Pensions Stolen, Hotels Paid: How the State Betrays British Women

[JessieZoo]

So let’s get this straight.
Labour says it would be “unfair” — yes, unfair — to pay British women the pensions they’re rightfully owed. A flat-rate compensation scheme, they argue, would cost up to £10.5 billion. That, apparently, is just too much for the taxpayer to handle. Too heavy a burden. Too expensive. Too inconvenient.
But wait — in the very same breath, they have no issue at all signing off on billions of pounds to house illegal migrants in hotels. Not just hostels or temporary shelters — but full-service hotels, many costing hundreds of pounds per night. Paid for by you. The British taxpayer.

Women who worked all their lives, paid into the system, raised children, supported families — many of them now pensionless, struggling to heat their homes or feed themselves — are told: “Sorry, there’s no money left.” Yet people who entered this country illegally, without contributing a single penny to the public purse, are handed food, shelter, healthcare, and legal aid on a silver platter.
Where is the outrage? Where is the logic? Where is the basic common sense?
Let’s call it what it is: an insult. A slap in the face to every British woman who’s been denied justice. A betrayal of the very people who built this country.

The state is happy to tell working-class women — many of whom were misled, underinformed, or outright ignored when their pension age was quietly raised — that they must simply “get on with it.” But when it comes to those who cross our borders illegally? The red carpet rolls out. No delays. No debates. No “affordability” test.

The message is loud and clear: law-abiding British citizens come last.
Let that sink in.

Because this is no longer just about money. It’s about priorities. It’s about morality. It’s about who this country serves — and who it’s abandoned.
If the government — and Labour in particular — truly cared about fairness, justice, or “proportionality,” then British women would not be fighting tooth and nail for scraps while illegal migrants are put up in comfort using the very taxes those same women paid throughout their lives.

This isn’t a funding issue. It’s a political choice.
It’s not that the country is broke — it’s that those in charge have broken their promise to the people who deserve it most.
And it’s time we said enough is enough.

Your point was that nobody alive is affected by colonisation by the British and I gave a perfect example of a country next door that still is heavily affected. And your response is so disrespectful. On that note I have to start my day.

Why would I want to research your spurious argument. When did the British last make a real attempt to spread Christianity? Other than a few missionaries. I would suggest The Crusades. After that we went very quiet on religion (internationally anyway).

It's not disrespectful if it's in reply to an anonymous person on mumsnet saying that the UK deserves what it gets.

Of course I wouldn't be OK with "a foreign power rocking up and bombing your country to smithereens?"

That's why we have an army. And nukes.

Most of the oppression in the Middle East currently and in recent times has been by local populations against other local populations. You do realise that, right? I suspect the women of Afghanistan wish we had continued with our terrible harm as occupiers.

Going a bit further back, the Persian empire(now Iran) was fairly brutal, especially to Christians, and the Ottoman empire (which was most of the rest of the Middle east) committed some pretty horrific atrocities against Europeans including enslaving 1 million Europeans in the Barbary slave trade and the occasional genocide - right up to the 1900s.

And going a bit further back, I'm not demanding anything from Mongolia for Genghis Khan's invasions, or from the Norwegian Wealth fund for their 200 year occupation, which was also accompanied by a fair bit of destruction and pillaging.

More recently - looking at other countries behaviour - Japan didn't open its borders to China after WW2 despite the atrocities they had committed.

The amount we spend to prevent terrorist attacks is more than enough retribution for the amount of harm we do!

But seriously, that's not how interactions between countries work.

But this viewpoint is narcissistic - in the meaning of "excessive preoccupation with oneself"

You're assigning more importance to things Western countries do than to the same things done by other countries. You set the bar for Western countries behaviour at a totally different level than you do for other countries.

Can't you see how self-centred and racist that is? Regardless of whether you do it to aggrandise your country (to enjoy a sense of superiority - not acceptable these days) or whether you do it to put your country down (to enjoy the gratification of self-righteous moralising - very typical Western left-wing behaviour these days)

The 'Britain has a responsibility to anyone who wants to live here because of our crimes' narrative manages both the gratification of moral high ground and the sense of superiority.

There are 70 million of us. Only 40 million of whom pay any tax at all.

We definitely can't feed and house the world. Even if we felt we should. Which I don't.