This seems like a perfectly fair photo to use, doesn't it Ben.

Rather than a standard article, this article will be a reply to another article I recently read by Ben Lazarus for the Telegraph (and for those of you that don't know, the Telegraph is a generally conservative newspaper).

The article I am referring to can be found at this link here, and is regarding his views on Russell Brand (and his recent political interference).

Mr Lazarus (an alleged interesting journalist) writes that Mr Brand's ' crude, ill-thought-through blathering just makes him and his political fellow travellers look ridiculous'.

I'm sorry Ben, I disagree with you.

And before I tell you why you're wrong, I'm going to ensure you know I'm not writing for either side of the political spectrum here.

'Crude' - first let's define it: 'in a natural or raw state; not yet processed or refined.' Or possibly 'lacking tact or taste; blunt or offensive'. Both of which I wholly agree are attributable to Russell, but neither of which are a bad thing.

In regards to the first definition, are you suggesting that in order to be credible as a political figurehead you must be refined, processed, and therefore unnatural? Looks like you're describing the majority of parliament at the moment, and I don't think that's the look Russell is going for. The beauty of how he gets his message across is the unrefined, unruly nature of it.

And for the second definition, are you instead suggesting that being blunt or offensive are bad things? Or for that matter lacking 'taste'? It would be a welcome change to the majority of the world if politicians were blunt, and didn't deviate on every single question or point. The world would be a better place without the deception and 'beating around the bush' of those in power. Brand puts his message across bluntly and with no care for those who might take offence, because it is a strong, harsh message that needs no conventional bounds or limits.

'Ill-thought-through blathering' - I was personally somewhat surprised at both the passion and strength behind his 'blathering' to Paxman. Clearly what he has to say is of importance to him as he said it with heart and with deep emotive feeling. It wasn't just another anti-left telegraph article with no real grounds or backing, it was the real deal - he has lived depravity and disillusionment, and is the product of of the government that failed him. He is his own evidence in some respects. But rather than bash him for using a few complicated words that he has learned along the way (which, funnily enough, is why we use all words, they're all learned along the way) listen to his message and you'll see his point, whether or not you agree with him.

Basically what I'm saying is that he doesn't need to conform to your boundaries of what 'credible' opinions are.

And his method is one of a contemporary nature. Although I'm not sure you've ever heard of 'contemporary politics', being so strictly bound and whipped by traditional politics.

I also thought your comment on him taking a politics A level was quite rich. How else is someone without a thorough education able to become educated in a specific field, without education? Is it not admirable that he is seeking to learn more about the institution in which he is playing a role in at the present, and plays a huge role on his life? You use it as a device to which you can scoff at his 'lack of intelligence', but I think we need to clarify what intelligence is too. Because from the looks of things, Russell appears to be doing pretty well for himself - his name is known worldwide, he's been through terrible times and pulled through, he's changed from drug-dependency to freedom from drugs altogether, and is still able to be interviewed by one of the most prestigious political interviewers on the planet: Jeremy Paxman. And who are you again? An 'alleged' journalist trying to appeal to your up-themselves buddies who will laugh at the idea of not having an A level? Who would see you on the street and ask for a photo or autograph? Do you have the level of influence Brand potentially has? I think that's pretty damn clever of him, to know he can have an impact, thus learns about the area he wishes to impact.

By the way, you have 193 twitter followers, that's not an impact.

Furthermore I don't think you care in the slightest about Orwell or Webb, or whether or not Brand reads them, rather your argument had no real legs to stand on, thus you needed some big names of the left to fall back on, and to suggest that Brand can't read. Anyone who is intelligent enough to be where he is can read through an Orwell novel (considering how poorly they are written literately). But Brand isn't Orwell, and doesn't need to align himself with Orwell or his teachings. In fact, he doesn't even reference him because Orwell is old, Brand is now.


I could go on about your horrendously written attack on Brand's personality, but that would be a waste. Rather I would like to suggest that Russell has a point. There is a massive economic and social divide between countries and the people within them. As humans, we do impact the Earth. British politicians are generally old Oxfordians and Etonians. Politicians in general are the elites. There is mass disillusionment across the country, and voter turnout is low for a reason. And voting really doesn't feel like it makes a difference.

In your style of writing: 'perhaps' it is time that you start writing about the actual politics of Brand and his 'blathering', rather than attacking his personal qualities. Last time I checked, the telegraph is not a tabloid.

Brand is talking politics, you're not.