to wonder what Russell Brand has on the Guardian

[carlajean]

In today's Guardian he was given a page and a half to waffle on about what happened at the GQ awards (his comments about Hugo Boss). (sorry no link, doing this on my phone). I can't remember when anyone, let alone an attention-seeking nitwit like RB, was given this much space and was wondering if anyone thought the same.

Haloo, do you also think governments shouldn't apologise for past atrocities? After all, none of them were personally in power at the time.
The fact that you think his Thatcher piece was just standard Guardian anti-Maggie fare just shows you didn't read it.
But the most mind-boggling is that you think Littlejohn makes good points. That man and Paul Dacre are two of the most sickening specimens of mankind, taking the empty heads of Daily Mail readers like my mother and pouring in poisonous bile, demeaning every minority group, whipping up hatred towards immigrants and benefit claimants alike, and adding on a sprinkling of celeb gossip to remind all us womenfolk that if we're larger than a size 10 we should just kill ourselves. Yeah, quality journalism there!

I think it was a very clever way of letting people know something that we would not have found out otherwise - that Boris Johnson was making tasteless jokes about Syria, etc. Without the furore over Brand's speech, people wouldn't have known about it, which I think is important.

Brand's speech also pointed out some nasty hypocrisy - people were cheering and laughing at disgusting jokes about the horrific deaths of thousands of people, a huge quantity of them children and babies, but were then offended that he pointed the uncomfortable fact that Hugo Boss made the uniforms for the nazis, and was a supporter of Hitler. In fact, he was a huge supporter, having joined the Nazi party almost as soon as it was conceived, and donated huge amounts of money to them. He also used slave labour to meet demands for his uniforms for the SS, Hitler Youth, etc., and was friends with Hitler.

It is a fucked-up world where someone is in the wrong for stating facts, but it's okay for an influential politician to make jokes about the deaths of children.

He is also a fab writer too, very talented.

I read it this morning, and I think the man is on to something. The Guardian is using his wit and humour to point at the obvious without themselves offending anybody or having to spend investigating journalists making a heavy piece on what could be seen as corruption at worst, or pocked dwelling at best.

The Guardian are the same with Pete Doherty though. I don't know what it is.

It was common knowledge that Hugo Boss made the Nazi uniforms.

People that read the Mail have "empty heads"? That's not a nice thing to say about your own mother. Do you not think it's more like all newspapers write articles that reinforce their readers own prejudices?

Haloo, was Richard Littlejohn being a good writer when he wrote angrily that the victims of the Ipswich serial killer shouldn't be called, or categorised as, women? That they should only be referred to as prostitutes annd that their deaths were 'no great loss'?

Or is that, like Boris, joking about the deaths of foreign, non-white people, perfectly acceptable?

And see my earlier comment for the facts on Hugo Boss and nazism. The man was an active, enthusiastic, influential even, party member of his own choice.

An aside, I used to work for the PR agency that represented Hugo Boss and I remember when the media started to report the SS story! I was always of the view that clearly the Nazis were cunts and then some, but they did dress well...

I think, like most of the other columns he's written, this needed a good subbing, but it was quite an entertaining read all told. Didn't know it was on front page, I only saw it online after it was tweeted by fecking every bogger.

I think Noel Gallagher comes out of the whole thing better than anyone.

I fell in love with Russell brand when he did the American news show and reduced them all to blubbering wrecks whilst he talked avoid Snowden.

He is brilliant. I will find the article now.

I wonder how many of these "but Hugo Boss was a huge Nazi" for there's are enjoying a cup of coffee from their Krupps machine before getting into their people's car.

As an aside, all of his talk of Noel Gallagher came across to me as RB making sure that we knew he wasn't the only person there who stood up to Boris and that other Tory he mentions (can't remember his name, sorry) for their offensive jokes and unnecessary personal comments.

Would this be the same Noel Gallagher who said that he hoped that the bassist and the singer of a band he didn't like died of AIDS?

I like RB more the more I hear from him. He's a genius and a lot of fun.

And for that matter, the former heroin addict Russell Brand? Was all his heroin "fair trade"?

Manchester, your comment is pretty unreadable, but are you suggesting that people are hypocritical to say that Hugo Boss was a Nazi, when, um, he was, if they themselves use products made by companies that also prospered under the Nazis? Because that's a bit like saying people can't say dog fighting is cruel if they're not hardcore vegans.

And, FYI, I don't use products from any of the companies that prospered under the Nazis, or who used slave labour, because I have relatives who survived the Holocaust. So does that mean that it's okay by you if I say that Hugo Boss was a Nazi? Your permission really matters to me

Haloo, Russell Brand taking heroin just hurt him. Noel Gallagher's AIDS retort was tasteless, but focused at one individual. Neither are in the same vein (accidental heroin pun, sorry) as insisting that prostitutes aren't human, making jokes about gassed children in Syria, or, indeed, funding a regime that killed over six million people. Or are they, to you?

Lighthousekeeping Yes, the Guardian are just the same with Pete Doherty. And Beth Ditto, for that matter. DH & I often speculate whether they are related to the editor, for we can see no other reason for their ubiquity.

I thought it was a brilliantly written piece and made me somewhat reassess my opinion of him

I think they're desperately trying to seem "hip". I just find it all rather sad.

I'd rather be the saddest saddo alive, than be capable of thinking Richard Littlejohn a good writer.

I am a fan of anyone that thinks for themself and doesn't suck up to the elite. RB is a very clever man, I don't know why people on here are calling him an idiot??

It is no shock to me that he's in the Guardian.

Don't fool yourself, the Guardian ARE the elite!

If he was thinking for himself he wouldn't be regurgitating the same old lefty student clichés at almost age 40.

Having re-read my post, what I actually wanted to say was it seems that people are only focussing on Hugo Boss as a huge Nazi, but probably unaware of what and who else were enormous nazi providers and still in existence today.

Too many people jump on bandwagons and start frothing without doing proper research into things.

Absolutely condem Hugo Boss for what happened in the War, but don't do it without looking at the wider world or in some cases what's in your own house.

As it is I actually very much enjoyed the article, but I won't be jumping onto the oh isn't Russell Brand marvellous because he pointed out Hugo Boss was a huge Nazi, whilst turning upto an event sponsored by the house bearing his name.

As for me giving permission to people to use or not use certain things? What a bonkers idea. I was making the point that people will jump to a tune called be a celebrity instead of thinking for themselves.

Just about any big company that's been in existance for decades will have skeletons in their closets, particularly if you're judging people in the past by today's moral standards.

I haven't read the article. Is RB sucking up to the Guardian in it? I would have thought he was using them to get his message across and do a bit of self-promotion. I haven't read it though, I will go and have a look now.

As far as the Guardian being the elite? I would have to argue that not all people/institutions that have power and influence are on the side of pure evil. I think you have to differentiate.