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

I wouldn't agree with anyone being forced into care work, which should be much more highly respected and remunerated. Perhaps if it was there wouldn't be such shortages in staff. Care workers are so poorly paid I wonder how they manage to live, especially in areas like London.

Yes but there's 'deciding not to' and there's 'not being fit to'.

Who scrapped that?

Does anyone remember earning related that people were able to claim for up to a year if they lost their job which gave them time to find another job and still be able to pay their mortgage during that time? I was really shocked when it was scrapped.

I agree Doodledog.

Further I don't understand how anyone could think it morally acceptable to live on benefits provided in part by people doing a job you consider beneath you, because you feel entitled to only work in a certain area and at certain times. What if the whole nation decided 9-5 office jobs was all they were willing to do? Those entitled people would be shouting the loudest at the inconvenience to their lives.

That would be horrendous for the folk in Care.

Yes I agree completely with all of that doodledog, my one concern is the 'funnelling' of completely unsuitable people into care work for example in order to get them off benefits. I am not saying that is happening or is about to happen, but you do see it in quite a few discussions 'there are plenty of vacancies in care they should go and work there rather than claiming benefits'.

Doodledog - I often disagree with you but on this I think you are spot on
👏👏👏👏

CariadAgain

Oreo

I think a lot of it is downright laziness, if a job needs a walk and a busride to get to then it’s too much trouble, if it involves any work at the weekend it’s ‘but that’s when I see my friends’ ( I actually heard that) or if shift work is involved.
There are some genuine reasons why working age people find doing a job stressful, but simply not the huge number that are presently living off benefits.

I would say it's not quite as "black and white" as that. I was an office worker and that's what I'd trained for/got qualifications in etc and had had over a decade basically being an office worker before unemployment hit for the first time (started work at 18 and "redundancy" hit in my early 30's). So I certainly thought it was fair enough to expect to remain an office worker and with those workhours of around 9am-5pm Monday to Friday and holidays being when I chose for them to be. Maybe a replacement job might have happened that bit sooner if I'd not "held out" for around equivalent. But yep....by the time you've spent your entire worklife to date basically doing what you trained for = you've moulded your life around "your" work pattern (ie knowing it's a sitting down job/in an office/your evenings and weekends are your own). So yep....evenings and weekends was when I had my social life/went to evening classes if I decided to/the events that were part of being a "political activist" (as I was for decades) happened. Personal social events probably couldnt be transferred to different times - and all the other constituents of my life generally couldnt be transferred to different times.

I can see just how that would have gone down if I'd said "Yep I'm an officer of this, candidate for that, etc and all my friends also work office hours = you'll have to change all that to suit me personally for however long I have to do antisocial hours for". They wouldnt have done so and it wouldnt have been reasonable for me to expect them to do so. Cue for I could have landed up having to spend decades not able to actually "live my life" - despite being single and so having to "have a life". It could have been a long long wait - up until my 60's to get a life back.....

If someone hasnt basically started work yet/hasnt basically established how their "life" is yet = that's one thing. But it's different for someone who is already "living their life", has already established what their own workhours are.

I think it is black and white if someone is claiming benefits because they say they are unable to work. If they are offered a job that might not suit their preferences but they are able to do it, they should have to take it until they find something that suits them better.

I can understand people needing a bit of time to sort out responsibilities for things like childcare or other caring responsibilities (and also that something like nightshift for a single parent may well not be possible at all), but on the whole I would set, say, a 6 week grace period to find a job 'equivalent' to the one that was lost, and then stop benefits unless the claimant accepted something else. That's why redundancy money is paid - to tide people over until the right job comes along.

Nobody has a right to a particular job, or particular working hours, just because they once did a similar one. It's up to you (generic) how long you wait for the right thing to come along if you are supporting yourself, but if you are claiming benefits I think that changes things. Otherwise someone who once took a 'lower' level of work instead of claiming would be condemned to doing that forever, whilst people who were lucky enough to get a 'higher' level of work would be able to cling to their privilege.

I think the same applies to those looking for their first job. We all have ideas of what we'd like to do, but if we can't go straight into what we see as 'our' line of work we might have to settle for something else until we prove ourselves, particularly if we are expecting others to pay our living expenses.

Absolutely shocking .I don't care how quietly and politely he said it.
Has he had a look at his football team, and most of the others in the Premier League?

orly

Sago

“The owner of one of the world's largest chemical companies, Ineos, said: “You can’t have an economy with nine million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in.”

I totally agree with him.

Although I would go as far as to use the word invaded rather than colonised.

I agree. My ex-Marine brother in law while working post service as a weapons instructor in the Middle East was told by one of his "students" "We don't need to invade your country because we will own it 100 years"

I'd love to know just what his response was to that cheeky little **8**88 or whether he thought "I am not helping anyone with that mindset - resignation on the desk tomorrow morning".

I would have had to say something in that position...at the least reporting the little wotname.

Sago

“The owner of one of the world's largest chemical companies, Ineos, said: “You can’t have an economy with nine million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in.”

I totally agree with him.

Although I would go as far as to use the word invaded rather than colonised.

I agree. My ex-Marine brother in law while working post service as a weapons instructor in the Middle East was told by one of his "students" "We don't need to invade your country because we will own it 100 years"

Me too

Lemonjam I agree with all you have posted.

