Well done Lawrence Fox!

I was more irritated by LF's comment about the Sikh soldier shown in a wagon carrying soldiers to another fighting place. Most of us know that many soldiers from various parts of the Empire/Commonwealth fought alongside the British allies in both WorldWars. Inevitably, regiments were scattered and it wouldn't have been impossible to have an Indian/West Indian sitting with a predominantly white group of soldiers.
I may have missed some of what Fox said when he elaborated, but his initial quote was to dismiss the notion of a Sikh in WW1.
It seems highly unlikely he consulted wikipedia like someone up thread, to confirm that Sikh regiments weren't in the area where the story of 1917 is set.
He comes over as a not terribly bright, overprivileged man with a sense of entitlement and a view of his own importance that vastly exceeds any worth he may have.

I know you were Maw I was calling out the hypocrisy of the general position of the average member of the LF fan club

Here’s an example from a past thread

‘Why does anyone give any weight to anything that celebs say? Lily Allen and Russell Brand are two that spring to mind.’

Somehow it’s different when you agree with the celebs views??

:45:26
Maw the general rule on GN on celebs voicing political opinions is that it is a dreadful thing. Of course that was when it was celebs voicing views perceived as left wing. Now it’s right wing LF , it is of course, a wonderful thing
I don’t give a monkey’s where the views are voiced, I was speaking in general - Emma Thompson, Lily Allen, Stephen Fry, LF - whoever and wherever.

still can't get over Lily Allen's fab tweet "people are sick of listening to entitled luvies" apropos of fantastic Mr Fox on QT x million

And a few more from me!

As for your last sentence Maw I think it’s clear it doesn’t apply to dear old LF.

...........still can't get over Lily Allen's fab tweet "people are sick of listening to entitled luvies" apropos of fantastic Mr Fox on QT x million

Self awareness courses............are there any for an -- entitled, white, privileged, Bedales educated, opinionated luvie-- justifiably concerned high profile woman about the state of this fascist hell hole she still chooses is forced to live in

Maw the general rule on GN on celebs voicing political opinions is that it is a dreadful thing. Of course that was when it was celebs voicing views perceived as left wing. Now it’s right wing LF , it is of course, a wonderful thing.

I am very uneasy about actors etc pronouncing on everything as if they have some superior insight.
Of course they are entitled to their opinion, but it is precisely that.
Whether a Shakespearean actor or one of the Chuckle Brothers makes not a blind bit of difference.
The only advantages thespians have is that they are well known to the general public and may have the ability, because of their training, to express themselves fluently.

stance opinions

Laurence Fox has resonated with some, simply because we now live in an age where certain thoughts and opinions cannot be expressed. Universities are an example. In more tolerant times it would have been the norm for say Germaine Greer to be invited as a guest speaker, put forward her stance on what is thought by some, as a controversial stance on sexual identity and debate it. Now the argument is simply shut down. In other scenarios if you happen to be white, male even a biological woman, depending on the context, those groups are synononymous with privilege and as such shouldn't have an input.

However, it seems that LF has now gone into "run away train mode" popping up all over the place, can't help feeling these appearances are fueled by his vociferous critics with their "you are a white privileged male so shut up"

I certainly don't agree with everything he makes pronouncements on, in particular the references to the "Sikh" presence in the "1917" film. There are many historical accounts of the active roles Commonwealth soldiers played in both world wars.

Very well said Doodledog and it's my opinion too that LF is a pillock.

Programmes like QT and its radio equivalent (precursor?) Any Questions. are interesting because they show what the woman and man 'on the street' are thinking about the issues of the day.

The panel was always made up of 'experts', or at least people with a knowledge of the subjects under discussion, but lately that has been watered down, and we have been subjected to 'celebrities' giving their uninformed points of view.

Fine, up to a point - the majority of people in the audience are uninformed, and it is their opinion that we are listening to (and the lines between opinion, fact and educated guess have become very blurred over the past decade or so); but in this case we had an expert in the audience talking to an actor with no expertise in the subject beyond lived experience.

