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?

It’s a fantastic film by the way, even if it does have the audacity to show a few non-white faces in the background...

He has massive support on Twitter. We always enjoyed the Lewis program, so beautifully written and produced. So much better than the rubbish on, especially the BBC

He is also correct about most of the things he says.

Wingedserpent continues missing the point.

All he was to me before this week was an actor I watch on ITV3. I didn't know he was from an acting family but of course he is now I think about it. Out of curiosity, is his dad James or Edward Fox. They're both much better actors than he is.

I truly think some people think he's the same Sergeant Hathaway in real life, which is obviously ridiculous as he plays a murderer in on episode of Foyle's War and he obviously isn't that in real life.

I think he sounds like a prat. Think about it, how would you feel if he was lecturing us about how misogyny didn't exist and was getting boring? Would those of you defending him be so keen to do so in that scenario??

Hi career has stalled and he has found a new angle for fame I guess but positioning himself as the male Katie Hopkins. Agree he is ignorant and spoiled and unable to see the world through anything thing but his own privileged standpoint. Kind of embarrassing really.

Well, he does speak up for the rights of CIS women...believing that a man cannot become a woman and on that, he is ALSO right!

I don't know about Sikhs but I do know that not all black soldiers were in black regiments in WW1. Read about Walter Tull, not only a black soldier in the regular British Army but an officer commanding white soldiers so showing black faces isn't that big a mistake.

Also Canada did have some all black regiments but many of their black soldiers served in mixed regiments. I wonder if there were any Sikhs in Canada?

Even wankers and nob heads talk sense some of the time and I think he is right about some if the things he has said. So good for him.

This sort of casting is becoming pretty par for the course, I've noticed many British films or adverts (eg John Lewis at Christmas) set in historical times (eg Georgian/Victorian) will have one or two people with darker skin in crowd scenes or in the background. This often jars because it seems historically inaccurate & feels tokenistic.

Seeing all the usual Tory suspects speaking out in support of this idiot - what a shocker.

Exploring the actual sacrifices all the Sikh’s made with a relevant subplot would be different.

So you can only cast a non-white actor if their race or religion is used as a plot point?

I thought we’d moved away from this nonsense.

So you can only cast a non-white actor if their race or religion is used as a plot point?

I don't think anyone is saying that. The issue is one of historical inaccuracies. It's rewriting history to present an idealised version that doesn't reflect the reality.

No-one is denying that Sikhs and other people from throughout the 'empire' fought and died in WW1, but their involvement hasn't been presented accurately. It's not that complicated to understand.

caperberries there have been black people in England since Roman times. There is nothing historically inaccurate about one or two black faces in a Georgian/Victoria scene.

My grandmother used to tell me stories about the village she grew up in, the late 19th early 20th century. One of the subjects was the family who came to live in the village when the father left the army and returned to his home. He brought his Indian wife and mixed race children with him. Apparently the village girls found it fascinating that his daughters carried buckets of water on their heads where the local girls carried buckets, there was a well in the village and no piped water.

There is now starting to be a backlash against the actors union Equity. Some members of a committee for minorities tweeted from the Equity account calling on other actors to denounce Laurence Fox. The tweets were later deleted and the people concerned may face sanctions. The union are currently advertising an event for those who "self define" as Black.

"Self define" as Black????

caperberries so you can state with 100% confidence that there was never a lone Sikh soldier in WW1? Maybe someone who got isolated from his regiment, someone with specialised skills who was "on loan" so to speak to another regiment or even, God forbid, a British Sikh who happened to sign up with his neighbours. You can really state that 100%?

What does 'woke' even mean??

I've only seen woke used as a term of abuse to people with views that other people don't like.

Ah, thank you @1forsorrow! I live under a rock 😂🙈

'This sort of casting is becoming pretty par for the course, I've noticed many British films or adverts (eg John Lewis at Christmas) set in historical times (eg Georgian/Victorian) will have one or two people with darker skin in crowd scenes or in the background. This often jars because it seems historically inaccurate & feels tokenistic.'

It IS NOT historically inaccurate - the were black people and asian people etc. in Victorian Britain and well before - what's been inaccurate for years and years is the fact that they have been left out of books, films and haven't been represented. As have LGBT people. Which is what happens when history is recorded by, mostly, white men.

NOT sikh and black soldiers were in dedicated regiments, esp. as the war went on and more and more of the soldiers from those regiments died.

www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/portchester-castle/history-and-stories/black-people-in-late-18th-century-britain/

read this if you're interested in educating yourself.

Thanks Wingedserpentfliesbynight, I was starting to think it was just me and I was in some sort of parallel universe.

I think he just wants to be the male Katie Hopkins, she's done alright out of it... because he can't act and he sure a hell can't sing... see below:

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/tv/video-lawrence-fox-performing-jeremy-17595995

I'm a bit bored of this new buzz word 'woke'.

Aside from that, as some previous posters have correctly pointed out, Laurence Fox wasn't actually complaining about there being a Sikh soldier in the film! He was saying that in his opinion, it was an unrealistic portrayal of the role that Sikh soldiers played in WW1 and felt a bit like he'd been shoe horned in just to tick a diversity box.

I've noticed many British films or adverts (eg John Lewis at Christmas) set in historical times (eg Georgian/Victorian) will have one or two people with darker skin in crowd scenes or in the background. This often jars because it seems historically inaccurate & feels tokenistic.'

There was a fucking dragon in that John Lewis advert. The people with "darker skin" weren't what made it historically inaccurate!

I can help the poster who asks what WOKE means.

It is an acronym for Wailing Obnoxious Knobs Explaining.

Hope that helps.

He's yet another dull bore benefitting from both white and male privilege trying to be "controversial" for his own ends.

He has a new album out.