[Livia]

My paternal family lived in Newham for generations. The majority of white people there now are those who can't afford to leave. It used to be full of working class families, now it's pretty much a slum.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

5 years ago, what would it be now?

Interesting, its generally the rich Boroughs that are still showing over 50 per cent

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Livia

A football club is going to ban one of its co-owners for his opinion. George Orwell is saying, see? I was right.

There seems to be no end of people ready to queue up to call him a racist, its the only opinion that matters its seems

[Crimson Dynamo]

Mariella Frostrup
@mariellaf1
·
Feb 12
So tired of tax exile billionaires telling us what Britain is or should be. Pay your tax and
then you earn a voice? #Tax4Good Sir Jim Ratcliffe: Britain has been colonised by
immigrants

-------------------------

Where this hag lives in her white enclave in Somerset




Here i am with my AGA

[GiRTh]

Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s claim that Britain has been “colonised” would almost be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. This is a man who lives in Monaco, pays no UK income tax, and has deliberately distanced himself from the country he’s now lecturing. From the comfort of a tax haven, he fires off dramatic warnings about Britain’s future — and can’t even get the basic numbers right. His population figures weren’t just off; they were wildly inaccurate, the kind of thing you say when you’re more interested in stirring outrage than telling the truth.

And when challenged, he retreats into the oldest, weakest PR move in the book: “I’m sorry if you were offended.”

It’s not an apology. It’s a dodge. It shifts the blame onto the audience for reacting, instead of taking responsibility for making a reckless claim. If he genuinely believes what he said, he should stand by it. If he doesn’t, he should retract it properly. What we get instead is this limp halfway position — bold language on the front end, and a non‑apology on the back end.

So what are we left with? A tax exile in Monaco, misquoting basic data, throwing around loaded terms he refuses to define, and then pretending the real issue is that people were offended. That isn’t leadership. It isn’t clarity. It’s just another billionaire shouting from the Riviera about a Britain he doesn’t even live in.

[bots]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s claim that Britain has been “colonised” would almost be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. This is a man who lives in Monaco, pays no UK income tax, and has deliberately distanced himself from the country he’s now lecturing. From the comfort of a tax haven, he fires off dramatic warnings about Britain’s future — and can’t even get the basic numbers right. His population figures weren’t just off; they were wildly inaccurate, the kind of thing you say when you’re more interested in stirring outrage than telling the truth.

And when challenged, he retreats into the oldest, weakest PR move in the book: “I’m sorry if you were offended.”

It’s not an apology. It’s a dodge. It shifts the blame onto the audience for reacting, instead of taking responsibility for making a reckless claim. If he genuinely believes what he said, he should stand by it. If he doesn’t, he should retract it properly. What we get instead is this limp halfway position — bold language on the front end, and a non‑apology on the back end.

So what are we left with? A tax exile in Monaco, misquoting basic data, throwing around loaded terms he refuses to define, and then pretending the real issue is that people were offended. That isn’t leadership. It isn’t clarity. It’s just another billionaire shouting from the Riviera about a Britain he doesn’t even live in.

he also didn't think twice about halving the employees at Man U that were contributing to the country through them actually paying tax

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by bots

he also didn't think twice about halving the employees at Man U that were contributing to the country through them actually paying tax

True. It is an issue for the chairman of a football club to make comments of that nature, given that the club depends heavily on people from a wide range of backgrounds. The playing squad includes individuals with immigrant parents, such as Kobbie Mainoo, and the same applies across the academy, the administrative staff, the wider workforce, and the fanbase.

Because of that, it was understandable that he was asked to clarify or apologise. However, the statement he issued — specifically the line “I’m sorry if you were offended” — did not directly address the concerns raised about his original comments.

[Cherie]

I dont think Jim was referring to those who are paid and pay taxes in my opinion he was referring to those who turn up... sit down...and wait for it all to be paid for....

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I dont think Jim was referring to those who are paid and pay taxes in my opinion he was referring to those who turn up... sit down...and wait for it all to be paid for....

You may have a point. For me, the use of the word “colonised” is central to the discussion. The term has a specific historical meaning — one group taking control over another — and that implication comes with it whenever the word is used. By choosing that wording, he suggests a transfer of control or authority, whether or not that was what he intended.

If he meant to make a broader or more general observation, that didn’t come across in the way he phrased it. This is especially relevant given his role at Manchester United, a club that depends on people from a wide range of backgrounds across its playing staff, its wider workforce, and its fanbase.

[GiRTh]

I forgot to add that the apology itself was very weak. The phrasing made it clear he wasn’t really addressing the concerns raised, and it was easy to see that he didn’t genuinely mean it.

