Rod Liddle

Russell Brand is duller than even the grimmest political interview

But if you ask Ian Katz, he’s the future of Newsnight

13 September 2014

9:00 AM

13 September 2014

9:00 AM

I have just spent a few moments in bed with the popular comedian Russell Brand and I have to say that I enjoyed it hugely. We did not have full penetrative sex, sadly, and when I say ‘in bed with’ I mean it sort of figuratively, or vicariously. What happened is that I watched Russell’s latest address to the world, which he delivers regularly from his bedroom — complete with those by now familiar mangled, high-camp estuarial vowels, tortuously pretentious grammar and infantile, uninformed narcissistic political opinions. Russell sits on the bed and tells us about the state of the world, man, and how it’s all, like, shit, and this stuff in Iraq well, hell, I don’t blame them, those British jihadis, because Cameron’s evil, evil, evil and life must be really horrible here if they want to up sticks and fight with Isis in a country where there are almost no decent hair-care products, so it’s all our fault or — more properly — yours.

That’s why I enjoy my mornings in bed with Russell. It’s like a condensed version of a particularly bad edition of the Guardian, filtered through the veins of an imbecile. Russell told the world not so long ago that there was no point in voting because it changes nuffink, innit. The sort of thing you hear not from the pub bore, but from the bedraggled halfwit in the corner with his half pint of Guinness, who even the pub bore finds insuperably tedious. Incoherent faux-left conspiracy theories that would have made even the late Tony Benn blush with embarrassment. Owen Jones when he was still mithering around, falling over and having tantrums, in kindergarten.

I mention Russell to you because apparently he is the future for the BBC’s most highbrow and respected current affairs television programme, Newsnight. The newish editor of Newsnight, a man called Ian Katz — who joined the programme from the Guardian (natch) — has come to the conclusion that the hard-nosed political interview is dead. Politicians are too well prepared when they turn up in the studio these days — and end up just reciting stuff from their briefing papers, so the audience learns nothing and is bored rigid. The set-piece political interview, Katz suggested in the Financial Times, was more a platform these days for egoistical presenters to flaunt their machismo. One assumes this was a parting shot at the now departed Jeremy Paxman, who was just about the only reason anyone still watched the show. It seems clear to me that Katz wanted Paxman out, thinking his approach to politics both outdated and jejune; well, he got his wish. Paxman left, along with a fairly hefty proportion of Newsnight’s already dwindling audience. Katz has presided over a 5 per cent drop in the number of people watching Newsnight — and most of those switched channels before even Paxman had left. Expect that fall to hasten, then.


In place of the combative political interview, Katz wishes for a gentler approach, which perhaps explains why Newsnight today is dominated by debates between four women who agree with each other about everything: yay, way to go. But the editor also points to an interview between Paxman and Russell Brand, a self-indulgent gibberfest of almost startling irrelevance, which has been viewed ten million times online, something Katz views with pride. That’s the way forward, then; something which engages with the public — a halfwit being lazily cross-examined by a journalist who wonders what the hell he is still doing in this place. If it’s views online you want, Ian, why not sign up Joey Essex or Simon Cowell? Or better still, just show a kitten having difficulty playing with a ball of wool and maybe falling over a bit. That’ll do it. Or you could get one of your presenters to dress up as a zombie and dance to a Michael Jackson song. Oh, you’ve already done that. Poor Kirsty Wark, poor Newsnight.

Much of what Katz says about the political interview being a sterile affair was true, to a certain degree, 15 years ago, but is arguably rather less true today. It was undoubtedly the case that under New Labour, ministers were loth to deviate from their scripts and disdained to answer questions directly, instead repeating the same old rubbish endlessly, often in a stream of weird non-sequiturs, as if they were contestants in a special version of Just A Minute for the educationally challenged. The then Chancellor, Gordon Brown, was especially adept at this approach.

I was editor of the Today programme at the time, but it never occurred to me that we should cease to ask those questions, or that the politicians should not be held to account. It just meant that we required better preparation behind the scenes. And in any case, there is something revelatory in a politician who conspicuously evades the question: the audience gets what is going on and, in my experience, are glad that those questions are being asked. Today’s political climate is different and the politicians are less likely simply to stall for time — largely, one would suppose, because the atmosphere is more fraught than it was when Labour had a vast and inviolable majority. The best political interviews at the moment — especially those regarding the Scottish independence debate — can be heard on Today: Jim Naughtie’s stuff from north of the border has been admirably meticulous and even-handed, John Humphrys and Justin Webb’s interviews forensic and revelatory.

That’s what the programme is there for. It knows this. Right now, Newsnight does not. Today’s audience, by the way, has not fallen at all. It is a sad fact, Mr Katz, that whether you like it or not, and regardless of how many people agree with you on YouTube, Alastair Darling is much, much more important than Russell Brand. I suppose that’s a boring and elitist comment, but it is nonetheless true.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • Liz

    “What happened is that I watched Russell’s latest address to the world, which he delivers regularly from his bedroom — complete with those by now familiar mangled, high-camp estuarial vowels, tortuously pretentious grammar and infantile, uninformed narcissistic political opinions. Russell sits on the bed and tells us about the state of the world, man, and how it’s all, like, shit”

    And everyone knows that’s Liddle’s job.

    • AJH1968

      I should think Rod’s
      job is to write thought provoking, witty and eloquent prose (whilst emitting
      the normal platitudes that are so ingrained in left-wing orthodoxy. In other
      words he is not dull stupid or crass (and if he is, it is to a purpose). I
      think he’s primary fault as far as you are concerned is that he is an
      intelligent, rather comely heterosexual male, something you seem have enormous problems with.
      In the words of an anonymous person “honey you need to get laid” (male or female,
      makes no difference to me).

      • Richard Lionheart

        No he isnt. He an arrogant, self obsessed cretin, with no morals or ethics, who saw nothign wrong with humiliating and bellitling a perfectly harmless old man just for his own glory and vanity, which makes him about the worlst possible TV interviewer you could make. Even Katy perry dumped him PDQ ehen she realised what a fuckwitted wank stain he is.He pontificates on subjects he know nothing about and and is basically no better than a AHD12 years old who’s forgotten to take his Ritalin. A vile, obnoxious, unpleasant, self serving moronic dickwad of the highest order. He being given Paxmans job to make sure no one questions politcians to seriously – to turn Newsblight in a pseudopolitical version of Celebrity Juice.

        • FootLong

          AJ isn´t talking about Brand

          • AJH1968

            Thanks mate

        • AJH1968

          I cannot stand Russell Brand Sir, I thank God my grandfather is not alive to see him (I think he would have an apoplexy)

        • Diana Wolfslag

          He dumped Katy Perry not the other way around. By text:)

          • Richard Lionheart

            But then he was married, you cant ‘dump’ somone by text when you’re married. Its a legal contract enshrine din law. This demonstrates the true fuckwittery and arrogance of the idiot. You dont divorce by text. You have to go thru the courts, thru a formal process of divorce. And he ‘dumped’ (sic) her because he’d been unfaithful. So heres a man who took Marriage Vows, a form of legal contract, with no respect or regard for the legality and solemnity of those vows. He thought you could ‘cancel’ them with a text message.

          • Kitty MLB

            Atrocious manners, as well.I am hardly surprised.

        • funkg

          So you don’t like him then?

    • Kitty MLB

      Lizzie, I do feel negative energy apposed to sparking chemistry when you speak so negitively about Rod.
      Regardless of his gender Rod happens to be straight talking
      and honest.His threads are full of a certain type obscure English humour are never dull and without airs and graces.
      He does his job very well, so could you dear Lizzie give him
      a break.Its not Rod’s fault he was born a man you don’t get
      much say in those issues…just get delivered by the stork.

      • AJH1968

        Brilliant!

      • rodliddle

        I am absolutely convinced she fancies me, Kitty. It’s all whatever the opposite of passive-aggressive is.

        • Liz

          Active-defence.

          • rodliddle

            I thought that was a ballistic missile system. Yikes, then.

          • Kitty MLB

            This is beginning to look very promising, Rod.
            I can feel something in my water..as they used
            to say..strangely.

          • Damaris Tighe

            Active-defence is the default position of the radfem.

    • David Glen

      Ha – true. In fact I’m surprised that when they meet they don’t annihilate each other in some kind of fundamental extreme left/right negative / positive particulate nonsense reaction.

    • I think you secretly idealize him, lol….

      • Liz

        Yes but should your judgement be trusted?

  • ADW

    “Owen Jones when he was still mithering around, falling over and having tantrums, in kindergarten.”

    So quite recently, then?

  • JamesChambers123

    Great article, the thing I find surprising about Brand is how on earth he’s managed to convince so many people into thinking he has something, anything, worth listening to.

    • jimmy

      The best part was recently learning that the puerile thoughts he puts out aren’t even his own – the “mastermind” is none other than Johann “sockpuppet” Hari.

      • ADW

        Ironic though that when Hari was pretending to be an author he was ripping people off, now when he does write things they are attributed to others …

        • NJH

          Isn’t he just lifting them from old Dave Spart columns?

          • ADW

            Most likely, or Private Eye’s Phil Space and Philippa Column pieces.

            Hari and Brand – both make the collected works of Pippa Middleton seem intelligent and original …

          • PiscatorRedux

            Looks like the Katz is out of the bag for HariBrand.

    • Cim Thayne

      When you’re attractive and can make people laugh, it seems the Left gives you a free pass as long as your on their side. Perhaps they are so devoid of anyone remotely inspirational that they cling onto anyone who young people seem to like.

      • Damon

        Attractive?

    • GUBU

      You’ve never seen the remake of ‘Arthur’, then? In the original, the late Dudley Moore played the character as an amiable drunkard. Second time round, Mr Brand transformed the character into a self absorbed a*sehole. Effortlessly done, and utterly convincing.

      • JamesChambers123

        I think I’m beginning to see a pattern here… Doesn’t Brand play a self-absorbed a*sehole in every film he been in?

    • Icebow

      I think it’s mainly the rock-starrish appeal to younger females, and superficially (as if profoundly were possible) younger males whose main concern is not to fall out with them prematurely.

      • Fenton!

        Rock-starrish? Where, what, who? He looks like something out of the dark side of Lord Of The Rings, for g-d’s sake.

        • gerontius

          The Bee Gees?

          • Fenton!