Stone of Destiny- 13.29- I agree. But there is (and always has been for many years) clear method and intention for any far right wing supporter to incite such negative feelings towards immigrants- to gain far right electoral success, i.e. in UK for the Reform Party. Far right wing parties traditionally collude with industrial and business leaders to consolidate political power and exchange financial gain/beneficial tax conditions in return. Fa rage has a far greater motivation to make as much money as possible than he has for public service. The same of course is true for Trump.

Far right parties traditionally and predominantly focus on "anti-immigration" and "anti-globalism" rhetoric, emphasising "nativism" to gain power. The idealism of "we" to exclude the "they", stripping away hard fought DEI values and structures. They push a view of a country in decline/decay and portray themselves/their party as the natural, common sense, sane alternative elite to redeem society from its promised "doom" and lead in to a new era. The emotionally rallying cry lures voters in. This is exactly what Trump did - "Make America Great Again" - i.e. populism. It's exactly what Farage is doing now in the UK and Jim Radcliffe is a supporter/enabler.

Once in power- rest assured Reform will seek to "control borders" Border Force in UK- ICE in US. After the 2 ICE recent Minnesota shootings- fatal victims immediately villified in the media by DHS as "left wing agitators/terrorists" i.e. something wrong with them but we/ICE/DHS are right because we are protecting native America from those terrible immigrants. Trump- "Europe is in decay" launching a new world order- as he sees it- same song, same tune.

Farage similarly: UK is a" Broken" and "Failed" nation under Conservative and Labour leadership "plagued" by "high immigration" and poor economic performance and a "loss of traditional British identity". He seeks to foster closer ties with the US over Europe and replicate Trump's regime to control borders, overhaul laws, cut the minimum working wage, etc Who knows what he seeks to do with the NHS but looking to America, Trump's impact on family planning/abortions and reduced access to healthcare is alarming. JR knew what he was doing.....Those that are already lured with the rallying calls do not wish to listen to facts or figures or read links- they haven't got time, they are of no importance- they agree with the rallying call and have formed their opinion. This is what happened with the rallying Brexit call- control our borders, protect our sovereignty etc. That was a very close referendum. The next election is also likely to be closely ran. Decline was the outcome of Brexit- yet remains the far right rallying call...

CariadAgain

Maremia

Nine million on benefits. You do know that figure, if correct, will include some of us?
Pensioners.
In some studies, pensions are categorised as benefits.

I was feeling puzzled as to why such a high figure was being quoted.

That explains it - ie they've been adding in State Pension recipients and trying to make out we are "benefit claimants". I swear that one of these fine days the next person that tries to call me a "benefit claimant" when I'm not is going to get thrown into the middle of next week by me. I know I know the government keeps calling State Pension "benefit" - but it really really isn't and their terminology is more than a little aggravating (ie trying to make out we are on benefits when we aren't at all - but they've trying to wrongly attach that word to our State Pensions).

All that stuff about "You're paying for the generation and not for yourself personally - and the generation after you are the ones that will be paying for you" brings on a strong desire to swat the little that has just come out with that made-up justification for things right across the face - ie it annoys me so much that the government is trying to play with words and give themselves an excuse if they want it to have a go at my State Pension I have paid in my money to have.

Yes for those of you of pension age, have a look a your 'annual statement' ... it now uses the word 'benefit' instead of 'pension'!!

Yes immigrants shouldn't be allowed to hold views on immigration that differ to yours.
This is sarcasm again

Maremia
An immigrant complaining about immigrants, nothing illogical or hypocritical to see here

Yes, on the level of Yaxley Lennon saying he is going to free abroad because he is afraid for his safety. Or Farage claiming to 'back Britain' while dodging taxes, spending more time in the USA than in the UK and wearing a 'Make America Great Again' hat a,onside Trump in the US while missing key House of Commons debates on Migration.

There is a huge difference between 'being concerned about immigration' and inciting hatred towards immigrants.

Maybe if those who voted Brexit had listened to the consequences of Brexit on levels of immigration and Britains ability to return illegal immigrants, things would be looking differently now.

The 'surging' in the country that is most visible is the way some feel it acceptable to dispense hatred and division wherever they go - they seem to have endless time to do it. Maybe they could do more for their own communities by volunteering time to help those in need or maybe they could just find a job and pay tax. Most of us have had enough of seeing our National flag getting debased, our streets being vandalised by racist graffiti, our newspapers filled with images of crosses being carried by people with no moral values at all and gangs of people responding to slogans by dog whistle agitators and politicians who themselves spend as little time in the country as they can.

An immigrant complaining about immigrants, nothing illogical or hypocritical to see here folks.

Galaxy

I was being sarcastic.

👍

Having a sensible conversation about racism is needed- nothing wrong whatsoever with that. I suggested many posts ago I would like to see a cross party group look at this and come up with some solutions/suggestions how to manage immigration sensibly and ethically whilst complying with the legal rights of people to seek asylum.

JR was not having a sensible conversation sadly; he said the UK had been colonised by immigrants which is not only factually incorrect (I'm giving JR the benefit of the doubt assuming he is a man that actually understands what the word "colonised" means....) it is highly inflammatory, discriminatory, provocative and many have found racist- hence why there has been such a media storm...

I was being sarcastic.

Galaxy

Nothing to be worried about then.

Listening to some of the things the Greens want to bring in frightens the life out of me.

They are as mad as the proverbial box of frogs