Authored by Charles Johnson via TheCritic.co.uk,
Far more energy has gone into condemning his phrasing than confronting the questions he raised...
Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s statement that Britain has been “colonised by immigrants” has sparked a fierce reaction.
From Starmer to Bluesky, to the Athletic and all the football social media pundits in between, the co-owner of Manchester United has been bombarded with the same attack lines repeatedly.
He has been called a tax dodging, racist immigrant hypocrite.
Such an uproar has flared up in such a short space of time because Ratcliffe is radically different from those who have issued similar statements before. Ratcliffe is not a political figure: you do not see billionaires nor football club owners voicing discontent like this.The pushback has been fierce because Ratcliffe has no political incentive to say any of this.He isn’t running for office, seeking favour, or chasing votes — which makes his intervention harder to dismiss. Part of the backlash, too, reflects an unease that his diagnosis may be accurate.
The remarks came from aninitial conversation regarding the economic challenges Britain faces in general, not solely on immigration.The snippet that has been so widely shared is merely part of a wider statement of the economic problems Britain faces; Ratcliffe refers to the issues of “immigration” and “nine million people” on benefits simultaneously.
Manchester United part-owner has told@EdConwaySkythe UK has been "colonised" by immigrants, who are draining resources from the state, as he warns of the country facing profound political, social and economic challenges.🔗https://t.co/bie6uFZ1Tppic.twitter.com/qFpiO0HkfO
Colonised is a strong opening salvo for a figure such as Ratcliffe, who is not known for any previous anti-migration stance.This generated responses of tone policing from his critics – cries that his choice of words were “disgraceful and deeply divisive” and that “this language and leadership has no place in English football” from Kick It Out, a notable “Anti Racism” football pressure group. There was no attempt to argue or debate: this was no more than tone policing, of “mate mate mate, you can’t say that mate”. It did not engage with the substantive point. It was not an argument.
The Prime Minister has pushed for Ratcliffe to apologise. Less than a year ago, Starmer was referring to Britain as an ”Island of Strangers”; he has little argument here. Sir Ed Davey has stated that Ratcliffe is “totally wrong” and is “out of step with British Values”. Once again this is weak tone policing, not an argument. Regardless, which British values are being violated in particular? What are British values precisely meant to mean here?
Source: ZeroHedge News
