From: julianlzb87@gmail.com   
      
   Far more energy has gone into condemning his phrasing than confronting   
   the questions he raised   
      
      
   Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s statement that Britain has been “colonised by   
   immigrants” has sparked a fierce reaction. From Starmer to Bluesky, to   
   the Athletic and all the football social media pundits in between, the   
   co-owner of  Manchester United has been bombarded with the same attack   
   lines repeatedly. He has been called a tax dodging, racist immigrant   
   hypocrite.   
      
   Such an uproar has flared up in such a short space of time because   
   Ratcliffe is radically different from those who have issued similar   
   statements before. Ratcliffe is not a political figure: you do not see   
   billionaires nor football club owners voicing discontent like this. The   
   pushback has been fierce because Ratcliffe has no political incentive to   
   say any of this. He isn’t running for office, seeking favour, or chasing   
   votes — which makes his intervention harder to dismiss. Part of the   
   backlash, too, reflects an unease that his diagnosis may be accurate.   
      
   The remarks came from an initial conversation regarding the economic   
   challenges Britain faces in general, not solely on immigration. The   
   snippet that has been so widely shared is merely part of a wider   
   statement of the economic problems Britain faces; Ratcliffe refers to   
   the issues of “immigration” and “nine million people” on benefits   
   simultaneously.   
      
   Colonised is a strong opening salvo for a figure such as Ratcliffe, who   
   is not known for any previous anti-migration stance. This generated   
   responses of tone policing from his critics – cries that his choice of   
   words were “disgraceful and deeply divisive” and that “this language and   
   leadership has no place in English football” from Kick It Out, a notable   
   “Anti Racism” football pressure group. There was no attempt to argue or   
   debate: this was no more than tone policing, of “mate mate mate, you   
   can’t say that mate”. It did not engage with the substantive point. It   
   was not an argument.   
      
   The Prime Minister has pushed for Ratcliffe to apologise. Less than a   
   year ago, Starmer was referring to Britain as an ”Island of Strangers”;   
   he has little argument here. Sir Ed Davey has stated that Ratcliffe is   
   “totally wrong” and is “out of step with British Values”. Once again   
   this is weak tone policing, not an argument. Regardless, which British   
   values are being violated in particular? What are British values   
   precisely meant to mean here?   
      
   The fact is that Ratcliffe’s vocabulary choice is nowhere near as   
   divisive as the impacts of mass migration in the last quarter century.   
      
   Mass migration is the most important issue in British political debate.   
   It has bought sectarianism, Bengali and Palestinian politics swinging   
   both local council and Parliamentary elections, a deepening of housing   
   crisis, the rape and murder of British women from taxpayer funded hotels   
   and programs which bloat the welfare state even further. It is   
   undeniable mass migration has defined British politics of the 2010s   
   onwards. It has been much more harmful and divisive than any comment   
   made by Sir Jim Ratcliffe. His words are nothing compared to the actions   
   of Deng Chol Majek, or Hedash Kebatu, to name a couple of examples.   
      
   Critics have also cried that Ratcliffe is “an immigrant himself, dodging   
   tax in Monaco”. The difference between Ratcliffe and migration into   
   Britain is so different they are almost incomparable. In the 2017/18 tax   
   year Ratcliffe was the fifth highest taxpayer in the country, footing a   
   bill of £110.5 million. With such an extraordinarily high bill, it is no   
   wonder that he has since moved to Monaco. Meanwhile, the average salary   
   of of a migrant entering Britain in 2023 (which has fallen by £10,000   
   since 2021) was £32,946, according to a report by the Centre for   
   Migration Control. From this we can estimate a migrant would pay about   
   £5,000 in income tax. That means it would take over 22,000   
   (statistically average) migrants to foot the tax bill that Ratcliffe   
   paid in one year alone. Ratcliffe has been an exceptional cash cow to   
   the British state. He has been taxed incredible amounts and contributed   
   more to this country than almost anyone currently living; to call him   
   hypocritical since he dared to criticise migration and its impact on the   
   welfare state is simply not fair.   
      
   Census data from the ONS in 2021 shows that migrants from four nations –   
   Somalia, Nigeria, Jamaica and Bangladesh – head over 104,000 social   
   homes in London alone. With such incredible numbers of subsidised   
   housing going to foreign born nationals, it is absolutely correct to   
   state that mass migration is costing the British economy a fortune. The   
   same census states that over 70% of Somali born households are in social   
   housing in England and Wales, whilst also being of lowest contributors   
   to income tax in the nation – paying well under the £5,000 stated per   
   head previously. The increase and sheer scale of benefit reliance for   
   many immigrants in Britain is not sustainable, and it is a problem that   
   is right to be addressed.   
      
   Perhaps the most nonsensical argument presented by some is that as   
   co-owner of Manchester United he employs a significant number of   
   immigrant players. Bruno Fernandes is not living in social housing in   
   Wythenshawe. Benjamin Sesko is not in a single bed council flat in   
   Hulme. When he arrived in Manchester last year, the first thing Senne   
   Lammens did was not register for Universal Credit. Not a single foreign   
   player is a drain on the state. They are, as elite athletes in the most   
   lucrative league in the world, very clearly exceptions to the norm of   
   British migration. The difference between Bruno Fernandes, who earns a   
   reported £300,000 a week, and the over 40% of Bangladeshi immigrants who   
   are economically inactive should really not need spelling out. We are   
   referring to just 17 foreign senior team players who all earn more in a   
   week than the average migrant – or Brit – will earn in a year. It is   
   ludicrous  to even attempt to compare the two. Regardless, employing or   
   working with immigrants does not mean you waive your right to criticise   
   the state of affairs in Britain. As an Englishman, Sir Jim Ratcliffe has   
   a given and inalienable right to comment on the affairs of his country.   
      
   Ratcliffe’s critics have entirely focused on his choice of the word   
   “colonised”, and how they consider it inflammatory. This choice of   
   phrase was not entirely accurate or intentional by Ratcliffe – proved by   
   the fact he issued an apology over his “choice of language”, rather than   
   the substance and argument behind his critique of the broader economic   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)