₦airaland Forum

dupyshoo:
They were all wearing masks. Sky news even showed some of it but were forced to stop it because of the rude and racist remarks that were said by them.

https://news.sky.com/video/birmingham-protesters-surround-sky-correspondent-and-slash-tyre-amid-unrest-13191564

They wanted the to slash tyres. I saw videos of daggers and big knives

And you know they are MDL members because...?

As someone said on this thread earlier, if some of you spend any more time on the fence, you'll run a real risk of becoming bricks.

The summary of your contribution to this whole discussion has been just the kind of 'bothsideism' Olusoga described in his article. From two weeks ago when these attacks started, you said not one thing in condemnation even as people here were describing various attacks and threats to their lives. Your first related post was almost two weeks later when you came with your 'gotcha!' news that 'some of the far left can be violent too' when you posted the link to that councilor inciting violence. The actual violence didn't warrant a mention. Today you have come with 'news' of MDL (specifically) encouraging women to be raped and when asked for evidence your answer is nothing related to what you actually claimed but we should take your word for it because you live in Birmingham.

Lol. Na wah.

dupyshoo:
I saw the videos and live in Birmingham. A friend was caught in the whole drama. So I am certain.

Can you please share the videos or any reference at all?

And maybe some info on how you're definite the people involved were part of the Muslim Defence League?

dupyshoo:
Good article!!

I stumbled upon this while reading the article which captured my view

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/11/extremism-in-all-its-forms-has-been-ignored-for-too-long-by-british-politicians

While I felt threatened by the far right and we have dwelt so much on them and glad to see that the justice system is dealing with them. However, I was equally afraid of the MDL that made news in Birmingham. They brought out knives and dagger and were encouraging women to be raped. I don't see this reaction as a counter protest but as another extremism hijacking this sad event to showcase their views.

How do we differentiate far right women?

For both parties, innocent people will be victims.

I just saw us "Blacks" as pawns in the battles of 2 extremists.

The British intelligence and politicians need to take their stands against all forms of extremism.

Do you have a source for MDL 'encouraging women to be raped'?

justwise:
[/b]

Those cheap recent models are mostly from scammers, avoid them at all costs.

As many people have said, it's because they are scams.

Buy from a dealer unless you know how to inspect cars very well or can go with someone who does. Private sales are dicey. When it goes well, it goes very well and you'll get a good deal but when it goes badly you can end up with a lemon and no legal recourse.

Use auto trader to benchmark prices so you know you're getting a good deal, and make sure you get a warranty from the dealer as well.

ReesheesuKnack:
But it’s a fact. The conservatives have issued more visas to immigrants than all labour governments combined (source: personal knowledge/lived experience).

By the way, do you happen to know Sir Keir Starmer’s stand on immigration?
During the elections, he promised to bring down migration numbers if elected.

The point is not about the number of visas being issued. The only complaints on visa policies we have had here (AFAIK) was when they increased fees for people in the country and even then it was primarily because they framed it around making immigrants pay more to fund services, linking the problems those services were facing to immigrants, as usual.

And that is the point - the constant demonization of immigrants. The tories issued visas (on the basis of the economy's need for them, not on humanitarian grounds, to be clear), yes, but they also made it normal to attack immigrants for everything that went wrong, however unrelated. I think Starmer has a mandate to reduce immigration and he should because that's what the electorate want, clearly. As long as he goes about it without attacking immigrants who have done nothing but follow the UKVI's own guidelines, I don't have a problem with that, and I don't think most other people do, either.

If people want more immigration, they should vote for a party that promises more immigration. If they want no immigration, they should vote for one that promises that. Either way, those policies should be campaigned on and whoever wins should implement their mandate without the divisive rhetoric that inflames people and legitimizes the terrorism we've seen the past few days.

Or is it asking to not continually be everyone's whipping boys too much because we are immigrants?

AgentXxx:
Now we are progressing. Great points listed 👍🏾

Miss Jekyll, I hope you are taking notes. Please take it to the Oga at the top as the labour spoke person in this forum 😀

No worries. As long as we agree that none of the above constitute a valid excuse for the wanton violence, and that the full responsibility for ideating and implementing the solutions rests with the government of the day, and not with immigrants.

AgentXxx:
We have agreement on some things just in case you are doubting. Yes, it is terrorism and attempt to murder people, it is not acceptable, they should be severely punished and jailed. Immigrants/Asylum seekers are not the cause of their problem.

Now let’s get back to the question. What should the government do to permanently resolve this? Or you think it would end with just jailing some thugs?

