[{"document_url": "https://blogpracticechat.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/russell-brands-ponderland-channel-4/", "unformatted_src": "https://blogpracticechat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/thecustardnew2big1.jpg", "src": "https://blogpracticechat.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/thecustardnew2big1.jpg", "formatted_filename": "thecustardnew big", "rendered_width": 717}, {"document_url": "https://blogpracticechat.wordpress.com/2008/11/01/russell-brands-ponderland-channel-4/", "unformatted_src": "https://i2.wp.com/1.bp.blogspot.com/_3UwJNzX-S1g/SQyV4Ul1t_I/AAAAAAAAAcA/lhQLxOltOjc/s320/tn-1193088900000-622983-RussellBrandsPonderland-1192117222468.jpg", "src": "https://i2.wp.com/1.bp.blogspot.com/_3UwJNzX-S1g/SQyV4Ul1t_I/AAAAAAAAAcA/lhQLxOltOjc/s320/tn-1193088900000-622983-RussellBrandsPonderland-1192117222468.jpg", "formatted_filename": "tn RussellBrandsPonderland"}, null]
Did we like it?
We didn’t like Brand even before his stupidity cost a fine lady (the controller of Radio 2) her job by bragging about his sex life (who’d have him? not us – but lots of desperate wannabe girls, it seems). So when we say this programme is puerile, distasteful rubbish, it’s not with a brainless Daily Mail-like chip on our shoulders.

What was bad about it?
• There’s nothing at all special about Brand. Harry Hill or Danny Baker or even Jonathan Ross would have been funnier providing links to the array of batty animal lovers uncovered by the research team.
• Brand’s unfathomable popularity.
• Brand’s stupid gestures.
• Brand’s silly voices and sillier shrieks.
• Brand’s tawdry bestiality “gags”.
• Brand’s horrible clothes.
• Brand.










