> on the basis of the perpetrator being Muslim, illegal, and an immigrant.
Let's not kid ourselves - it was on the basis of the perpetrator being non-white/non-ethnically-British. There's no shortage of the protesters being accused of racism, but now we're supposed to pretend it was about religion or following the law? That's called trying to have your cake and eat it to.
You reckon the riots would still happen if the story was that the perpetrator was - let's say - an aboriginal Australian or a pygmy from New Guinea? Highly doubtful. The narrative had to align with what the far right have been spinning up for the last decade or so.
Let's not kid ourselves - it was on the basis of the perpetrator being non-white/non-ethnically-British. There's no shortage of the protesters being accused of racism, but now we're supposed to pretend it was about religion or following the law? That's called trying to have your cake and eat it to.