            Ssh!! But actually, not so much any more. I got my tin heart banged into the right shape and now I listen to Mozart.

          • gerontius

            Well there is nothing wrong with a good bit of Mozart.
            I went to a local music festival in the summer: Mozart in the 13th century church of Cockayne Hatley. In the graveyard are the graves of Long John Silver and Wendy. You would like it.
            But hey! when I’m not looking throw off those shoes and put on the Bee Gees.

            http://www.pottonparishchurch.org.uk/page14.htm

          • Kitty MLB

            I’m glad you finished the day by being open, friendly, not too serious..Goodnight.
            I myself am burning the midnight oil, best time
            to work…but never mind, I shan’t rattle on to
            myself.

          • gerontius

            I am always open and friendly with those I like.

          • Kitty MLB

            Yes Fenton is likeable.And I am sure as a
            good mannered chap you tolerate others.
            I like some people and the rest I am just polite to.
            But I adore that crusty old stick Fergus, despite
            the huge age difference, I ‘ll chat for ages with
            him and usually about absolute nonsense.
            two of life’s cats and I have no idea why he
            puts up with .
            I have reasons to find the talk of graveyards
            and all the rest uncomfortable..but I remain
            always sunny and private.
            Have a good weekend..oh and I like Mozart
            too.

          • gerontius

            PS: It occurred to me later that I seem to be suggesting that you have a (rather macabre!) liking for graveyards. I merely meant that you would have enjoyed the event and the place as a whole.
            Glad I’ve cleared that up.

          • Fenton!

            Well no worries there as a) I enjoy graveyards and b) the info on Cockayne was interesting.

      • Kitty MLB

        Oh come on ‘rock starrish appeal’ well clearly
        the standards of rock stars have hit rock bottom.
        He has a medieval look about him but without
        the gallantry.

    • John Dalton

      A comedian like Jim Davidson, so despised by the Left, appeals to MEN – (and the dying breed of non femi-nazi women who can still have a laugh at life’s absurdities).

      Russell Brand appeals to giggling girls who swoon, despite the fact that
      he’s rogered his way through thousands of them, because standards are now so hopelessly low that all the predictable Lefty dross that passes this gob-shite’s lips sounds erudite and philosophical to them. He also appeals to the confused fem-boys who either want to sh*g the girls that follow their smelly messaiah – or want to shag him themselves.

      This is how far we’ve fallen: the idols of our young are Russell Brand and Kanye West.

      • Kitty MLB

        I suddenly feel very old and I am not. When I were in
        my twenties we didn’t swoon over the such as Brand..
        unless I ‘ve forgotten.

        • Kaine

          Mick Jagger? Sid Vicious? Mike Scott? Justin Timberlake?

          Feel free to name a decade that hasn’t had a skinny, pretty lad with a bit of rebel cred and legions of fangirls.

      • Kaine

        More of a Peter Kay man myself.

      • Seberg

        Davidson appeals to people well to the right. Not all men are on the right of the political spectrum. When people start talking about fem-nazis, you know it is time to switch off.

      • Andy M

        As much as I despise Brand for his political views, most of what you have painted him as in terms of his appeal to the masses is nonsense. It has nothing to do with real men, giggling girls, fem-boys or the such. I used to like Brand a lot when he was a comedian and I would be the first to defend the oldschool British humour style of Davidson at the same time. In-fact, he actually was quite ‘blokey’ in his original comedy work, just putting it across with a quirky accent and some surreal use of language.

        The problem is, he doesn’t know his place. He needs to stick to comedy, because that is where he is the expert. Politics, he knows nothing about and is simply using his power of celebrity to give him a soapbox from which to shout. That, I will not tolerate and for that reason I find it very difficult to look at him or any of his previous stand-up work in the same way, because all I can see is a duplicitous, biased and sneaky individual who wants to poison the minds of his fanbase, many of whom unknowingly allow him to do it without questioning anything he says.

    • John Smith

      He is ‘cool’ to the young & misguided

    • global city

      Bloody hell…Marx managed to do that, so why not Brand?

      The seemingly random string of key words, constructed like that parlour game when you have to add a new and incongruous word to the list that the next player has to remember in the same order and then add THEIR word, must spark something in the brain of natural leftist herd people, who bellow in response (or press the ‘like’ button on youtube). If you an remember all of the words and clichés in one rant, without forgetting anything then you win.

      • JamesChambers123

        I wish I could like this comment twice!

    • Haloge

      He used to be quite funny a long time ago. Things have gone downhill since then.

    • In2minds

      You could say the same of Jeremy Paxman!

    • Rkd

      My sister’s boyfriend thinks he is interesting, very nice chap but thick as brick wall. He appeals to thick people who don’t appreciate the nature of politics and have no impact on it.

  • ADW

    He managed to date Bryony Gordon briefly, imagine the intellectual pillow talk … or not …

    • AJH1968

      I think they just shared needles.

    • jimmy

      Haha, poor woman and I believe she got married since – I had some sympathy for the husband when she admitted in a national newspaper that she let Brand have sex with her then throw her away like a used toy. That was the noteworthy part of that story – her complete lack of shame.

      But remember that feminists tell us that girls saving their virginity for marriage, finding a man who loves her and is willing to make a promise of lifelong devotion, to work to provide for her while she raises the children and staying loyal to her until the day he dies (this was, whether they like it or not, the norm for the vast majority) – they tell us that was oppressive and demeaning.

      And getting fucked by Russel Brand is “liberating” and “empowering”. Little wonder the west is declining. And she had no shame about admitting it in the telegraph. In a way one might say any man who marries a non-virgin deserves it but I really did sympathise with him.

      • ADW

        Well I’m guessing (without even knowing who he is) that her husband wasn’t a virgin when they married either, so if he were to complain there would be a bit of a double standard.

        Secondly, it’s not as if Bryony hasn’t been writing her air-headed nonsense telling all for a decade now, so presumably the husband went into the arrangement eyes wide open.

        • jimmy

          Of course it’s not a double standard – men and women are different. Everyone understands this from about the age of 16. Girls from 16 til about 23 or 24 are desirable to all men just by being girls. Boys aside from the unusually good looking and confident the same age tend to hold very little attraction.

          So it’s hard for a man to get sex, very easy for a girl. So a man becomes more attractive to women if he is good at seduction, they’ll say he’s a james bond type. A woman becomes far less attractive (at least for a relationship) to most men if she is promiscuous – it is no achievement.

          A small point maybe but the so-called sexual double standard is just feminist nonsense. For something to be a double standard it must have an underlying thing be constant and here it doesn’t since, with regard especially to sex, men and women are very different, opposites in many ways. It would be better called a different standard.

          Probably right about her articles, but still it must have been humiliating for him.

          • Liz

            Ah yes, let’s compare how hard it is for women and men to get sex.

            Women: makeup, tortuous shoes, clothes, depilation, contact lenses, facials, manicure, pedicure, face masks, hair masks, eyebrow shaping, eyebrow tinting, eyelash perming, lip plumping, chin tucking, breast implanting, leg breaking, self help section, body language books, endless phone calls with girlfriends, voice coaching, position learning.

            Men: shave, beer.

            Guys are so dumb. Do you seriously think you’re the one making the first or the second or the third or the fourth move?

          • jimmy

            Read again what I wrote – I was very specific – girls aged 16-23 – they don’t need to do more than the absolute minimum.

            As for men just needing to shave a drink – shows how little you know. A man really needs confidence, achievements, character and the one people don’t like to admit – money.

            Go to Monaco in the summer – you’ll see one after another bloke aged 35-50 in a nice car with a woman aged 19. They’re both having a good time. The man though had to put a decade or two into a career, make money, make something of himself – almost no men save the best looking at 19 are of much interest to women. The girl simply had to be born female and not get fat and she gets to have a millionaire lifestyle with no effort.

            Of course that’s an extreme example but the same dynamic plays out everywhere.

            The things you mentioned become more and more needed for women over 24 but that doesn’t negate the power they had before.

          • Fenton!

            Very simplistic. The competition for the accomplished male is very high. Therefore, after all that effort, he can choose. Also, he is not that choosy in the first place, if it’s just about pleasure.

            But otherwise you are right: men are a supreme disappointment to women. Most of them have no looks. Nature seems to have given all the beauty to women and so the few men that are handsome get disproportionate attention. I cannot remember the last time I saw an actually, truly handsome man. My husband was handsome when I met him, though even then too much into the carbohydrates. My boyfriend had a sleekly muscular physique and a great smile and a fabulous bum. So that’s two in the past 30-odd years of male-watching. The Portuguese bricklayer — who in my memory will never die — actually fancied me when I was nothing much and he was nearly 19 and had the most golden glazed Adonis body I am ever likely to meet. Nothing happened, of course.

            It’s said that men are ‘visual’. Well jeezus peony, I am, too! But it has never done me any good.

          • jimmy

            I think you’re right that most men are less physically appealing to women than the other way around.

            I have not offered a value judgement, nor said what I think is good or bad. In many ways I consider women superior. The point is though that we should face reality and that broadly speaking men and women look at sex and relationships differently and pretending otherwise has brought us a world of divorces, fatherless families and many unhappy women.

          • Fenton!

            Fair enough, but I have a feeling they’d be unhappy anyway.

          • little islander

            “…I consider women superior.” no, you don’t.

          • Liz

            Most women don’t get a silver Monaco fox, they hook Barry in Dixons.

          • jimmy

            Perhaps so, the monaco example was meant as an obviously extreme comparison. It still stands though, I spent a summer there, it cost me a lot of money even though I was working. Yet I met beautiful 18 year old girls who were there, paid for nothing, stayed on yachts and got driven around in Ferraris.

            Is that normal? No. Does that same dynamic play out everywhere -i.e. young women getting stuff bought to impress them? Yes.

          • Liz

            Young BEAUTIFUL women. Most women aren’t.

          • Kitty MLB

            Women from sunkissed mediterranean countries
            who eat a diet rich in fish, smile a lot and are
            not so preoccupied with vanity also need not
            do more then the absolute minimum..its
            that inner beauty that radiates.Would chaps
            turn down such a creature just because she’s
            over 23 years of age?

          • jimmy

            A beautiful woman over 23? Of course she wouldn’t be turned down. But I was writing with regard to great majority of men and women. There are some women who are intensely atractive when 50 but it’s not the norm. For most women their prime is 17-20 something – I can’t give an exact number as it is different for everyone.

