I deplore Jim Ratcliffe's words. (owner of Man U)

Visit any big city in the UK - colonies, communities, no go areas, or whatever you want to call them, are in EVERY SINGLE ONE. Proof enough for me.

In the final year before he left the UK he had paid over £110M in taxes,

He has been given £120million in government subsidy for Grangemouth. Kind of cancels out his tax, doesn't it?

A billionaire pro-BREXIT patriot who took UK funding,
then scarpered off to become an IMMIGRANT himself in Monaco
rather than pay legit taxes here.
And who would only have had three men on the pitch the other night, without his own immigrants.
Why would I ever listen to the likes of that hypocrite?

Suzieque66

And I agree with everything you said ! Why cant we speak our truth ? ... Jim Ratcliffe spoke the truth ...

Prove it

And I agree with everything you said ! Why cant we speak our truth ? ... Jim Ratcliffe spoke the truth ...

The ECHR procedure is this

Applications made to the ECHR are screened against the criteria for 'admissibility. Only admissible cases are sent for judgement.

In 2024 (the last year which had full figures) 478 applications from the UK were deemed to be admissible.

Out of these there was only ONE judgement against the UK.

So, while it is within the rights of any individual to apply to the ECHR their chances of succeeding in getting a judgement against the UK are minimal.

So many distortions of the reality of the ECHR are being fed to you.

Seems to be some confusion over the difference between the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Human Rights (the 13 cases refered to above)

Presumably it makes a difference if you're 'filthy rich'.

The world is your oyster then £££$$$

So he reckons that the UK has been “colonised by immigrants”. Makes me wonder what the locals say in Monaco, where he now lives as an "Immigrant"

British taxpayers paid £70 million to bail out his firm Ineos.

Oh, him! Yes, I remember that.
What a nerve!

I have no time for anyone who has a multi national football team rabbiting on about 'colonisation' while he himself lives in Monaco to avoid paying tax.

That was DH's reaction when he heard, "He lives overseas and evades tax! What a cheek".

I'd never heard of him before this.

Those who agree with Ratcliffe, stop to think for a minute and see who you are supporting:

Ratcliffe is a multibillionaire who moved to Monaco to avoid paying tax in the UK. He's not contributing, quite the opposite: British taxpayers paid £70 million to bail out his firm Ineos. Yet, he's pointing fingers at people who get a few hundred pounds in benefits because they either can't afford to live on their abysmal wages or are so ill that they are unable to work for a living. He says immigrants are colonising Britain while he is an immigrant himself, just in Monaco.

Ratcliffe and his rich mates want us divided. They pit the youth against pensioners, the British born against immigrants, the middle class against the poor. All the while the super-rich is hoarding more and more money and all the power.

Well those are just the ones who got that far.
What about those who have suddenly decided they were gay, or came up with other spurious claims to prevent their deportation ?
Obviously I can’t remember them all but they all sounded utterly ridiculous, yet it worked.
Then there are the Left wing human rights lawyers who expressly coach the migrants in what to say to increase their chances of staying.
Couldn’t make it up’ cases appear in newspapers on an almost weekly basis.

Graceless and Wyllow3 - I agree. Radcliffe's comments and views and others' similar comments and views seek to divide society. Immigrants are thus seen as a "very bad thing" and political parties promote "immigration as a very bad thing" that their party alone "will control". Trump in America thinks he is "controlling US borders" by funding ICE and facilitating ICE agents power. We've seen this lately play out in the streets of Minneapolis recently and 2 deaths by shooting- alongside the gas lighting rhetoric coming from Trump and DHS. Do we really want that in the UK. We are witness to the erosion of personal freedoms across all of US institutions also- which imho will be the result of leaving the ECHR. But thats another separate topic worthy of its own thread.

Some speculate Radcliffe makes such comments in support of Reform, stoking the fires via such public messages, invoking and encouraging UK voters to elect Reform on the basis of "controlling immigration and state benefits spending" and "promoting business" to billionaire Radcliffe as Trump's regime does in to billionaire business leaders in the US.

Focussing on ECHR rather than Radcliffe's racist comments that divide society takes us down a Reform cut de sac- exactly as intended.....

OP "His comments seek to divide us and to encourage racism, and yes, while he funds a footie club from afar haven for the tax dodger. Interviews with some of the fans, themselves sons of immigrants, show just how horrific his comments were - turning fans against fans".

Ratcliffe

Radcliffe got some of his figures wrong according to BBC verify. He said the UK population had grown by 14 million since 2020.
It has grown by that amount since 1995.
The number of people claiming benefits and not working at all is much less than he said.
He sounds like a troublemaker and yes racist.

Countless, eh?

Since 1980, the ECHR has ruled against the UK in only 13 removal cases out of roughly 500,000 removals.

www.law.ox.ac.uk/content/news/new-report-calls-evidence-based-debate-european-convention-human-rights-and

I’m sure in the beginning, the ECHR was set up with the very best of intentions but somehow parts of it seem to have evolved to be more on the side of the ‘human rights’ of criminals, preventing the removal of them from our country.
We have seen countless examples of this over the years.
That’s what needs to change.

It was just an opinion. That's all. And thank goodness we all have the right to express our opinions

Sarnia

MollyNew

Going further off topic but what will they replace the ECHR with? I'm human and I deserve human rights.

The ECHR has been abused by the human rights lawyers on many occasions when the Government (both parties) have deportations in place. They thwart the Government at every turn. I consider the UK and its people to be mainly decent and fair minded to others so why do we need a rule book when all it does is give more power to the lawyers elbows?

Whether you trust lawyers or not, we need a "rule book" because some people are not "decent and fair minded to others".

Wyllow3

I think Jim Ratcliffe was openly, and shockingly racist, and gave no credit for the value added to our economy over the years by hardworking immigrants

- we simply could not have managed without them, because our birthrate is not congruent with the needs of an aging population as many of us live much longer than we used to.
the NHS, the care profession, and many a person seeking a Polish Plumber (to give a well worn cliche an outing) could hardly exist.

His comments seek to divide us and to encourage racism, and yes, while he funds a footie club from afar haven for the tax dodger. Interviews with some of the fans, themselves sons of immigrants, show just how horrific his comments were - turning fans against fans.

Well said!

MollyNew

Going further off topic but what will they replace the ECHR with? I'm human and I deserve human rights.

The ECHR has been abused by the human rights lawyers on many occasions when the Government (both parties) have deportations in place. They thwart the Government at every turn. I consider the UK and its people to be mainly decent and fair minded to others so why do we need a rule book when all it does is give more power to the lawyers elbows?

MollyNew

Going further off topic but what will they replace the ECHR with? I'm human and I deserve human rights.

A different version.

Laws get changed every day of the week.
As do times.

Have never been able to see why the ECHR is any different.

I totally agree with him

I think on social media, the more often the wholel topic is discussed, the more people are likely to be open about what they think.
Which mkaes others more open.

Comments like "why do you think that" when again, like Brexit, sooo many times the reasons have been given, just makes more people think blow it, why should I keep quiet any longer.