The “we were never asked” thread about immigration. Let’s start in 1992. The Tory manifesto acknowledged increased refugee flows and pledging to limit them. But they did not deliver: net immigration 93-97 was 255k, double the rate of the previous decade.

I wrote for the @TheCriticMag about why I don't think that the French political violence will spread to British streets as it has in Belgium, Italy, and Spain - Britain has its own problems, but most are disconnected from Continental European dynamics thecritic.co.uk/will-french-…

You must understand that the last Tory government did not wreck the country in a fit of forgetful negligence - they chose to govern as they did consciously and deliberately. They believed in what they said at the time, and they believe in it still. They will never change.

We’ve finished Yookay Aesthetics, nothing will ever top this

"visa auctions"

Jacob Rees-Mogg says that the Boriswave of 1 million is a 'drop in the ocean' compared to EU migration. He ignores that the Boriswave was net 2.5 million from 2021 to 2024, not 1 million. This consists of a net gain of 3 million non-EU nationals, net loss of 371,000 British nationals and a net loss of 110,000 EU nationals. He also says that the borders were opened up because they thought 'British people didn't want to work anymore' after Covid and that the UK needed a 'large number of immigrants to keep the economy going' and that this turned out to be 'wrong' as we now have 9 million economically inactive adults. I wonder if the two might go hand and hand. Anyway, at least they've stopped arguing the Boriswave was mainly Ukrainians and Hong Kongers.

That implies the differential is closer to 45-50x the equivalent British population for Afghan men. For contrast, long-term heavy smoking raises your risk of lung cancer by 35-45x, and we regard that as a crisis requiring draconian laws to reduce/ban smoking to protect kids.

Reminder that this still contains a massive statistical problem by grouping known-offender with stranger-assault. Only 8% of offences are 'in public', and only 15% (against women) by a stranger, but these will form the vast majority among Afghan, MENA, and SSA offences, meaning the true relative multiple is many times higher than these stats suggest. Put another way, the British population stats capture a huge number of offences by people known to the victim - which is unlikely for the above groups where reporting by victims within family circles is even more discouraged by cultural norms and language barriers, and many will be single males without 'known' female circles. So the apples to apples comparison would suggest rates are something on the order of 6.5x worse than appears on these charts, even factoring the adjustment for age and gender.

Stephen Webb asks why the Treasury clings to such unrealistic fiscal assumptions on migration. He settles on incuriosity, short-termism, and a failure of what John Erskine called "the moral obligation to be intelligent". sfhwebb.substack.com/p/a-per…

This is why Labour are in court trying to fight to hide the data from the public. If this data set is released every argument for Immigration and against Remigration disappears overnight.

1/ The man most likely to be involved a fatal car collision isn’t a drunk driver. He’s sober.

This figure from the Economist looks bad, but reality is in fact even worse. Sexual offences is a broad category. And as a rule, the more severe the crime, the higher the over-representation of perpetrators from the Middle East and Africa. We can see this in the data from Denmark, which has the best quality crime data in the world. Here we can break down both by ancestry and by severity of offence. The figure shows that in Denmark people from Middle East and Africa are vastly more over-represented for rape than for sexual offences. The same is likely the case for England as well, so if they had the data available to draw the red rape circle, it would be much further to the right.

Joking about the IEA: crackpot An annual family trip to Tesco to get hobnobs in case the sensibles turn off civilization for good: not crackpot

This is a very long way of writing “we already have rapists so it’s fine to keep importing rapey foreigners” People, like @Th_Angelopoulos who make these arguments are functionally rape-maximisers. They seek to distract from the fact that we shouldn’t be importing thousands of dangerous men and leaving them loose to rape.