The Sun

[Sam Slater]

Not that this is unusual for The Sun but it's fucking enraged me today in attacking Russell Brand.

Now, there are many things about this bloke that annoy me but his work with the New Era housing march is important and helping people.

Why have The Sun (supposedly a paper of ordinary working folk and white van drivers up and down the country) deemed it more important to point out Russell Brand's arrangements with his landlord rather than concentrate on the 93 families who will most likely lose their homes? Are they that irritated a rich MP had to pull out of a cushty little investment project? Is Brand's arrangements only newsworthy now he's helping some ordinary families get some publicity? I just hate how some arsewipe over at that paper has seen someone try and do something nice, but rather than help the cause they decide to dig up dirt on the one helping.

What Brand is doing:

The Sun's reaction:

[max_tranmere]

Could Russell Brand not have done this without as much publicity for himself? I remember when David Gilmour, the enourmously rich member of Pink Floyd gave one of his houses to a homeless charity - for them to sell and to use all the money to help the homeless. This didn't even make the news until a few years later when someone discovered the story. The boxer Chris Eubank did something similar building homeless hostels in Brighton. I remember Bono from U2 and his wife did humanitarian work in Africa in late-1985 (just after Live Aid), this was unpublicised and didn't make the news for ages.

Russell Brand seems to want the limelight on him when he does these things, and it doesn't seem to just be about getting more publicity for the cause, it has a lot to do with his ego. People on the Left though always seem to want all the fruits of the unfair centre-right system, which they complain about the unfairness of, if they can benefit. Russell Brand has a nice pad in Hampstead, north London. George Galloway has a ?1.5m house in Streatham, south London. Labour's first Prime Minister Ramsey McDonald had a mansion in Hampstead aswell, back in the 1920's. The communist leaders in Russia always lived in mansions with butlers and had chauffeur-driven Rolls Royce's. The list goes on.

[max_tranmere]

I don't think you can watch it on The Sun's site unless you join it. Here is Russell Brand toe-to-toe with the Channel 4 guy. His comment of how no.10 Downing Street is the most expensive piece of real estate in London is not correct. Also it is not owned by the people residing in it, but by the nation.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Could Russell Brand not have done this without as much publicity for himself?[/quote]

No, I don't think so. But who cares? He's a celebrity and will crave attention anyway. If his cravings help ordinary folk out along the way then why not take advantage of that?

It's a little different to the Gilmour and Eubank scenarios. You don't need publicity to sell a home or build a hostel. This is all about raising awareness of 93 families who may lose their homes. Normally something a single reporter from a local rag handles. Instead they got the whole press pack there from the major players and everyone has heard about it. I'd say that's largely due to Brand.

[Sam Slater]

That is a separate issue and, like I said in my first post, there are many things about Brand to get annoyed about.

But this isn't/shouldn't be about Brand's flaws or errors, it's about how The Sun thinks these things are more important than 93 families losing their homes.

[spider]

The Sun?s new landlords are based in tax haven of Jersey.

When the Sun start attacking Russell Brand the words "Pot, Kettle and Black" come to mind.

[RoddersUK]

Brand is a useless gobshyte. He is part of the problem. He pays ?76K rent to a Bahamas based tax dodger. So, I don't need anyone preaching about his good works. He is a shameless twatt.

[spider]

He is part of the problem.

That applies to anyone then who buys anything from Amazon or uses Google.

That means we are all part of the problem (and are equally shameless twatts).

[Sam Slater]

What's that got to do with the 93 families that may lose their homes?

Are you saying someone that doesn't have cancer should never lobby for better funding of cancer treatment?

You missed my point entirely, despite making it clear in my first post and replies to Max.

[spider]

Sam

I agree with you 100%.

I think The Scum attack on him is shameless.

How is he supposed to know what his Landlord's tax arrangements are?

They might as well criticise him for buying his water from Thames Water - they avoid paying tax as well.