Sir Jim Ratcliffe Says

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by albion68

I think I?ve earned my pension?..left school at 15 retired at 69.vertually worked all my life 6/7days a week,believe I?ve paid more than my fare share in tax And NI.

---

Think you misunderstand me, no criticism at all of the state pension which is critical for those who haven't the luxury of being able to also have either a private pension or an old style "good plated" one from working for a government service regardless of whether they have worked hard all their lives and paid so much tax and NI. Just pointing out that the current size and productivity of the UK's workforce will very likely not support the increasing number of those eligible for state pensions as they have in the past.

Getting more people of working age into work is essential so that they can contribute to the economy, improve their own lives and help reduce the benefits bill and better ensure that monies are there to fund the state pension along with other important state support functions to help those in genuine need.

I'm not too far away from retirement age myself and will rely heavily on my state pension but am more than a little worried that the current level of state pension or any "triple lock" will not be available by then. I believe that a decent state pension is essential for those who have no other income and is one of the foundations of any benefits system.

IMHO, the biggest issue this country has is that of inequality and the vastly uneven distribution of wealth. Whilst it may certainly be true that the vast majority of the better off have worked hard to attain what they have it is also a myth (often peddled by some Conservatives) that working hard in itself will result in financial security in old age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baggiematt

The idea that you can say what you like without criticism, is the exact opposite of free speech.

---

I do not agree, I have no argument against being critical of someone?s opinion but there?s a difference between disagreeing and launching a tirade against someone and insisting that they apologise for their opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kettering_baggie

I do not agree, I have no argument against being critical of someone?s opinion but there?s a difference between disagreeing and launching a tirade against someone and insisting that they apologise for their opinions.

---

100% agree with you! Respect for all
Opinions!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kettering_baggie

I do not agree, I have no argument against being critical of someone?s opinion but there?s a difference between disagreeing and launching a tirade against someone and insisting that they apologise for their opinions.

---

Thats tosh. Several poster including Al were saying that Starmer is weak for not demanding an apology from Trump for his comments about the armed forces.

Where comments themselves lack respect about a part of our society, e.g. immigrants, armed forces, then they should apologise.

And he rightly apologised because he embellished figures and lied about immigrants, which are a part of our society.

It feels like its free speech when it’s about non white people and disrespect the other way. Its cowardly to only stand up for the majority.

I certainly believe in the concept of free speech but I also believe that this should not mean that individuals can say whatever they like without consequences. Hate speech for example, where some-one is deliberately attempting to stir up hatred against others because of the colour of their skin or ***uality.

The caveat for me is that attacks should not be allowed on inherent characteristics that an individual cannot change about themselves which includes age, ***, ***ual orientation, skin colour, place of birth, disability. Most of these are enshrined in the Equalities Act under "protected characteristics" though I am always wary about religion also being included under this act.

Religion has caused more wars than anything else but religion is not an inherent characteristic, religions are beliefs and, as such, should be open to debate rather like politics. On one hand, it is only right that individuals of a particular faith (whether Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Protestant or Catholic etc) are protected from hate and violence but, on the other, it is surely right that we can criticise certain aspects of those beliefs, particularly if they impact on inherent characteristics? Religions that are misogynistic or homophobic for example. Extremist religions-of any stripe-can be hateful and dangerous.

There are also degrees of "saying what you like". There is a big difference between stating "I believe ( a certain viewpoint)" and deliberately inciting hatred or violence for example. There needs to be an element of common sense and this issue has more recently been brought to light over discussions around gender and the success of protests in changing the wording to Section 5 of the Public Order Act. The previous wording made it easy for some groups to legally claim the law to be on their side merely because they had felt "insulted". This greatly impacted on freedom of speech and the amendment has changed this to "insulting words and behaviour". The "paradox of intolerance" IMHO remains true however. An over tolerant society can mean that the voices of intolerance can eventually take over.

I totally agree with Obama and others that issues are not properly resolved by censorship but by debate and that censorship should be a last resort. I also fully agree with both Ketts and Al that any such debates should be respectful. The nature of any debate is to try and persuade which is always harder with entrenched views but shouting matches and gain-saying isn't debate. Sometimes there might be clear evidence to prove a particular view point is wrong (e.g. Holocaust denial) and sometimes there are no clear cut answers with lots of variables. In such cases, why not respectfully agree to differ?

Trump and Vance have openly criticised the UK of being overly woke and of having free speech eroded but surely it doesn't take too much effort to see the hypocrisy in this with the thin skinned POTUS doing everything he can to shut down dissenting viewpoints in the US. What he has been actively doing is censorship and an attack on the very free speech he claims to protect (as long as it supports him). Thankfully, his attempts to silence the likes of Kimmel and Colbert failed.

Whether you agree with their political viewpoints or not, freedom to use political satire is surely a good thing and should be an indication of a healthy democracy. It's important that Kimmel, Tyler Cohen, Stewart or SouthPark can take the p iss out of Trump just as it's important that Have I Got News for You can do the same with Farage or Starmer or a show like The Windsors take the mickey out of the Royals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baggiematt

Thats tosh. Several poster including Al were saying that Starmer is weak for not demanding an apology from Trump for his comments about the armed forces.

Where comments themselves lack respect about a part of our society, e.g. immigrants, armed forces, then they should apologise.

And he rightly apologised because he embellished figures and lied about immigrants, which are a part of our society.

It feels like its free speech when it’s about non white people and disrespect the other way. Its cowardly to only stand up for the majority.

---

It doesn't matter what the subject is, if someone has claimed something that can be proven to be wrong then what is wrong in thinking that it would be the right thing for them to do to be big enough to acknowledge this and apologise? Similarly, if someone has said something that is clearly unnecessarily hurtful to others but which is based on falsehoods. You can hope they "do the right thing" and reconsider of course but it may be too much to expect those with entrenched view to do so.