[bots]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

I forgot to add that the apology itself was very weak. The phrasing made it clear he wasn’t really addressing the concerns raised, and it was easy to see that he didn’t genuinely mean it.

well, the simple fact is, he meant exactly what he said, so an apology means nothing.

I'm still of the opinion that people say what they think, because then you know who you are dealing with, rather than someone putting on a false veneer.

The Glasers were one of the main donors toward Trump's new ballroom. Man U fans are directly contributing toward the Trump administration. I would have thought that would be a bit of a concern

[arista]

Taken from X (tweet)

[Livia]

Who can imagine that Jim Ratcliffe''s comments were made toward people who arrive here, work, contribute, integrate? Only the stupidest non-thinker would have a problem with those people. If you really want to know who he was referring to, take a trip to London and have a walk around, say... Whitechapel. You'll soon understand. But be careful not to get your phone out or look at anyone. And women, dress modestly or you will be stopped and repremanded.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by arista

Taken from X (tweet)

That's ridiculous and hilarious.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Livia

Who can imagine that Jim Ratcliffe''s comments were made toward people who arrive here, work, contribute, integrate? Only the stupidest non-thinker would have a problem with those people. If you really want to know who he was referring to, take a trip to London and have a walk around, say... Whitechapel. You'll soon understand. But be careful not to get your phone out or look at anyone. And women, dress modestly or you will be stopped and repremanded.

If he genuinely meant something specific, he could have said so. Instead, he’s now apologising - to anyone offended - which usually means the wording was deliberate but the backlash wasn’t expected.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by bots

well, the simple fact is, he meant exactly what he said, so an apology means nothing.

I'm still of the opinion that people say what they think, because then you know who you are dealing with, rather than someone putting on a false veneer.

The Glasers were one of the main donors toward Trump's new ballroom. Man U fans are directly contributing toward the Trump administration. I would have thought that would be a bit of a concern

Agree.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

If he genuinely meant something specific, he could have said so. Instead, he’s now apologising - to anyone offended - which usually means the wording was deliberate but the backlash wasn’t expected.

To me, there are people who've chosen to be British, then there are those who come here with their hand out and expect us to change to suit them. They are two very distinct groups of people. I can't imagine a thinking person lumping those two groups together.

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Livia

To me, there are people who've chosen to be British, then there are those who come here with their hand out and expect us to change to suit them. They are two very distinct groups of people. I can't imagine a thinking person lumping those two groups together.

What stands out to me is that Ratcliffe has had several opportunities to clarify exactly who he was referring to, yet he has not taken any of them. Instead, he has opted for the familiar "sorry if you were offended" line, which does not clarify anything and fails to address the substance of his statements.

The real issue lies in his choice of the word "colonised." This is not casual language; historically, it has always implied one group taking over another. When someone uses it today without specifying who is supposedly doing the colonizing, it is bound to unsettle people. If that wasn't his intention, he could have clarified it immediately, but he didn’t.

Additionally, he discusses unemployment figures, tax contributions, and being "colonised" while overlooking the fact that he has personally benefited enormously from the UK economy and has been described as having an economic migrant status. Given this background, it's somewhat disingenuous for him to frame the issue in the way he did.

This is the core problem: because he has left everything vague, people are now filling in the blanks with their own assumptions. We can speculate endlessly about whom he meant, but we shouldn't have to. He chose his wording, made the claim, and had every opportunity to clarify. He still hasn’t—this is why people are questioning his statements. He used a loaded term and then refused to explain it.

[arista]

[The real issue lies in his choice of the word "colonised."]


If only he never used that word

[GiRTh]

Yep. It was a really strong word to use, and you could hear the interviewer gasp the moment he said it. They clearly understood the weight of that language — the only person pretending it was casual is Sir Jim himself.

He didn’t “misspeak.” He’s a seasoned billionaire who’s spent decades choosing his words carefully. He knew exactly what he was saying, and you get the sense he’s been waiting a long time to say it out loud.

[Crimson Dynamo]

I'd prefer a tax regime that doesn't push successful people out of the country

[bots]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

I'd prefer a tax regime that doesn't push successful people out of the country

That was labour when it was 99 pence in the pound. Not anymore

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

I'd prefer a tax regime that doesn't push successful people out of the country

But hang on — that’s exactly the problem with what he’s saying. He lives in a tax haven and pays no tax here. No one pushed him out; that was entirely his choice. And the whole idea behind trickle down economics of tax cuts for the wealthiest — which he almost certainly supports — only works if those same wealthy people actually keep their money in the UK.

Instead, he’s taken his wealth offshore, contributed nothing back, and now feels entitled to lecture everyone else about what’s wrong with the country. It’s unbelievable hypocrisy. If he wants to talk about fixing things, he can start by putting his money back into the UK. Until then, it’s all a bit rich coming from a tax exile.

[Crimson Dynamo]