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?

Honestly MN, you did show during the GE that you are not representative of the nation as a whole, but this attacking LF ... you are not representative!

Whether you like it or not, he expressed what a lot of people think. This era of virtue signalling is coming to an end. We have got to go back to common sense.

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/01/21/cretinous-consensus-new-woke-left-completely-alienating-liberals/

"Worst of all – as with so many campaigns, comments and posts by supposedly intelligent Leftists – such claims are counter-productive. By comparing Trump’s policies – and by extension those who voted for them – to the Nazis, you are unlikely to change those policies, let alone win hearts and minds."

THIS is your danger when you call a clearly intelligent, thoughtful (and obviously well educated) man 'a knobber, a twat' and all the other slurs that have been thrown at him here.
ESPECIALLY your denial that he said what people think. You cannot shut this down, and people are starting to push back.

he is a knobber tho

THIS is your danger when you call a clearly intelligent, thoughtful (and obviously well educated)

He was thrown out of Harrow and never had any 3rd level education, so he is not in fact particularly well-educated.

@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?"

You are being completely unreasonable and factually wrong. I've studied the Western Front in 1917 and I can tell you for a fact that Sikh soldiers fought in WW1 within Indian regiments but none fought in English regiments. The soldier in the film is in an English regiment and this is historically inaccurate.

You're confused about the difference between dishonouring Indian regiments who fought in WW1 and historical accuracy. If you want to complain that Indian regiments don't have sufficient recognition then by all means go ahead. You would be right in doing so. But this is a different issue from historical accuracy. Laurence Fox is absolutely correct to say that Sikhs did not fight in English regiments. Anyone with a primary school child's grasp of history can see this because the UK did not become multi-cultural until decades after WW1.

You can discuss facts or you can shriek "racism". Your choice.

the british army on the western front was packed with Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims. Its just bizarre it hasnt been more featured in fims previously.

There were Sikhs in Brritish regiments (dont know what you mean by 'english'). You're talking out of your arse, Sucking.

...

chriiiiiist I see the right is still struggling with comedy.

Paulinespeaks
I so agree with you.
He is the voice of reason against all this woke bollocks

109th Regiment of Foot (Bombay Infantry)

This unit was raised by the East India Company in 1853, but soon transferred to British Army service. It existed until the reforms of 1881, when it was merged into The Prince of Wales’s Leinster Regiment.

101st Regiment of Foot (Royal Bengal Fusiliers)

This regiment became part of the British Army in 1862. But its origins date back to the 17th century, when the East India Company first established units of European troops.

104th Regiment of Foot (Bengal Fusiliers)

This infantry regiment became part of the British Army in 1862. Prior to this, it had served for over a century with the East India Company's army.

103rd Regiment of Foot (Royal Bombay Fusiliers)

This regiment's origins stretch back to the 1680s, when it became part of the East India Company's army. In 1862, it transferred to the British Army and then merged into The Royal Dublin Fusiliers in 1881.

102nd Regiment of Foot (Royal Madras Fusiliers)

This unit's origins stretch back to 1742, when it became part of the East India Company's army. In 1862, it transferred to the British Army and then merged into The Royal Dublin Fusiliers in 1881.

107th Regiment of Foot (Bengal Light Infantry)

This infantry regiment was raised by the East India Company in 1854. Under the Childers Reforms of 1881, it was amalgamated into The Royal Sussex Regiment.

106th Regiment of Foot (Bombay Light Infantry)

This infantry unit was raised for the East India Company’s army in 1839, but joined the British Army in 1862. It served until the 1881 reforms when it was merged into The Durham Light Infantry.

@SuckingDieselFella, thank you for your patronising but incorrect post. Better keep on with that studying, it will help you gain a wider, and hopefully more accurate, view of the past.

"There were Sikhs in Brritish regiments (dont know what you mean by 'english'). You're talking out of your arse, Sucking."

chriiiiiiist I see the left are still struggling with facts.

