreme. His little ditty "it was consensual and she wasn't menstrual" would probably rival Keates for poetic beauty. He is an immoral, foul mouthed publicity seeking yob. Whenever confronted, such as when asked about rent payments on his flat, he rapidly resorts to aggression and his mockney accent goes into overdrive.
No. But he tells the man on the street what he wants to hear. But would you trust him to run the country? I wouldn't.
I am happy to pay a bit more tax....as long as it goes where it should.
I assume therefore you'd apply the same to Jeremy Clarkson if he decided to enter the political arena?
It's how the debate Is couched these days and has possibly Bern for the past ten to fifteen or soI find it fascinating that since Thatcher, the political landscape changes so that a party suggesting the above just doesn't exist.
In terms of offering a choice, just what is the problem with offering tax and spend? The choices are simple, really - either cut taxes and cut services, or increase taxes and improve services... but the latter can never be said.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?