And in thriving multiculturalism news:

Exactly zero men who would loiter near schools to harass or sexually assault young girls will be deterred by a power point presentation. If that’s not innately unthinkable to you, no amount of talk will make it so and you simply have no place in civilization. https://t.co/5Beehg9EGK

— Hunter Ash (@ArtemisConsort) June 27, 2025

From the Telegraph piece in question:

Ah, capital letters. That should do it.

The unhappy statistics quoted in the article – say, that illegal migrants from Afghanistan are 22 times more likely to commit sex offences – will melt away in no time. And the fact that remarkably similar patterns are found in other European countries suddenly drenched in vibrancy is something that will doubtless just sort itself out.

The uninvited newcomers – chiefly, it seems, men of fighting age and all mysteriously unencumbered by identifying documents – are given helpful pointers on the customary use of pavements and pedestrian crossings, and are warned about the hazards of randomly strolling through moving traffic on busy roads. They are also introduced to the novel concepts of avoiding foul language in public and not abusing animals for amusement purposes.

Other teething problems have, it seems, arisen:

Not loitering at the gates of primary schools in order to film small children being another cultural subtlety requiring clarification.

As I’m sure you’d agree, it’s all going terribly well.

Readers will, of course, recall Finland’s answer to such sudden-onset vibrancy – namely, the please-don’t-rape-me dance, performed below.

Finnish socialist women dance to ask fake asylum seekers not to sexuaIIy abuse European women. Socialist women are a problem. pic.twitter.com/PtIwNRpwx9

— RadioGenoa (@RadioGenoa) April 27, 2025

As a yardstick of civilisational self-destruction, and dark farce, it’s quite a thing. As is the pernicious conceit, so fashionable among Our Betters, that if only we were kinder and more thoughtful, if only we fretted more and were somehow more accommodating, and if only we’d stop noticing, these things would just go away.

As illustrated during last year’s tribal rioting:

And from the same, what one might regard as a telling detail:

The unrealism of such people and their peers, Our Betters, has created a problem on a vast scale and which is dire in its implications – a problem that they are apparently unwilling to fix or even clearly identify. And so, they retreat further into unrealism and absurdity – with PowerPoint presentations on not abusing animals and please-don’t-rape-me dances – while expecting others – those on whom they’ve inflicted the problem – to become unrealistic and absurd too.

It’s the progressive way. In this and so much else.

Update, via the comments:

One of the consequences of massive, indiscriminate immigration – equivalent to the entire population of Sheffield, every year – is that it radically alters the general mood of those on whom this demographic transformation is being imposed. One might, for instance, aspire to the role of gracious host, as it were, of making newcomers feel welcome. But this ideal presupposes an immigration policy that is limited and selective, and in which newcomers have good reason to feel lucky – and grateful.

The graciousness of the locals, the ideal, depends on the notion that the host country is regarded as something special, a desirable thing, something worthy of respect.

But massive, indiscriminate immigration undermines that ideal. If seemingly anyone can walk in and demand goodies, any ill-mannered flotsam of the world, and if they can do so with no discernible sense of gratitude, or any expectation of such, and with no apparent regard for the norms and values of the host society, as if they were unimportant, then the indigenous population may feel they have little reason to be gracious. Indeed, being gracious may be something of a struggle.

I realise that even the idea that the locals might dare to think in such terms – of being the gracious host – is, for some, anathema, a basis for tutting and scolding. But the sense that the value of one’s society – one’s home – is being pissed away, sold off cheap, is not a promising basis for coexistence.

And yet here we are.

Doubtless there are progressives who would regard the ‘gracious host’ attitude as wickedly hierarchical and ‘othering’, or even racist. But I suspect it’s how quite a few people process a sudden influx of newcomers, regardless of the gasping of lefties. I suspect that something along those lines is a necessary precondition of any subsequent coexistence. A social lubricant.

And were I to relocate to, say, South Korea, I think I would feel much like a guest – and feel a corresponding obligation to be on my best behaviour. Possibly on an indefinite basis. I very much doubt I’d feel entitled to disregard queueing norms, or to, quite literally, shit on the doorsteps of the indigenous.

But hey, maybe that’s just me.

From the world of cinema and pretentious agonising:

The world is big and different people will be interested in different things, but this seems like a really stupid thing to think about for more than two seconds https://t.co/qWAKhVNMKG

— wanye (@wanyeburkett) June 20, 2025

The implications of Mr Boyle’s modish piety, presumably unintended yet implied nonetheless, are explored quite pithily in the replies.

Among which, the implication that white writers and directors should only concern themselves with suitably pale-skinned characters, carefully excluding non-white characters, and non-white actors, lest they appropriate or colonise something or other.

Likewise, the implication that a white person couldn’t possibly comprehend the inner life of a brown person – these magical, put-upon beings – which itself rather implies that white audiences needn’t turn up to films in which non-white people appear prominently. Due to their alleged incomprehensibility.

