I don't find this to be very inciteful.
Russell Brand - Moving Right
- Thread starter Pogue Mahone
- Start date
That's very subjective, a lot of people would disagree with you on half of those points. To try and pen down anybody who disagrees with him as simply being jealous is a little presumptuous I think, and kind of goes hand in hand with Mockney's comment about a sizeable opposition of people vocally dismissing him for the same reason. It's a shame that when people are on opposite sides, it will be penned to jealousy rather than actually the reasons that people state.
Parklife!
Nope, still not angry.
You'll obviously a lot closer to his views and the reaction of his views than I am. If I want to listen to him I have to seek him out. To most people that know him here he's a comedian known for stand-up and a bit of acting. I was surprised that he managed to sell out two nights in a row when he came here exactly a year ago with his Messiah Complex. I thought that was a good mix of stand-up comedy and throwing your views at people.
When people use Meme's as their basis for argument then there's not much to say really. To me that sounds like a person with leftist view disregarding anything someone on the right says automatically or vice versa. That's actually how a lot of people are.
I do believe I said a number of people, not anybody, which is the case. People are prone to form opinions based on their feelings. If it's not in their interest, people will also not seek to have that opinion swayed. You can see it everyday on the caf. A player is a wanker or and idiot or a cnut because of one tackle that one time or he said something stupid once post match. With politics it's even more prevalent. It's perfectly normal but it's not sensible.
That bold sentence, that pretty much sums up election campaigns. Just put a / behind jealousy and add a few words. I'd say envy is a better basis. But mostly it's just things that a different from the norm that make people angry.
That's fair enough, though to be honest makes the statement a little irrelevant, since we could equally say that there are a number of tools that idolise the ground he walks on for no reason. I misunderstood your intentions there as if you were talking about a much bigger section of people.
EDIT: Objectify? Idolise.
Well, I can't really put a percentage of the number of people. A poll with a 1000 people answering, redone 10 times across the UK would help but polls never go that far.
It's not irrelevant. There might be people on here who are like this without giving it much thought really and they might read these discussion and take a step back and maybe next time not be easily annoyed with someone or give someone a listen to despite not liking them. Just try and live by the golden rule I suppose. If you dish it out, you have to be prepared to handle it yourself. Very cliché but true IMO.
Why would you redo a poll ten times?
He should team up with Jamie Oliver.
Science yo. You repeat the same thing to get significant results.
You're having me on right?
I just find him not to be at all insightful, articulate, or intelligent. Great he's supporting a good cause, but he really doesn't know jack s**t about how the world works.
Is that some kind of British term for me being on top of you?
In science you do the relevant statistical significance test to find how how reliable the results are. Then you do the same experiment the same way over and over to see if you get the same result. For example, the drug industry has very strict rules regarding this.
But then there's accuracy and precision, principals that are used more in economics but I don't know these terms to well to explain them properly. Just know that they are related and precision is related to repeatability and reproducibility.
We're talking about polling, are we not? It's possible I've misunderstood you.
Yes. The principles apply to everything. You do agree that by polling a 1000 people, the results won't express the feelings of the whole country. It's just random 1000 people with a lot of variables attached to them that generally aren't taken into account.
No, I don't agree. Look into how this stuff works. You need quite a bit less than 1000 people to have a statistically sound sample of the entire UK.
Here, I found this.
http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html
5% margin of error, 95% confidence level, 60 million population...the sample size required is only 385. For 99% confidence, it's only 664.
http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html
5% margin of error, 95% confidence level, 60 million population...the sample size required is only 385. For 99% confidence, it's only 664.
I don't think it's accurate enough. It doesn't count variables like the Bandwagoner effect. In the UK you only have to go back 20 years to see the election polls failing to predict the winner and election polls are as accurate as it gets as far as polls go.
Obviously, the more people in a poll and the more times it's repeated, the more accurate it is. But the nature of the polls is to get as small a sample as you can to fit the pre-designed 95% confidence interval. It's a lot different then when I've done research and my conclusions that fit the hypotheses are usually something along the line of "according to X it's significant but there was Y and Z and therefor further research needs to be done".
I used this calculator. Same numbers gave me a sample size of 384. Where's your god now!?
No, I don't think you're understanding this. The more times it is repeated doesn't make it more accurate. They are independent events. If you increase the sample size, you can make it more accurate but at a certain point (not far off from the numbers I showed), you are talking hundredths of a percent.
I concede the point. Also, god is fake.
Why not? If you do the same poll on the same day with different people in the polls, are you saying you well get 95% the same result every time? I don't buy that. Some countries don't do that either. In Canada there are laws about publishing opinion poll results. Think there's some kind of rules in the UK as well or maybe that was just the BBC. Heard something about that in the recent Scotland independence election.
