Harry and Meghan

[Angry Ram]

1 hour ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

As opposed to Mr Fox, whose whole Twitter page is centered around him leading the fight against 'Wokeness' (how heroic of him). https://twitter.com/LozzaFox

He' also just labelled the inclusion of a Sikh Soldier in the film, '1917', as an example of 'institutional racism' and diversity being 'forced on us', depsite the fact that Sikhs fought and died in both World Wars. I think that comment is the epitome of scum. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/laurence-fox-racism-1917-sikh-soldier-a4339826.html

This guy has managed to turn this whole discussion something all about him, just coinciding with a UK tour. How convenient.

Maybe I don’t speak for Fox. He is just pushing back and it’s about time someone with a voice does. 
I also asked you to give me one example of the press being racist to Meghan. That’s gone quiet. Don’t even think of giving her bump as an example. 
Okay another example of the hypocrisy you bleat about. What about the press criticism of Corbyn? Racist? Or did they just not like him? 

[Sith Happens]

20 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

Maybe I don’t speak for Fox. He is just pushing back and it’s about time someone with a voice does. 
I also asked you to give me one example of the press being racist to Meghan. That’s gone quiet. Don’t even think of giving her bump as an example. 
Okay another example of the hypocrisy you bleat about. What about the press criticism of Corbyn? Racist? Or did they just not like him? 

I agree saying something negative about someone should not be classified as racist just because of their skin colour. But not sure where he is going with the 1917 point. To be honest I am not sure if I had heard of him until recently so he is at least doing a good job of promoting himself which is probably what he is after.

[Angry Ram]

26 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

I agree saying something negative about someone should not be classified as racist just because of their skin colour. But not sure where he is going with the 1917 point. To be honest I am not sure if I had heard of him until recently so he is at least doing a good job of promoting himself which is probably what he is after.

Not heard the 2017 comment before today, so not sure of the context it was used.

[BriggRam]

2 hours ago, Angry Ram said:

I called her scum because she was turning into something it was not.. She was just virtue signalling herself as some sort of hero .. It was all about her. Scum.

She was a BBC plant, she had been put there purposely by the scum BBC to come out with that baalocks......I didn’t even know who Fox was till I watched QT, but one thing is for sure he did not pull out the race card SHE DID, and when she called him what she did he responded I think brilliantly....other people disagree now he’s getting flak from all quarters on social media and and any response he gives is scrutinised............and I did call her scum also, our national treasure the BBC is full of them

[Sith Happens]

10 minutes ago, Angry Ram said:

Not heard the 2017 comment before today, so not sure of the context it was used.

Basically saying that it would have been all white people in real life so the film should be so also.

 

[Comrade 86]

5 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

Basically saying that it would have been all white people in real life so the film should be so also.

 

Yeah well he's actually way off the mark. Quite why he'd want to pretend that Indian soldiers played no part is anyone's guess but you'd think that someone with the benefit of a decent education ought to know better. Perhaps he auditioned and was riled that an Indian secured a role while he failed? 

Anyway, let's just ignore the role of the thousands of Sikh soldiers who fought for the British army in France, eh Lozza, you massive bamford, because after all, it's all about you. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-29186508/british-army-honours-sikh-role-in-world-war-one

[BriggRam]

5 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Yeah well he's actually way off the mark. Quite why he'd want to pretend that Indian soldiers played no part is anyone's guess but you'd think that someone with the benefit of a decent education ought to know better. Perhaps he auditioned and was riled that an Indian secured a role while he failed? 

Anyway, let's just ignore the role of the thousands of Sikh soldiers who fought for the British army in France, eh Lozza, you massive bamford, because after all, it's all about you. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-29186508/british-army-honours-sikh-role-in-world-war-one

I’ve not checked to see if he has said all that but if so then he is wrong....Sikh battalions were used in France and Belgium in WW1

[Comrade 86]

16 minutes ago, BriggRam said:

I’ve not checked to see if he has said all that but if so then he is wrong....Sikh battalions were used in France and Belgium in WW1

From the interview in question...

Actor Laurence Fox has hit out at the inclusion of a Sikh soldier in Oscar-nominated film 1917, calling it “institutionally racist”.

