‘Speak English': British woman's outburst at Indian staff at Heathrow Airport goes viral
A woman named Lucy White recently triggered widespread criticism on social media after posting about a personal encounter at London's Heathrow Airport. Using the platform X (formerly Twitter), White shared that she was allegedly frustrated by the behavior of airport employees she claimed were of Indian or South Asian heritage. According to her, these staff members reportedly failed to communicate in English, a claim that quickly drew intense scrutiny.In her post, White complained that upon arriving at Heathrow, she noticed that many of the airport personnel were of Asian origin and, as she described, unable to communicate in English. She went on to say that when she urged them to speak the language, they accused her of being discriminatory. White responded with harsh comments, questioning why such individuals were employed at one of the UK's primary entry points, and called for their removal."Just landed in London Heathrow. The majority of staff are Indian/Asian & are not speaking a word of English.I said to them, 'Speak English.' Their reply, 'You're being racist." They know I'm right, so they have to use the race card. Deport them all. Why are they working at the first point of entry to the UK?! What must tourists think…" The post read.Her post, which rapidly accumulated over two million views, was soon at the center of a heated debate.The online response was sharply divided. Some users echoed her concerns, suggesting that language barriers at international gateways might create confusion for travelers. However, a significant number of others strongly opposed White's remarks, denouncing them as xenophobic and racist. One user questioned the logic of her account, pointing out that if the employees truly didn't know English, how could they have responded to her accusation of racism? Another sarcastically referenced White's supposed educational background, implying that her story lacked credibility and could be entirely fictitious.Further replies continued to challenge the accuracy of her claims. One person stated that having worked at or passed through Heathrow multiple times, they had never encountered staff unable to speak fluent English. They pointed out that many of the employees are indeed of Asian descent—likely due to the region's demographic makeup—but this in no way affects their professionalism or linguistic ability. In fact, several responses praised the staff for being courteous and helpful, painting a stark contrast to White's depiction.Others picked up on the contradiction in her narrative, joking that it was odd how the staff, allegedly incapable of English, had no trouble calling her out for being discriminatory in flawless English. The comment only served to amplify doubts about the authenticity of her story.As per her LinkedIn profile, Lucy holds an MPhil in Public Policy from the University of Cambridge.Ultimately, what began as a personal complaint about a travel experience snowballed into a viral example of how online platforms can spotlight divisive views. White's post not only backfired by drawing widespread condemnation but also ignited conversations about race, identity, and the expectations of language use in multicultural settings like Heathrow.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
20 minutes ago
- Time of India
Air India crash: A second-by-second account of what happened inside the cockpit before the deadly crash
The preliminary report from investigators probing the Air India crash that killed 260 people showed that seconds after takeoff, the Boeing 787 plane's engine fuel control switches were switched off briefly, starving them of fuel. According to the report, the flight lasted around 30 seconds between takeoff and crash. It said that once the aircraft achieved its top recorded speed, 'the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another" within a second. The report did not say how the switches could have flipped to the cutoff position during the flight. The movement of the fuel control switches allow and cut fuel flow to the plane's engines. The switches were flipped back into the run position, the report said, but the plane could not gain power quickly enough to stop its descent after the aircraft had begun to lose altitude. Here is the sequence of events - by the seconds - on June 12, as detailed by Indian investigators in their preliminary report released on Saturday: Live Events Time (UTC) Event 07:43:00 The aircraft requested pushback and startup. 07:43:13 ATC approved pushback. 07:46:59 ATC approved startup. 07:49:12 ATC queried if the aircraft required full length of the runway. The aircraft confirmed requirement of full length of Runway 23. 07:55:15 The aircraft requested taxi clearance, which was granted by ATC. 08:02:03 The aircraft was transferred from Ground to Tower Control. 08:03:45 The aircraft was instructed to line up on Runway 23. 08:07:33 The aircraft was cleared for take-off from Runway 23, Wind 240°/06 Kts. 08:09:05 MAYDAY call was made by AI171. 'One of the pilots transmitted ''MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY',' the report said. It also indicated confusion in the cockpit moments before the crash. In the flight's final moment, one pilot was heard on the cockpit voice recorder asking the other why he cut off the fuel. 