Decisive enforcement and long prison sentences for deterrence whether it's sexual assault, grooming, racist attacks and incitement or whatever else.

Assessing and (changing as neccessary) the immigration system for sustainability and making sure when they do that they don't constantly bash immigrants.

Process asylum seekers quickly and either grant them asylum or refuse them and return them if they're found to be ineligible.

Stop the bleeding of taxpayer money to government cronies like the Tories did with Baroness Mone and other party donors. Use the money to improve deprived areas and educate the unemployed and unemployable.

Invest more into the Healthcare system to get more people on long term sick back to work.

AgentXxx:
Are you just reading to reply and argue? 😒Anyways your answer lies in my last paragraph, kindly read all over to understand the point.

Mind you most (if not all) parents have fallen into the narrated scenario at one time in their life.

What is in question is violence not merely aggression, which can vary from a stern face to clipped sentences and up to violence, assault and murder.

Stop being mealy-mouthed and be specific - say expressly if you think being angry at your boss would be an 'underlying cause' for setting your children on fire.

That's what we're discussing here. If a million people protested peacefully saying they don't want migrants of any kind, I wouldn't complain. It's their democratic right. If they vote, as they did, for a party with aggressive views about migrants, same thing.

What we're seeing is terrorism and attempts to murder people. Be bold and answer like you were asked if you believe you also share responsibility for those merely by virtue of being in the country as an immigrant.

babajeje123:
Pardon my ignorance, people. Are first time buyer exempted from stamp duty? https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/stamp-duty-land-tax-relief-for-first-time-buyers/stamp-duty-land-tax-relief-for-first-time-buyers
If the are, would it be right for solicitor to be asking for Inland Revenue Stamp Duty Land Tax Admin fee?

Yes, FTB are exempted up to £425k. It appears that a form has to be filled to declare you're not required to pay stamp duty and while some solicitors (like ours - I just checked their quote again) include that as part of their general conveyancing fee, some list it separately.

I'd say the overall quote is more important because it may be that your ones just like to break things down some more.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5162003/buying-my-first-house-stamp-duty-land-tax-admin-fee

The angle that the timing is the only thing that is wrong with the underlying causes argument is nonsensical, and I'm not sorry to say that.

The argument is inherently dishnonest, whether the people saying it know it or not, because its validity depends entirely on which point in time you decide to cherry pick causes from.

Where should we start? Legal immigration is too much? Isn't the underlying cause that the UK made the routes available, publicised them and then stamped each and every one on those routes into the country? Did the government not know the capacity of the NHS, how many houses there were, etc.? Should the immigrants have been the ones to run the figures and say 'oh it looks like the NHS is at capacity so I won't apply to come study/work'? Isn't it unfair to the immigrants as well since they were definitely not told 'the country is full' and they would be constantly cast as burdens and made into punching bags for everyone's problems as soon as they step onto the country's soil by the university, NHS and private sector recruiters? Before all of that though, was the underlying cause not that the UK simply did not have enough people to fill roles in various sectors?

Illegal immigration is too much? Okay where should we start? Isn't the English language part of the reason that the UK is so attractive to asylum seekers? Where and why did all those 'not English and will never truly be English' people learn English? That aside, look at the list of top countries where asylum seekers are from. Almost every single one shares the characteristic of having been at the receiving end of British military interventionism either directly through attacks on their soil or through British support for one warring faction over another, sending weapons which prolong wars, increase casualties and displace people all around the world. And before anyone says it's ancient history, that's a lie - some of these are just a couple of decades ago. Here's the list of top countries where asylum seekers come from - https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migration-to-the-uk-asylum/ Check for yourself.

As an aside, more Chinese people seek asylum in the UK than Nigerians.

Given all of that, is it a wonder that some groups have an antipathy toward the West? Or does 'underlying causes' not apply to people whose regions have been decimated by western countries in support of their corporations' agendas to go pick up oil at bottom barrel prices from war-torn countries?

Nothing would ever be said (by reasonable people) to justify terrorism like the bombings that have taken place in the UK whether at the time they took place or years after, and nothing ought to be said to justify terrorism like what we've seen these past few days, at any time. I would personally never, under any circumstances, take up arms and try to burn random unarmed people to death or pour acid in the face of a random person in the street no matter how angry I am about whatever, and to imply that I ought to relate with and emphatize with people who would do that to me because of 'underlying causes' is insulting.

kwakudtraveller:
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

She has apologised and said she acted on 'false and malicious information' - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1jll3eg33wo
That's what every one of them says and to be fair it's likely true.

