Laurence Fox

Easy there, he could be the new London Mayor.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-london-mayoral-race-on-anti-lockdown-ticket
Laurence Fox, the actor and controversial political activist, has made a late entry to the race for mayor of London with a campaign calling for an immediate end to lockdown and pledging to “offer a voice to those who are being dominated into silence”.

The leader of the Reclaim party is being reportedly funded solely by former Tory donor Jeremy Hosking . In the announcement accompanying his entry, Fox hit out at “extreme political correctness”, as he criticised the taking down of statues of figures he considers integral to Britain’s history.

He told the Telegraph: “With almost all older and vulnerable people having got their jab, I want the lockdown lifted straight away. The government has said vaccines are working, hospitalisations and deaths are tumbling, but we are still being told we won’t be able to resume normal life until mid-summer at the earliest.
Click to expand...
 
I think the biggest problem today is that everyone spends too much time online and telling everyone their inner most thoughts as we are a lonelier group of people these days with all this social media guff.
 
Here's a question that in more reasonable times would be considered relevant:

Was what he said about the film factually correct?

Instead, it seems that few people care about the truth. Only about opinions and who should be allowed them.



If I was gambling, I'd bet that he was right and the aspect of the film he objected to is yet another example of a false history being constructed to support the dominant authoritarian ideology. As Orwell memorably put it in "1984", which the authoritarian bigots who call themselves "progressive" appear to have used as a training manual:

Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.
Click to expand...


Maybe later I'll waste some time finding out what he said about which film and whether or not he was right. But who would care?
 
Angilion said:
Here's a question that in more reasonable times would be considered relevant:

Was what he said about the film factually correct?
...
Maybe later I'll waste some time finding out what he said about which film and whether or not he was right. But who would care?
Click to expand...
Last time I looked, the suggestion of having a regiment rather than indulging in what could be seen as tokenism seemed to not be a totally crazy idea.

I'm putting all the anger down to Saturday night beer posting, I know I was on the sauce :)
 
Last edited:
Angilion said:
Here's a question that in more reasonable times would be considered relevant:

Was what he said about the film factually correct?

Instead, it seems that few people care about the truth. Only about opinions and who should be allowed them.



If I was gambling, I'd bet that he was right and the aspect of the film he objected to is yet another example of a false history being constructed to support the dominant authoritarian ideology. As Orwell memorably put it in "1984", which the authoritarian bigots who call themselves "progressive" appear to have used as a training manual:




Maybe later I'll waste some time finding out what he said about which film and whether or not he was right. But who would care?
Click to expand...

I believe he was talking about 1917 and the token appearances of black and Asian soldiers. What he said was largely correct.
Typically these soldiers would have fought as full regiments of a uniform race/nationality. They weren't scattered amongst other regiments as individuals.
Additionally seeing them in france/Belgium would have been rarer still as they were fielded largely in the likes of persia and the ottoman empire.
Also when they were present in the West they weren't generally used in frontline roles but instead as auxiliaries, this doesn't in any way diminish their contributions though.

This isn't to say that what was portrayed was impossible, it just wasnt very common and so quite jarring.
 
Dis86 said:
I believe he was talking about 1917 and the token appearances of black and Asian soldiers. What he said was largely correct.
Typically these soldiers would have fought as full regiments of a uniform race/nationality. They weren't scattered amongst other regiments as individuals.
Additionally seeing them in france/Belgium would have been rarer still as they were fielded largely in the likes of persia and the ottoman empire.
Also when they were present in the West they weren't generally used in frontline roles but instead as auxiliaries, this doesn't in any way diminish their contributions though.

This isn't to say that what was portrayed was impossible, it just wasnt very common and so quite jarring.
Click to expand...

The grandfather of the director of 1917, Alfred Mendes, was a West Indian Creole. He fought in 1917 at the Battle of Passchendaele with the 4th Division of the 1st Rifle Brigade. Mendes wrote the story of the film based around what his grandfather told him, so no matter if it wasn't very common or not, it's plain bloody ignorance to criticise the movie on this level. Especially given the whole host of historical inaccuracies that it could be criticised for that have nothing to do seeing "token" non-white faces in scenes where white fellas don't expect them.
 