'The other pilot responded that he did not do so,' the report said. The plane's black boxes — combined cockpit voice recorders and flight data recorders — were recovered in the days following the crash and later downloaded in India. Indian authorities had also ordered deeper checks of Air India's entire fleet of Boeing 787 Dreamliner to prevent future incidents. Air India has 33 Dreamliners in its fleet. The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau's (AAIB) preliminary findings on the fatal Air India Boeing 787-8 crash reveal that the flight's previous crew had reported a stabilizer sensor defect earlier on the same day of the accident that killed 241 onboard the Boeing aircraft. Following the defect report, Air India's on-duty maintenance engineer conducted troubleshooting, and the aircraft was cleared for flight. Also Read: Air India plane crash report out; Both engines 'cut off' mid-air '01 second apart' "The Flight AI171 had arrived in Ahmedabad earlier that day as AI423 from Delhi. The previous crew had logged a defect report related to a stabilizer sensor ('STAB POS XDCR'). Air India's on-duty maintenance engineer conducted troubleshooting, and the aircraft was cleared for flight," said the report.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Indian Air Force Agniveer Vayu 2025 recruitment begins: Check direct link, eligibility and steps to apply here
The has officially opened the registration window for Agniveer Vayu Intake 02/2026 under the Agnipath scheme. Aspiring candidates can now apply online at from July 11 to July 31, 2025. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now This recruitment drive offers a prestigious opportunity for young Indian men and women to join the Air Force for a four-year term, with potential for absorption into regular service based on performance. Candidates must ensure they meet all eligibility criteria, including educational qualifications, age limit, and physical standards, before applying. The selection process involves an online test, physical fitness test, and medical examination. IAF Agniveer Vayu eligibility criteria To register online, candidates must fulfil the following eligibility criteria: Age Limit: Candidates must be between 17.5 and 21 years of age at the time of enrollment. Date of birth should fall between July 2, 2005, and January 3, 2009 (both inclusive). Educational Qualification: Science Stream: 10+2 with Physics, Mathematics, and English with at least 50% marks in aggregate and 50% in English. 10+2 with Physics, Mathematics, and English with at least 50% marks in aggregate and 50% in English. OR 3-year Engineering Diploma with minimum 50% overall and 50% in English. Non-Science Stream: 10+2 in any subject with 50% in aggregate and 50% in English. 10+2 in any subject with 50% in aggregate and 50% in English. OR 2-year vocational course with the same marks requirement. Physical Standards: Minimum height: 152.5 cm 152.5 cm Weight and chest measurements should be proportionate. Visual standards and hearing ability must meet Air Force norms. How to apply for Indian Air Force Agniveer Vayu 2025 Here is how to register online: Visit Register with a valid email ID and mobile number. Log in and select "Intake 02/2026". Fill the form with personal, academic, and contact details. Upload documents: Passport-size photo Signature Left thumb impression 10th & 12th/Diploma certificates Pay the fee of ₹550 + GST via online payment methods. Submit the form and download the confirmation page. Direct link to apply online . Admit cards for the online test will be available around 2–3 days before the exam and must be printed with ID proof to attend. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us .
Mint
an hour ago
- Mint
Footwear, power, and colonial politics in British India
In 1805, a British official visited the court of the Peshwa in Pune. Writing later, he described his host as 'much the handsomest Hindu I have seen", with a perfect 'gentlemanlike air". His appearance, James Mackintosh added, 'had more elegance than dignity" and didn't quite fit his preconceptions of what a leading prince would look like. The Peshwa was dressed in simple garments, and his 'throne", in an equally unassuming durbar hall, was just a sheet of white, with a few pillows thrown over it. But Mackintosh had another specifically interesting comment to make: 'no lady's hands, fresh from the toilet and the bath," he wrote, 'could be more nicely clean than (the Peshwa's) uncovered feet." The white man's attention to feet need not surprise us, for this part of the human anatomy played a significant role in colonial politics. Mackintosh himself, as he entered the Peshwa's presence, had had to remove his 'splendidly embroidered slippers", and go in with toes (nearly) exposed (he probably kept his stockings on). Across the centuries of their presence in India, issues around shoes and feet would haunt the British repeatedly. For instance, in 1633 when Ralph Cartwright, an English envoy, sought permission to trade from the Mughal governor of Orissa, the latter 'presented his foot to our Merchant to kisse". Twice Cartwright refused to bend, but in the end 'was faine to doe it". The symbolism is obvious: one party was the superior, the other a supplicant. In Mughal court culture this was not necessarily an insult: as the historian Harbans Mukhia observes, imperial foot-kissing was often a privilege, and most had to make do with touching lips on carpets or the ground instead. It