Arguably, his lived experience is somewhat rarified, and puts him outside of the 'norm', but that is the nature of QT. I think the combination of the idea that all opinions are of equal value and merit (tell that to a patient in a surgery ward) and the morphing of QT from news to entertainment has made this sort of thing inevitable.

Personally, I think that LF is an entitled pillock, and that he has done his reputation no favours, but that's just my opinion, which is worth no more nor less than anyone else's on the matter.

On Twitter, you can choose whom you follow. Of course, that means that some people only follow people whose views correspond with their own. Personally, I follow people who make their points intelligently wherever they are on the political or social spectrum.

BTW Terribull I don't think GN is a microcosm of a society. It has a very limited membership.

tickingbird I live in hope! Very occasionally, it's possible to have informed debate on GN. Ironically, I find it's more likely on Twitter by "following" certain people whose views I respect (from all sides of debates).

I also look forward to the uni vacations when I can discuss politics properly with my son, who's currently finishing off his degree in politics and economics .

I agree with you to an extent grumppa. There's nothing wrong with having a "layperson" on QT. However, Fox behaved like an overdramatic spoilt "luvvie". He didn't expand on or explain his views. Having read many of his subsequent tweets and read the transcript of his interviews, he seems to be well-known for holding very right-wing views, which I didn't know previously, but I bet the QT producers did. I wouldn't mind betting he was selected as a poster boy for controversial views.

PS. I utterly condemn the death threats he's apparently receiving. I really do wish there were an appetite and platform for rational, reasoned, pragmatic debate. I really dislike this polarisation and aggression.

Thank you growstuff for reinforcing my point! It's pointless.

Jura di you believe the UK should have a system like Switzerland, where you live, with quotas, language fluency and other requirements?

Or would you prefer Switzerland to have a more open policy?

tickingbird As I wrote, I don't think places such as GN or any other social media are the places for intelligent, rational debate. They're sounding boards for populist screeching and it's blatantly obvious that people haven't really thought about definitions and aren't willing to discuss them. Many people just repeat what they've heard or read if it confirms their own bias. Unfortunately, most current affairs TV programmes and the traditional media have become the same.

First, a disclaimer: I gave up watching Question Time years ago.

Having said that, I assume that when someone is invited to appear on the panel, it is in the expectation that they will comment on all the issues raised. I also assume that if the
panel is to be representative of the population as a whole, it will include a middle class white male. So,it seems entirely reasonable to me that LF should have commented on the Sussexes (or whatever they are now permitted to call themselves).

By some accounts he came across as a bit like the Nazi sympathiser he once played in Foyle's War, and to say we are not a racist country is pretty meaningless: racism in various forms crops up everywhere (you should hear what a Chinese acquaintance of mine says about the Indians). But I would agree with him that his background does not automatically disqualify him from holding or expressing opinions on matters of which he has no direct personal experience; such a rule would hit a number of Gransnetters, I suspect, probably including myself.

“Ugly” Patel is a play on words of her name Priti.

Nothing to do with a cold hard mind.

Maybe racist but not necessarily. A play on people’s names is fairly common across the board.

It achieves nothing though, in terms of debate.

jura2 what is the relevance of her parents making a fortune in another country, and and being double immigrants unless it's racism ( conscious or otherwise)?

I can see you were alluding to your perception of Priti Patel's nature, Jura, but I can't help thinking if such a play on words were used in another context to malign a woman of colour, you would be one of the first to call it out.

Those of us who have been relentlessly arguing for remain, have been labelled constantly by some here as 'left wingers' - without knowing anything about the reality.

Priti Patel is named 'ugly' not because of her looks, but because of her cold and hard mind and heart when dealing with the fate of immigrants (mostly legal and contributing hard to our society) - when she is the child of double immigrants- who never di go 'back home' when things got tough in the country where they made a fortune- but to the UK. And yet as not a zilch of empathy.