Manchester United

From BBC news (and many outlets)... Looks like he didn't stay up that particular lamp-post for very long...

His point still stands. He was wrong to use the word "colonized" and I can see he regrets using that word but the argument he has made and the debate is very much a valid one. Fair enough he used wrong data statistics about the population but the point does not change drastically.
 
1. Most immigrants are of working age, sure. But how many of them are actually working in meaningful jobs and contributing to the tax system? How many illegal migrants are being housed in hotels and how many of them are working? I don't think you realize the amount of them who just get paid by cash so actually none of them are truly contributing to this country's economy.
2. Young people and pensioners may very well be using up a lot of the expenses but they are perfectly entitled because those old people you speak of are the ones who have worked 40-50 years and paid into the system. The young population also the same as their parents have contributed to the system. Why should a newcomer with children have the same rights as a family who has contributed to the tax system their entire lives?
3. Newcomers are having children and many of those children are requiring healthcare, education, housing etc. The net migration of the UK has been 800k for the past few years. Do you think the UK has the infrastructure to support extra 500-800k surplus people every year?

5. Go check the employment records of the immigrant population and their net contribution to the economy and then come back to me.
I'm not really sure why I bother, but 76% of non-UK nationals have jobs - https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac....migrants-in-the-uk-labour-market-an-overview/. Btw, a second analysis by Oxford put the net contribution of migrants of ~ £300,000 over their lifetime - https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac....s/the-fiscal-impact-of-immigration-in-the-uk/

Regarding the "value" of those jobs, it's sadly all too common for migrants to work at levels below that they worked in their homeland - https://ukandeu.ac.uk/migrants-skil...in-britain-and-hong-kongers-are-no-exception/. This is for various reasons, including language and contacts, but by far the most common is that their credentials aren't recognised. If we did better at that, we'd be able to tap into their skills more effectively, but this is historically a problem across the world. Again, it's one of those things the government "could" do more on. Maybe you'd be open to asking them why they haven't?

Regarding asylum seekers. I'm sure you know that they're forbidden from working for the duration of their asylum claim, which can be a very long time. Again, this is a criminal waste. Coming to the UK costs people an awful lot of money. It's often the middle classes (and up) who make the journey. They don't risk their lives for a better lifestyle. They risk their lives because their lives are in danger at home. I work with a number of refugee charities. Maybe do the same. Get to know some of these people so you're not reduced to caricatures of them that you get from Farage.

Regarding our "carrying capacity." From the end of the war to the Thatcher era, the population of London shrank by around 2 million people. Do you think there were similar fears then? It's now back to war levels, but inner London is still significantly lower than it was then. As I've said, regions deserve support from the government to cope with changing populations (whether up or down). Banning migration isn't the answer to Great Yarmouth or Scarborough.
 
To be a net contributor in this country you need to be paying an income tax/NI liability of c.£17k a year. That requires an income of c.£65k a year.

Earning £65k + a year puts you in the top 10% of income in the country. So whilst people may have 'contributed' all their lives, for 90% of people they've not paid enough to even cover their own costs and in most cases not nearly enough. Median wage is £39k and that only accounts for those in employment.

But, yeh, it's the burden of immigrants that's the problem...
 
Ratcliffe has stumbled into a nightmare here now because the Labour leader is desperate to get the headlines off Mandelson and Doyle and the will is there to stoke this fire.

If it'd have happened when Starmer was safe and McSweeney was there the story would have been downplayed as they'd not have gone near it in case they offended the right wing voters they seek/sought to curry favour with.
Wolf whistling to the audience will be welcomed, we are seeing what happened in America in 2015 and it’s insane people can’t see it.
 
His point still stands. He was wrong to use the word "colonized" and I can see he regrets using that word but the argument he has made and the debate is very much a valid one. Fair enough he used wrong data statistics about the population but the point does not change drastically.
Of course the point changes drastically when he used drastically inaccurate statistics to support his point.
This is what racists regularly do. Make an outrageous and verifiably false statement, then walk back the inaccuracies and let the rest of the statement stay there for 'legitimate debate'. The Tucker Carlson school of 'just asking questions'.
What you are endorsing right now as it happens.
 
To be a net contributor in this country you need to be paying an income tax/NI liability of c.£17k a year. That requires an income of c.£65k a year.

Earning £65k + a year puts you in the top 10% of income in the country. So whilst people may have 'contributed' all their lives, for 90% of people they've not paid enough to even cover their own costs and in most cases not nearly enough. Median wage is £39k and that only accounts for those in employment.

But, yeh, it's the burden of immigrants that's the problem...


Yeah, and that £65k figure will just keep rising exponentially as the population explodes. I hope you like eating bugs.
 
His point still stands. He was wrong to use the word "colonized" and I can see he regrets using that word but the argument he has made and the debate is very much a valid one. Fair enough he used wrong data statistics about the population but the point does not change drastically.
whoever uses z instead of s in colonised is complicit in the Americans colonizing the English language.
 
Of course the point changes drastically when he used drastically inaccurate statistics to support his point.
This is what racists regularly do. Make an outrageous and verifiably false statement, then walk back the inaccuracies and let the rest of the statement stay there for 'legitimate debate'. The Tucker Carlson school of 'just asking questions'.
What you are endorsing right now as it happens.
The 12 million increase in 5 years was wrong and inaccurate, but the overall point doesn't change. The overall population has gone up around 1.5-2 million in these 5 years, which is very significant.

It's like arguing why losing 3-0 is better than getting hammered 8-0. Both of them are grossly unacceptable.
 
Dirty, racist, tax avoiding scum, in my humble opinion.
Jim Ratcliffe is an exemplar of British excellence; somebody who grew up dirt poor in a council estate in a working-class family but decided to work himself to the very top, leading a world class chemical engineering company and becoming the country's richest man.

This is why the UK will never prosper anymore. Talent and brilliance isn't respected by the population.
 
His point still stands. He was wrong to use the word "colonized" and I can see he regrets using that word but the argument he has made and the debate is very much a valid one. Fair enough he used wrong data statistics about the population but the point does not change drastically.
What in the ‘Please Sir May I shine your shoes?’ Oliver Twist universe is this?

God I hate people who desperately rush to protect parasitic billionaires so much, as if their greed isn’t the cause of most of humanity’s ills and they’re all brilliant geniuses who don’t exploit every employee and tax loophole they possibly can to take out as much as they can and put as little into society as humanly possible.
 
The 12 million increase in 5 years was wrong and inaccurate, but the overall point doesn't change. The overall population has gone up around 1.5-2 million in these 5 years, which is very significant.

It's like arguing why losing 3-0 is better than getting hammered 8-0. Both of them are grossly unacceptable.
Significant how? Why is it a bad thing having an increasing population? Some countries are concerned about declining populations as their own ages, others have higher population growth than what you are saying.

So your football (speak their language and they might become racist too) analogy doesn't track because a rising population, at what seems to be a reasonable 0.65% rate is not a bad thing.

Is it the colour of some of that 0.65% perhaps?
 
The 12 million increase in 5 years was wrong and inaccurate, but the overall point doesn't change. The overall population has gone up around 1.5-2 million in these 5 years, which is very significant.

It's like arguing why losing 3-0 is better than getting hammered 8-0. Both of them are grossly unacceptable.
Then why not get it right the first time?
 

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top