Brian's Save Me Campaign

A new Brian interview about himself and the Save Me campaign:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1268757/Brian-May-Snivelling-dweeb-I-let-hunt-loving-Tory-lightly.html

Bri's video: Bollocks To The Economy!

http://www.youtube.com/user/BrianMayCom/

The poor old sod is going senile. It's almost like performance art. They may as well close down youtube, nothing is ever gonna top that. Btw, can anyone translate what Sir Patrick Moore said?

This video is just another example how you can hurt your own cause. What has fox hunting to do with the economy? Not much I suppose. To say that politicians should not talk about the economy but only about fox hunting is not even worth a discussion. I do not know about England but in my country we - the people who have to work for a living - are very concerned about the economy and we would not vote for anyone who thinks the economy is not on top of the political agenda. But then the video is supposed to be funny..... I believe. And this is the problem: surely it's funny for all the supporters of the cause but everybody else will probably shake their collective heads in amazement.

You aren't appreciating the fact that in spite of many submitting questions for the debates and otherwise, the topic of bringing back the blood sports is never even mentioned, and many of those involved in Brian's campaign find that people are upset when they find out that if elected Cameron will bring back these "sports". It is a matter of informing people so that they will at least know this when they decide who to vote for. The video is intentionally over-the-top due to this frustration.

Ack, that video.  It's satire...AND it's serious...and the two together don't exactly work.  (For me, anyway).

Looks like Brian tamed his hair for this! 

Nice touch to use the BANG! thing (in flames), I have to say.

cacatua wrote: You aren't appreciating the fact that in spite of many submitting questions for the debates and otherwise, the topic of bringing back the blood sports is never even mentioned, and many of those involved in Brian's campaign find that people are upset when they find out that if elected Cameron will bring back these "sports". It is a matter of informing people so that they will at least know this when they decide who to vote for. The video is intentionally over-the-top due to this frustration.

Sorry but I do not understand your point:

If the video is aimed at the supporters of the campaign, it's probably funny for the people involved in the campaign.

However, if the video is aimed at the general public it should me more serious and more informative.  The 101 "bollocks" in the video are not designed to make people understand why it is so much more important to vote against a party who might re-introduce a law than to vote for a party who has a certain opinion about the economy, the euro, the financial crisis, the war in Afghanistan and other issues the general public may find important. It is always a danger when you campaign: you go over the top and you do not take into account that  people draw from many sources of information and this video does not inform people, it just appeals to the supporters who are convinced, anyway. Venting frustration is not a good method to win a point in a political argument.

YourValentine wrote: cacatua wrote: You aren't appreciating the fact that in spite of many submitting questions for the debates and otherwise, the topic of bringing back the blood sports is never even mentioned, and many of those involved in Brian's campaign find that people are upset when they find out that if elected Cameron will bring back these "sports". It is a matter of informing people so that they will at least know this when they decide who to vote for. The video is intentionally over-the-top due to this frustration.

Sorry but I do not understand your point:

If the video is aimed at the supporters of the campaign, it's probably funny for the people involved in the campaign.

However, if the video is aimed at the general public it should me more serious and more informative.  The 101 "bollocks" in the video are not designed to make people understand why it is so much more important to vote against a party who might re-introduce a law than to vote for a party who has a certain opinion about the economy, the euro, the financial crisis, the war in Afghanistan and other issues the general public may find important. It is always a danger when you campaign: you go over the top and you do not take into account that  people draw from many sources of information and this video does not inform people, it just appeals to the supporters who are convinced, anyway. Venting frustration is not a good method to win a point in a political argument. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Awwwww, cummon.............I remember full well when I was invovled in the politics of our last election int USA that far more people glommed onto some soundbyte and passed it on, than would watch anything serious and informative. With serious and informative you were mostly beating your gums for the exercise. If anyone IS inclined to want to find out what's behind this, then they can look up the website.

