To tell you all that David Walliams has been dropped by his publisher Harper Collins?

What?

LB was hilarious, christ it was an iconic show and was perfectly acceptable at the time.

Just because nobody can laugh about anything nowadays doesn't mean he should be vilified now, for something that was created at a very different time societally

Roald!

Many Trans Women have been physically attacked, rapes or even murdered when cornered in make spaces. Sad but true. Obviously cis women are also subjected to violence. The official stats are:

86.1 per 1,000 trans women versus
23.7 per 1,000 cis women —
So trans women experience roughly 3.6 times higher violence committed against them . Pushing them into male only spaces increases the risk greatly.

Liking leader of the gang and saying you support what Gary did are two separate things, and while Gary's music is a bit outside of my taste, if it was an artist whose music i liked then yeah, sure, why not?

Disney created song of the south and many other racist cariacatures, but he and his legacy still endures as one of the most loved companies worldwide.

I can't stand people who indulge in performative activism.

On the BBC news just now they said Walliams had been dropped by Harper Collins because of allegations about improper behaviour towards female staff.

Many Trans Women have been physically attacked, rapes or even murdered when cornered in make spaces. Sad but true. Obviously cis women are also subjected to violence. The official stats are:

86.1 per 1,000 trans women versus
23.7 per 1,000 cis women —
So trans women experience roughly 3.6 times higher violence committed against them . Pushing them into male only spaces increases the risk greatly.

It was in the 2000s! Not the 1950s. A lot of people found it offensive at the time.

He was complicit in creating Little Britain.

It wasn't at all. It's not that old. Sexism and mocking disabled people were not acceptable behaviours, and blacking up was widely frowned on. They did it because it was shocking.

Separate the art from the artist.
if kids enjoy his books, so what?

It wasn't at all. It's not that old. Sexism and mocking disabled people were not acceptable behaviours, and blacking up was widely frowned on. They did it because it was shocking.

That doesn’t mean anything. Back when it was out there, behaviour displayed by the characters was accepted generally as the norm. A lot of programs from early generations wouldn’t make it to TV in the here and now.

You can't separate art from the artist really. Because often the proceeds from their art is used to do harmful things. Millions of HP fans will continue to enjoy JK Rowling's books, franchises, theme parks and merch. JK admitted that she has donated and backed a change in the law by taking a case to the supreme Court that defines only a woman is a real woman if born with that biological sex. Sounds harmless doesnt it? Many trans women agree that their biological birth sex and chromosomes which can't be changed (even if other biological characteristics can be changed) are indeed male at birth whilst they are living as a woman now. But that definition hard baked into law means many trans women can be refused a place in a women's space. Yet neither are trans women safe in men''s spaces like gym changing rooms where they can be stared at, ogled, attacked or ridiculed. Trans women are women. Some trans women these days never developed as an adult male through puberty, they have been girls for a long time and forcing them into men' a spaces is shocking and not safe.

JK has abhorrent and discriminatory views on trans people, non binary people and now asexual people (What's wrong with not having a sex drive or sexual relationships? That's not a choice either) and those who separate her from her art are ignoring the fact that the millions in her revenue are being ploughed back in to support legislation that can be prejudicial to minority groups that she decides should not have the same freedoms as others.

What has the author David Walliams done with the proceeds of those buying his books I wonder. And can we stop him using his book revenue to do sleazy things we wouldn't approve of? Probably not. So why fund it? And how will our own kids feel when they grow up and find out that we were happy to give them books they enjoy without any discerning nature towards authors?

As a child I had a stuffed Golly. I didn't even know what it depicted until I grew up and found my Nan watching the Black & White minstrel show on telly. If my Mum had realised it was such a racist doll she wouldn't have let my Nan buy one for me. But parents considered it harmless and was "just a nice toy and the baby doesn't know it's racist, why not let the babe enjoy a Golly!) Patons Yarns Bazaar booklet even had a knitting pattern for a Golly featured on their cover. You can't separate that type of doll from it's complex and racist history. You can't separate the art from the artists.

That doesn’t mean anything. Back when it was out there, behaviour displayed by the characters was accepted generally as the norm. A lot of programs from early generations wouldn’t make it to TV in the here and now.