Chomper Higgot

I didn’t ask you for a definition of a socialist, I already know the definition. What I asked you for is evidence to back up your clear statements that Lineker is a socialist. A statement from Lineker that he’s a socialist or evidence that he’s a member of a socialist political party would suffice, Ad hominem attack’s, and supposition don’t cut it

Still waiting for your evidence of Lineker being any kind of socialist. Or is this another of your ‘make it up as you go along’ things?

Hardly so given the political history of the BBC Director General and the stink of corruption sound Johnson appointing his chum as the BBC Chairman.

Defining poor at £50,000 a year and then providing the national average salary of £38,000 is a laughable way to attempt to get out of not being able to back up your claim: ”I said it is mainly the poor that pay his salary.”

Sorry Johnny, your comment was: ”I said it is mainly the poor that pay his salary.” I’ve questioned this ‘Mainly the poor’. Now you come back with the absurdity of asking me to define poor when it was you that injected ‘the poor’ into the discussion. There are a number of possibilities amongst which are these: 1. You fabricated the whole ‘mainly the poor’ argument and you don’t have any evidence to back up your assertion. 2. You are not engaging in honest good faith debate. Inserting arguments about ‘the poor’ into a discussion and then asking others to define ‘ poor’ for you is utter nonsense.

Faux outrage. And a swerve on who is responsible for this decision into the bargain.

On a point of logic. If Government have the power to remove a citizen citizenship, it’s only a matter of time before a different Government arrives with a different set of reasons to use that power.

Mainly the poor?

Well they would say that wouldn’t they. Actions, however, speak louder than words. It wouldn’t be the Daily Mail, The Telegraph or the Daily Express would it?! We don’t get criticism of the Tories from that quarter.

You need to present this contract.

Lineker can only win in court if the decision to censor him has no legal basis. In which case the blame for costs incurred is on those who decided to censor him.

Take that up with the political operatives who decided to censor Lineker.

Lineker always attacking the Government? Where did get that from?

The BBC’s rightwing political pandering has gone further, now singling out one episode of Attenborough’s latest series to be removed from general broadcast and only made available on BBC I-Player. https://inews.co.uk/news/bbc-david-attenborough-documentary-not-broadcast-2201612

I rather think if he does go to court he’ll pick up a nice fat settlement. All because of rightwing political interference trying to silence Lineker from expressing his personal views on his own personal social media account.

Expats in Thailand paying UK taxes is not at all unusual.

Nothing to do with ‘woke’ and everything to do with investment decisions. But nice try from you and Murdoch’s NYPost.

Never any shortage of socialism when a bank needs it.

You’ll need to produce the contract. I rather hope Lineker takes this to court, but I suspect the BBC will see sense and stop censoring Lineker. Your repetitive gripe about the funding of the BBC is absolutely nothing to do with Lineker being censored, though his censoring is a fact which knocks a gaping hole n your argument of a particular ideology.

I visited once on a cycle touring holiday. The repetitive joke was you’ve had enough when the pub starts to look straight. One of the biggest changes returning expats who have been away for many years will see is the disappearance of pubs, particularly in villages. During my February visit I got the sense cafes are taking over some of socializing that was the reserve of pubs. A sad loss I think.

You need to look at Campaign finance law.

Regardless of whether or not Trump turns up, Michael Cohen is scheduled to give testimony tomorrow.

no, they are not promoting abortions, they are offering the service to women who need it. You yourself have argued Abortions are available in some states in the US. Defenders of States that ban abortions frequently state women who need an abortion can travel to where they are available. It is the banning of abortions in some states that makes it necessarily other states to open their services to women from states where abortions are banned. Now back to the fact that a number of states ban all including in cases of rape or incest. Inevitable result, girls raped by their fathers, brothers, uncles, step fathers being made to go full term. Go ahead defend that obscenity.

Any excuse to prolong your willful avoidance of facts. No States ‘promote abortions’. Not that such a fact will get through.

If you don’t like Grand Juries, change the Constitution. Oh and while you’re at it……