> The exec don't define editorial policy at this level of granularity. Are you sure about that? There's no "keeping editorial policy unbiased" committee at the

> The exec don't define editorial policy at this level of granularity. Are you sure about that? There's no "keeping editorial policy unbiased" committee at the BBC - They're funded by the government and licensees who get seemingly no say in the editorial policy. > You're just being hyperbolic Perhaps > Reportage by the BBC is not subject to the kind of whims Rupert Murdoch brings to news Ltd press. Now you're just being silly, of course it is, it's just the whims of more people than just one person. > The BBC is no angel but suggesting this is the home office, number 10 or the foreign office using the old Boys network in the tory party establishment to serve one out on America is stupid. Have you been living under a rock, or has the whole cronyism scandal of the last year gone completely unnoticed by the British masses/ > Sorry, but I'm neither sorry, nor wrong. Your opinion is not more valid than mine. Categorically incorrect. Opinions are funny things, like if it was my opinion that I could jump and miss the ground and fly off into space, that opinion is a) up for debate and b) can be proven wrong. Your opinion is that Britain is a) modern, b) has modern ideals, c) is culturally diverse, d) is racially diverse It depends on your definitions of the meanings of "diverse" but I'm sure a quick googling of the racial demographics of the UK would prove otherwise. Britain certainly tries to be modern, whilst literally being ruled by a Monarchy. So I don't think your argument holds much water. > Brexit did not end racial diversity in Britain. Rishi Sunak did not instantly disappear, nor did Dianne Abbott. Now you're being hyperbolic.