Speaking on James Dellingpole’s podcast, Fox - best known as DS James Hathaway on ITV drama Lewis - revealed that seeing actor Nabhaan Rizwan in the film “diverted” him from the story.

He added that the “oddness of the casting” causes a “very heightened awareness of the colour of someone’s skin”.

Fox said: “There were Sikhs fighting this war... Ok, you’re now diverting me away from what the story is.”

He added: “There is something institutionally racist about forcing diversity on people in that way.”

So according to Lozza, seeing a brown face has diverted him from the story and the inclusion of an Indian actor, whilst factually correct and representative, is 'institutionally racist'. 

Seems like those calling out Lozza, the new poster-boy for the right wing, have every reason to do so to my way of thinking. Doubtless some will still seek to make excuses for his repugnant little diatribe though. 

[Sith Happens]

29 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Yeah well he's actually way off the mark. Quite why he'd want to pretend that Indian soldiers played no part is anyone's guess but you'd think that someone with the benefit of a decent education ought to know better. Perhaps he auditioned and was riled that an Indian secured a role while he failed? 

Anyway, let's just ignore the role of the thousands of Sikh soldiers who fought for the British army in France, eh Lozza, you massive bamford, because after all, it's all about you. 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-29186508/british-army-honours-sikh-role-in-world-war-one

I think his issue is that you wouldnt have found a white person and indian in the same battalion, but even if hes right what does it matter? Its a film, who cares who is playing what. Wonder what he thinks about all the white people who have played people with different coloured skin over the years?

 

[AndyinLiverpool]

10 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

I think his issue is that you wouldnt have found a white person and indian in the same battalion, but even if hes right what does it matter? Its a film, who cares who is playing what. Wonder what he thinks about all the white people who have played people with different coloured skin over the years?

 

I bet Mr Fox loved Adrian Lester's Henry V and Don Warrington's King Lear.

[Comrade 86]

1 minute ago, Paul71 said:

I think his issue is that you wouldnt have found a white person and indian in the same battalion, but even if hes right what does it matter? Its a film, who cares who is playing what. Wonder what he thinks about all the white people who have played people with different coloured skin over the years?

As a rule Paul, yes but it did happen. As you have pointed out though, it's not exactly relevant nor is it the point the delightful Mr Fox was making either. The fact is, it's pretty hard to grasp what is 'institutionally racist' about the depiction of a single Indian soldier in a movie. I watched the film the other night and it didn't even register with me so perhaps I'm not as desperate to see positive discrimination at every juncture as old Lozza is himself? Let's be honest here, if he's that much of a snowflake that he can't cope with seeing a single brown face in a movie without losing his train of thought, it might well be that the issue lies with him and not society as a whole.

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, Paul71 said:

Basically saying that it would have been all white people in real life so the film should be so also.

I know what he means though. I was furious when they cast Michael J Fox to do the voice of Stuart Little.

The character was clearly a mouse, so they should have let the mouse use it's own voice instead of one of these Hollywood luvvies.

I couldn't concentrate on the film because of that

[DarkFruitsRam7]

2 hours ago, Angry Ram said:

Maybe I don’t speak for Fox. He is just pushing back and it’s about time someone with a voice does. 

And maybe I don’t speak for the woman who you called scum. Anyway, it’s about time someone pointed out that the use of a non-white actor in a film is an example of ‘institutional racism’ and ‘diversity being forced on us’. Such a responsible voice of the people.

I also asked you to give me one example of the press being racist to Meghan. That’s gone quiet. Don’t even think of giving her bump as an example. 

And I’ve already told you that all I can do is put the comparisons between the treatment of Meghan and Kate and leave the intentions of the authors open to interpretation. They’re not exactly going to refer to her as the ‘n’ word, are they? It’s going to be far more subtle than that. I’ve also already told you that I haven’t made up my mind 100%. If we’re demanding evidence, can you perhaps show me exactly what Meghan did wrong to warrant such terrible treatment?

Okay another example of the hypocrisy you bleat about. What about the press criticism of Corbyn? Racist? Or did they just not like him? 

Complete straw man argument. The press attack people for different reasons, which would explain why they apparently attacked Fergie. 

