Guest MattP Posted 17 December 2014 Posted 17 December 2014 Thought I'd start a new thread for this rather than put in in the politics one as Russell likes to gain a wider audience. A fantastically written piece from an RBS worker after Brand had turned upto the building with his minions and megaphone to cause some more protest and publicity. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/disgruntled-rbs-worker-writes-hilarious-open-letter-to-russell-brand-after-anticapitalist-publicity-stunt-leaves-him-hungry-9930135.html Dear Russell, Hi. I'm Jo. You may remember me. You may even have filmed me. On Friday, you staged a publicity stunt at an RBS office, inconveniencing a hundred or so people. I was the lanky slouched guy with a lot less hair than you but (I flatter myself) a slightly better beard who complained to you that you, a multimillionaire, had caused my lunch to get cold. You started going on at me about public money and bankers' bonuses, but look, Russell, anyone who knows me will tell you that my food is important to me, and I hadn't had breakfast that morning, and I'd been standing in the freezing cold for half an hour on your whim. What mattered to me at the time wasn't bonuses; it was my lunch, so I said so. Which is a great shame, because I'd usually be well up for a proper barney with you, and the points you made do actually deserve answers. Although not — and I really can't emphasise this enough, Russell — not as much as I deserve lunch. Before I go any further, I should stress that I don't speak for RBS. I'm not even an RBS employee, though I do currently work for them. What follows is not any sort of official statement from RBS, or even from the wider banking industry. It is merely the voice of a man whose lunch on Friday was unfairly delayed and too damn cold. So, firstly, for the people who weren't there, let's describe the kerfuffle. I didn't see your arrival; I just got back from buying my lunch to discover the building's doors were locked, a film crew were racing around outside trying to find a good angle to point their camera through the windows, and you were in reception, poncing around like you were Russell bleeding Brand. From what I can gather, you'd gone in and security had locked the doors to stop your film crew following you. Which left us — the people who were supposed to be in the building, who had work to do — standing around in the cold. My first question is, what were you hoping to achieve? Did you think a pack of traders might gallop through reception, laughing maniacally as they threw burning banknotes in the air, quaffing champagne, and brutally thrashing the ornamental paupers that they keep on diamante leashes — and you, Russell, would damningly catch them in the act? But that's on Tuesdays. I get it, Russell, I do: footage of being asked to leave by security is good footage. It looks like you're challenging the system and the powers that be want your voice suppressed. Or something. But all it really means, behind the manipulative media bullshit, is that you don't have an appointment. Of course, Russell, I have no idea whether you could get an appointment. Maybe RBS top brass would rather not talk to you. That's their call — and, you know, some of your behaviour might make them a tad wary. Reputations are very important in banking, and, reputation-wise, hanging out with a guy who was once fired for broadcasting hardcore pornography while off his head on crack is not ideal. But surely a man who can get invited onto Question Time to discuss the issues of the day with our Lords & Masters is establishment enough to talk to a mere banker. And it would be great if you could. Have you tried, Russell? Maybe you could do an interview with one of them. An expert could answer your questions and rebut your points, and you could rebut right back at them. I might even watch that. (By the way, Russell, if you do, and it makes money, I would like a cut for the idea, please. And I'm sure it would. Most things you do make money.) But instead of doing something potentially educational, Russell, you staged a completely futile publicity stunt. You turned up and weren't allowed in. Big wow. You know what would have happened if a rabid capitalist had just turned up unannounced? They wouldn't have been allowed in either. You know what I have in my pocket? A security pass. Unauthorised people aren't allowed in. Obviously. That's not a global conspiracy, Russell; it's basic security. Breweries have security too, and that's not because they're conspiring to steal beer from the poor. And security really matters: banks are simply crawling with highly sensitive information. Letting you in because you're a celebrity and You Demand Answers could in fact see