            In the dating world it’s known as “the wall” – that point where a girl ceases to be girly and hold that easy attraction, her prime suddenly ending. Of course some women are attractive after that, particularly if tall and naturally beautiful, but hitting the wall can be a difficult thing for a girl whether it’s at 24 or 29, suddenly she realises she can’t compete physically with younger girls as that girly prettiness deserts her and if she hasn’t saved her virginity she knows she may well be in trouble.

          • Kitty MLB

            Yes but does this woman in her late
            30s (just s chosen age group) need to compete
            with the younger ones.She’d have confidence,
            sexual maturity, interests, wit and much more
            in common with the man then this 20 year
            old. I mean are men that insecure?

          • gerontius

            Jimmy
            When a chap reaches maturity, 30 plus, he loses (or should lose) interest in little girls. I know I did. Cool, sophisticated chicks of thirty plus begin to attract his attention. I mean c’mon, Gillian Anderson with a martini in one hand and me in the other is a bigger pull than an overgrown lolita with a lollypop.

          • Kitty MLB

            Jimmy, me olde toad..the wall is such a charming term…was it a man who thought it up.

          • jimmy

            Haha, I have no idea! I put it in inverted commas as I dislike it, it is ungallant, but I can’t find any other term to describe it – it’s a very real thing I have seen with my own eyes, it happens at different ages for different women, in the same way boys stop being boys and become men, when it happens it can be quite jarring and quick. So it is for women passing out of their prime years.

          • gerontius

            ><

          • gerontius

            “Women: makeup, tortuous shoes, clothes, depilation, contact lenses, facials, manicure, pedicure, face masks, hair masks, eyebrow shaping, eyebrow tinting, eyelash perming, lip plumping, chin tucking, breast implanting, leg breaking, self help section, body language books, endless phone calls with girlfriends, voice coaching, position learning.”

            Liz, none of this is to pull men, it’s to impress other women.

          • Fenton!

            You misunderstand why women wish to impress other women. It’s because we’re in competition, silly!

          • Kitty MLB

            A woman would have to have very low self-esteem to see another women as competition.
            Not only would the other women be offended but
            the chap would because he’d always chose her and she aught to have known that.
            Ah I’ll write a book and will put Lizzie and Roddie
            in this book.Its nice to see you Fenton.

          • gerontius

            Kitty,
            Can I have a mention – as a bit of a swashbuckler perhaps?

          • Fenton!

            Thanks very much and nice to see you also, Kitty.

          • gerontius

            Hmm – If must insist on fighting over me who am ! to disagree
            Is that a slight echo of a line from a Paul Simon song?

          • Fenton!

            Always take a man at his own valuation, I say. Except when you shouldn’t, of course. : )

          • gerontius

            Important qualification!
            I’m going home to a glass of something
            ciao

          • Fenton!

            Have a great weekend.

          • gerontius

            Gosh!
            Really?
            Life is more fun than I realised!

          • Kitty MLB

            All three of you are wrong.But you’ll love Fenton’s idea.I can invisage you puffing your
            chest out and floating above the fens…and
            not this time because of one too many martinis.

          • gerontius

            I’m not nearly as much fun as you make me sound.

          • Kitty MLB

            Ah but I’ve a bountiful imagination and find
            fun easily.I can improve on what is already there and create when required.Would
            you like to see my lunar footprint sometime?

          • gerontius

            Ooh yeah!

          • Kitty MLB

            That’s allowed.You can also take a dip in the Sea of Tranquility which is also on the moon.
            No atmosphere up there..so some will need
            to be created.

          • Kitty MLB

            So your not into Astrophysics. I took Fergus to
            the Red Planet…got himself into trouble for calling it a socialist 🙂

          • Kitty MLB

            Lizzie said just shave, not if your David Cameron
            he’s smooth as a babies bottom.And men don’t
            need to shave.I rather find the D’ Artagnan beard
            very attractive, but they don’t suit all men.
            And men used to sword fight and ‘call each other out’ they don’t do that any more either.

          • gerontius

            I will stop shaving immediately Kitty.
            My swordplay is rusty. Remind me – which end do you poke at people?

          • Kitty MLB

            Yes you can stop shaving, you’ve lost that menicing edge, and don’t have brown eyes,
            I can resist.
            Your swordplay is rusty..mine is not.You’d
            need a rapier sword or something smaller, wear a coqville, breeches, face protection and
            just to warn you there will be alot of
            corps a corps..bodily contact.

          • Kitty MLB

            I must add very quickly that men can only play
            Fencing with other men..Allymax (Scottish, poetry writing my Celtic warrior) will teach you.

          • Liz

            That must be why men never ever make fun of ugly/flat-chested/big-breasted/short/fat/tall/skinny/hairy/bald girls and women, never run competitions to score the best looking ones, never go on killing sprees when gorgeous women don’t sleep with them, never get prostitutes paraded in front of them so they can pick the best looking ones, never dump their older wives for younger models. And why women literally always do this to one another.

            In UPSIDE DOWN land!

          • gerontius

            I’ve never done any of these things.

          • Liz

            Ergo other men don’t routinely do so.

          • gerontius

            Australia?

          • Fenton!

            Leg breaking? You lost me there, Liz. Otherwise: I agree. I would certainly rather be male than female, even though I live in an egalitarian society and have it better than most males ever did!

          • Liz

            Women in the Far East sometimes have their legs broken and extended so they are taller.

          • gerontius

            But wouldn’t they be, well, sort of out of proportion?
            Some smart alec would get themselves one leg longer than the other -handy on a bad camber or for running around in circles.

            There was a set of humourous short stories by Stanislaw Lem, (he who wrote the novel Solaris on which Tarkovsky based the film of the same name) based on the idea of extreme body modification as part of the fashion industry. It has come true of course, but not quite with the hilarious effects that he envisaged.
            Maybe it wasn’t Lem, maybe it was Calvino, or somebody else.
            A bit of help wouldn’t go amiss – Kitty? Fenton? Judy Garland?

          • Kitty MLB

            I’d like some help with Jimmy, the chap
            below, who thinks a woman in her 30s
            cannot compete with a 20 year old.You
            are a man of the world * cough, cough*explain
            to him.

          • gerontius

            Was that ok – I aimed it man to man?
            I would phrase it differently if I was addressing you.

          • Kitty MLB

            Yes, succinctly put.But might I swap Gillian
            Anderson for a Sophia Loren (when she was
            in her late 30s. I’d think you’d get on like a
            house on fire with a ‘chick’ like
            her.She’d be fun and interesting, and have
            that Mediterranean charm.

            To answer another question about body modification. It wasn’t Italo Calvino or
            Stanislaw Lem.Maybe Fenton will know,
            she knows most things.Not sure about
            Judy Garland or even, Ginger Rogers, Bette Davies, Greta Garbo, the handsome James Stewart or James Cagney. Or even Mr
            ‘Singing in the Rain’ himself.

          • gerontius

            Umberto Eco? The auther defintely had a funny foreign name.
            Sophia Loren? – I doubt I’d survive.

          • Kitty MLB

            You don’t trust my choice of woman for you?
            Did you not sample the delights of an Italian
            woman when you were young and virile.
            You should trust me you know, as a bit Italian
            myself, have I ever, ever, led you astray, or
            misbehaved? Maybe Audrey Hepburn or Jean
            Simmons then..

          • gerontius

            have you not seen the film? – the one where the divine Sophia marries an old man – he expires on their wedding night.

          • Kitty MLB

            Yes I have seen it. Just responding like myself
            with light humour.I should have been more serious. Ciao

          • gerontius

            He died with a smile on his face.

          • Kitty MLB

            I was just speaking about Sophia Loren in
            a warm and amusing way. As I am sunny
            by nature..and talkative, usually inconsequentially unless required to be serious.

          • Fenton!

            Oh my god.

          • Fenton!

            The ‘different’ standard is still a double one. Men have an almost endlessly open window of sexual possibility, as long as they take care of themselves. If my husband divorced me now, he could seriously look at women 20 years younger. I couldn’t, even though I look younger than he does and we are the same age. The men that would look at me would either have to be fooled about my age, not care about my age (i.e. not be set on children), or be much older than I am. I don’t want someone older than I am. So much for natural justice. Men have ALL the advantages.

          • Fenton!

            P. S. The only amazing thing — a testament to women’s forbearance and stamina — is that the males of the world haven’t all been murdered in their sleep by now. Just watch your backs.

          • AJH1968

            You sound like my mother dear. Every three weeks she threatens to murder him (but they have married for 47 years)

          • Fenton!

            Laugh!

          • Kitty MLB

            Oh they say that a man is like a barrel aged oaky Claret the longer you leave him down in the
            cellar (if one has a cellar)the more he’ll improve
            if uncorked too early he’s without any depth and
            will just waste himself mixing with cheaper
            lighter wines.
            Women are like rich fruity olive oil placed on ciabatta..

          • Fenton!

            That’s quite a kitchen you’ve got going there, Kitty!

          • Kitty MLB

            Its actually a small kitchen in a 200 year old
            cottage (big aga) and we apparently have a
            ghost but have never seen it. The wine is kept
            In the out building where our lovely bats and
            hedgehogs live. I don’t think you like bats..
            they’re lovely you know, I blame those horror
            movies for their reputation.

          • Fenton!

            Oh no, nothing against bats. Sounds a delightful place!

          • Kitty MLB

            I was only joking, know you like creatures.Although its not very nice when they
            become entangled in your hair.
            Yes, near Exmoor is a nice place to live but can
            be a little bleak in the winter and sometimes
            it would be nice to pop out for coffee without
            driving.

          • Kitty MLB

            Yes you are correct woman love the James Bond type roguish gent with a twinkle in his eye
            and promiscuous woman are very unattractive
            non stop and so are those who chase men.
            Men should always do that. But might I add the
            most attractive things from a female point of
            view are a sense of humour, intelligence and someone you can sit in front of the fire with having a glass of wine and reading a book.
            If that person is handsome that’s a bonus but
            its hardly imperative.

          • jimmy

            I can agree with much you say. I think humour and intelligence make a man much more attractive. I also find women enjoy talking to a man who has travelled, who demonstrates that he enjoys learning and – this one will be controversial but it’s very true – has some money, has worked hard and has a good healthy desire for money and status.

            Which is rather my point – those things take lots of time and work. Women are attractive to men if they are a)women and b)17-24 years old. Neither of which thing is an achievement in itself.

