Well done Lawrence Fox!

Eglantine suziewoozie is spot on. There is in law no such thing as a registered disability. There is no all-purpose definition. It depends what the person is not able to do and for what purpose.

Is thst the best response you can manage Chewmas opposed your engaging with the issue? I suppose it must be. Never mind.

Yep Chewbacca, you've just about got the gist of it .

Eglantine Your argument about Laurence Fox's inability to sing is ridiculous and doesn't make suziewoozie ablest.

I can't sing, stand on one leg or roll my tongue (which most people can do), but I'm not disabled.

I agreed with what JF said. I agree with many of the posters on this thread. I don't agree with you.

The amount of sheer ignorance and ableism on this thread is breathtaking.

I agree with you there though!

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

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

Laurence Fox wouldn't be facing the same kind of criticism, if he'd actually put forward a coherent point of view rather than behaving like a spoilt toddler. His subsequent behaviour and tweets have confirmed to me that he really is out of order and should not have been invited on to QT as a guest with anything serious to say.

‘Have not given’ of course

SW do you have to practice being rude and condescending, or does it just 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.

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

suziewoozie and your point is?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

I look forward to your apology?

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.

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.

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.