 

 

[DarkFruitsRam7]

 

[Stive Pesley]

24 minutes ago, DarkFruitsRam7 said:

 

amazing - gay frooooooogs!

 

[Sexydadbod]

What a prat that Laurence fox is. Not really a fan of the calling people racist for the sake of it but I think it’s justified here, this guy is a grade A prat. I made the mistake of reading the daily mail article on what he said today and the comment section is actual aids. I’d love to get all these people who commented on that and bang their heads on the walls to get rid of their stupidity, like how can you be that ducking stupid, seriously. Racist Bamfords

[Sith Happens]

1 hour ago, SchtivePesley said:

I know what he means though. I was furious when they cast Michael J Fox to do the voice of Stuart Little.

The character was clearly a mouse, so they should have let the mouse use it's own voice instead of one of these Hollywood luvvies.

I couldn't concentrate on the film because of that

Great film though

[BriggRam]

1 hour ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

From the interview in question...

Actor Laurence Fox has hit out at the inclusion of a Sikh soldier in Oscar-nominated film 1917, calling it “institutionally racist”.

Speaking on James Dellingpole’s podcast, Fox - best known as DS James Hathaway on ITV drama Lewis - revealed that seeing actor Nabhaan Rizwan in the film “diverted” him from the story.

He added that the “oddness of the casting” causes a “very heightened awareness of the colour of someone’s skin”.

Fox said: “There were Sikhs fighting this war... Ok, you’re now diverting me away from what the story is.”

He added: “There is something institutionally racist about forcing diversity on people in that way.”

So according to Lozza, seeing a brown face has diverted him from the story and the inclusion of an Indian actor, whilst factually correct and representative, is 'institutionally racist'. 

Seems like those calling out Lozza, the new poster-boy for the right wing, have every reason to do so to my way of thinking. Doubtless some will still seek to make excuses for his repugnant little diatribe though. 

Not a very good thing to say agreed, I’ve not seen the film but my jist of it is a couple of blokes running all over France or Belgium during WW1 to find someone..... im pretty sure not many Asian men served in “white” British battalions  whereas the Asian regiments would definitely have white British officers, as is the case today with the Gurkhas......I see nothing wrong with highlighting that Sikhs were indeed part of the campaign they certainly haven’t had enough credit for there actions.......

[Rev]

2 hours ago, SchtivePesley said:

I know what he means though. I was furious when they cast Michael J Fox to do the voice of Stuart Little.

The character was clearly a mouse, so they should have let the mouse use it's own voice instead of one of these Hollywood luvvies.

I couldn't concentrate on the film because of that

Yet he was cruelly overlooked for the part of The fantastic Mr Fox!

Worse, they gave it a yank.

No wonder he's raging.

[Comrade 86]

41 minutes ago, BriggRam said:

Not a very good thing to say agreed, I’ve not seen the film but my jist of it is a couple of blokes running all over France or Belgium during WW1 to find someone..... im pretty sure not many Asian men served in “white” British battalions  whereas the Asian regiments would definitely have white British officers, as is the case today with the Gurkhas......I see nothing wrong with highlighting that Sikhs were indeed part of the campaign they certainly haven’t had enough credit for there actions.......

 There were thousands of Indian soldiers fighting both in their own regiments and also alongside English, Scottish and Welsh soldiers. Those are the facts. There's some wonderful pics on the web of inter-regiment footy matches as well as tales of their social interactions. There are less happy images of mixed troops in the trenches too. Reading some of the materials out there, letters, historical documents and the like, I'm quite heartened at the level of  mutual respect that was arrived at through the hardships these young men endured. Of course, there were still those who looked down on Indian fighters as they did with other foreign nationals sent to help the war effort, but for the most part, the prior social and racial divides were completely swept aside, replaced instead by mutual respect. 

You are absolutely correct however when you say that their role, along with those of many other non-British soldiers deserve at very least, to be acknowledged.

With regards to the film, you should watch it. I sense you'd like it and contrary to Fox's idiotic gushings, there is literally not a single PC moment across the entire 2 hours. It's a fabulous film entirely without any sugar-coating, skillfully shot and wonderfully acted, which is presumably why Mr Fox failed to secure a role in it and why he has chosen to ignore all such facets in favour of cheap jibes about institutional racism instead.