            Of course the current feminist inspired system now favours men – a curious result of feminist ideology. In previous generations for men to enjoy sex with young women they had to promise a lifetime of devoted love until the day they died. Now they have to just be charming enough to seduce her that night. I’ll freely admit to having taken advantage of this state of affairs on a regular basis – living in a university city there is another year of 18 year olds arriving just now and I’ll be disappointed if i don’t get into double figures. That might make me sound bad but I am just being honest – I’m 31, have some money and work out. I have a strong sex drive like nearly all men. Where once society would have compelled me to love and care for the woman I went to bed with, now it says having her a few times then moving on to the next is fine, it is “empowering” for her etc. It’s nonsense, just Marxist gobbledegook, designed to destroy family life. Most notably of all though is how catastrophically bad it has been for women. In 5 or 10 years I’ll simply find a nice virgin and settle down, it will be far harder for those women who had casual sex.

          • little islander

            “and I’ll be disappointed if i don’t get into double figures.” You may want to learn some mathematics from the great Greek philosopher of the Speccie. Count and recount the rejections, Tiger.

          • Fenton!

            No but it sure is nice if you can get it! It has to be a face I can love, in any case.

          • Kitty MLB

            That’s the crux of the matter..the word Love.
            O, someone said about my friends new baby that
            it had a face only a mother can love…Ouch!!!!!!!

          • Fenton!

            Oh dear. Mind you, as a new baby it doesn’t have the advantage of having plumped out a little, perhaps. People do change. My cousin when a baby was beautiful. Then she became more like her dad…. (%^[]

          • Kitty MLB

            Oh sorry Fenton..that was meant for Jimmy.
            Can’t remove posts unfortunately.

          • GraveDave

            You can sort of edit them out of existence though.

          • jimmy

            A quite perceptive post – yes in terms of biology and also what they find attractive, it’s easier for men as they get older. I must say though that it’s nothing to do with natural justice; men and women are simply very different.

            What you fail to notice though is how much easier it is for a girl aged 17-24 – far easier for her than any man of any age. Men waning to buy you dinner, take you on holiday, in big groups straight to the front of queues, free drinks, endless attention to make you feel special, knowing that nearly all men find you attractive. It’s quite an intoxicating feeling I imagine and I can understand how frustrating it is for women when their “super powers” come to an end rather abruptly. Some think they can continue like that into their 30s and 40s but it doesn’t work in 99.99% of cases.

            In our old and quite sophisticated system women used that time in their lives to marry and build a foundation for their future. Of course this meant they had to avoid the temptation of promiscuity.

            Now as you point out a man who is 40 or 50 can if he is in shape, has money, has charm (these things all take work) easily find a girl in her 20s for a relationship. I imagine it’s very tempting for men aged 45 with a wife in her 40s and children to leave to enjoy a younger woman – however such behaviour is bad for society. Again that’s where the old system worked, it demanded of men: now you’re attractive to women but you can’t leave (just as when your wife was 19 and attractive to men, she couldn’t sleep with them). It was a balance that reflected reality. Feminists have destroyed it, claiming men and women are equal despite all the evidence to the contrary. So now women indulge themselves at the point in life when they are attractive and then suddenly decide age 32 they want love, chivalry, devotion and family life. So men are faced with the prospect of marrying a woman who gave herself to another. Little wonder the divorce rate is so high.

            There’s no double standard. That would be two people of the same type being treated differently. It’s just a different standard as men and women are different.

          • Fenton!

            Fine and true, but we’re still left with women that find themselves either a) unable to leave the man they first hitched up with, or b) cut off at the knees romantically through widowhood or divorce, since all the ‘available’ are undesirable geriatrics (there is a downcurve of male ascending appeal: it doesn’t shoot endlessly upwards of course).

            As for women ‘giving themselves to another’ — that’s far more a problem for the gals than it is for men, who are far more willing as a s-x to spread themselves round all and sundry. Women don’t like ‘used goods’ either, but if it’s a man in an upright position, that’s generally what you’re going to find. Man: You Don’t Know Where It’s Been!

        • Fenton!

          The last thing she wrote (that I read) made me think: Surely not. Please god, no. And I’m not even religious. Except about sunscreen and wearing a hat. Oh, and vin pendant le noir.

      • gerontius

        “……..she admitted in a national newspaper that she let Brand have sex with her”

        You’re kidding me. If I’d known that I’d have had a crack.

  • jimmy

    Excellent article, thanks Rod. I’m always glad to hear a little sanity but what can we do about it? I mean those in power, and in particular those in the BBC, would nearly all side with Katz and Brand. Now we’re in this mess how do we get out of it?

    The radical Marxist left with the feminists and various other extremists went on their infamous march through the institutions over the course of 40 years and have had enormous success. Do we all respond by doing the same over the next 40 years? But by then there will be another 2 generations of children grown up fully indoctrinated in “equality” worship and nearly every large city will have been ethnically cleansed of the indigenous people.

    • Seberg

      Of course. Neo-liberalism is the answer. Why didn’t I think of that before? “indoctrinated in “equality” worship” – Ah, yes, the conservative loves to be first, loves to be top and in control.

  • PatrioticUK

    Russell Brand is an absolute bellend who insists on cluelessly spouting his bullshit – without even understanding it himself, also shouting it far too bloody loudly too.
    I’d much rather take a comedian political lead from Jim Davidson – back in the 90’s he said that he’d leave the country if Labour won! Not only was he spot on about politics, he’s also a brilliant comedian too unlike the dickhead Brand – who is as funny as his pathetic mockney accent and ‘love’ of West Ham ‘innit’

    • GraveDave

      back in the 90’s he said that he’d leave the country if Labour won! Not only was he spot on about politics, he’s also a brilliant comedian too

      ‘Now I’m an ethnic minority in someone else’s f—-g country.’

  • The Laughing Cavalier

    Having had the misfortune to hear this inarticulate lout a couple of times on the radio I did wonder how he managed to string two sentences together for learned magazines, even if they were wrong-headed. Then of course I learned that he didn’t write them but Hari did, thus explaining how they came to be written and why they were wrong-headed.

  • Dr. Heath

    I’ve been a Russell-ophile since his appearances on Big Brother as a sort of evolutionary missing link between humans and simians. The creature could speak, but could only talk about his ball sack and his erections, something that many in the television audience appeared to find hilarious and, of course, appropriate for a hominid talking in pure Estuarine. Others were baffled.

    At the time, I realised that I had just witnessed some sort of biological experiment and that Russell was a sort of genetically engineered chimp who, in time, would master an ever larger vocabulary and range of topics and move on from scrotums and stiffies to, say, “entry level” conversational topics – Ed Miliband’s political policies or the poetry of Seamus Heaney. Ever an optimist, I’m waiting for the moment when all the intensive work being carried out with Russell to move him up an evolutionary notch or five culminates in a Nobel Prize for the boffins behinds all of this.

    A friend who works as one of Auntie’s technical minions cabling together all the equipment, the cameras and the mikes, for the twenty-four hour news channel tells me [Ron – I swear to God I won’t tell anyone it was you who leaked this] that there are plans to merge Blue Peter and Newsnight in the near future and to appoint Russell as a sort of combo of Konnie Huq and Paxo. It would all depend on whether Russell can be weaned off his obsession with his cock and his bollocks. We live in hope.

    • Kitty MLB

      If I may say.The creation of Brand is still at the rudimentary
      stage of evolution.A mere nucleus, actually a microscopic
      nuclear envelope still not stuffed with the adequate supply
      of cells yet.Maybe evolution in reverse, would hate to
      think what Darwin might utter.
      But, sir I wish you all the luck with your experiments with
      this creature.

    • little islander

      my uptick was accidental. sorry.

      • Dr. Heath

        Thanks for the reminder that one’s tally of ^s can at any time be wiped out by a backlash of Vs.

        Are you saying you’re a fan of Russell’s f*cktard ramblings about his winkle dinkle? Are there many like you? Have you formed a fan club?

        • little islander

          No. Just keeping my schadenfreude in check over the misery inflicted here by all and sundry over someone I find pretty, no pun intended, harmless fun. Russell would probably puke if he had a 60-year old fan.

          • Dr. Heath

            For Russell’s sake, just take it on the chin. Few people here are ever going to find your bloke anything other than a talentless wanker. It’s simply the wrong place to big the guy up. I’m sure Russell is harmless fun to lots of people. But anyone who wants to make a career out of attempting to please the public, alas, has to run the risk that they’ll displease the public. Fans as well as performers need to bear this in mind and not well up when the reviews are bad [or violently abusive, even].

            Do Russell’s fans outnumber the people who are embarrassed by the mere sight and sound of him? Or are symptoms of Russell-ophilia incredibly rare? It doesn’t matter.

          • little islander

            Dr Heath, sorry i failed to make myself clear. i had a good laugh from reading your first post. i think it’s a case of ‘schadenfreude’ on my part. It’s german for pleasure, joy derived from somebody else’s (russell’s) misery, a common enough ailment as i understood it to be. didn’t know how to remove the accidental uptick. so left a post which then caused your loss and misery. did i derive any pleasure? yes i did, couldn’t help myself. am i a russell fan? NO. i am not THAT sick.

  • Kitty MLB

    Oh poor Roddie, having to put up with Brand.That man is nothing but a egotistical windbag lost within his own pomposity and with absurd ignorance..typical ‘Labour luvvie’and an example of when
    the seriousness of politics became involved with such shallowness.
    But why on earth do some women like him, such as Jemima Khan
    Brand just doesn’t sizzle with sexual alure..he’s not even witty,
    the chemistry of a blocked up drain. He speaks balderdash and does so too often.

    • RaymondDance

      Well, Jemima’s not the sharpest tool in the box either.

      • Kitty MLB

        Well I don’t know her but you must be on the same page in life.Be able to have lively conversations etc.
        What on earth can she talk to him about.

        • Fenton!

          Dark stubble?

      • mrs1234

        You are right there but like Brand she believes herself to be something of an intellectual. What a pair! Brand is simply getting his knobbly knees firmly under the lavishly spread Khan table with all this bs in defence of British ISIS terrorists. Unfortunately, an awful lot of people believe his drivel.

    • Fenton!

      ‘the chemistry of a blocked up drain’

      I have a feeling, Kitty, that you’ve just blown it as the possible blurb-writer puffing Brand’s autobiography or whatever else he fells perfectly good trees for….