The biggest lesson I've learned from these riots is that the rhetoric around migration is often more important than the reality. It has been humbling for me because I see now that many of my previous positions were utterly wrong. I used to think I cared little about what nonsense the latest politician wanting to make their right-wing bones said as long as I was continuing to do great work and thrive in the country (for which I appreciate the country), but it's clear now that all that talk didn't end at the microphones, and it has now empowered ignoramuses to take up knives, acid, blocks etc to attack people like me at random.

The conservatives might have liberalized many migration routes, but their rhetoric around it was constantly villifying immigrants, and that has a much greater impact as we're seeing now.

They had all the opportunity to close down routes or make them stricter and people would simply not have come anymore if it wasn't suitable for them anymore. There's no human rights obligations to have skilled worker routes or lower threshholds for care workers and all the other things they did. They left those routes open because it was beneficial to the country, and would even sponsor British Council events abroad inviting people to come study/work in the country, but would turn arround and somehow find a way to link everything that went wrong under them to immigrants, legal or otherwise.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that if the things you are saying would fit in very well coming from the mouth of one of those egging the rioters on, then you're for all intents and purposes, also egging them on.

It doesn't matter how many times you say 'I don't support the rioters attacking people but...' Even the people like Farage, Tate, Robinson, Tice and co who lit this fire by lying that the killer of those children was a muslim who 'arrived on a boat two days ago', 'was known to police' but was left free because of 'two tier policing', they also always start their statements with 'I don't support the rioting and attacking of people but'.

So, from the perspective of victims and potential victims, you're one and the same, just as a woman who is a victim of rape would likely class everyone who says 'I don't support rape but do you know what the underlying causes are? There are many women here and a lot of money is being spent and blabla' right while the rape is ongoing, as enablers of her violation.

There's only one set of perpetrators in these riots, and that's the rioters, and the only victims are those being targeted by the rioters.

On specific crimes, the only perpetrators are the individuals who commit the crimes, and not people who share the same skin color, religion or countries of origin with them.

On bad governance and poor policy, everyone in the country is a victim, and the perpetrators are the government and those in power - most certainly not the immigrants.

I think the new spiel about people piling on Zahra is absurd because as far as I can see the responses have been focused on their arguments and not personal in nature for the most part.

But just to clear the air with regard to why I (I'm not speaking for anyone else) won't engage with Treadway or Gerard - it's simply because I consider them unfit to engage.

One of them a few pages ago was calling people here apes unprovoked. Nobody insulted him or anything. The other one manages to weave potshots at Muslims into every post. I made the decision not to engage either one for any reason since then.

I'm happy to debate and disagree however strongly but I'll not speak with people whose baseline is disrespect or bigotry and contribute to this place becoming an online beer parlor.

ReesheesuKnack:
In my training, I have been taught to look at things in the round. I am never ever a one-sided kinda woman. Never. I cannot see black but call it white because I am black. Or see green and call it red because red is the colour of the party or football club that I support.

That's not what you were asked though.

Your training must have also taught you to respond to questions with empty answers that say a lot but mean nothing, because you seem very good at it. I don't mean that to be offensive BTW - It's actually a good skill to have in some professions.

The question you were asked is "is that what you told your friend whose husband was attacked"?

Or, if your husband was attacked, would you tell him "darling sorry about this gash in your head but did you know that the government is spending 8 million on asylum seekers daily? And in fact did you also know that the UK is not training as many nurses as it needs? Those are the underlying issues why you were attacked"

I was just told about a woman who had acid thrown at her from a passing vehicle so best be mindful when walking about as well, people.

Zahra29:
I remember circa last year when some on this thread were bashing illegal immigrants; making distinctions between their legal status and those crossing by boat; claiming that illegal immigrants were the problem and not legal migrants who had paid into the system; and by the way why couldn't they just stay in France? I remember I even played devil's advocate saying that many want to come to the UK as they have family here and also the English language factor.

Fast forward and now apparently nobody is an illegal immigrant; all immigrants are the same regardless of whether they arrive via Heathrow or via Dover dinghy; £8m a day on hotels is not an issue whatsoever.

Hilarious stuff.

First, it's interesting that when you're saying something very different from what you said before, it's because you were 'playing devil's advocate' but for others it's because they're being hypocritical?

Second and more importantly, it may be hilarious to you but it's perfectly logical how recent events have changed people's views. No one here is feeling the fear they're feeling because they've not contributed much to the society or because of their immigration status.