What an articulate argument you've put forward Patroclus. You sound like a really bright spark.

If you don't know what I mean by an English regiment, it is you who is talking out of your arse. Regiments were drawn from regions of the British Isles. I thought everyone knew this but obviously I need to dumb it down.

The Cheshires? The Devonshires? The Dorsetshires? None of those ring a bell for you? If you look at a map you'll find they were based in England. How about the the Irish Guards? The Scots Guards? The Welsh Guards? Again, if you look at a map you'll find that they're NOT based in England. Different regiments served together and the gentlemen in your photo are from Indian regiments. They aren't part of a regiment from the British Isles. By the way, there was no such thing as "the British army" either. They were British Empire forces.

Hope that helps.

@Patroclus, thank you for the photos and wider information.

Nobody who 'studies history' calls them english. You are wrong about them not being in british regiments, they were. You now realise that and are trying to change the subject.

@Patroclus
You need to think before copying and pasting from Wikipedia.

Taking as an example the 107th Regiment of Foot, you can see from the photo here that this is a regiment composed of Brits. These regiments were formed to keep the indigenous people in their place. They fought against Indians in the Indian Mutiny. They were the opposite of what you imagine them to be.

You'll respond with abuse so I'll leave you to it. But a very basic course in history would help you out.

www.nam.ac.uk/explore/107th-regiment-foot-bengal-light-infantry

@Patroclus
The second photo you posted is of the 23rd Sikh Pioneers.

www.empirefaithwar.com/tell-their-story/citizen-historians-in-action/soldier-stories-blog/kishan-devi-and-sewa-singh

If you share the keywords you put into google to find the others it would help to determine whether or not they prove your point.

Except that you're not interested in accuracy.

Talk about projection. What part of 'merged regiments' or became part of the british army' dont you understand?

In October 1914 the Jullundur Brigade was one of the first brigades from the Indian Army to go into action on the Western Front. Within the brigade, beside battalions from what is today India and Pakistan, was also the 1st Battalion the Manchester Regiment, one of the ancestors of The Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, which today is the Infantry Regiment of the North West of England. It is also worth noting that the diverse make up of the brigade is reflected in the North West today.

awayfromthewesternfront.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/The-Jullundur-Brigade-Book-.pdf

Im sure you're aware many Sikhs fought on the British side during the mutiny.

The 'english army' scholar doesnt like my sources? this is probably more your area

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7911347/Soldiers-Empire-DID-fight-regiments-British-WWI.html

''The Sikhs in Europe fught in 3 all sikh regiments and many individual companies and squadrons in other regiments

Sikhs Across Borders: Transnational Practices of European Sikhs

"We've heard about" as if it's some mythological tale. That wasn't the context and you know that don't you. It was in the context of hearing nothing about girls being abused by gangs of white men.

You are being completely unreasonable and factually wrong. I've studied the Western Front in 1917 and I can tell you for a fact that Sikh soldiers fought in WW1 within Indian regiments but none fought in English regiments. The soldier in the film is in an English regiment and this is historically inaccurate. So you were there then so you can absolutely tell us that not one soldier of Indian ancestry fought in a British regimenet?

chriiiiiist I see the right is still struggling with comedy.

You’re going to have to explain what you mean by that.

Do you think the ‘right’ don’t get that Jarvis DuPont is a parody character?

Do you think that Laurence didn’t ‘get’ that Jarvis is a parody character?

Do you think the ‘right’ think that this is some sort of serious exchange?

Either way, the tweets between him and Titania McGrath were far more amusing.

I can't speak for others on the thread, but the incongruous bit for me is that Sikhs (along with Canadians, Scots and others) had their own regiments. Even towns, factories and lines of work (e.g. transport) had their own battalions. It is unlikely that a desk clerk from London would join the same regiment as a mill worker from Lancashire. It is even more unlikely that a Sikh from Gujarat would be in the same regiment as either of them. That's why it feels clunky. My Irish grandfathers didn't serve in Irish regiments, must have been a one off except there were two of them.