the bank hauled in front of the FCA. That would be a scandal. Turning you away is not. I'm sorry, Russell, but it's just not. Your response to my complaint that a multimillionaire was causing my lunch to get cold was... well, frankly, it was to completely miss the point, choosing to talk about your millions instead of addressing the real issue, namely my ****ing lunch. But that's a forgivable mistake. We all have our priorities, Russell, and I can understand why a man as obsessed with money as I am with food would assume that's what every conversation is about. Anyway, you said that all your money has been made privately, not through taxation. Now, that, Russell, is actually a fair point. Well done. Although I can't help but notice that you have no qualms about appearing on the BBC in return for money raised through one of the most regressive taxes in the country, a tax which leads to crippling fines and even jail time for thousands of poor people and zero rich people. But never mind. I appreciate that it's difficult for a celeb to avoid the BBC, even if they're already a multimillionaire and can totally afford to turn the work down. Ah, the sacrifices we make to our principles for filthy lucre, eh, Russell? The condoms and hairspray won't buy themselves. Or, in my case, the pasta. And then there is that film you're working on, isn't there, for which I understand your production company is benefitting from the Enterprise Investment Scheme, allowing the City investors funding your film to avoid tax. Was that the film you were making on Friday, Russell, when you indignantly pointed out to me that none of your money comes from the taxpayer? Perhaps it had slipped your mind. And, of course, you've been in a few Hollywood films now, haven't you, Russell? I take it you've heard of Hollywood Accounting? Of course you have, Russell; you produced Arthur. So you are well aware that Hollywood studios routinely cook their books to make sure their films never go into taxable profit — for instance, Return Of The Jedi has never, on paper, made a profit. Return Of The ****ing Jedi, Russell. As an actor, and even more so as the producer of a (officially) loss-making film, you've taken part in that, you've benefitted from it. (While we're on the subject, I hear great things about Hollywood's catering. I hope you enjoyed it. Expensive, delicious, and served (at least when I dream about it) nice and hot.) But still, you're broadly right. Leaving aside the money you make from one of the most regressive of the UK's taxes, and the tax exemptions your company uses to encourage rich City investors to give you more money, and the huge fees you've accepted from one of the planet's most notorious and successful tax avoidance schemes, you, Russell, have come by your riches without any effect on taxpayers. Whereas RBS got bailed out. Fair point. Here's the thing about the bailout of RBS, Russell: it's temporary. The plan was never to bail out a bank so that it could then go bust anyway. That would be too asinine even for Gordon Brown. The idea was to buy the bank with public money, wait until it became profitable again, then resell it, as Alastair Darling clearly explained at the time. And that is still the plan, and it does appear to be on course. Not only that, but it looks as if the government will eventually sell RBS for more than they bought it for. In other words, the taxpayer will make a profit on this deal. Of all the profligate pissing away of public money that goes on in this country, the only instance where the public are actually going to get their money back seems an odd target for your ire. What other government spending can you say that about, Russell? What other schemes do they sink taxpayers' money into and get it all back, with interest? And how many people have you met who have actually been right in the middle of working to make a profit for the taxpayer when you've interrupted them to cause their lunch to get cold? As for bonuses, well, I'll be honest: I get an annual bonus. I'm not allowed to tell you exactly how much it is, but I will say it's four or five orders of magnitude smaller than the ones that make the headlines. It's very nice — helps pay off a bit of credit card debt (remember debt, Russell?) — but, to put it in terms you can understand, I'd need to work for several tens of thousands of years before my bonuses added up to close to what you're worth. But here's the key thing you need to know about bonuses, Russell: they come with conditions attached. My salary is mine to do with as I will (I like to spend a chunk of it on good hot food). My bonus my employer can take back off me under certain conditions. Again, I do not speak for RBS, so cannot say anything about the recent