      • Kitty MLB

        I’ll get over it, he’s really a bore. I’M working in the middle of the night when I should be sleeping and
        don’t get much work done because I am chatting
        on blogosphere..with those who are awake.Now
        that was a very silly thing to say..but never mind 🙂

  • Diana Wolfslag

    How can a political opinion be ‘narcissistic’?:)))

    • rodliddle

      when it is expressed solely to buttress the speaker’s vision of himself. Or herself, obviously. Great name, though, Diana.

  • Laguna Beach Fogey

    Brand is terribly boring.

    • UKSteve

      Russell Bland.

  • RaymondDance

    Thankyou Rod.

    • picquet

      Worth saying. I frequently find myself wishing I’d had the wit to write Mr L’s thoughts down first.
      On Brand… No, I won’t go there.

  • Paddy Kilshamus

    I saw him in a discussion with Peter Hitchens who had a hard time dealing with such a childish adult. Brand is a sort of glib, vacuous hipster, almost an embodiment of the media’s glossy hyper-reality. His ideas are a sort of esoteric, left wing universalism mixing in David Icke and the Frankfurt school and numerous other ideas in a sort of collage of superficial readings. I predict he will end up as the last Prime Minister before the implosion of England or face down in a mixture of his own vomit and blood in a uber trendy nightclub toilet.

    • So you kind of like him?

      • Paddy Kilshamus

        Yeah he is the reincarnation of Martin Luther destined to lead the peasants revolt against the citadels of capitalism.

    • Damaris Tighe

      In convo with Peter Hitchens? That must have been painful.

      • Paddy Kilshamus

        Certainly was, but I felt Hitchens was foolish to be on such a low brow program anyway. It is on Youtube somewhere. I do wish Hitchens would be a bit more confrontational with the Left. We need someone ruthless to expose all these frauds without mercy. The best guy I ever saw was Jonathan Bowden who worked for the BNP as cultural minister (bound to get a laugh in the Left circles).He should have been on QT instead of Griffin because he understood the thinking of the enemy. He has some terrific stuff on YouTube.

      • UKSteve
        • Paddy Kilshamus

          Yes that is the one. Funny that I remembered it as a lowbrow programme and not Newsnight. I suppose it was the descent into farce. Odd too how the others are all sucking up to Russell Brand like he is an over indulged child. I don’t have a TV and even radio is annoying these days once you start to perceive the agenda driving the media. I think I would lose all hope if I subjected myself to that mental poison day after day.

          • UKSteve

            You and I , Sir, it seems, are cut from the same cloth!

          • Paddy Kilshamus

            Well we would probably diverge at a certain point. You can read my posts but I am not going to discuss my views because i don’t wish to be banned.

          • UKSteve

            Oh dear!

            “I can read your posts…. “; well thanks for your permission.

            I found invariably that even two people diverge at some point in their views.

          • Paddy Kilshamus

            Yes I just meant that one has to be careful on certain topics, I wasn’t being aloof. I just meant that I am not free to argue my case even when I present it in my Sunday best. It is not divergence I experience it is something much stronger and unnerving in many ways. A sort of induced blindness. I have little hope for this country at the moment. I see nothing on the horizon but implosion. I like to comment in order to articulate my thoughts on non-contentious issues as a warm up to clarifying the highly contentious issues which one day will have to be expressed somewhere. It is a good mental exercise. Sorry if I sounded like a twat.

          • UKSteve

            Not at all. “Nae bother”, as I heard a Scotsman say. We have a great deal in common, view-wise, but I understand your fear of discussion. I have had perfectly harmless, on-topic posts deleted – on the Telegraph site, I posted a one word reply, to a relevant story with a URL which was a Telegraph webpage – and they deleted it! Seriously!

            “Free speech my ar$e!”, as someone once said.

          • Paddy Kilshamus

            Yes I had 3 months of posts removed in one go. It was an overreaction on the moderators part but it is their job I suppose.Maybe one day there will be an open climate for reasoned discussion but I doubt it unless there is a pretty radical change of direction among the powers that be. I am not holding my breath. Teaching people to think critically and reasonably is not on the agenda, but turning them into conceited fools like Russell Brand seems to be.

          • UKSteve

            If there was an annual award for Disqus posting….!

    • davidraynes

      One of the most appalling pieces of sucking up to Mr Brand, was the hearing he was given at the Home Affairs Select Committee by Chairman Keith Vaz.

      i do not think Brand will last, I predict he will take up serious drugs use again.

    • Bachus

      The two are not mutually exclusive! No doubt Prime Minister Churchill awoke of a morning in such circumstances!

  • The Masked Marvel

    Beneath the trendy nihilism and half-baked Free Palestine/Save The Whales posturing, Brand’s politics aren’t all that far removed from your own, Rod. He’s just a younger generation vulgarian, and doesn’t do a middle class voice when on telly like you do.

    As for Katz, he’s both right and wrong, of course. He’s right that most BBC political interviews have become more about the ego of the presenter than about getting anything useful out of the guest. It’s all about gotcha moments and trying to drive the interview to a specific answer. Paxman got more lauded for asking Howard the same question over and over again with no result than he did for flooring Blair about not knowing how many missing student immigrants there were. Which was more important, really? Now every BBC presenter tries the same thing. Evan Davis on Today is a classic example. Worse still, he loves to dishonestly rephrase something his guest has said, twisting the words or putting new ones in the guest’s mouth, because he wanted a specific answer and didn’t get it, regardless of what his guest actually said.

    Of course, Katz is being a bit dishonest there, because the BBC were cheering from the rooftops when Eddie Mair called Boris Johnson a nasty piece of work (in the form of a question).

    If John Humphrys, who only half listens to his guests at times, and often comes across as unprepared, is still considered quality, then there isn’t much hope for Today, either. He wasted a chance to nail Anjem Choudray by insisting on a condemnation of Lee Rigby’s murder before going any further. The goal was obvious: to show up Choudray as a loner extremist who represented nobody but himself, so that the audience wouldn’t dream of associating all the thoroughly modern Muslims in Britain with his brand of extremism. It was a waste of time, and proved once again that even on Today they have an agenda-driven interview style. Justin Webb is the same. Forensic and revelatory? Only if one already had the same pre-conceptions as the interviewer.

    Andrew Neil would be a better example, he who gives both sides of the political spectrum an equally hard time, and does not approach all issues only from the Left. You may not like his style or persona, but he is not so obviously agenda-driven as your old mates.

    • Fenton!

      Andrew Neil is terrific, as far as I’ve seen.

      • The Masked Marvel

        Yes. Although he does reveal his non-Left bias on certain issues rather too often. Of course, the BBC allow this because they know their defenders use him as a counterweight to charges of Left-wing bias.

        • Fenton!

          ‘Bias’: what a word. Sure, but we all think we’re right. To the extent that Neil has a ‘non-Left bias’, I think he’s right!

          • The Masked Marvel

            ‘Point of view’, then. The BBC has rules about that. They usually don’t enforce it until the complaints roll in. These days it’s mostly about something vicious one of the fools tweeted. Even if one agrees with a particular point of view on an issue, the BBC presenter is meant not to take sides. Neil does sometimes, which he shouldn’t. The vast majority of his colleagues are Left-wing, some far more extreme than others, and all should be held to the same standards.

            Of course, it’s a bit silly for me to complain about a BBC presenter displaying partisanship on a thread in Rod Liddle’s blog, as he has stated his opinion that all journalism should be openly partisan.

          • Fenton!

            Well, and that’s a legitimate view. There’s a strong argument that since the ‘objective journalism’ of the baby boomer heyday was self-deluded and not in fact impartial, we should just acknowledge the distinct tension in Western politics between those that want more equality (the Left) and those that want more liberty (the rest of us). In short, the fact-value distinction doesn’t really exist.

            On the other hand, it has been demonstrated that Leftists do report in a tendentious and uneven fashion — for instance, by identifying non-Leftist institutions or people as ‘conservative’ or ‘right-wing’, but NOT so identifying their counterparts on the Left. Also, something more than 90% of American media personnel self-identify as Democrats (as opposed to Republicans). They think they’re ‘telling it like it is’, since in their minds they are right and theirs is the ‘most accurate’ way of looking at an issue. They evidently don’t have either the self-awareness or the discipline to stand back and away from their own beliefs. But if you believe something, how can you in good conscience ‘misrepresent’ it? Hence their digs at capitalism every chance they get.

          • The Masked Marvel

            You have accurately described most BBC News journalists.

    • Fenton!

      Andrew Neil is terrific, as far as I’ve seen.

  • God, he’s hideous. Brand, I mean.

  • Stephen Milroy

    ‘There’s nothing more annoying than being in bed with Russell Brand’. I imagine being in a threesome with him and Owen Jones is the stuff of nightmares!

  • sulbernick

    What is Brand’s talent? Is he supposed to be amusing?

    • Simon Fay

      “aLLEGEDLY”.

  • funkg

    He seems a nice enough chap but I do tend to find him a
    little contrived, no different to the many creative types in decades past. He
    is a dull provincial persons idea of what a ‘hip’ outrageous person is suppose
    to look and sound like.

    • Simon Fay

      Ouch!!

  • IainRMuir

    Looks like the movie industry’s low budget, mangy flea ridden version of Wolverine.

  • Trofim

    It’s entirely wrong of me, and I am ashamed to admit it, but I keep getting this
    image of RB kneeling in the desert in an orange suit, shaven head, with a masked
    bloke in black with a knife, standing behind him. But it’s a happy ending.
    Someone suddenly shoots the naughty man in the head, and RB comes back to
    Britain a different person.

    • Simon Fay

      You are right to express shame at clinging to such (compromised) optimism. RB will likely never feel the hot breath of the Beast – and even if he did, would turn it into a routine about Capitalism depriving people of Gaviscon.

  • Mick Norris

    Well said Rod.

  • Sean L

    That first para gave me a proper laugh, and told the truth. Excellent, thank you.

  • Peter Stroud

    Well said Rod. Parts off the BBC really need sorting out.

  • beenzrgud

    The BBC has been losing its hard edge for quite some time. What we get now are mostly poor excuses for people like Diane Abbott to earn a few quid on the side. I swear she’s never off the TV.

    • UKSteve

      And Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, and Will Self and….and….

  • Mike

    God save us from Brand and the BBC !

