"Evidence", hmm.

It's pretty much established belief that this is the line the BBC draw, along with The Times. I suspect the BBC tow the line partly because of its cherished international reputation that opens many doors, and partly because of Charter pressure.

Like it or not, the BBC is staffed by lefties. Then again, that's true of pretty much all broadcast and print media. My mate writes for the MoS - no friend to the left - and has always voted Labour, as do his colleagues. Yet the BBC's news output is politically impartial.

BBC channels and web output are sometimes unwatchably inclusive; but that is mainly down to the impact of secondary legislation that I cited way up in the thread, not its own bias. I never got a response to that. Inconvenient truth perhaps? If you want to get rid of multi-culturalism etc. being forced down your throat, speak to your MP to have the broadcast media excluded from the effect of the legislation. Don't blame those that are subject to the legislation as pensioners did with the license fee cut.

I fear that many on here cite as evidence stuff they see on right wing news outlets and blogs who may, in turn, be backed by giant media corps who operate for their own commercial objectives and who would fight tooth and nail to fill a BBC shaped hole. As with the press media, they are overwhelmingly right wing. Thus, you would lurch from as close to impartial as reasonably possible but with views that challenge your own, to biased Fox News type summaries of what you want to hear. Is that really what you want?

Now, if you want true lefty, right-on news reporting, try Channel 4. Our headline today, Asian woman scuffs shoe on paving stone. Tory government refuse to replace. A report on "obvious" government racism.... 30 minutes of intense, one-sided angry debate later... and on other news, New York City falls into Atlantic Ocean, millions believed drowned...

To support what? People who neither listen to or watch BBC news foam at the mouth about left wing bias and that is fair comment with the posters on here nodding in appreciation. I dare to.provide an alternative view and every comment indeed every comma has to be corroborated with irrefutable evidence.

I understood this to be a forum for views. That is what I gave.

Most really?

Where's HER - or SKY's - evidence for this claim. She doesn't name the advice-giver(s), conveniently.

My advice to her would have been to smile occasionally, however being a permanent mardy-face (as we call her in the YT household) doesn't seem to have held her back.

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

It was probably her own agent.

She does nothing for me but whilst most people in this country don't care about an actors sexuality in many parts of the USA they do. She mentions a Marvel role these blockbusters are aimed at audiences around the world and some of those countries are not LGBT friendly.

The implication of the story is she was warned off but it could easily have been sound advice from some one who cares about her e.g. if you go down this route it may harm your career, are you sure?

It seems in Hollywood openly gay actors or either British (that's okay because we are eccentric) or actors who are past their shelf life and no longer care e.g. Jodi Foster.

Even though I don't like her it is actually quite brave as it is possible that her films will be banned in some countries. If that happens the accountants might start advising the studios to ignore her.

One more point

Odd I assumed this would be an illustration of lefty bias but all I see is fluffy Hollywood tittle tattle