Instead of having an informative (but bland) video, he went the satire route.  These days humour tends to reach out to people, and that will spark the interest to look into the cause far more than a serious video would.  Brian is not looking for political credibility.  He is a very intelligent man and knows exactly what he's doing... and having a good time in the process.

He's tyring to make a fun viral video, which is fine and cool and everything, and the tone of the video is right for that.  And cacatua is right - political messages are, sadly, best delivered as low information packets. However his hope that people would use their vote for foxes and not to "line their pockets" predates any frustrations about what was or wasn't asked at the debates.  He said that weeks ago.  And it's a bit hard to square up with his other comments that imply David Cameron was irresponsible to bring up the hunting ban in the midst of serious economic troubles(!)

At any rate, how effective a group of mostly very wealthy Britons who at worst risk unfavourable tax conditions for their millions are going to be at encouraging people to say 'bollocks to the economy' remains to be seen.  A lot of people are going to laugh at this for all the wrong reasons. On one level it's kind of like end stage narcissism. I just shook my head.

I love Queen but I cant support this "bollocks".............the bloke has lost it completely. Whilst im not for blood sports of any kind, I just cannot believe what a twat the bloke is making himself look. I have heard about this campaign once on Sky TV, nobody is interested. All im interested is someone who can justify what my taxes are being spent on and why the fuck I am spending £1.20 on a litre of petrol, £3.00 for a pint of lager and £6.00 on cigs! TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX FUCKING TAX. Bollocks to the foxes, I would rather see my money put to better use.

I'm not British, so it isn't my place to speak about your taxes. Neither am I one of the militant animal rights people who post on Brian's wall at Facebook. I actually saw someone come close to apologizing for having posted a picture of a fox that had killed something and was eating it, as though foxes are such angels that they don't partake of such activities. It can get pretty smarmy sometimes for my taste, but I think there is a larger issue here about standing against people who get their entertainment from terrifying animals. They do not think of animals as being anything but objects for whatever their purposes may be.

Brian is working his butt off on this, and spending his own money. I thought he explained it well in the interview to which I posted a link the other day. Obviously there are those here who will take issue with most anything he says or any way he portrays himself. You are entitled to your opinions, so have at it folks.

I am tired of beating my head on a wall, so I resign from this thread.

I would rather he just stuck to playing the guitar.

Brian_Mays_Wig wrote: I love Queen but I cant support this "bollocks".............the bloke has lost it completely. Whilst im not for blood sports of any kind, I just cannot believe what a twat the bloke is making himself look. I have heard about this campaign once on Sky TV, nobody is interested. All im interested is someone who can justify what my taxes are being spent on and why the fuck I am spending £1.20 on a litre of petrol, £3.00 for a pint of lager and £6.00 on cigs! TAX TAX TAX TAX TAX FUCKING TAX. Bollocks to the foxes, I would rather see my money put to better use.

20 Silk Cut purple is £4.20 in my local shop. Not that I smoke them, I just happen to know that, for reasons I won't bore you with. The irony is, though, some of those cigs were probably tested on foxes before being sold. Or monkeys. Or possibly butterflies, but I'll be the first to admit that's a bit unlikely.

I'm not British either, so really what do I know about fox hunting, but I doubt the vast majority of hunters think of themselves or their activities that way.  What you say may be true, but it's not something that is so self evident it stands without any need for support or explanation. One would think it would be fairly easy to make a clear, concise arguments for policies that have already been passed into law.  But again and again you see rhetoric and overstatement. You see attacks on people rather than ideas.  It makes you wonder. Bear in mind this is coming from a person who put up with mice scuttling and chewing in the walls and surprise poop here and there for 6 months because I can't live release in the winter.  I finally caught my first one on Wednesday and we brought it to a field for an uncertain future. Some people might call me nice things.  Others might call me an idiot.  They probaby all have a point.  Outside of unambiguous cruelty, for which we have good and important laws, you'd have to work fairly hard to convince me that attitudes and decisions surrounding human/animal interactions should be anything other than personal moral choices.