FX trading scandal or PPI or any of that shit. But, in general terms, bonuses have conditions attached, such as “And we'll claw back every penny if we discover you were breaking the rules.” And yes, it does happen. The only bonuses that make the news are the ones that get paid. But, every year, bonuses either don't get paid or are even taken back off staff for various reasons, including misconduct. I'd've thought, Russell, that anyone who wanted bankers to be accountable would approve of the scheme. And now, if I may, a word about your manner. Much as I disagree with most of your politics, I've always rather liked you. You do a good job of coming across as someone who might be fun to be around. Turns out, that's an illusion. Because, you see, Russell, when you accosted me, you started speaking to me with your nose about two inches from mine. That's pretty ****ing aggressive, Russell. I'm sure you're aware of the effect. Putting one's face that close to someone else's and staring into their eyes is how primates square off for a fight. Regardless of our veneer of civilisation, when someone does that to us, it causes instinctive physical responses: adrenaline, nervousness... back down or lash out. (Or, apparently, in the case of the celebrity bikes you like to hang out with, swoon.) I'm sure that, like turning up with a megaphone instead of an appointment, such an aggressive invasion of personal space makes for great footage: you keep talking to someone in that chatty reasonable affable tone of yours, and they react with anger. Makes them look unreasonable. Makes it look like they're the aggressive ones. Makes it look like people get flustered in the face of your incisive argument. When in fact they're just getting flustered in the face of your face. I've been thinking about this the last couple of days, Russell, and I can honestly say that the only other people ever to talk to me the way you did were school bullies. It's been nearly a quarter of a century since I had to deal with such bastards, so I was caught quite off my guard. Nice company you're keeping. Now I think about it, they used to ruin my lunchtimes too. One last thing, Russell. Who did you inconvenience on Friday? Let's say that you're right, and that the likes of Fred Goodwin need to pay. OK, so how much trouble do you think Fred faced last Friday as a result of your antics? Do you think any of his food got cold, Russell? Even just his tea? I somehow doubt it. How about some of the millionaire traders you despise so much (some of whom are nearly as rich as you, Russell)? Well, no, because you got the wrong ****ing building. (Might want to have a word with your researchers about that.) Which brings us back to where we came in: a bunch of admittedly fairly well paid but still quite ordinary working people, admin staff mostly, having their lives inconvenienced and, in at least one case, their lunches quite disastrously cooled, in order to accommodate the puerile self-aggrandising antics of a prancing multimillionaire. If you had any self-awareness beyond agonising over how often to straighten your ****ing chest-hair, you'd be ashamed. It was paella, by the way. From Fernando's in Devonshire Row. I highly recommend them: their food is frankly just fantastic. When it's hot. Take a bow
AKCJ Posted 17 December 2014 Posted 17 December 2014 "you were in reception, poncing around like you were Russel bleeding Brand".
Alexikokopops Posted 17 December 2014 Posted 17 December 2014 Gave this a read over the morning commute. It improved it immeasurably. I didn't mind Russell Brand before he started appearing on anything vaguely political and spouting a lot of nothing with no actual substance or any inclination to do anything himself. I particularly liked this bit: My first question is, what were you hoping to achieve? Did you think a pack of traders might gallop through reception, laughing maniacally as they threw burning banknotes in the air, quaffing champagne, and brutally thrashing the ornamental paupers that they keep on diamante leashes — and you, Russell, would damningly catch them in the act? But that's on Tuesdays. I get it, Russell, I do: footage of being asked to leave by security is good footage. It looks like you're challenging the system and the powers that be want your voice suppressed. Or something. But all it really means, behind the manipulative media bullshit, is that you don't have an appointment.
Nalis Posted 17 December 2014 Posted 17 December 2014 I'm not really pro or anti Brand but this was a great read. Loved the point about being nose to nose to give the impression that the other person is being aggressive by their reaction and not Brand. I've noticed this technique in others too. Bravo to the writer!