Dis is right that they served mainly in all Indian units, but they would often intermingle with British soldiers during battle and during relief changeovers. Over 130,000 Indians fought in the western front, so the depiction in 1917 is hardly a stretch of the imagination
 
robfosters said:
Dis is right that they served mainly in all Indian units, but they would often intermingle with British soldiers during battle and during relief changeovers. Over 130,000 Indians fought in the western front, so the depiction in 1917 is hardly a stretch of the imagination
Click to expand...

I actually take exception with the fact it's just one guy from memory. That's what I found jarring. Same with WIndian troops.
 
Dis86 said:
I believe he was talking about 1917 and the token appearances of black and Asian soldiers. What he said was largely correct.
Typically these soldiers would have fought as full regiments of a uniform race/nationality. They weren't scattered amongst other regiments as individuals.
Additionally seeing them in france/Belgium would have been rarer still as they were fielded largely in the likes of persia and the ottoman empire.
Also when they were present in the West they weren't generally used in frontline roles but instead as auxiliaries, this doesn't in any way diminish their contributions though.

This isn't to say that what was portrayed was impossible, it just wasnt very common and so quite jarring.
Click to expand...
Oh come on what he really said was that he was sick of films adding token dark people. Thats basicaly what he said.

You can all try to flower it up to say he was saying it should have been a whole regiment, but what he was complaining about was a sikh soldier in a film about the british army.

He was complaining about wokism. He is either an idiot or a massive bigot.
 
Tony Edwards said:
Oh come on what he really said was that he was sick of films adding token dark people. Thats basicaly what he said.

You can all try to flower it up to say he was saying it should have been a whole regiment, but what he was complaining about was a sikh soldier in a film about the british army.

He was complaining about wokism. He is either an idiot or a massive bigot.
Click to expand...
I take it your a big fan of wokism then?
 
robfosters said:
I take it your a big fan of wokism then?
Click to expand...
Well I dont go around saying Im only attracted to people of my own race if thats what you mean?

Neither do I complain about what I perceive to be token dark people in films or TV shows, or complain about too many dark people in commercials, or how all couples and families in tv commercials are either black or mixed race.

Or say Im going to boycott a well known shopping group because they put out messages about support of BLM issues. Nor do I go on twitter and say I wont be drinking/using your product now you are trying to prove you dont support racism, or complain about women or dark people in remakes or change of characters in tv shows or films.

Nor do I stand up in support of statues of slave traders or known racists...

If that is a big fan of wokism then yes I probably am. I just always saw my views as being a decent human being, but there you go.
 
Tony Edwards said:
Well I dont go around saying Im only attracted to people of my own race if thats what you mean?

Neither do I complain about what I perceive to be token dark people in films or TV shows, or complain about too many dark people in commercials, or how all couples and families in tv commercials are either black or mixed race.

Or say Im going to boycott a well known shopping group because they put out messages about support of BLM issues. Nor do I go on twitter and say I wont be drinking/using your product now you are trying to prove you dont support racism, or complain about women or dark people in remakes or change of characters in tv shows or films.

Nor do I stand up in support of statues of slave traders or known racists...

If that is a big fan of wokism then yes I probably am. I just always saw my views as being a decent human being, but there you go.
Click to expand...
Just because I’m only attracted to white women does not make me racist.
 
robfosters said:
Just because I’m only attracted to white women does not make me racist.
Click to expand...
Just as because Im against racism and dont complain about what I perceive to be token dark people in films or TV shows, or complain about too many dark people in commercials, or how all couples and families in tv commercials are either black or mixed race.

Or say Im going to boycott a well known shopping group because they put out messages about support of BLM issues. Nor do I go on twitter and say I wont be drinking/using your product now you are trying to prove you dont support racism, or complain about women or dark people in remakes or change of characters in tv shows or films.

Nor stand up in support of statues of slave traders or known racists make me woke.

It certainly makes me look not racist or a bigot in my lack of support of bigotry. If those things are what woke is to you then I feel sorry for you.
 
Tony Edwards said:
Just as because Im against racism and dont complain about what I perceive to be token dark people in films or TV shows, or complain about too many dark people in commercials, or how all couples and families in tv commercials are either black or mixed race.

Or say Im going to boycott a well known shopping group because they put out messages about support of BLM issues. Nor do I go on twitter and say I wont be drinking/using your product now you are trying to prove you dont support racism, or complain about women or dark people in remakes or change of characters in tv shows or films.

Nor stand up in support of statues of slave traders or known racists make me woke.
Click to expand...

No, but berating anyone who raises those points or supports them does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom