Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Maggie and Russell…

I have considered fisking this but God knows where to start. Every 8 bits of ASCII in it makes a decent human being want to vomit blood. I have always despised Russell Brand but this takes the cake. Read the whole thing if you can stomach it.

Maggie was a stateswoman who made my life better, Brand is allegedly a “comedian” who has consistenetly failed to make me laugh and he can take his “Bookie-Wook” and stick it up his arse.

Apparenttly Brand has been treated for “sex addiction” (trans: not being able to keep one’s dick in one’s pants – something that normal people learn as toddlers but then Russell Brand is not a normal person – such as the child of a grocer for example). No. Brand is an example of the sub-species H. sapiens bellendius. A member of a related (to us) species not fit to lick Maggie’s toilet bowl clean even after Willie Whitelaw had been round and had partaken of rathere too many sweet sherries than were strictly speaking good for him.

One wonders who his “sexual addiction” played with because he has the intrinsic charm of some form of scote and the general look of a “gentleman of the road” who has been dragged through the Labortaire Garnier backwards – twice. Call me naive but I can’t imagine getting that look without being urinated upon by tramps whilst sleeping in bus-stops and then going for a 3 for 2 at Boots on hair “product”.

As a heterosexual male I like tits but he is a tit unwelcome in this gaff. He would scare the cat apart from anything.

Margaret Thatcher – we shall, alas, never see her like again. Twats like Russell Brand we shall the ilk of again and again and again…

Because simply by being agin anything good or decent or proper they are “cool”. Well, here is the truth. I (and I doubt Maggie was either) averse to a bit of fun and I have done questionable things. Once with a shopping trolley in Leeds. I have been naughty. I knew I was being naughty – that’s why it was fun! Of course much of my fun is totally like whatever but you don’t wanna hear about that do you? You know, “My wife and I played Scrabble”. You want the mental stuff like when I was ticked-off by the fuzz for screwing a Finnish bird against a statue of Sir Walter Raleigh in Whitehall.

She felt the need (she was extremely drunk) to add to the copper that she was writing her MA thesis on him. This is a prime example of something being true (yes, it was) but not useful.

And that at some depraved level is my point. There is something unbelievably priggish about Brand. He seems to want things to be “allowed” (though not drugs – with which he has had capers – no! he wants them banned) whereas the rest of us just do it anyway. He talks about Maggie’s “Schoolmarm-ishness” without realising he is vastly more didactic. Except he and his pals feel they can tell us what we can get away with.

You are not a developed country because you have laws that allow x,y,z. You are because nobody in thousnds of years has thought to enact a law contra x,y,z.

Maggie understood this. Brand clearly does not.

Baroness Thatcher shall be venerated in this nation – and other places – for a thousand years. Russell Brand will have his DVDs in the “bargain bucket” at 99p a go before this post is a week old.

BTW, the Finn was much better looking (and smarter) than Katy Perry. But then she really was a firework, and so was Maggie. My Prime Minister.

NickM, born 1973.


  1. john in cheshire says:

    NickM, well said. It’s a shame that the ugly arsehole, Brand, will probably never read your home truths. Mr Brand is the type that I can’t bear to look at or listen to and suspect that he’s contaminated with all sorts of undesirable bacteria and viruses. One would have to wash repeatedly if ever in his presence, never mind being in bodily contact.

  2. Russel Brand says:

    Politicians don’t represent the interests of people that don’t vote. They barely care about the people who do vote. They look after the corporations who get them elected.

    Why am I surprised that young people behave destructively, “mindlessly”, motivated only by self-interest? How should we describe the actions of the city bankers that brought our economy to it’s knees in 2010? Altruistic? mindful? Kind? But then again, they do wear suits, so they deserve to be bailed out, perhaps that’s why not one of them has been imprisoned. And they got away with a lot more than a few fucking pairs of trainers.

    These young people have no sense of community because they haven’t been given one. They have no stake in society because Cameron’s mentor Margaret Thatcher told us there’s no such thing.


