Laurence Fox on Question Time

[SuckingDieselFella]

It isn't ok to try and shut anyone up with remarks about their skin colour. It doesn't matter if that skin colour is white, black or green with purple spots.

His fellow actors have been told to "denounce" him. It looks like he can wave goodbye to his career. What lovely tolerant people the ultra woke are.
www.thestage.co.uk/news/2020/laurence-fox-labelled-a-disgrace-to-industry-following-question-time-race-row/

It is understandable that the racial connotations of a word like uppity may be less well known in the UK. However, Meghan Markle would know the history of the use of the word in the Southern USA.

So what? What should the UK do about it. Change language, or in woke parlance 'check' language, because someone 3000 miles away doesn't understand it correctly?
It isn't just the USA's aggressive attitude around policing world language but around policing culture too. Take Blackface for example.Yes it's seen as offensive and racially charged in the USA and yes we understand that but in the UK it is mostly associated with Morris Dancing and has nothing whatsoever to do with race. Now there are calls to ban UK folk dancers from blacking up at festivals and people are going along with this nonsense all the time

Mr. Uppity was actually a person of colour according to his Mr. Men book cover.

www.amazon.co.uk/Mr-Uppity-Men-Classic-Library/dp/1405235950?tag=mumsnetforu03-21

OP- you keep misrepresenting white privilege as a concept.
It doesn't relate to other forms of discrimination, but it doesn't deny them either.
It's not a value judgement against white people, it's a description.
And being white totally doesn't make you immune from other forms of oppression.

Lawrence Fox knows this I'm sure, but he's gone for the Katie Hopkins route to attention.
Can you see how saying he was bored of racism may have been jarring for some people who do experience it?
I think the audience member was right to point out that was a privileged position.

The gangs didn't avoid prosecution because the police wanted to avoid being racist. Asian men are more likely to be stopped and searched and arrested for other offenses than white, so why do you think in this case they are worried about racism?

The girls weren't "negatively effected because of their colour" the research into these gangs shows that the amount of abuse within their own communities is of a similar level, just more likely to go unreported.

Even if they were negatively effected in this case because of their skin colour it doesn't mean that they don't benefit from white privilege!

Kate is not described as pushy or needing to know her place nor were other royals. In fact its been shown on here that for exactly the same actions Meghan receives negative press whilst Kate didn't, all with this undertone of MM needing to know her place.

Yes it's true, Mr Uppity is a person of colour.

www.mrmen.com/mr-uppity/

If Roger Hargreaves were still alive, woke twitter would be on his doorstep.

Blackface was not mostly associated with Morris Dancing in the UK.

Remember the Black and White Minstrel show? There was a history of it here for the same reason as the states.

Of course use of language is important, uppity has racial connotations.

Using terms like the illuminati, or symbols that are associated with it can be deemed to be antisemitic when applied to Jewish people, and not others so context is very important!

@malylis
"
Even if they were negatively effected in this case because of their skin colour it doesn't mean that they don't benefit from white privilege!"

Teenage girls who were abused by gangs of men are privileged, don't you know. There's even a little exclamation mark at the end of the sentence! How any woman can write the above is beyond me.

Again, you are misunderstanding the use of the term.It doesn't mean you aren't negatively effected by other things.

Oh and also a fine piece of whataboutism.

Also, the girls in the grooming gang cases aren't made the targets for these gangs because they are white, as the reports into Rotherham found that abuse happened at the same rate within the communities the men came from.

Nice try though.

Kate is not described as pushy or needing to know her place nor were other royals

Um, already pointed out to you that the press coined Princess Michael of Kent "Princess Pushy" years and years ago and STILL use it. So you're totally wrong to say no other royal than Meghan is referred to as pushy.

"Kate is not described as pushy or needing to know her place nor were other royals. In fact its been shown on here that for exactly the same actions Meghan receives negative press whilst Kate didn't, all with this undertone of MM needing to know her place."

Yes, she was. She absolutely was. The Middletons were all painted as pushy (www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-448624/Pushy-mother-Carole-left-devastated.html) (www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3156984/Pippa-James-nearly-royals-courtiers-worried-rise-rise-Kate-s-pushy-siblings.html).
And also definitely portrayed as not knowing their place, too lower class, no breeding, common, uppity (by the UK definition) "https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3156984/Pippa-James-nearly-royals-courtiers-worried-rise-rise-Kate-s-pushy-siblings.html".

@rockingchaircandle

No, I haven't misrepresented white privilege. You need to understand the concept of disagreement. You also need to understand that woke speak fuels genuine racism.

Laurence Fox didn't say he was bored of racism. You need to check your facts before you bandy accusations about. He said "It's so easy to throw the charge of racism at everybody and it's really starting to get boring now." If you are the kind of person who considers it appropriate to lecture others about white privilege you will prove his point.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-51145321/actor-laurence-fox-s-question-time-clash-over-meghan-markle

Princess Anne coined that nickname not the press, and the articles aren't all about how she should know her place (being from a German aristocratic family she'll fit right in).

So Kate wasn't called pushy then? As all of your links show? Her sister and her mum who aren't married to royals were?

Not quite the same is it?

Oh and being white it doesn't have the same context.

Sorry last link should have been.....SNOBS WHO DID FOR KATE - www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/snobs-who-did-for-kate-467077?utm_source=whatsapp&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

Maybe Meghan is pushy whereas Kate isn't? Is that possible?

Absolutely right, @Bobleywobley.

So why does MM get negative press for exactly the same actions as Kate?

Why do the press (and people here) choose to interpret it differently? Why is the common theme about "knowing her place"?

@malylis
"Also, the girls in the grooming gang cases aren't made the targets for these gangs because they are white, as the reports into Rotherham found that abuse happened at the same rate within the communities the men came from.

Nice try though."
It was a nice try at reasoning but it really doesn't work. Your argument is that these convicted sex abusers aren't racist and will abuse young girls whatever community they come from?

Try harder.

Hi again, OP!

You seem almost cartoonish in your outrage, but at least you're enjoying yourself.

Agree, I paraphrased LF's words there- maybe didn't convey the precise meaning. Still think it's pretty galling to hear someone treat something so serious, so flippantly.

Not sure a couple of sentences re-explaining white privilege= lecturing, but either you are determined to misrepresent it as a concept, or you don't understand it. (Misrepresenting/misunderstanding something is different to disagreeing with something).

Anyway, enjoy your high horse!

@rockingchaircandle

No worries at all that you made a false accusation. He's a white male. He's bound to be guilty of something.

I can only dream of a horse as high as yours. A non-white one, obviously.

Nighty night.

Even if they were negatively effected in this case because of their skin colour it doesn't mean that they don't benefit from white privilege!

Wow and this is the level of cognitive dissonance we are at now.
Working class girls who were targeted because they were white (court evidence), racially abused repeatedly (court evidence) by wealthier men, drug dealers, while being trafficked, tortured, gang raped and in some cases murdered might have been 'negatively effected' but they still 'benefited from white privilege'.

My argument is that the reports into the grooming gang cases showed that the levels of abuse of young women were the same within the community the men came from. So yes my point is correct and yours is incorrect.

Your attempt to dispute the fact that white privilere exists by using this case is therefore fundamentally flawed.

What is even funnier is that your attempt to prove this is based on a misunderstanding of how privilege works.

A false accusation!

Do you think you might be overdoing this now?!

But whatever makes you feel important...