When people internalize that for the rioters and those enabling them with subtle encouragement and justification, the only thing that matters is that you have dark skin and you're therefore automatically an undesirable, is it surprising that they change their views as well?

Zahra29:
Not according to the Illegal Migration Act which the UK government passed into law in 2023. According to the law:

The Illegal Migration Act 2023 changes the law so that those who arrive in the UK illegally will not be able to stay here and will instead be detained and then promptly removed, either to their home country or a safe third country.

The act aims to:

put a stop to illegal migration into the UK by removing the incentive to make dangerous small boat crossings
.....


Just stating facts.

You might want to check with Labour HQ if they have any plans to rescind this law and endorse boat crossings as a legal and acceptable route of migration to the UK

Fun fact: Up until last year, Albanians made up a significant proportion of people crossing by boat - until the UK government made a deal with the Albanian govt to stop its citizens.
Albania is considered a safe country, not at war and is even a candidate country to join the European Union, so it is a bit naive to think that only genuine wartorn refugees and asylum seekers are crossing over from Europe to get to the UK. E.g. Some are fleeing deportation from Germany and France, similar to some UK migrants that are crossing to Ireland to apply for asylum there.

Your facts are out of date.

On the 23rd of July, the Home Secretary issued new regulations varying the enforcement of the Act. There's a complex situation around how the Act creates a duty but not an immediate enforcent requirement and the dates the restrictions take effect but the summary is that no, people are not automatically "illegal" because they arrived on a small boat.

When they're processed,if their claims are denied then they'll be subject to removal and become illegal if they try to evade that. Simple.

Even before, I doubt such a claim would be correct. Virtually every legal organization (Law Society, Bar Council etc) made it clear parts of the law contradicted the UK's international law obligations (which supercede national laws) and potentially violated the HRA as well. There's a reason no planes actually took off despite all the huffing and puffing by Sun-ella.

https://righttoremain.org.uk/illegal-migration-act-ban-on-processing-asylum-claims-lifted/ has an explainer.

You can read the actual regulation here - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2024/815/made

Interestingly, the contradictions in the law itself is why people were actually stuck in the hotels costing the government as much as they are

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/braverman-law-cost-migrants-removed-2898645

Braverman knew this. The fact that the law and the Rwanda plan was never going to fly literally or figuratively was obvious but she was more focused on becoming an anti-immigration champion. The 8 million per day is her and her ilk's fault, not the asylum seekers'.

ReesheesuKnack:
Sorry. There are no illegal immigrants. When Sir Keir Starmer talks about Smashing the gangs, he actually meant the gangs of Border force personnel who stamp the entry visas for folks coming off the boats.

Exactly the kind of empty response I expected so don't worry, you don't have to be sorry - I'll clarify for you.

Smashing the human trafficking gangs exploiting asylum seekers is a different thing from processing asylum claims, unless you're saying the government means the asylum seekers are the gangs.

kwakudtraveller:
There’s no justification for what is happening; boats or no boats. Black Brits are also being attacked, so there’s no need to try to make sense of the situation. I’m a tax-paying immigrant with no access to public funds, but word on the street is that we are enjoying free housing and cars, yet part of the taxes I pay goes into benefits payments for the same people who’ll see me on the street and attack me because I’m black.

Exactly. That whole write-up is just weird.

On one hand, 'what's going on is so bad' but on the other hand 'actually you know brits are not being trained to be nurses and there's a 2- child benefit cap and people are being taxed'.

How are those things featuring in a conversation about the deadly attacks on people who aren't white without any regard to their immigration status? The other day everyone agreed that the riots in Leeds were not justifiable under any guise but today we're being treated to a buffet of 'underlying causes'.

Re underlying causes for privation in the country - about £4 billion was wasted on unusable PPE at the height of the pandemic. That's more than these asylum accomodations cost in a whole year and the jara would probably suffice to subsidise gas for the elderly to a large extent - why aren't the rioters at the gates of Baronness Mone and her ilk who profiteered from that?

The vast majority of the funds spent on those hotels go to shady middle-men who are profiting off the state (likely due to 'fast track' (aka corruption but I guess in the UK it's called lobbying) arrangements as with PPE - why aren't the protesters at their gates?)
The salesmen making millions from asylum hotels - The Times - https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/the-salesmen-making-millions-from-asylum-hotels-k776jfd66

The videos, photos, social media posts etc are crystal clear - common denominator so far of all the violence is that it's targeted at foreigners and muslims. That makes it crystal clear that the drivers of the violence are racism and bigotry.

