From: punditster@gmail.com   
      
   On 2/16/2026 12:45 AM, Julian wrote:   
   > Far more energy has gone into condemning his phrasing than confronting   
   > the questions he raised   
   >   
   Another Sir says something rude. Arrest that Man!   
      
   "UK has been colonised by immigrants." - Sir Jim Ratcliffe, Sky News,   
   Thursday 12 February 2026 10:54, UK   
      
   Sir Jim says Britain faces profound political, social and economic   
   challenges, among them an unprecedented rise in immigration in recent years.   
      
   The question is, why is UK doing that?   
      
   Apparently, this migration was initially encouraged to help fill gaps in   
   the UK labur market for both skilled and unskilled jobs, including in   
   public services such as the newly created National Health Service and   
   London Transport.   
      
   So, what went wrong? The key word is assimilate.   
    >   
      
   >   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)