AKCJ Posted 17 December 2014 Posted 17 December 2014 I'm not really pro or anti Brand but this was a great read. Loved the point about being nose to nose to give the impression that the other person is being aggressive by their reaction and not Brand. I've noticed this technique in others too. Bravo to the writer! Yeah, you can see how clever Brand actually is in situations like this. When he turns up without an appointment and gets turned away by security it does look like he's 'won' when actually the writer is completely correct. He just doesn't have an appointment. I've noticed a few of these techniques on his YouTube page, often inciting aggression in order to fluster under qualified employees like security and receptionists of top firms. I agree with the writer in that I would rather watch him take on 'someone his own size' rather than whore out his YouTube channel for mindless 'likes' from people who can't see his tricks. I don't really have a problem with him, nor do I like him. He's 'box office' in that most things he says are worth listening to but the problem is that he's a bit of an arsehole.
leicsmac Posted 17 December 2014 Posted 17 December 2014 Yeah, you can see how clever Brand actually is in situations like this. When he turns up without an appointment and gets turned away by security it does look like he's 'won' when actually the writer is completely correct. He just doesn't have an appointment. I've noticed a few of these techniques on his YouTube page, often inciting aggression in order to fluster under qualified employees like security and receptionists of top firms. I agree with the writer in that I would rather watch him take on 'someone his own size' rather than whore out his YouTube channel for mindless 'likes' from people who can't see his tricks. I don't really have a problem with him, nor do I like him. He's 'box office' in that most things he says are worth listening to but the problem is that he's a bit of an arsehole. Exactly. He's an extrovert idiot. The thing is though, the stuff he talks about are things that DO need to be addressed. Just not by him.
Bert Posted 17 December 2014 Posted 17 December 2014 He's an egotistical twat. Plays massively on his addictive past and because he's come through it he seems to think he's far superior to most other people.
Finnegan Posted 17 December 2014 Posted 17 December 2014 "When in fact they're just getting flustered in the face of your face."
James. Posted 17 December 2014 Posted 17 December 2014 Makes some good points but personally think Jo sounds like a bit of a dick (I expect a lot of people like it purely because it's another opportunity to stick the knife into Brand). There's also something slightly unusual about it, can't put my finger on why but wouldn't surprise me if it was fake. On the other hand Brand really does need to go about things differently. If the net impact of this is that people actually sympathise with or defend the banks, or think that Brand is somehow worse than the banks then he really has failed to highlight an issue that people should be angrier about than they are. And I say that as someone who works in an office that Brand could turn up outside of. Lastly if Jo really needs tens of thousands of years of bonuses to make what Russel Brand is worth he has the worst investment banking job ever.
David Guiza Posted 17 December 2014 Posted 17 December 2014 He's an egotistical twat. Plays massively on his addictive past and because he's come through it he seems to think he's far superior to most other people. Personally found the leter very funny, but disagree with this. He's completley right in my opinion. Why shouldn't he use his addictive past to try and change the ridiculous laws and perception on drugs? Surely that's better than doing what most comics do by trying to appear on every panel show under the sun for extra fame and fortune/ Comedy taste is as wide as music taste, Brand put himself out there to be ridiculed by almost everything he does. And i'm sure he'll accept most things that are thrown at him, particularly an amusing letter.
Guest MattP Posted 17 December 2014 Posted 17 December 2014 Yeah, you can see how clever Brand actually is in situations like this. Not really, it's more an example of how stupid the public are than how clever he is. The vast majority of people can see through him, the people who generally seem to follow and support his actions have never come across as the brightest. Makes some good points but personally think Jo sounds like a bit of a dick (I expect a lot of people like it purely because it's another opportunity to stick the knife into Brand). There's also something slightly unusual about it, can't put my finger on why but wouldn't surprise me if it was fake. Wanting to go out for lunch, come back and eat your dinner when it's still warm. What a dick he is. 'If' the situation is true there is only one person behaving like a total dick and it certainly isn't the writer of the letter.