This sort of mealy-mouthed ''but, but, but immigrants' talk is what got the country here in the first place - people with vested interests (usually to deflect from their own failures) finding tenuous ways to tie every societal ill to immigrants such that the animals attacking people in the streets buy into it wholesale and lay all their woes at the feet of everyone who doesn't look like them. Some believe asylum seekers are given iphones when they step off the boats, and cars not long after someone really said this on LBC radio.

The fact is that there are a lot of reasons why Britain is facing the issues it's facing and there's responsibility in many quarters but these riots are solely the responsibility of those on the streets looting and burning and attacking innocents. It's certainly not the fault of students and workers and other classes of immigrants who paid the prescribed fees to study or get to work and are continuing to pay all the prescribed fees associated with their route of choice, and it's definitely not the fault of asylum seekers, although I want to wait and hear ReesheesuKnack's explanation of how these people are illegal first and then we'll check and confirm whether being attacked in their accomodations is the prescribed sentence for their 'crimes'.

ReesheesuKnack:
Very interesting debate going on here. So refreshing to read the views.

I still think the UK needs to be tough, very very tough on the issue of illegal migration and the issues of small boats crossings. The PM promised to ‘smash the gangs’ I hope he will smash the gangs much sooner rather than latter.

As a (legal) migrant myself, I find it outrageous and to be honest, appalling that any country in the world should follow the UK model.

a. You allow illegal migrants to get to your shores in small boats (the argument that some are genuine asylum seekers is for another day).

Who; specifically, are these illegal migrants and under what law are they illegal?

Zahra29:
The usual suspects are all acting and speaking as expected depending on which side they support.

With the 2011 and BLM protests/riots (and going back further to the Brixton riots and the like), left and "far left" supporters excused the protests and violence, instead pointing the focus on the endemic societal and institutional issues and injustice that led to the outpouring of anger. Meanwhile right and "far right" actors and media were hopping mad, especially as the protesters/rioters/looters were mostly black or of ethnic origin.

Flip over to the 2024 riots and the right and "far right" are sympathetic to the underlying grievances of the protesters/rioters/looters while others are aghast.

Same script, different actors.

Oh for sure - that's correct but it's whataboutism and not relevant to my point in this specific context.

I'm not saying Farage and co are right or wrong for not speaking about it. Na dem get their mouth, and I know they'll act according to their goal of reversing immigration. I have no qualms with them excercising their right to pursue that democratically.

The fact is that their actions and utterances are posing a direct threat to me and people like me solely on the basis of how we look, and I'm pointing that out to people here because some had previously sympathized with them on the basis of alignment with some other goals of theirs.
To paraphrase missjekyll, I'm reminding the turkeys what Thanksgiving looks like.

That's why I phrased it as food for thought. For one, the distinction that people like to draw between legal and 'illegal' (not really, per the letter of the law) immigrants is clearly nonexistent in the eyes of the far right (I define this by willingness to utilise or encourage violence). Random people have been attacked and have had their businesses looted and property destroyed without any attempt to verify their immigration status.

The person who murdered those children is not even muslim, yet, the thugs on the streets have been targeting mosques.

Whether it's due to underlying grievances or not is an academic question from my perspective as someone worrying about my wife heading to work and back tomorrow, solely because I know that as a visibly African woman, she could be the target of violence without any attempt by the thugs to verify her immigration status (legal), role (highly qualified skilled worker), religion (Christian), contributions to the country (very high), 'benefits' taken (zero) and all the other things that they're saying are the cause of their rioting.

Hope you understand now.

And so the random attacks, burning and looting continues, and nary a word of condemnation from the usual suspects who typically have much to say about public disorder. Instead, it's subtle justification and encouragement.

Again, should be food for thought for everyone.

Making me personally revisit many of my stances on issues.

Viruses:
Even if they are former men, it's not a fair match.

You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about.

You’re just parroting moral panic headlines and probably Instagram videos as well.

Do a little research and stop spreading fake news against someone unfairly.

Ticha:
We did as explained in my response above. We eliminated it because we decided earning more was no longer our focus - hence why we seriously considered Canada instead.

It's a pretty privileged position to be in and I am glad we were in a position to be able to take the decision.

My advice is go! NZ/Aus was or gathering phase and boy did we work our arses off! We both essentially had 2 full time jobs for 7 years!

Thanks as always, Madam Ticha.

