QT next week

[Pin-seeker]

A waste of space who donated a good deal of money to a worth while cause - :thup:

And got a good bit of publicity from it.
Obviously worked on you.

 

[Ethan]

Russell Brand is far from my favourite comedian, but he is a saint compared to the odious Farage. Who, by the way, had an offshore tax dodging trust fund until caught out, and the Mail (and Telegraph), both owned by companies which take their profits offshore too. Hypocrites all. Brand also doesn't benefit from the actions of his landlords, so I don't see how he is different from anyone who buys a copy of the Mail. Mail readers may be accused of stupidity and xenophobia, but must we now also add supporting tax evasion? If the Mail can attack Brand for giving money to tax dodger, then I suppose we must.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

The point that seems to be missed re Brand is that by renting an expensive property in central London he is helping create the problem that he seems to be campaigning about.
He could have rented a much cheaper property in Woking/Basingstoke/Barking etc..

 

[SocketRocket]

Russell Brand is far from my favourite comedian, but he is a saint compared to the odious Farage. Who, by the way, had an offshore tax dodging trust fund until caught out, and the Mail (and Telegraph), both owned by companies which take their profits offshore too. Hypocrites all. Brand also doesn't benefit from the actions of his landlords, so I don't see how he is different from anyone who buys a copy of the Mail. Mail readers may be accused of stupidity and xenophobia, but must we now also add supporting tax evasion? If the Mail can attack Brand for giving money to tax dodger, then I suppose we must.

Thanks for the 'heads up' Ethan :thup:

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Thankfully he understands what the campaign was about and I'll prefer to look at the good about his donation instead of looking for an alternative meaning behind his donation. Him being a big football fan understands exactly what the campaign is about - most football fans do.

 

[Ethan]

The point that seems to be missed re Brand is that by renting an expensive property in central London he is helping create the problem that he seems to be campaigning about.
He could have rented a much cheaper property in Woking/Basingstoke/Barking etc..

Really.

Paul Dacre, the editor of the Mail owns three properties: a home with a mile-long drive in West Sussex (known to Mail staff as Dacre Towers), a weekday residence in central London and a seven-bedroom house in Scotland with a 17,000-acre shooting estate. But I am sure he needs all of those and could not find any alternatives.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Brand will get to be made a complete idiot...again.

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

Really.

Paul Dacre, the editor of the Mail owns three properties: a home with a mile-long drive in West Sussex (known to Mail staff as Dacre Towers), a weekday residence in central London and a seven-bedroom house in Scotland with a 17,000-acre shooting estate. But I am sure he needs all of those and could not find any alternatives.

Why does Dacre also contributing to the problem mean that Brand is fine to do it as well? Can they both not be bad?

 

[SocketRocket]

Why does Dacre also contributing to the problem mean that Brand is fine to do it as well? Can they both not be bad?

Course not. Dacre is part of the Daily Mail and Brand isn't. Which indicates that Brand is OK

 

[Foxholer]

Brand will get to be made a complete idiot...again.

Was this the episode? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D8EL5YR6Fo

Didn't seem to be 'made a complete idiot' to me!

Suprisingly eloquent, if a touch domineering, but that was only an excerpt! Was it a coincidence that he was at the opposite end to the Daily Mail columnist, who I also happened to agree with!

 

[Ethan]

Why does Dacre also contributing to the problem mean that Brand is fine to do it as well? Can they both not be bad?

Well, I thought it would be obvious, but apparently not. It shows the Mail are complete and utter hypocrites, and worse than the one they are criticising. The Mail is a tax dodger, so all who work for it support such a practice and their editor owns far more property than he needs so has no place criticising Brand for having just one place in London. Of course if Brand was campaigning to repatriate Eastern european immigrants and was a reformed anti-drug zealot they wouldn't be worried about who he pays rent to and he would be a hero. An irredeemably appalling and odious rag.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Well, I thought it would be obvious, but apparently not. It shows the Mail are complete and utter hypocrites, and worse than the one they are criticising. The Mail is a tax dodger, so all who work for it support such a practice and their editor owns far more property than he needs so has no place criticising Brand for having just one place in London. Of course if Brand was campaigning to repatriate Eastern european immigrants and was a reformed anti-drug zealot they wouldn't be worried about who he pays rent to and he would be a hero. An irredeemably appalling and odious rag.

I think most of us on here would agree with your description of the Mail.
I just used the clip to show the Channel 4 {?} interview.
It could have been any form of media, the topic was even discussed on Radio Scotland