Why did she see fit to mention that the person arrested was a "white man"? Why was no similar statement about the racial origins of attack perpetrators made after the recent jihad atrocities? Why, indeed, is so much fuss being made about a relatively trivial incident involving only one fatality? The British elite have acted out a kind of macabre parody of their response to the usual Muslim terror attacks. It is both amusing and sickening to behold.
A rational person would conclude that Muslim immigration is yielding more costs than benefits, if indeed it is yielding any benefits at all. Some of those costs come in the form of attacks carried out by Muslims; some, not many, come in the form of retaliatory attacks carried out against Muslims. This is ethno-religious warfare. It is caused by immigration. And immigration is the result of government policy. A rational person would recognise that this policy needs to change. But there are no rational people left among our ruling class.
Instead, we will see further erosion of British liberty, freedom of speech being curtailed further. When a European society is repopulated by non-Europeans, one way or the other, it becomes continually more violent and less free. It is progressively transformed into a third-world country, a process that we might call decivilisation.
But when Muslims, sorry "communities", carry out an attack, the rulers are keen to draw a distinction between the peaceful and violent expressions of their ideology. In fact, the "peaceful" Muslims are given plenty of airtime to expound their point of view. Will the same distinction now be made between peaceful ethno-nationalists or Islam critics and violent ones? Will the peaceful campaigners now be given airtime to expound their point of view?
Of course not. Instead, the mere expression of their point of view will be rendered a criminal offence, to the extent that it isn't already.