One of the difficulties is also that, quite often, people say things that may be offensive but which contain grains of truth and those that (rightly) stand up against their viewpoints should also acknowledge this. Things are very rarely entirely black and white. In Ratcliffe's case, the data he quoted was factually incorrect and his choice of words was either clumsy or deliberately insulting. IMHO, he was quite rightly called out for these but it would surely also be wrong not to acknowledge that his concerns over the levels of both immigration and benefits costs were legitimate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baggiematt

Thats tosh. Several poster including Al were saying that Starmer is weak for not demanding an apology from Trump for his comments about the armed forces.

Where comments themselves lack respect about a part of our society, e.g. immigrants, armed forces, then they should apologise.

And he rightly apologised because he embellished figures and lied about immigrants, which are a part of our society.

It feels like it?s free speech when it’s about non white people and disrespect the other way. It?s cowardly to only stand up for the majority.

---

The comments from Ratcliffe were clumsy because his dates were wrong and he should have added ( illegal ) rather than just immigrants. My view is all illegal immigrants should be deported and not allowed to roam freely around the public for their safety. Many non whites also agree that illegals should be deported.

That said the country is in desperate need of skill sets so I would welcome legal immigration ie engineers, doctors, teachers etc.

That?s my view and I do not care whether anybody objects or not!! Starmer is an absolute hypocrite for asking Ratcliffe to apologise when he used the text - a land of strangers and also was accountable for filth like Mandleson and Doyle plus tax fiddling Rayner. Ratcliffe apologised though for his wording and not for the overall content.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baggieal

The comments from Ratcliffe were clumsy because his dates were wrong and he should have added ( illegal ) rather than just immigrants. My view is all illegal immigrants should be deported and not allowed to roam freely around the public for their safety. Many non whites also agree that illegals should be deported.

That said the country is in desperate need of skill sets so I would welcome legal immigration ie engineers, doctors, teachers etc.

That?s my view and I do not care whether anybody objects or not!! Starmer is an absolute hypocrite for asking Ratcliffe to apologise when he used the text - a land of strangers and also was accountable for filth like Mandleson and Doyle plus tax fiddling Rayner.

---

'Tis true, Starmer-like the majority of politicians -sticks to the "never apologise, never explain" strategy begun by Disraeli and taken up by the Royals. Won't mean their failures are forgotten though!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baggieal

The comments from Ratcliffe were clumsy because his dates were wrong and he should have added ( illegal ) rather than just immigrants. My view is all illegal immigrants should be deported and not allowed to roam freely around the public for their safety. Many non whites also agree that illegals should be deported.

That said the country is in desperate need of skill sets so I would welcome legal immigration ie engineers, doctors, teachers etc.

That?s my view and I do not care whether anybody objects or not!! Starmer is an absolute hypocrite for asking Ratcliffe to apologise when he used the text - a land of strangers and also was accountable for filth like Mandleson and Doyle plus tax fiddling Rayner. Ratcliffe apologised though for his wording and not for the overall content.

---

I’m sure you’ll agree Al.. i’d rather we trained recruited home grown engineers, doctors, teachers etc rather than import them. But wait didn’t you have a complaint about junior doctors asking for more pay?

I think those trying to go in those fields, and these have to be the proper smart clever types - should have their tuition fees reimbursed if say they go into becoming a doctor. Our government have been quick to always look for overseas doctors when we should be solving this issue at home. Easier said than done.
Our teachers are all working and going off to Dubai - because we don’t look after them. 14 years of tory rule.. and these lot have rebranded at the reform party who you keep parading on here. We get what’s coming our way Al. I told you so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by regis80

I’m sure you’ll agree Al.. i’d rather we trained recruited home grown engineers, doctors, teachers etc rather than import them. But wait didn’t you have a complaint about junior doctors asking for more pay?

I think those trying to go in those fields, and these have to be the proper smart clever types - should have their tuition fees reimbursed if say they go into becoming a doctor. Our government have been quick to always look for overseas doctors when we should be solving this issue at home. Easier said than done.
Our teachers are all working and going off to Dubai - because we don’t look after them. 14 years of tory rule.. and these lot have rebranded at the reform party who you keep parading on here. We get what’s coming our way Al. I told you so.

---

Morning Regis. Honestly don?t mind where a doctor is from as long as they are qualified. I totally agree that tuition fees for medicine students should be reimbursed because what?s the incentive otherwise of five years worth of student debt. As for those student doctors protesting they are paid poorly for the skilled job they do and Streeting to think the inflationary 3.3% pay for NHS doctors was good needs a reality check when those who claim universal credit received a whopping 6.2% in most cases. I don?t blame teachers either going to Dubai - who wouldn?t! Three years of student debt to be a teacher then starting off on a crap salary of just over 30K is scandalous. I was speaking to an American teacher in the summer who was paid around 100K dollars and had his medical paid too! He nearly fell off the chair when I told him what our teachers were paid on average.

My own daughter is leaving school later this year after her A Levels and has received some fab uni offers including Kings in London but went through a rigorous process for interviews to be an apprentice with a well known top firm so great starting salary, all her professional qualifications paid for so It?s a no brainer over uni and student debt. Most uni courses are complete bollox and it annoys me that student debt is around 9% which will be to cover those students who never pay back.

Honestly feel the UK is completely broken and all the parties are full of s hite and it will get worse! Starmer now going on about our military but who will pay for the extra 3.5% required of promised GDP? People are taxed up to the eyeballs so we need to be ruthless on illegal immigration, stupid foreign aid and benefits handed out like confetti to yes mainly whites.