  • Simon Fay

    Obvious thing to say, probably, but like mid-Staffs hospital, Rotherham and local Sharia patrols this Brand feller really shouldn’t have been allowed to get started, let alone go on for so long. Is it 8 or 10 years since he appeared from nowhere with the BBC bigging him up as the exciting new thing? Why weren’t the whistle-blowers listened to? What happened to the submitted reports? The child-adult’s apparent indestructibility speaks volumes about the era.

  • The BBC Sucks BBCs

    Russell Brand is the most over-rated comedian ever & he really & I mean really can’t act. His politics is sub Ben Elton level lefty student wank. His only famous/popular because women fancy him.

    • Fenton!

      I don’t!

  • Eudaemonia71

    Another sad jester wishing he were a king.

  • AJH1968

    Can
    somebody venture to explain to me, what would happen if an Alien task force (no I do not really believe in UFO’s) were to
    come across a transmission featuring the demented caterwauling’s of Russell
    Brand. Would they be kind to us? If the answer is what I suspect it is, overwhelmingly negative (except the truly naive, a gang of Russell brand toadies, maladroit substance abusers), surely
    as a matter of self preservation(even if it is a hypothetical what if), should we not terminate, isolate or banish
    this cretin with extreme prejudice (Richard if you have not worked by now that
    I am anti Russell Brand then God help you).

  • red2black

    If Mr Brand is such a hopeless case, why do people who don’t agree with him get so upset?

    • GraveDave

      Because he gets paid for being a berk. I suppose

      • Paddy Kilshamus

        Because he is the Zeitgeist of today in the UK and we are so very fcuked due to that.

        • Damaris Tighe

          Spot on.

  • George Smiley

    I can see why Rod is so irked – he must have thought he had the imbecilic pub bore market sewn up.

    • GraveDave

      Hey George, you do know the Cold War is over.

      • Fenton!

        Is it? Ask Putin. He thinks it isn’t.

  • Damaris Tighe

    The bedraggled halfwit in the corner with the half pint of Guinness is probably a graduate of the University of East Estuary, formerly Estuary Polytechnic.

    • Kitty MLB

      Hear, Hear ! He’s the type you look, at and instantly say yuk
      and take a shower. To say lacking grey cells or interest is
      an understatement.But these girls like him..Er!

    • Fenton!

      formerly Estuary Septic, more like.

  • Damaris Tighe

    Ok, I’m going to be mobbed by furious radfems, but I’m a woman who hates all women groups because the energy level is so low. The thought of switching on Newsnight to be confronted by four women is too depressing for words.

    • Fenton!

      D, I just wandered in amongst the Zinfandel etc. and saw your comment. There is nothing (for me) deadlier than a ‘girls’ night out’. I never crave more male company than when I have to be around only females of no particular provenance. It’s not necessarily that men are more interesting (though some of them might be). It’s that the sex mix is more socially stimulating.

      • Damaris Tighe

        Couldn’t agree more.

  • Will

    Thank Rod for that! I was starting to think I was the only one who can’t stand Brand. I say that as someone who leans pretty far to the left. Cannabis legalisation for instance, something I am strongly in favor of, which is supported a lot of intelligent and influential people. By my estimates, Brand has set back the movement by at least a decade. He wields big words the way a small and precocious child wields a heavy broadsword, ineffectually and with the potential to seriously damage himself more than his opponent. Any notion of taking the subject seriously is completely drowned by Brand’s incoherent psychobabble. You can’t help but wonder if the anti-legalisation lobby secretly try to get him as much airtime as possible to discredit the moment. Same could be said of voting reform and dozen other things.

    Just STFU Brand, you’re ruining it for everyone!

    • Paddy Kilshamus

      ‘He wields big words the way a small and precocious child wields a heavy broadsword, ineffectually and with the potential to seriously damage himself more than his opponent.’ I do like that. Excellent!

    • GraveDave

      Cannabis legalisation for instance, something I am strongly in favor of, which is supported a lot of intelligent and influential people. By my estimates, Brand has set back the movement by at least a decade.

      Yes, they look at him and think ‘it’s true!’ That stuff ruins your mind

      • UKSteve

        If they support that, I would rule out intelligence. It would seem they’ve consumed too much <a href="http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/mentalhealthinformation/mentalhealthproblems/alcoholanddrugs/cannabisandmentalhealth.aspx&quot; product.

        • GraveDave

          I don’t particularly like it. But choose your poison and live and let live and all that. It probably makes sense to legalize it.

          • UKSteve

            There’s certainly a serious debate to be had, but we need to address issues of use. I don’t think I’d want e.g. a surgeon operating on me while stoned.

          • Will

            I doubt you’d want a surgeon operating on you while drunk either, do I take it you want to ban alcohol to prevent this happening? This is exactly the kind misinformed poorly thought out propaganda you see peddled by the Daily Mail. The assumption that all Cannabis users (like myself) are a bunch of useless layabouts, who are so irresponsible they’d actually get stoned before performing a surgical operation!

            There has already been thousands of serious debates on the issue, but OUR government is far too gutless to even acknowledge them. The jury is already out, legalisation is preferable for many reasons, here’s a few:

            1. Huge blow to organised crime profits.
            2. Huge influx of tax money.
            3. Huge savings on enforcement of this stupid law and incarceration of its victims. This includes falls in drug related crime.
            4. Frees up police time to tackle more serious issues.
            5. Better and open education on the dangers of misuse.
            6. Considerably Healthier consumption methods become cheap enough to be viable. Lightening the burden on medical care by improving users health – it doesn’t have to be smoked. It also eliminates the dangers of contamination from more more toxic components that can be added, such as ultra fine grit to increase the weight.
            7. Proven medical treatments using the active components of cannabis become available. Some of the positive results from legal medical cannabis have been staggering.

            Thank Bob the US’s states are showing some balls and actually listening to the SCIENTIFIC advice laid out to them, as well as listening to the support of the public. Several states have legalised it, the sky has not fallen and the benefits have been wide raging. One unexpected effect is that it even seems to have had a positive impact on hard drug use, which has plummeted. Now Cameron and his cronies are looking ever more ridiculous, they can’t use the usual line of ‘The current laws are working,’ as it’s becoming ever more apparent that it’s not.

            Now cannabis is simply not up for discussion. I find it utterly staggering that in the face of all the evidence, our “leaders” would rather pander to the Daily Mail than what the people want and what all the research suggests. Even the DM’s own readership rebelled against this medieval attitude towards drugs – their online poll was so overwhelmingly in favor of legalisation, they had to take it down! This is the truth of Tory “Democracy.”

          • UKSteve

            And this exactly the kind of intellectually void, deranged rant you see from clueless and addled hop-heads, who spout the most egregious bull$hit to advance their cause. Are you “Jonesing”? 🙂 Mostly from the other side of the Atlantic, where I suspect some of this ranting drivel may have originated.

            I said earlier that there is a serious, adult debate to be had on this subject, and have said many times that we need safeguards in place, in the way we have with alcohol ,and that was why I mentioned – as an example – a surgeon. The thing with alcohol is it’s very difficult to hide, you can usually smell it, and there is new protection for whistle-blowers who report these incidents. Plus I note you people never consider this when it comes to selling it to school kids either.

            Most of the drug-addled idiots advocating ‘use for everybody’ do not see the consequences of their actions.

            This is absolutely hilarious:

            “Even the DM’s own readership rebelled against this medieval attitude….”

            ‘Mediaval’ – LMAO. After you slagged off the Mail for it’s readership. My guess is you’re about 12 years old, or you’ve been smoking too much “stuff”.

            (I’ve never come across anyone who thinks current drug laws are working.)

          • GraveDave

            No, they wont work Steve, because they’re too poorly defined and half baked.

          • Will

            For all your juvenile abuse and claims of bullshit, you don’t even attempt to argue against any of the points made, then you call me a 12 year old. Quite hilarious; maybe you need to stay off the alcohol, it’s clearly making you very angry and unable to make rational statements.

            Who is advocating selling to school kids? Is that really the best you can manage? No one wants that, here’s some news for you though, it already happens. As black-market dealers are not bound by any regulations. If cannabis were legal the black market dealers would lose out to the lawful suppliers who ARE regulated and WILL have age restrictions. No one is naive enough to think this will abolish underage use completely, but regulation is better than no regulation. Legalisation also gets rid of the drugs taboo, and allows all people to be better informed of the dangers of underage cannabis use.

            But hey, don’t take my word for it, just look at the research in Colorado where it is already legal. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jacobsullum/2014/08/11/as-colorado-loosened-its-marijuana-laws-underage-consumption-and-traffic-fatalities-fell/

            You say you’ve never come across anyone who thinks the current laws are working? You are clearly as poorly informed about politics as you are about cannabis legalisation.

            http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/dec/10/david-cameron-rejects-royal-commission-drugs

            Overall, this is why I know cannabis legalisation will eventually prevail. As we have all the facts and evidence on our side. On the other side we have people like you, who stick their fingers in their ears while crying, “whaaaaaaaa! Bull$hit Bull$hit!” Showing yourselves to be completely incapable of offering any rational or intelligent counter-argument.

            You have my pity. 🙂

          • UKSteve

            For all of your addled and confused gibberish, there’ a good reason that I didn’t: “…attempt to argue against any of the points made…”, because I didn’t notice any.

            I would like quantified and sourced evidence for these please:


            1. Huge blow to organised crime profits.
            2. Huge influx of tax money.
            3. Huge savings on enforcement of this stupid law and incarceration of its victims. This includes falls in drug related crime.

            Then I will use my sources to rip these stupid and baseless claims to pieces. I know exactly what is going on in Colorado and other states, and I don’t care, this is England, not Washington state.

            Because you seem to have done so much product, you can’t think beyond “I want this legalised, now!!”, and have never once discussed the consequences of that or what limitations should be in place. Which is where I’m coming from.

            So for you to claim someone else is “….completely incapable of offering any rational or intelligent counter-argument. is quite laughable – as is the rest of your rants.

          • Will

            I love the fact that this is your idea of an ” serious, adult debate.” Name calling, being glib, and using baseless assumptions aren’t generally considered adult debate in my circles, maybe I just hang around with better people.