is likely that by offering his foot to Cartwright, the Mughal governor was indicating favour. Yet, the same ritual could also, of course, be deployed to humiliate. In 1520, when the Bijapur sultan sued for peace after losing to Krishnadevaraya of Vijayanagara, the emperor agreed—provided the sultan kiss his feet. Bijapur declined and the war continued. The British, coming from a different culture, saw things decidedly from the insult side of things. It was common courtesy in India, for example, to take off one's shoes when entering any space of importance; white officials, though, saw exposed feet as improper. For generations, therefore, they negotiated for special treatment, success and failure depending on political winds. The second governor-general, Lord Cornwallis, thus, was able to meet a Mughal prince on his own terms: 'his lordship," we read, 'went into the imperial presence with his shoes on". This, when only four years before, Cornwallis's predecessor had to 'yield" to a whole series of 'indignities", such as 'going into the presence with his shoes off, sitting behind the prince on his elephant, and fanning him". What had changed was that the Mughal prince was visibly weaker; he could no longer insist on imperial protocol. In time, the British would assume the right to keep shoes on even inside temples and mosques. It was an uphill battle, though. In Gwalior, for example, an agent took umbrage to how the formidable anti-British queen, Baiza Bai, summoned him 'any day at any hour to dance attendance", making him 'sit on the ground without shoes", on the 'left side instead of the right side" of her throne (the left being less honourable). It would be 12 years—and after Baiza Bai's ouster from power—before the British would succeed, at last, in having the Gwalior durbar modify custom; in 1844, it was reported, 'we all sat on chairs with our boots on." Of course, this was also due to altered political realities, given that the state was now under more thorough British control, and had to, therefore, accept white officials' diktats. The location of the chair upon which British officers sat also mattered—in the 1870s, when the ruler of Baroda sought to have the governor of Bombay sit on his left during a proposed visit, it was stoutly resisted. The maharajah pursued the matter to London—and failed. In Hyderabad, meanwhile, it took until 1869 for the British to be able to wear shoes in the court of the nizam, let alone use chairs. An earlier ruler, when requested by a Company official for a chair, is said to have sneered that he continue to sit on the floor, but with a pit dug 'to dangle his feet in". But in the late 1860s, the reigning nizam was a child, and the British saw a window to force change. So, at the boy's installation in 1869, the white men sat on chairs, with shoes on. This was, however, as The Times of India recalled later, 'met with very considerable opposition". Indeed, according to one account, the British went to the extent of keeping troops ready to 'sack Hyderabad" should there be trouble due to the shoe-and-chair controversy. Interestingly, The Times of India writer ended with a lament that while in Hyderabad things were settled as 'the Europeans desired it", the British in Burma still had to 'leave (their) shoes outside the palace". In 1875, refusal to continue this led to a serious impasse with the Burmese king. Ultimately, though, it was not a question simply of shoes and chairs but the political messages encoded here. Having a British official sit on the right side of the throne, often at the same level, advertised 'native" vassalage and the white man's imperial might. Refusal of British officials to appear barefoot, even though their predecessors once complied, signalled how power equations had tilted in their favour. Ironically, the British were reluctant to let Indians enter their spaces with shoes; that is, the white man defied local tradition, but the brown man was expected to maintain local displays of deference. When once a 'Bengali of rank" is said to have appeared before the notorious Lord Dalhousie with slippers on, he received such a glare that the 'Oriental (sic) gradually sunk down and down until his flowing garments touched the ground, and his feet were completely concealed from sight." Reportedly, Dalhousie kept him 'in this painful position" for a while before moving on. Yet as Indians grew anglicised in dress and etiquette, the British had to modify their stance, not least because leading 'natives" began to boycott imperial events, as in 1857 in Calcutta. Some groups like the Parsis argued, besides, that unlike Hindus, they kept slippers on everywhere; to ask them to display feet was unreasonable. Sir John Lawrence, viceroy in the second half of the 1860s, ultimately decided that if brown visitors to government offices and courts 'conformed to English notions" by wearing 'patent leather shoes", they could be excused from having to remove their footwear. The decision, one commentator wrote, 'caused much grumbling" but 'prevented unpleasant altercations"; why, one group of people even benefited from Lawrence's command—'manufacturers of patent leather". In the end, though, it would take till the close of the 19th century for the issue to fizzle out: this grand, decades-long political headache called the 'Great Shoe Question" of India. Manu S. Pillai is a historian and author, most recently, of Gods, Guns and Missionaries.