    P.S. Don’t dis My Booky Wook

  3. Twenty_Rothmans says:


    The Speccie paid Brand to write an article three weeks ago. If I want his opinion, I am jolly well not going to pay for it.

    All that said though, he has nailed some rather good quality muff.

    That makes me hate him even more.

  4. @ RB ~ Why would anyone behave destructively if motivated by self-interest?

    I guess you mean 2008 right? sure bankers behaved like they were on a one-way bet (which they were) and this was pretty dodgy behaviour, but the wider question is who created the regime under which the whole fiat system with implicit guarantees existed? Latterly the FSA surely?

    Have a look at the context in which Baroness Thatcher used the oft quoted phrase. It is revealing.

  5. CountingCats says:

    The bankers did what they were told to do by the regulators.

    If the regulators didn’t understand the concept of incentives and side effects that is hardly the bankers fault.

  6. Bunny says:

    With the Mr Acts of Tyranny, read the full quote. With references to the bankers this is a line trotted out time and time again, repetition does not make it anymore accurate. The joys of mathematical modelling applied to industrial scale hedge funds, no our science and algorithms are good nothing can go …. oh dear.

  7. NickM says:

    Why do you and the Guardian spell your name differently? Just curious.

  8. Lynne says:

    These young people have no sense of community because they haven’t been given one. They have no stake in society because Cameron’s mentor Margaret Thatcher told us there’s no such thing.

    Bollocks. You can’t bestow community from the outside like some fucking civic award, you have to work on creating one from the inside. Apparently that’s too much like hard work for some, including 13 years of Labour bungling government. How can mere words, spoken nearly thirty years, ago affect youths that were not even born? Are you saying that Thatcher’s words are more potent than 13 years of Labour government? Sounds like a typical lefty blame game to me. It’s always someone else’s fault, innit.

    Communities don’t fail because Thatcher said there is no such thing as society. They fail because certain quarters of society expect their arses to be wiped at every opportunity by hardworking taxpayers and, if the service comes under threat, only then do the lazy bastards get off their arses and take to the streets to smash up their own communities.

  9. RAB says:

    If I remember right Russel (sic), and I do, New Labour had been in power for 11 years when the Bankers supposedly wrecked the economy. Lord Mandleson loved bankers, some of he and Tony’s best friends were bankers. It was New Labour that gave them the fuckin Knighthoods. Mandy is quoted as saying that he had no problem with people getting filthy rich, did he not? (as long as he is one of course), so how come it’s all Maggies fault 20 years after she left office?

    The Banks should have been allowed to fail. The pain and damage would have been massive but then it is going to happen anyway sooner or later, so it would have been better to get the pain over quickly and then let the market slf right itself.

    It was King Arthur with his blind Marxist creed that closed the mines not Maggie, and New Labour reversed not one single Trade Union reform in their entire 13 years in office, yet still it is all Maggies fault?

    Oh and you don’t give youth a sense of community, they grow it for themselves or not at all. How selfish and greedy do you think all those strikes and wage demands for 40% pay rises in industries that were struggling to break even back in the 70′s were? A caring sharing society with a solid sense of community my arse!

    Yet it is still all Maggies fault. Utter pathetic fuckin lies and whining fantasy!

  10. Edward Lud says:

    I despise Brand’s presumptuousness in matters political, given his ignorance. Moreover, as a comedian, he commits the unforgivable sin of failing to make me laugh. But, credit where it’s due, his Graun piece is a picaresque and articulate thumb-sucker which knowingly eschews bile and I rather enjoyed reading it.

  11. Sam Duncan says:

    “How selfish and greedy do you think all those strikes and wage demands for 40% pay rises in industries that were struggling to break even back in the 70’s were? A caring sharing society with a solid sense of community my arse!”

    Bingo. The Boulting brothers didn’t call their satire on the post-war corporatist consensus “I’m All Right, Jack” for nothing.

    “Hear, hear” to Lynne’s comment, too.

  12. John Galt says:

    Russel (sic) – You remind me of the old Bob Monkhouse gag:

    “They laughed when I said I wanted to be a comedian, they’re not laughing now!”

    Although you do seem to attract a high quality of muff, you’re sole ability appears to be “being Russell Brand”. It is true that other celebrities get away with this, Sean Connery being a prime example. The unfortunate thing is that the personality of “Russell Brand” is singularly unattractive, being a form of man-boy who cannot and will not ever grow up.

    You are unfunny and your ‘talent’ for charming the knickers off young ladies will wither until you become just another ageing Lothario, gradually dissolving into a sotted old age.

    As for your political opinions, the less said the better.

  13. John Galt says:


    you’re = your

  14. NickM says:

    You’re gay so as to the attractiveness of RB you kinda have a more of a dog in this fight than me…

    But as a straight(ish) man I do have an opinion and also the access to the opinions of het women. Now between the two I can understand the attraction women feel for say George Clooney or Johnnie Depp or Brad Pitt. But Brand!!! The only one who ever got me like that was Robbie Williams. I was mates with a very smart, very fit LLM student. She really fancied Robbie Williams. Never got that either.

    In a perhaps odd way I rate women in terms of sexual attractiveness on how they view men and who turns them on. And the women they fancy too. Or at least find attractive without you know wanning to lez it up.

  15. John Galt says:

    I don’t think my being a member of Team Pink has any bearing on the situation with regard to Russel (sic) Brand.

    Gay men tend to prefer certain types of other men, from “boys” to “bears” to the leather and latex fetishists.

    I’m sure there is some category of gay men that might find Russel (sic) Brand, but he certainly doesn’t stir my stick.

  16. NickM says:

    That was my point.

  17. Roue le Jour says:

    Not finding anything else to disagree with, I’ll just point out that ASCII is actually a seven bit code. ;)

  18. John Galt says:

    @Roue le Jour:

    Well done. You win the most useless fact of the day award. As with all pedantry, technically correct, but still…

  19. Roue le Jour says:

    Aw gee, thanks JG. I couldn’t have won it without my college instructors, Mark and Steve, Geoff at my first job, who made me punch paper tape by hand, one hole at a time, and of course my lovely Thai child bride.

    PS, It’s day five of a five day weekend here in Thailand and I’m bored shitless. Who’s Russell Brand, by the way?

  20. NickM says:

    Right. Evey time I mention anything to do with computers four Yorshiremen appear and talk about gnawing cogs for difference engines.

    I knew this would come-up. ASCII is 7-bit for the purist but for the MSDOS/Windows user it is expanded to 8-bit. And I got my first PC in 1993 – a 386SX-16 running DOS5 and Win 3.1. And ASCII was even then (20 years ago) 8-bit.

    From wikipedia:


    Eventually, as 8-, 16-, and 32-bit computers began to replace 18- and 36-bit computers as the norm, it became common to use an 8-bit byte to store each character in memory, providing an opportunity for extended, 8-bit, relatives of ASCII. In most cases these developed as true extensions of ASCII, leaving the original character-mapping intact, but adding additional character definitions after the first 128 (i.e., 7-bit) characters.

    Most early home computer systems developed their own 8-bit character sets containing line-drawing and game glyphs, and often filled in some or all of the control characters from 0-31 with more graphics. The IBM PC defined code page 437, which replaced the control-characters with graphic symbols such as smiley faces, and mapped additional graphic characters to the upper 128 positions. Operating systems such as DOS supported these code-pages, and manufacturers of IBM PCs supported them in hardware. Digital Equipment Corporation developed the Multinational Character Set (DEC-MCS) for use in the popular VT220 terminal, this was one of the first extensions designed more for international languages than for block graphics. The Macintosh defined Mac OS Roman and Postscript also defined a set, both of these contained both international letters and typographic punctuation marks instead of graphics, more like modern character sets. The ISO/IEC 8859 standard (derived from the DEC-MCS) finally provided a standard that most systems copied (at least as accurately as they copied ASCII, but with many substitutions). A popular further extension designed by Microsoft, Windows-1252 (often mislabeled as ISO-8859-1), added the typographic punctuation marks needed for attractive text printing.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: