RuamRudy

Left or right is, of course, relative. If you see the BBC as hard left it speaks volumes about your own position...

You should direct that comment to the person to whom I was replying.

Because the Nasty party has always been focused on alleviating the suffering of the masses...

To be honest, I am not sure where the evidence for Nerranam's claim comes from. I think most Scottish umbrage towards English football celebs is still directed at Jimmy Hill.

Evidence that the right supported tax avoidance? You need to stop with these sweeping generalisations, especially when you make such gross mistakes in your comprehension of what you just read. I suggest you slow down and think before you post.

So much noise about someone on the left being tax efficient - I don't remember such outrage when Sunak's wife had to actually be shamed into paying her fair share of tax.

The BBC has already demonstrated it's tolerance of it's presenters expressing their own political beliefs when they ignored Andrew Neil's behaviour in trying to discredit the journalist who exposed the case for brexit as a Russian funded tissue of lies.

A long winded way of saying "I have none."?

Such heavy lifting being done by such a small word.

What is wokeness and where is the irony?

I think it's clear that the government knows it's time is up and they are heading for the exit at the next general election It's just a matter of pushing through as many of the abhorrent, inhumane policies that they and their right wing fanbase love before they get kicked to the kerb. Hopefully before long we will be able to have a bonfire of the atrocities and start to undo much of the damage that this party has done.

That makes less sense than your previous post. Has lineker ever claimed to be a socialist? Are only socialists allowed to express support for the oppressed?

In order to be taken seriously when calling out the rancid actions of Sue Ellen, must one be living on the streets and wearing sack cloths?

I have absolutely no idea who you are or what you do or do not know. I have never seen any of your posts before, let alone interacted with you. But in our brief exchange I have, ironically enough, surmised that you jump to conclusions quickly. Have a nice, if unnecessarily aggrieved and definitely incorrect Sunday.

I presume it was an oversight that meant that Andrew Neil faced no consequences for tweeting insults to the brave reporter who exposed the lies of Vote Leave and it's Russian connections. "Top BBC political journalist Andrew Neil has deleted a tweet calling The Observer’s Carole Cadwalldr a “mad cat woman”, which was published in the early hours of this morning." https://pressgazette.co.uk/news/bbcs-andrew-neil-deletes-early-morning-tweet-calling-observers-carole-cadwalladr-mad-cat-woman/

His tweets are there for all to see. Go look them up if you like.

That's what happens when a corrupt government is allowed to appoint a right wing Tory stooge to run public broadcasting. But there you have it - siding with the UN refugee agency is no longer allowed if you want to keep your job. When Andrew Neil was a senior political journalist at the BBC he regularly opined on Twitter without consequence. That he tended to side with the Nasty party was entirety coincidental of course...

Maybe if you had stood up for yourself and your fellow man when you were younger, the youth of today would not have to put in the effort to address the issues you turned a blind eye to?

I wasn't being funny, I was being accurate. The UK has had 11 monarchs. That is not even one dozen, let alone 'dozens'.

Again, for the love of god, I never mentioned England anywhere until you tipped up when you replied to me with this unnecessarily caustic but factually incorrect post. Whilst there have, no doubt, been dozens of kings and queens of England, they are/were irrelevant to my posts because we were discussing the United Kingdom. I suggest you learn the difference between England and the UK.

The UK was founded in 1801. How could a state which didn't even exist prior to that have a royal lineage dating back earlier? Repeat after me: On 1 January 1801, the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Kingdom of Ireland merged, which resulted in the creation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on the secession of southern Ireland in the 1920s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_British_monarchs

Transam did not say that England has had dozens of kings and queens. If he had done, wouldn't be having this discussion. My challenge to him was correct because the statement he actually made was incorrect. I have no idea where you come from but maybe you should read a bit about England, the origins of the United Kingdom and what constitutes the British isles. If you did, it might save you from making so many of these belligerently incorrect posts.

The UK came into existence in 1801. Since that time there have been, I believe, 11 monarchs. There were, indeed, kings and queens of the precedent countries but to call them monarchs of the UK is incorrect.

No, my point being that your statement that the UK has had dozens of monarchs is incorrect. Nowhere did I mention England, so I asked Kwasaki why he did.

I never mentioned England in my post - why do you suppose that England is, in any way, relevant to my point?