I get now what you point out to me. The point I'm trying to make is that I don't find this tactic accurate enough. If humans were more robotic it probably would be but the formulas used for the calculation only take into account hard data.
I honestly have no idea what your first paragraph is about. We're speaking about polling but the sample size equations apply universally. If you wanted to know how many parts from a machine out of 10000 were defective, 370 randomly selected would be enough to give you an answer with a 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error. Polling really has nothing to do with the math behind it.
This gem from Mitcher got completely overlooked
Ok, I get the point about size now. My argument against the common polling also applies to a larger poll size. Like you said, after a certain number it's hundreths of a percent.
Basically, I concede the point on the polling of Brand. I was really starting to contradict myself. Re-polling surely does matter because people's opinion change. I still maintain that polling isn't accurate enough but that's not really the fault of the results but people's fault for not being faultless.
I like him, breath of fresh air compared to current day celebrities and politicians. If you actually listen to what he says he's clearly not stupid, just because he doesn't have mainstream views doesn't make him wrong either.
Takes more than getting the right sample size to get accurate results. The really tricky bit is finding a truly random cross-section of the entire population of 60 million people. Bias is a much more likely reason for inaccuracy than an under-powered sample size.
I absolutely don't think it's "all gravy", I just realise that it doesn't really matter if Manuel was offended. Weighing up his feelings and the complete dearth of entertaining radio, I would choose to keep the thing on the air every time. Unfortunately there is a large and influential group of people, lazily termed by myself as "politically correct", who just sit around positively wet at the idea of getting offended.
Cannot stand the guy. He thinks he's some kind of intellectual revolutionary, but he spouts utter nonsense most of the time. I have to give him a small amount of credit for at least having a bit of fighting spirit, but I can't help but feel this is all for his ego rather than for any real desire for change. If it were the latter, he would surely take the time to become a bit better informed and it would surely make sense to speak in simple terms (to make it as easy as possible for everyone to understand exactly what he is getting at), rather than trying to sound clever by using complex words.
Lots of talk in the press today that on taking up his offer of 'speaking to his landlord' about how much rent he pays on his London home (an off the cuff offer he made during his Downing Street rant) their attempts to do that have uncovered that Brand is apparently paying his rent to an offshore property company based in the Virgin Islands where there are virtually no tax laws.
Effectively paying vast amounts to the same greedy, tax avoiding company he has been ranting about for the last few weeks for his own gain, and supporting the gentrification of London that he apparently wants us all to hate?
If it's true, he's a joke.
Effectively paying vast amounts to the same greedy, tax avoiding company he has been ranting about for the last few weeks for his own gain, and supporting the gentrification of London that he apparently wants us all to hate?
If it's true, he's a joke.
He has completely deluded himself into believing he is some sort of insightful and meaningful speaker on important social issues.
Unfortunately for him, he just a c**t.
Also - for those that think he is 'articulate'. Wow. Just wow.
Unfortunately for him, he just a c**t.
Also - for those that think he is 'articulate'. Wow. Just wow.
Damn right, I for one demand 10 years worth of P45's from all my landlords.
Brand is a cnut, hope that helps.
I don't think you understand the implication; it's not that the company he rents from avoids tax (although, his appearing on TV earlier in the week slating offshore, tax avoiding companies and saying their assets should be seized is fairly awkward in retrospect), it's that this kind of scheme plays a large part in pricing 'ordinary' people out of properties in London, and is the very thing he has been speaking out against. Not to mention, the tax saving he also makes as a result.
Yeah, but how does it make him a joke? He probably did what all of us do, look on the internet for a while and pick somewhere that you like and can afford.
He's incredibly articulate. To claim that he isn't is just preposterous. It doesn't matter how much you dislike him, you should be objective enough to recognise that. It's the equivalent of bitching about what a twat Luis Suarez is and then saying "and for those who think he's actually a good footballer, wow."
He's spent the last few weeks sticking his face into news cameras at every opportunity, first of all calling out companies that operate off shore to avoid tax, and then how American/foreign companies snapping up London based properties is causing a gentrification of London - pricing 'ordinary' people out of the property market by controlling desirable areas, and now it seems that at the same time he personally pays money to offshore companies to avoid tax whilst also renting from one of the companies he is trying to rally against.
Can you not see the contradiction there?
Again, is he expected to look into who owns every flat in London? That would be silly.
What, you think he unknowingly pays money into an offshore account, and never questions why his rent is unrealistically low for the kind of property/area he lives in?
Surely for someone who seems to hold such strong views on the subject would ensure he's not feeding directly into it?