Ticha:
We went to NZ on a whim so there were no objectives to achieve per se. A transfer opportunity came up and we jumped at it. It also gave us an opportunity to live in Australia as well. I think if we had to fund our whole move them, we wouldn't have done it. Covid lock downs meant we were there long enough to qualify for citizenship so got it as well as set ourselves up financially well for the rest of our lives hopefully. We also thoroughly visited and explored many countries in the Pacific - as you know waka aboutery is my favourite past time!

To be fair, I'm totally disenchanted with NZ and have been for about 3 years. It may well be a me issue 😅😅 although quite a few of our friends that are doing well there are also planning a move out.

In terms of financial growth, we exceeded our expectations and plans hence being able to choose our next location based on largely emotions and family ties. It comes to a time in life where earning more takes a back seat and I think we're there now.

We had a choice of US, Canada and UK/Ireland. We very very strongly considered Canada (Vanc and Toronto) and spent 2 months there in 2022, viewing houses and talking to employers and extended family but it did not make any financial sense at all and would set us back several years. At worst, we want to remain where we are financially.

Next bigger consideration was Dublin. Dublin would have been a fully funded move but in the end, being able to see family on a whim won out!

So we're back home and have promised our eldest - he particularly asked - that he won't have to change schools again and will finish in one school (he's going into his 4th school in 3 countries so I don't blame him!).

So we're here for the next 8 years till the younger ones finish secondary school and we get to spend lots and lots of time with our aging parents (all in their 70s)

After that, who knows?!

In the meantime, we've bought a project of a house and that should keep us busy as well as exploring Europe.

How about the US? Sounds like you eliminated it from consideration early on.

Any particular reasons why other than wanting to be closer to family?

It's very high-paying in my field and we're considering it in the medium-term, so trying to gather perspectives.

Thanks.

Rate cut 0.25% after a 5-4 vote. I was expecting the BoE to hold the line like the US Fed did yesterday but it seems the BoE is more confident.

There have already been some lender rate reductions yesterday/today - hopefully there'll be more (and more substantial ones) in the coming days.

Another reel of Trump and Republican flunkies attacking Kamala Harris based on...you guessed right...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujGBdGO1Hys

This is a woman who has been a VP, a Senator, an Attorney General of the most populous state, and a prosecutor before that, being labeled unqualified by followers of a serial conman, bankrupt, and convicted criminal.

If your instinct is to rationalize that it isn't about race, first I'd ask you if this doesn't give you deja vu of when Obama was running. What's the connection? Second - just imagine it was a black businessman who has Trump's record, from personal life to business fraud and Jan 6 among all the other issues - wouldn't he already have been dismissed as a liar, thug, cheat, etc. etc. all the stereotypes? Would he still be getting platformed the way Trump is?

Fraih:
Hello fam. Pls what do you think of opting out of pension plans in the workplace here?

Terrible, terrible idea. Don't fall into the short-termist trap - it's basically robbing your future self.
I've seen people promoting this on IG. It's either they don't fully understand it or they do but don't care because they'll get lots of likes and shares from people attracted to the idea of getting a small pay bump.

These should help explain why:

https://blog.moneysavingexpert.com/2021/04/martin-lewis--an-important-warning-to-every-employee-in-the-uk/

https://www.unbiased.co.uk/discover/pensions-retirement/managing-a-pension/can-i-opt-out-of-my-workplace-pension

missjekyll:
I think it further showcases the difference between US and UK politics.
When a UK politician said this in 2016 she suffered swift consequences.

In 2024 US, this is apparently a wildly held view by conservatives

What are you referring to here? Nothing's linked

Don the con has been looking awfully harrassed (or harrised?) these past few days.

Just read he's running away from a debate after declaring 'any time, any place' just the other day.

Solumtoya:
And for number 2, it depends on the deposit, interest rate and the tenure! For the tenure (or tenor), it depends mostly on your age. You can assume a retirement age of about 70 years or less. This means that if you're 40, your max tenure is 30 years.

The easiest way to get exact figures is to use a free Mortgage calculator like https://www.mortgagecalculator.uk/

As seen below, a 300k property for 30 year mortgage at 5.29% is about £1500. £300 goes to repayment of the house and the rest is interest

Thanks, @Solumtoya. Can’t believe I forgot about tenure in own response. Sorry @kwakuthetraveller - the figures I gave were for 25 years.

Here's what JD Vance, Trump's new veep pick, had to say about Trump over the past several years, all while being an active Republican - calling him reprehensible and comparing him to Hitler, and there's a lot more: https://edition.cnn.com/2024/07/15/politics/kfile-jd-vance-comments-trump/index.html

Very interesting.