James. Posted 17 December 2014 Posted 17 December 2014 Wanting to go out for lunch, come back and eat your dinner when it's still warm. What a dick he is. 'If' the situation is true there is only one person behaving like a total dick and it certainly isn't the writer of the letter. Like I said I don't think Brand's going about things the right way. Causing inconvenience to normal people just trying to do their job is definitely a dick-ish thing to do and diverts attention from the real issues which are worth pursuing. However the tone of that letter is pompous, slightly snobbish and at times missing the point entirely so I'm not sure what makes this guy the hero.
ousefox Posted 17 December 2014 Posted 17 December 2014 I'm not really pro or anti Brand but this was a great read. Loved the point about being nose to nose to give the impression that the other person is being aggressive by their reaction and not Brand. I've noticed this technique in others too. Bravo to the writer! I think this is just a thing he does generally rather than on purpose. I caught a bit of his drug programme the other day and I pointed out how in a woman's face he was - this was in a situation where he was feeling sorry for her after just being arrested. I don't agree with everything he says but it's far too easy accuse him of hypocrisy. Without this he wouldn't have been able to build a platform for his views, whether you agree with him or not. He could never get on the tele if he didn't go on a BBC paid for by a regressive tax or any other capitalist tv channels he's so vehemently against. With his views, he can barely by a coffee without someone accusing him of hypocrisy.
Guest MattP Posted 17 December 2014 Posted 17 December 2014 However the tone of that letter is pompous, slightly snobbish and at times missing the point entirely so I'm not sure what makes this guy the hero. I think the tone is fine. It's a combination of well written sarcasm and some well thought out points as to why Brand's actions are those of hysterical politics, hyperbole, bullying and hypocrisy. Where do you think he is missing the point regarding Brand?
AKCJ Posted 17 December 2014 Posted 17 December 2014 Not really, it's more an example of how stupid the public are than how clever he is. But isn't that clever? Knowing that people are stupid and using that to your advantage? I suppose the correct term would be 'switched on'.
Guest MattP Posted 17 December 2014 Posted 17 December 2014 'Joseph' is apparantly a business analyst. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2877449/Russell-Brand-school-bully-ruined-lunch-RBS-worker-s-hilariously-cutting-riposte-comedian-s-bank-publicity-stunt.html?ito=social-facebook I honestly think Brand might be back on the smack.
leicsmac Posted 17 December 2014 Posted 17 December 2014 I think the tone is fine. It's a combination of well written sarcasm and some well thought out points as to why Brand's actions are those of hysterical politics, hyperbole, bullying and hypocrisy. Where do you think he is missing the point regarding Brand? You don't think it's patronising in places? Not that I mind Brand getting patronised, but I think both this guy and Brand have precious little idea of life outside their own bubbles.
Guest MattP Posted 17 December 2014 Posted 17 December 2014 You don't think it's patronising in places? Not at all. The whole thing sounds quite strange. What is he actually doing? A source told MailOnline: 'He started asking one guy how much people in RBS make and the guy replied, “How much do you earn?” 'Russell said the money he makes is not public money, to which the guy answered: “How much tax do you pay?” 'That kind of shut Russell up.' The source told how Brand arrived at the building at about 2pm with a TV crew and a 'billboard truck' with a large photograph of disgraced former RBS chief Fred Goodwin and slogans such as, 'Stop the Banker.' 'Russell was going around asking people about bonuses and using public money and their pensions,' the source added. 'But he was mainly just talking to receptionists and security guards. Loads of people got stuck inside and out as they tried to go to and come back from lunch. 'Russell was really calm but getting really close to people and invading their personal space so they were getting annoyed. 'So when his questions fell mostly on deaf ears, he went outside and started talking to people waiting to get in. But because they weren't allowed in until he left they grew increasingly annoyed. 'The whole thing went on for 25 to 30 minutes. Then he left.' Mr Kynaston Reeves said the protest had not inconvenienced rich bankers as it was designed to, because it had taken place 'outside the wrong f****** building'.
surrifox Posted 17 December 2014 Posted 17 December 2014 Brand is a hypocrite. yes he most certainly is- unfortunately empty vessels really do make the most noise and those you really would like to see f**k off and die rarely do
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.