            1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/tracing-the-us-heroin-surge-back-south-of-the-border-as-mexican-cannabis-output-falls/2014/04/06/58dfc590-2123-4cc6-b664-1e5948960576_story.html

            Hardly stupid and baseless since it’s true, “seizures of cocaine and marijuana along the border have fallen over the past several years, flows of methamphetamine and heroin have soared, federal statistics show.” That shows you the direct impact cannabis legalisation has had drug cartels control of cannabis. Now, if they took on Portugal’s drug policies and decriminalised Heroin too, we would no doubt see the same devastating impact.

            Studies also say the same thing: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/study-us-marijuana-legalization-would-hurt-mexican-cartels/

            2. See Colorado’s own report on tax revnue from cannabis. http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1252031938054&ssbinary=true

            Over $13,000,000 in revenue to date, and we’re not even at the end of the year. If the whole of the US legalised cannabis, revenue from tax is predicted to run into the billions.

            3. It doesn’t take a genius to work out that if you’re not spending money on setting up operations to catch cannabis dealers/user or arresting them, and you’re not spending money on courts or incarcerating people for taking it and dealing it, you’re saving money! But since that’s a little advanced, we’ll role it back to yet some more evidence. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2680499/Crime-tax-revenues-11million-Six-months-Colorado-voted-legalize-marijuana-sky-fallen-stoner-state-long-term-consequences-unclear.html

            While these are only police statistics and not Colorado government statistics, when the annual report comes out, there’s no reason to suspect it will say anything different. Indeed, why would it?

            I was wondering when the ‘but this is the UK and not America’ argument would materialise. It’s such an flaccid argument, as that’s usually where it ends. As when anyone is asked to explain why things would be different in the UK, they go very quiet.

            Yet more assumptions, because we haven’t discussed the limitations of cannabis legalisation on this particular thread, you assume I don’t think there should be any! Looks like we can add ‘Straw man arguments’ to your repertoire of “adult discussion” techniques.

            Do carry on insisting that I’m ranting while continuing to call me names and write off my what I say as “gibberish” without actually making any attempt to prove it though. It’s adorable.

          • UKSteve

            I didn’t say this was a “…serious, adult debate.”, you should learn to read like another muppet on here, Maybe you did, but that crap you smoke has scrambled everything.

            You’ve proven nothing, except that supply and demand works. Gee, “stop press” – as far as marijuana is concerned. And of course, as we all know, that’s their only income stream. Jesus.

            There are no notes accompanying those figures to place them in context, so exactly what they’re supposed to support is unclear, except that medical marijuana generates twice as much revenue as recreational, which was always anticipated.This isn’t just for handed out “doses”, it includes money form research licences, etc.

            Again, no proof of original assertions.

            I don’t engage in name-calling, it is off-putting and displays the weakness of the argument. So your very silly and immature. insult-laden ranting doesn’t advance your cause at all – in fact the opposite. That you think that America is exactly like the UK shows you’ve been indulging way too much.

            I’ll leave the last word to <a href="http://www.pnj.com/story/opinion/2014/09/13/viewpoint-colorado-going-pot-let-florida/15534781/&quot;Rachel O’Bryan.

          • manodenada

            “I don’t engage in name-calling, it is off-putting and displays the weakness of the argument.”

            “Mano de nada? Cerebro de nada more like.”

            Besides promoting hypocrisy, just what is your point again?

          • UKSteve

            It wasn’t hypocrisy. It was sarcasm. Point.

            It wasn’t name calling. It was a play on words with someone too cowardly to post under their own name. Another point. That’s 2 now.

            Oh, and number 2 was because you twisted something I typed beyond all recognition – and sanity.

          • manodenada

            Oh so you’re trying to be funny but failing miserably then? Hey you and Russell have more in common than you may think. Also “sarcasm” doesn’t mean “name calling” but hey that’s a Latin word and you seem to be unfamiliar with the concept. Oh and you have nothing substantial or helpful to say regarding cannabis policy. How surprising.

          • UKSteve

            LMAO at you telling me what words mean. I’m still trying to decode some of the things you’ve written. Go on, give me a hint, what language did you use?

            I wish we could filter out American juveniles.

          • manodenada

            It’s big of you to admit to your comprehension issues anyhow.

          • UKSteve

            Comprehension implies understanding.

            Gibberish requires decoding and interpreting.

          • manodenada

            Obviously you’re the expert in gibberish.

          • Will

            So UKSteve is the REAL name you were born under? You are truly heroic and an inspiration to us all! Look how brave UKSteve is everyone, using his real name!

          • UKSteve

            Actually, Stephen. And I worked overseas for a long time, so…..

            But it’s not about me looking heroic. It’s about you typing childish gibberish.

          • Will

            So you’re saying that everything you post is trivial, flippant, and childish. I knew we’d find something to agree on sooner or later. 🙂

            Oops, your forgot to “use your sources to rip these stupid and baseless claims to pieces.” In fact, aside from not actually saying anything other than “can’t hear you, you’re wrong cus I say so, la la la,” you’ve just posted someone’s opinion.

            “I don’t engage in name-calling.”

            “Idiot, muppet, deraanged, intellectually void, silly and immature, troll” – It appears you’re unaware of what you even type, that would certainly explain things. You’ve also spent a large chunk of your day doing it as well; it’s the booze isn’t it? It’s OK you can share with us, we can be your internet AA group for you.

            Still waiting on those devastating sources and counter arguments. I’m sure it was just an oversight that you completely forgot to post them. Any minute now!

          • UKSteve

            Sadly, because that’s how this degenerated. To accuse someone of being an alcoholic who you’ve never met is “immature, silly, childish and intellectually void”. You and your single fan / supporter on here, equally mentally ill-equipped and immature, have contributed nothing whatsoever to the debate.

            As you can’t even quote someone correctly, what I posted was “I don’t lurk around the internet all day passing out random personal insults.

            …and I don’t. When you originally posted, I agreed with much of what you wrote. But when I asked for detailed, authoritative, researched sources to back up the wildly exaggerated, hyberbole-rich claims you made, you offered a churlish paragraph of your own opinions, and 2 newspaper articles, one of who you insulted for the mindset of it’s readers! You then also became insulting, as above.

            So there’s a debate to be had, but only with informed people who can exchange thoughts without resorting to childishness. I came to the conclusion there wasn’t much difference between manodenada and you, although you at least state your position, so didn’t bother. To do so with anyone else would be casting pearls before swine.

          • Will

            I’m accusing you of being an alcoholic to give you a lesson on what it’s like to be judged because you enjoy certain substances. Which is exactly what you’ve been doing to me from the start. The lesson obviously got lost on you in your rush to cry victim though. Poor baby, I’m sawwwy! 🙁

            I can quote someone correctly, indeed you’ll find the exact phrase I quoted in the post above my last reply. It really doesn’t do much for your credibility when you deny you said something which is written just above. 🙂

            All the articles I provided linked to actual research or police figures. I can’t help you it if you choose to ignore that. I deliberately chose the DM as one article to point out that even THEY have had to admit cannabis legalisation has been a success. They best they could manage to downplay the story was to suggest that everything’s fine now, BUT in the future it could go wrong for no apparent reason. I’m sorry the naunce was lost on you, just like your lesson on sterotyping. I promise not to give you as much credit to figure it out in the future.

            I’m sure in your head you’ve won a fantastic victory with your lack of proof/argument. Good for you, Mummy would be proud. I’ll let people decide for themselves who between us has provided the strongest case. Considering you haven’t actually presented any kind of case, I’d have to say I’ve won. 🙂

          • UKSteve

            So this is your denial that you use it?

            No, you were accusing because it’s what you types do when you’re losing the argument. You made outlandish claims and tried ot back them up not with evidence, supporting research, personal investigation or facts, but 2 newspaper articles.

            You must be in intellectual of your family. The Washington Post as “actual research”? I rest my case.

            I didn’t mention “a case”; the only thing I’ve said here is “that there is a serious debate to be had”, but excludes you because that’s 3 times I’ve typed it, and 3 times it’s been lost on you, probably due to ‘addlement’.

            You’re all wild exaggeration, hostility and insults, with nothing of substance to back up outlandish claims.

          • Will

            “So this is your denial that you use it?’

            Errrrm, no.

            I’m not losing the argument though, so that’s a pretty silly thing to say isn’t it. Once again, the articles I provided, cite research and statistics provided by the State of Colorado and their police force. If you’d actually bothered to read them, you might have known that. I understand though, if you did actually read them you would be in danger of learning something.

            “More insults.”

            Desperation is a stinky cologne. 🙂

            “I’m a victim of your nasty, brutal, hostile, meanie, factually correct, water-tight argument. But it’s all wrong cus I say so and I’m right and you’re rubbish. I will continue to claim they are all wrong and completely outlandish, despite providing nothing to the contrary, apart from an opinion piece that happens to agree with me – that is my devestating evidence. Whaaaaaaaaaaaaa!”

            🙁

          • manodenada

            “And this exactly the kind of intellectually void, deranged rant you see from clueless and addled hop-heads, who spout the most egregious bull$hit to advance their cause. Are you “Jonesing”? 🙂 Mostly from the other side of the Atlantic, where I suspect some of this ranting drivel may have originated.”

            What exactly are you afraid of? I mean we all know you have no fear of sounding stupid in public opinion boards, but outside that, you’re are addled with perception issues.

            I mean you’re a mess; hates on the US, describes himself as a “country music loving blues fan”. HAHAHAHA!!

          • UKSteve

            If you want to see a mess, look in the mirror. You spend the day trolling forums, never contributing, always personally insulting.

            Of what use are you?

          • manodenada

            You know you really should just read your self sometime. Kettle, meet black; black, kettle. Cheers!

          • UKSteve

            I don’t need to. Unlike some people on the internet, and all trolls, I consider what I’m going to say before I start typing.

            I don’t lurk around the internet all day passing out random personal insults. Don’t you have American forums you can haunt?

          • manodenada

            You obviously mean that you don’t want to, and that should give you a bit of sympathy for everybody else.

          • UKSteve

            No, I said “need”. Not ‘want’. Maybe try a dictionary?

          • manodenada

            Yes but the problem with your low brow sarcasm and policy hypocrisy is no one knows what you mean by what you say. In any case, everybody else believes you NEED to, but we all understand why you don’t WANT to, too.

          • UKSteve

            Well you wouldn’t; I’ve seen what you type.

            I don’t have a “policy” whatever that’s meant to mean. I said we need “a serious debate is needed” (check above), but it’s not likely to involve (I hope) some of the muppets I’ve seen on here.