Strange basis for a global film industry, if you ask me. But there we are.

Update, via the comments:

Previously in the world of pretentious agonising:

Do follow the link for the inevitable twist and colossal hypocrisy.

And from the comments following which, this:

But no, we must all become twitchy and neurotic. That’s bound to go well.

Further to this, which some of you are still processing – understandably, I suppose – I do have more. Complete with wearied question:

Who actually enjoys this? Serious question, who enjoys watching this stuff? It’s not even a morality question or whatever. It’s who the hell finds this entertaining? https://t.co/f3sA7wytqx

— Gary (@plzbepatient) June 18, 2025

In the subsequent thread, the term humiliation ritual is deployed.

Not unfairly, I think.

Other questions include “Is this real?”

Update, via the comments:

In reply to the question immediately above, EmC notes this,

And asks,

It does, I think, raise the question of whether further resolutions, and further transvestite vamping, will be required for drag queens of other racial and ethnic groups. Lest some drag queens feel insufficiently included and affirmed.

Hm. I suspect today may be a day of many questions.

From the Telegraph, on crime, incarceration, and dubious conclusions:

Readers will note the odd implication that the level of serious criminal behaviour at any given time should somehow conform to the amount of prison space you have at that time. As if the moral gravity of a criminal act, and likelihood of recidivism and danger to the public, should be determined by whether or not you can be bothered to build another dungeon.

Speaking of recidivism, it’s perhaps worth revisiting this:

Other, related statistics, linked above, may widen the eyes.

Update via the comments:

Regarding burglary and its devotees, this came to mind:

Needless to say, there’s more to chew on in the linked piece. Likewise here, where friends and relatives of the three burglars – the ones with over 200 convictions between them – claim, somewhat improbably, that the deceased were “too good for this stupid, shitty world.” As if the trio – whose other activities included assaulting and mugging elderly couples and bedridden cancer patients – were, unlike their numerous victims, somehow deserving of public sympathy.

And which, I suspect, tells us something about the quality of those friends and relatives, their moral orientation.

In the comments, Geoff quotes this from the recidivism link, above:

Then adds,

Well, indeed.

Via Tim Worstall.

Previously in the world of crime and punishment, a trilogy of sorts – parts one, two, and three.

A thread of possible interest:

This is followed by a non-trivial observation:

On this latter point, should an example prove helpful, readers may wish to revisit the unconvincing contrivance of Guardian columnist Zoe Williams – specifically, her scolding of those who’d prefer not to have sociopathic neighbours – say, the kinds of creatures who blast out loud music in the small hours, and who, for entertainment, hurl pets from upstairs windows.

An aversion Ms Williams denounced as a “demonisation of the poor,” a project of “extinction,” in which those who’d rather not have their ornaments rattled by another all-night next-door rave, are “trying to shunt people out of society for not being rich enough.”

According to Zoe, those who’d prefer not to be assailed by thunderous basslines at 4am, or to have their evenings enlivened by small, terrified animals falling from the sky, are merely being cruel, “dehumanising,” and needlessly judgemental. For Zoe, the problem with ‘problem families’ is simply that they’re poor, and nothing whatsoever to do with how they choose to abuse their equally poor neighbours.

In the world of our Guardian columnist, we – by which she means you – should be “unstigmatising,” which is to say, non-judgemental. Passive and accepting, on an indefinite basis. A process via which empathy, or feigned empathy, is shifted from the working-class victim of crime and antisocial behaviour to the working-class perpetrator of crime and antisocial behaviour, on grounds that the thug or criminal is in some way being oppressed and, unlike their neighbours, being made to misbehave.

Needless to say, this prompted some lengthy speculation as to how Ms Williams might react, should she wake one morning to find a family of violent morons moving in next door to her:

And,

As a real-world test of Zoe’s scrupulously progressive worldview, her professed concern for the common man, it would, I think, make for instructive viewing.

Update, via the comments:

Connor adds,

Well, the idea that Zoe, who lives far removed from rough council estates, would herself behave in the same way she demands that others do is quite laughable. It’s so transparently unconvincing, so absurd, that you have to wonder how these obvious dishonesties can go unchallenged in her world. Unless, of course, everyone in her world is pretending much the same things.

As I said here, with suitably vivid examples:

It seems to me this is the level it typically works on. So, again, pretending.

And let’s not forget Peter Matthews, an Urban Studies lecturer ostensibly offended by “urban inequalities,” and who wants to ensure that more of us live next door to “the poor and marginalised.” Writing in the Guardian, Dr Matthews agonised over litter inequality and the fact that rougher neighbourhoods tend to be strewn with wrappers, cans, and food-smeared detritus. And so, we had lots of fretting about inequalities in litter density, while the question of how the litter gets there remained, rather oddly, of zero interest. With the words drop and littering pointedly not appearing.

Presumably for fear that these practical details might have inegalitarian implications.