Laurence Fox is an ignorant, spoilt brat.

[longwayoff]

What is wrong with this fool? Apparently in James Delingpole's podcast, heavy sigh, he criticises Sam Mendes for featuring a Sikh soldier in WW1 film. Ever heard of the British Empire, Laurence? How many Indians died for Britain? AIBU to say LF is being deliberately divisive and provocative and evidently doing his own publicity?

I have never heard of him until this week and I wish people would stop giving him publicity even if only to call him out. He’s a bit of a gob on a stick trying to provoke outrage to keep his name trending on twitter.

One day, I think, I'll explode. So bloody depressing.

Sounds like he’s been taking lessons from Katy ‘rent-a-gob‘ Hopkins - some people just like the attention they get when they continually say provocative things (presumably because they would rather get negative attention than no attention, but like toddlers really).

Sounds like he’s auditioning to be the new Katie Hopkins.

Lord knows we don’t need more of those.

Ignore the fucker and hopefully he’ll go away.

He might be a prick but some people make a hobby of being offended by everything... him by a fictional Sikh soldier... you by him... where does it end ? 🤷‍♀️

He’s right though.
In the (terrible) film it’s as if they hve randomly shoved a Sikh man in to tick a diversity box. Exploring the actual sacrifices all the Sikh’s made with a relevant subplot would be different. This felt shoe horned in and like they wanted to show they could feature a non white ‘token’ character but didn’t actually give them any depth or anything in the film. Just a ‘we’ve shown a non white now, done’ utter show of tokenism without bothering to explain or introduce any further. It did feel totally out of place and randomly shoved in and unexplained.
He can be an utter twat, always thought he was, and he is - but some of the things he has said recently are absolutely spot on. If peoole insist on being abusively ‘woke’ re grooming gangs, now that is about time someone spoke up about it.

He is a complete knobber, you are not wrong

He's a complete knobber who not enough people have said no to. Like his record company. They should have said hell no.

"apparently"

Maybe you should listen to it before posting?

The point made was the Sikhs would be fighting in a Sikh unit, so why not make a whole film about a Sikh unit in WW1?

Instead of dropping just one Sikh guy into the film which is historically inaccurate.

Yes, It smacks of

I think the outrage over a few opinions he has expressed is the depressing thing.
They are just opinions.

He is an ignorant idiot. If he knew his history, he would know that many members of the Commonwealth (African, Caribbean and Indian ) fought on behalf of Britain during the First and Second World Wars.
Many lost their lives

He claims that racism doesn’t exist, yet also claims he is discriminated against due to his race. Bless, a few sandwiches short...

He didn’t come across particularly well on gogglebox.

I agree with @Amanduh

Knobhead. Mendes dedicated the movie to his Trinidadian grandfather who left home at 17 to fight for Britain.
There’s one Sikh soldier shown and one or two black soldiers I think and the the rest, the thousands of other soldiers deprecated, are all white. Although there is at least one Scot accent which probably upset him too, FFS...

I find his sudden transition into the defender of Britain from wokeness utterly bizarre - what’s he getting out of it other that making himself look like a cunt? He presumably doesn’t need the money (a la Katie Hopkins) so he is probably trying to reinvent himself in order to get himself the attention of Quentin Tarantino or somesuch. Or maybe he is just having a mid-life crisis. God save us from fools like this.

He's got a point though. Colonial soldiers weren't just dropped here and there but formed entire regiments. Just showing one smacks of tokenism.

what’s he getting out of it other that making himself look like a cunt

He's trying to drum up the career he believes his background entitles him to while he's still young enough to be cast in Hollywood films. Compare his career to that of his father. On one a hand a major movie star, on the other, second fiddle in Lewis and a twee, tacky depiction of Prince Charles.

Yes he is, but it's working. Look at us discussing him on social media. A few days ago I had no idea who he was.
Now he is winding people up on Twitter , à la Katie Hopkins.
The worst thing is that I actually watched the viral video of him singing.
If that's the extent of his " talent " no wonder he has to be a wanker to get attention.

He is right. It is bollocks.

He is right about trans and cis women. It is bollocks.

He was right on Question Time. The BBC paper reviewer who piped up about white privilege spoke bollocks.

He was right to laugh at Shami's faux woe on Question Time about gender and labour party leadership. She spoke bollocks.

Laurence Fox is the voice of any disadvantaged people who cannot claim sympathy because of gender or ethnicity and are therefore judged unworthy by the bollocks speak brigade.

Go Laurence!

Interesting about Sam dedicating the film to his Trindadian grandfatherwho fought for Britain.

Very good.

I would be interested to know if any of his non-Trinidadian relatives fought for Britain. If they did, why did our right on Sam just pick out this one relative to dedicate his film to?

Don't want to be cynical but...

What @Amanduh said is spot on.

He’s right though.
In the (terrible) film it’s as if they hve randomly shoved a Sikh man in to tick a diversity box. Exploring the actual sacrifices all the Sikh’s made with a relevant subplot would be different. This felt shoe horned in and like they wanted to show they could feature a non white ‘token’ character but didn’t actually give them any depth or anything in the film. Just a ‘we’ve shown a non white now, done’ utter show of tokenism without bothering to explain or introduce any further. It did feel totally out of place and randomly shoved in and unexplained.
He can be an utter twat, always thought he was, and he is - but some of the things he has said recently are absolutely spot on. If people insist on being abusively ‘woke’ re grooming gangs, now that is about time someone spoke up about it.

I am not saying for one minute that I agree with everything he says but half the problem is that people who are outraged haven't actually listened to every word he has said or read a transcript, and are going by a soundbite or a clip, or haven't done any research themselves.

And this thread proves it in the case of his comments surrounding the single Sikh soldier in the film 1917. Posters have correctly pointed out that in this instance he is historically right - yes, there were Sikhs fighting in 1917 but in entire regiments. Therefore to show just one Sikh as Mendes has done can be seen as some form of tokenism (which is not necessarily that it IS tokenism). Especially as Mendes was stating how he wanted this to be an accurate representation of what it was like to be there.

Even after posters have clarified this, other posters have tried to say Fox is talking bollocks because of course there were Sikhs and blacks in WWI. He didn't say there weren't!

If you don't agree with him, fine, but at least have the sense to ensure you're arguing the facts.

‘If they did, why did our right on Sam just pick out this one relative to dedicate his film to?‘
Ecause it was his fecking GRANDFATHER perhaps??? Not some random cousin? He’s also said it was inspired by the stories his grandad told his children/ grandchildren about his experience in the war and his grandfather wrote a book about them too...