          • manodenada

            You use “serious debate” like you use “sarcasm”. You should aspire to be a muppet btw – might help your sagging comedy routine anyhow.

          • UKSteve

            Nope, never. You’re really on a roll ,what’s that, 5 in a row?

          • Will

            That’s pretty funny, considering that’s exactly what you’ve been doing.

          • UKSteve

            Thinking before I type? Indeed, thank you for noticing.

          • GraveDave

            I agree that it should be discussed at least.

          • MountainousIpswich

            I quite agree.

            Drugs should be legalised.

            And as part of doing this they should impound as many drugs as they can, mix it up with arsenic and release it back on to the streets. Give people a month’s warning.

            The Government then becomes the legal drug supplier and by default, the only 100% safe drugs supplier. You are free to buy and take drugs from the Government, but to do so you must agree to be photographed, id’d, fingerprinted etc. So that if you commit a crime while high, you can be stopped immediately. You can also pay a lot of tax to the Government and the criminals can be cut out of the loop in one fell swoop.

            Or you can take your chance with the arsenic. Hell, no less safe than some of the ‘legal highs’ out there right now. It would save lives by making all street drugs a visible death sentence.

            Reason I’m hardline? I personally know teachers, heads of department doing lines of coke in the evenings and at weekends. What chance do the kids have? This would force drug users to be registered and therefore can be eliminated from certain professions – such as working with kids. There’s no excuse for it.

          • Will

            So to stop people getting hurt you want to kill them. I hope you’re not allowed around children.

          • MountainousIpswich

            They are dying already. Drugs nowadays are cut up with all sorts of crap. Take anything and there’s a 5% chance of dropping dead from it. People will take that chance. Up the probability to 50 or 75% and that’s a chance people won’t take.

          • GraveDave

            Lol, well, if only half the stories about the ‘crumbling NHS’ are true, it’s going to be hard to know.
            Good luck anyway.

          • manodenada

            So what you’re saying is there are a lot of surgeons out there who really want to get stoned before surgery but are only held back but current cannabis laws??

          • UKSteve

            Nope, nothing like what I said. Any learning to back up your childishly stupid assumptions?

            Donate your computer to charity, and learn to read. There may be hope yet.

            Mano de nada? Cerebro de nada more like.

          • manodenada

            Ah if you didn’t have snarky you just wouldn’t be; discontent as content I guess. Still actually (and sadly, you can apologize later) I have read your posts, which to save time I’ll summarize as “I’ve never come across anyone who thinks current drug laws are working”, “I know exactly what is going on in Colorado and other states, and I don’t care, this is England, not Washington state”, and “most of the drug-addled idiots advocating ‘use for everybody’ do not see the consequences of their actions.” Yes no doubt you’re an intellectual powerhouse and the rest of us are just stoned out of our mind. How does someone so gifted find the time and patience to post so much uninformed nonsense?

          • UKSteve

            I consider it a public service. I mean, someone;s got to raise the bar.

            Next….

          • manodenada

            You’re confusing “raising the bar” with “raised in a bar” apparently.

          • UKSteve

            Nope. Nothing like, please don’t confuse me with your parents. You really need to stop digging now, and hand the shovel to somebody….

          • manodenada

            Top form “sarcasm” calling in my parents. Does your lack of actual humor hurt you as much as it hurts everybody else? You’re pretty much the poster boy for why the UK should legalize herb…

          • UKSteve

            Same form as “raised in a bar”? Very childish.

            Stupid and hypocritical – double buggered really, poor soul! Oh, and BTW, it’s ‘humour’.

          • manodenada

            Yea we know you snickered. Ah but I do believe you’ve come up with the perfect slogan for your poster boy campaign:

            Childish, stupid, hypocritical and not nearly high enough for public consumption.

            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humor?s=t

          • Fenton!

            ‘Probably’? What does that mean? Try living on a canal where the sound bounces around from house to house and ONE household is into drugs/insane. Trust me, you will change your mind.

          • GraveDave

            I do live in an area blighted by drugees, and not just tokers. Trust me, but if it was made legal they could all do it out of harms way somewhere and well away from us who don’t wish to see it.

          • ramesesthegrumbler

            They could but they won’t.

          • Fenton!

            The trouble is that they erupt from their drug dens (their houses, whatever) and let you know the state they’re in. The canal headcases of my experience enjoyed blowing a loud horn repeatedly at 3 in the morning, among other things.

  • HamtunscireKippa

    Watching that Educating the East End, most of those kids have far more useful things to say about life than Brand ever does. I would rather listen to their world view than his, no contest. Infact, my 3 year old nephew often manages to sum up a situation with the clarity we can only dream of from a politician, or a halfwit celeb.

  • minnesoter

    I just don’t understand why this ugly man is taken seriously.

  • Freddie

    “That’s why I enjoy my mornings in bed with Russell. It’s like a condensed version of a particularly bad edition of the Guardian, filtered through the veins of an imbecile.”

    love it never ceases to make me laugh

  • Seberg

    Liddle being catty about other journalists and Brand. What a surprise. Boring? Yes, but Liddle should listen to himself some time. Conservatives don’t like Russell Brand? Fall off my chair in amazement.

  • LoudonCleary

    Brand’s senselessness matters not to his ‘target demographic’, who neither grasp nor value sense but only respect ‘transgression’, meaning use of the phrase ‘up yours’ at every opportunity, and celebrity, the new measure of success — both of which Brand exhibits. That’s how it’s done: phone an old bloke on live TV and tell him you’ve f—ed his daughter, then move on to selling recycled undergrad political philosophy while filling the old bank account. Welcome to the new century.

  • wudyermucuss

    Ian Katz,ex Guardian deputy editor,new Newsnight head calls Brand :

    “incredibly funny,engaging,clever and compulsive to watch”

    and

    “the future of television”.*

    *Evening Standard 12/9/14

  • Innit Bruv

    A lot of words from the whining monkeymfc to say very little.
    (Although I do believe that Newsnight is way way past it’s sell by date).

  • Chunkdog1

    Russell Brand should worry more about bathing than politics.

  • Martin Jennerson

    Katz is a horrible caricature of the social-media professional – Dalston-living, latte-drinking, a very self-consciously “creative” person, etc. Not surprising that the best he can come up with for Newsnight is the concept of rehashing TMZ celebrity news, plus filling it with a load of tedious Guardian feminists because they’ve told him they want to be on.

  • Jeeti Johal-Bhuller

    Having read the article relating to the late Anna Nicole Smith and the opera about her life and death, I moved swiftly on to this article. Words defy the overwhelming sense of abject disbelief at the almost inconsequential incoherence contained within this article. My madness seems contagious Rod, Santa meets Steve, I wish you a speedy recovery to sanity.

  • mikewaller

    When is dear old RD going to admit that he and his kind are a big part of the problem? Far from being “forensic and revelatory” as he suggests, the interviewing style of John Humphrys in particular is exactly what switches young people – and millions of others – off with regard political debate. He may consider that “Today”‘s treatment of the Scotland debate was first class; I don’t. Certainly Jim Naughtie was his usual, measured self. By this I mean that he actually allowed those to whom he was speaking to make their point before he challenged it. Not so with Humphrys. John Major recently came on to make an impassioned plea for the retention of the Union, but its effect was greatly diminished by Humphry’s absolutely standard attempts to turn it into a pissing contest in which coping with him, rather than the topic, becomes the main issue.
    Now to millions of losers – who love to see the successful humbled – this is all good stuff; but to the ears of the young it sounds much too much like the domestic rows that very much part of their day to day existence. What we need is more Naughties and no Humphrys in the hope that we might be able to make political debate a much more civilised and informative affair. If that could be achieved, it is just possible that we could wean the young off egotistical halfwits like Brand.

  • BigCheddar

    “That’s why I enjoy my mornings in bed with Russell. It’s like a condensed version of a particularly bad edition of the Guardian, filtered through the veins of an imbecile.”

    True, Brilliant, Priceless, RL thank You 🙂

  • ted hagan

    Brand’s a sad bloke whose star is waning after so many duff films. He’ll disappear soon. Mind you, Jim Davidson a sad bloke too. How could anyone say they ever found him funny? Nick, Nick. Har, bloody har.

  • tttt

    Katz, public school twitt
    Sends his four children to Public School.

    The entire BBC/Guardian system is filled with rich, White, Public school, Oxbridge Socialists convinced that they’re heroes of the Marxist revolution – fighting for ‘the poor’ while sending their own children to Public School.
    Katz can’t get an audience, because neither he nor anyone he works with has anything in common with ordinary Brits.

  • Bolkonski
  • DFG2

    I find Brand’s entire career amazing. Why does anyone even know who this person is? I had never heard of him before he seemed to make a name for himself by bashing George W. Bush (like that was something unique or courageous). So I never heard his comic routine. Now all we hear out of him are his “Deep Thoughts” about the supposed meaning of life which provide as much insight as anything you might hear in a college freshman dormitory, or read TYPED IN ALL CAPS in the comments section of a left-wing blog. I can’t believe anyone still points a camera or microphone at him as opposed to any random man on the street.

  • Thaddeus lovelock

    Russell, is an annoying, character, and his desire to be taken seriously makes him even more annoying.

  • BarnMan

    have we all forgotten that it was Brand and that equally obnoxious soul Ross who thought it would be a jolly jibe to inform a grandfather of the fact that Brand had S*****d his granddaughter. (Oh, what mirth they created!)

  • Guest

    an utter moron

  • Kitty MLB

    utter moron

  • Christopher Smith

    All I’m reading from this comment section is style and personal criticisms, care to take a stab at criticising his politics (anarcho-syndicalism, if the readership is as ignorant as it appears). No? because the truth is you are saying that people ‘now a days’ have all manner of personality deficits that stop them from thinking like yourself. Never mind we have been living under right leaning governance since Thatcher, so why are things getting worse for people (psychologically)? People are listening to Brand because of his message, we need to be reminded that living on your own terms isn’t a radical concept and we don’t need to accept that banks and billionaires can have all they want while we fight amongst ourselves for the reward of the best wage. – Haveing lots of money makes people unhappy- The winners are the losers,but the losers lose even more (and eventually turn to violence).

    Rejecting capitalism is like losing a religion, it hurts and your first response is to lash out in it’s defence. But happiness comes from compassion and autonomy.

Close