to think that Jim Ratcliffes statement is not an apology.

[PyongyangKipperbang]

If you looked up the meaning of "sorry not sorry" there would be a link to this!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cdjm3n8yrwnt

He is the type of immigrant every country wants. A net gain to the exchequer. Like it or not op the facts are that certain nationalities are an overall net drain on resources. They are the facts. It’s not sustainable to keep taking in thousands and thousands of people on a life time of benefits. For example it is reported that 72% of Somalians living in England are unemployed. Someone has to pick up the tab and if you are working, it’s you.

Autocorrect seems to specialise in ‘correcting’ to the opposite of what I actually type. Regularly changes does to doesn’t for eg.

Certain nationalities?
Where is that reported about Somalian’s? Is it Somalians who have kept their Somalian nationality? Or British citizens of Somalian descent? Those of Somalian descent born in the U.K. or just immigrants? What you have written is pretty meaningless without details (and a source).
Migrants in the U.K. tend to contribute more in tax than they take in benefits - I’ve linked quite a nuanced piece.
https://www.cranbrooklegal.com/do-migrants-actually-contribute-to-the-uk-economy/

He's also a beggar. Wants the government to give him money to build a new stadium. Odious individual.

If you are correct we should stop all benefits to migrants. Afterall you say they contribute so benefits shouldn't be necessary.

What do you mean by “benefits”? State education and NHS health care alone cost a lot!

Like the Aussies rejects people for visas who have dependents with expensive health issues or special needs. Obviously, we do not do that here. As we have universal health care it will attract a lot of people from countries with extremely basic state education and no free health care. That is a given.

Initially no UC or housing benefit.

@Lemonadefizzcelebration - if a Somali family with 8 children is here already you just cannot not house them properly or not let them feed them. As otherwise you are not putting the investment into those 8 children which you need to make them workers later on! It is what it is. Also if they are not properly housed or fed, the burden then just falls on state education and the NHS to pick up the pieces anyway. So it is a false economy.
You can have barriers to entry, but once here, you have no choice but to invest especially in children and babies etc.

Disagree. The burden should fall on them and no one else. If they cannot afford to live here they can go somewhere they can afford or they can become destitute. if your example family with 8 children claim any benefits then they are a huge drain on finances.

You say the children will go on to work. Do you agree due to all the benefits they received whilst young they should be prohibited from claiming anything once 18?

If you don't agree when are they going to start contributing and when will the cycle end?

Anyone coming to the UK shoukd be expected to fully support themselves.

@Lemonadefizzcelebration - you are deliberately ignoring the point I made. State schools cannot just ignore destitute children, nor can the NHS. They would then have to go into care, which is vastly more expensive than benefits in terms of housing/UC. We are responsible for the under 18s and those with special needs up to 25 once here.

I would rethink that as remigration will be happening in the next few years.

@Lemonadefizzcelebration - even if certain politicians do get into power, they still have to follow laws, so I doubt it. You cannot privatise the NHS overnight and change the entire legal landscape and the protections citizens do have. You would be out by the next election and citizens fear creep into their own civil liberties and the decimation of the NHS. So I doubt it will happen.

Personally, i don't to mugged by the destitute or to have beggars on street corners.
Bojo and Sunak encouraged 3m people to come here, over half were dependents, in the case of care workers it was 2/3rds.

Tories knew in most cases, they'd be claiming benefits, even if working FT, such is the low pay.

Pre Brexit, many workers came here alone, leaving family in Europe, sent CB back & saved enough money to return but we didn't like that either, so told them to fuck off and took in Africans and Asians instead complete with large families.....

We can all disagree and none of us has a crystal ball. We should bookmark this thread and revisit at the end of the decade?

Verification isn’t about opinion it’s about facts. They are either true or not.

Not in the case of a number of BBC Verify ‘facts’. I’ll ignore your rather combative tone, your sentence makes no sense anyway.

The list is quite long just that I know of. Marianna Spring set the tone by lying on her cv to get a job so it is no surprise that the ‘verification’ often bears little resemblance to the truth.

They ‘verified’ that only 500 farms would be affected by Rachel Reeves tax changes but the figures from experts are more like 70,000 as they missed a key element of the tax relief. Clearly it is hard to have exact numbers but as they are in the business of ‘verifying’ in order to present things as settled facts they clearly based their claim on a faulty calculation. Starmer used their ‘facts’ to present his policy at G20 but once the incorrect information was demonstrated they quietly deleted that part with no update to flag it. That is dishonest.

They have misrepresented many aspects of the situation in Gaza, among others reporting that the bombing of a hospital was done by Israel why actually it was Hamas. They have published quotes against Israel from ‘journalists’ with links to Islamic State without making that clear. They appear to have played down Islamic violence in the overthrow of the Bangladeshi prime minister and they have reported a male child murderer (I think another trans shooter) as being female.

They have stood by while the BBC publishes blatant lies about the law, about Trump, about the sex of murderers (like the man who liquidised the cat before committing murder was reported as a woman).

I’m not suggesting that in complex and chaotic situations that it is easy or even possible to ascertain the whole truth. However the reason for the existence of BBC Verify is to do exactly that beyond doubt so it can be viewed as settled facts. They claim to do this but that claim is clearly and demonstrably false. If they can’t ascertain the full truth of the matter, they shouldn’t claim they have.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/05/23/the-truth-about-the-bbcs-war-on-disinformation/

Britain is now a country of immigrants though primarily, whether it is first second or third or even fourth generation. Anyone making comments that are massively anti immigration with racist undertones is on a hiding to nowhere as there are too many voters now and contributors who will be put off by that rhetoric. The problems could be solved economically, but you cannot be treating one class of citizens differently from another just because of their race/beliefs etc - and a lot of people who are right wing are taking the most benefits themselves (whether because they are old or needing top ups).

Those two things aren’t connected. And you know it.

My sentence makes perfect sense. Spiked never do. Not reliable I’m afraid.

There are no easy answers. If it was up to me, I'd increase taxes to pay for good public services. Someone needs to make the case for taxes = public services.

All I'm saying is that immigration is not the answer. Even Labour have accepted this now. And if things carry on as they are with millions of people not working and not contributing, then we really are on the road to disaster.

Regarding BBC bias, the BBC have shown their bias clearly and BBC 'Verify' confirms it. The Spiked online article demonstrates this with examples.

It's not really surprising. BBC journalists are nearly all drawn from the privately educated strata of society, living in well appointed homes in leafy suburbs, who look down on anyone who isn't part of their dinner party circuit.

Yes, the BBC have shown themselves to be biased on multiple occasions. They should be impartial. They are the public broadcaster. Their licence fee is paid by people with a broad range of views and they should reflect this in their broadcasting.

So stop giving a party formerly known as UKIP (Reform) a mouthpiece in almost every edition of Question Time and other BBC programmes! It does not represent the UK’s true balance. The Reform bias is not at all subtle.

He is an absolute prick and anyone with decency will boycott his businesses. He’s is a total arsehole.

🤣🤣🤣 Brilliant lefty comment with no understanding of economics or even what INEOS does for a business 🤣🤣🤣

Good luck with boycotting your next purchase of 2,000 tonnes of acetic anhydride.

All emotion and no logic.