Actor: ‘We Did Look Into’ Housing Syrian Refugees, Decided Against It

‘You’ve got a home, why don’t you house refugees?’

Back in October 2015, according to Breitbart News, after a London performance of Shakespeare’s Hamlet, Hollywood star Benedict Cumberbatch used his curtain call to lecture the British government for accepting only 20,000 Syrian refugees. “F-ck the politicians” he declared, asking the audience to contribute money to the cause. “We’ve got to do something about it."

Now, in a recent interview with The Big Issue, Cumberbatch hilariously revealed what he personally did about it, apart from hectoring the audience and the government: he "looked into" housing Syrian refugees, and then came to the conclusion that it would be too awkward and inconvenient and unsafe:
[P]eople were saying, ‘You’ve got a home, why don’t you house refugees?’ And we did look into it. But we had, then, a very new baby – maybe four or five months old.
Maybe people had a point. I understand why some might think I should be housing people instead of complaining about a government not doing it. But I was trying to raise awareness that we can do more as a society. Because I do feel we are able to do more than just recovering bodies.
As Breitbart's brilliant John Nolte concluded:
What we have here is a typical case of limousine leftism.
Cumberbatch is allowed to come off as a do-gooder, even though the good he is demanding done will never affect him in any personal way whatsoever.
No refugee will ever take away his job. No poorly-vetted refugee from a collapsed state like Syria will ever cause problems in his neighborhood, bother his wife, or sneak past his security.
No, his do-gooderism will only hurt the lives of those other people, the great unwashed, those who do not have a worldwide platform from which to plead their case.
Like many, many other wealthy Hollywood activists, Cumberbatch felt that his role in saving the world should be limited to "raising awareness." Anything more hands-on than that is just too icky.