Well done Lawrence Fox!

@suziewoozie
My comment about me being subject to racism should have been directed to trisher who asserted that “he” would never have been subjected to racism.
I have no idea who this thread is about and did not see the programme but I always get irate when people assume racism is always white people’s attitude to other ethnic groups when those of us who have lived in other countries are only too aware that it works both ways.
In the last week I have been subjected to both positive and negative racism which I have called out every single time and have observed African v Indian racism too. It is universal.

metro.co.uk is reporting that the Fire Service has changed its entrance test so as it's deliberately harder for white men.

Can you imagine the outrage if "white" was changed for "black"?

Surely it should just be a test, not favouring any race?

He just made himself the epitome of white male privilege

Esspee no one is saying that. The criticism of LF’s comments were about his being a white man categorically stating that something that happened to a black person was not racist. If it’s a white person commenting on racism as experienced by white people at the hands of black people and they have experienced it themselves, that’s a completely different issues

No Eglantine you’re not being fair. I said it wasn’t disability ie not being able to sing in tune. Of course being hearing impaired is a disability but not singing in tune does not mean per se you have any hearing problems. The other points you make about being excluded because of your disability are absolutely spot on of course. One of the points I made upthread was that more could be done to limit exclusion but ime ( and yours) not all aspects of the able bodied world can be accessible to disabled people. It’s one of the things we have to learn to live with. I’m sorry you experience feelings of humiliation and that people may be laughing/ talking about you behind your back. I do experience frustration - particularly when things could be done to reduce or remove the problem. But life is a constant logistical tussle to balance what’s possible and what I want to do. I also feel sad sometimes at the things I miss out on and remove myself from. I do have very good supportive friends who have often gone further than I ever imagined to make sure I could be included in their plans.

Please do believe me that I’ve only ever said that you really cannot call not being able to sing in tune a disability. Any other hearing impaired aspects to that are a different issue altogether.

I’m white, currently in the Caribbean and I have been subjected to racism many many times through the years.
Why would people think that having a pale skin means you don’t understand racism?
Ignorance I suppose.

makes no = making

You didn’t respect my experiences as a deaf person.

I told you that not being able to join in singing was humiliating. You said FFS.

It is humiliating to have to stand at funerals or weddings not joining in. People sometimes wrongly assume you are making some kind of comment on the proceedings. Sometimes that leads to open hostility or comments about you behind your back.

It’s even more humiliating to attempt some kind of sound or lip syncing and have people covering their laughter or, in your case, makes no snide remarks.

It is disabling to not be able to enjoy the kind of social activities that your peer group enjoy. To watch them going off to concerts and gigs. To not be invited.

My experiences are my experiences. They are real to me,. You cannot know to what extent my impairment disables me n everyday life and yet you call me a disgrace for pointing out that it is not a joke.

So it's okay to use artistic licence in a drama and be inaccurate if it meets with your approval suziewoozie? But what if it doesn't? What if there actually were Sikhs in that regiment and he didn't show them because he was using his artistic licence? I don't think you'd be quite so forgiving then.

suziewoozie If this isn’t a joke, it will do until a real joe comes along, LF is s joke because he thinks he can categorically stare what is racist or not.

Therefore it naturally follows that you’re also a joke as you think you can state not only what racism is but also what everything else is. Deluded or what?

Spot on jura The director was making a point using artistic licence which is common in films. The basic point is true- Sikhs fought in the British Army. LF in his infinite stupidity was not making that point at all about artistic licence. All this media adulation he’s getting at the moment has gone to his silly little head. He’s too stupid to realise he’s been used and seems to think that whatever comes out of his mouth at the moment is a) true and b) worthy of note. Poor boy

Eglantine in a way it’s a matter of semantics but in law there is no such thing as registered disability. What there is is a register for blind/ partially sighted and a register for deaf/ hearing impaired. These are both voluntary, kept by las and really their main function is establishing eligibility to such things as disabled rail card. There is no other register for any other type of disability. Being on either of them means of course that you have lived experience of sight/hearing problems. If someone on one of these registers was in the QT audience and said that something was ableist, do you think a person not on one of those registers should be able to categorically refute that statement? That is the crux of the discussion on here. You’ve claimed rightly that your experiences as a deaf person should be valued and respected - what some of us are saying vis-a-vis LF is that he should value and respect the experiences of people from ethnic minorities and not just tell them what is or isn’t racist. That’s all really.

Oh FFS- a film Director was right to include other groups who fought against war - the fact that there were apparentyl no Sikh soldiers at that particular location- does NOT make the film and Director racist - unless you have a real been and obsession about it in your bonnet. The FACT is many Indian troups including Sikhs, fought alongside British troups is very important to portray.

Finding it 'annoying' is not the same as finding it inherently racist.

Just found this re the Sikh soldier in the movie:
'The Indian troops were attached to the British 1st Army formation, nowhere near where this film is based within the British 5th Army formation fighting at the Battle of Aras and then the Hindenburg line.'
It seems that LF was correct? Is it possible he knows what he's talking about? Anyone who has studied WW1 might find an inaccuracy like that annoying. People often complain about a song being sung before it was written, or a car being driven years before it was made. If you happen to notice something like that then you might comment on it if it annoys you.

I look forward to your apology?

As if I care Chew your posts have given one good reason to underpin your position.

And then...

And what pray Chew do you know about ableism and disability discrimination

More contradictions! Do make your mind up sweetie!

growstuff don't presume anything about what I might think. I am simply trying to be factual, and establish whether he is correct even if it doesn't match your opinions.

growstuff if you’d like to type in nhs registering deaf you will see that there is such a thing as a registered disability.

How odd that you think that the person with the disability would be wrong about registering. And the person who knows little or nothing about it would put themselves forward as an expert.

Surely my experiences as a deaf person should be respected and valued.

Regardless of differences of opinions both you and suziewoozie are wrong in this fact.

Buttonjugs...wot the ‘ell is a young gammon?
Is it about his acting style, a bit of a ham??
If you simply meant he is young ( not that young) and a white/pink colour, then you have made a racist remark.

Yes, they did have their own regiments, but at times there were so many losses that mixed regiments were cobbled together with soldiers from many different countries.

Chestnut You're rationalising what he actually said, presumably to make excuses for it. It might be a slight historical inaccuracy, but at least it's a nodding recognition that many other soldiers from the colonies fought in WW1, which most war films don't do.

As I understand it LF was criticising the movie because Sikh soldiers had their own regiments so it would have been inaccurate having one in the regiment which was depicted.

suziewoozie and your point is?

Opal do you have to practice not being able to debate rationally or does it come naturally?

The silence re LF’s erudite comments about Sikh soldiers in 1917 speaks volumes. The problem is that the tribalism is such, that because LFs comments on QT were so welcomed by many, that anything he now says about race ( or probably anything else for that matter) is treated as though it’s the word of God. Anyone who criticises him is therefore the devil incarnate.

SW do you have to practice being rude and condescending, or does it just come naturally?