Artists for Grenfell, charity song


This 21 June 2017 music video from Britain is called Artists for Grenfell – Bridge Over Troubled Water (Official Video).

From the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia, 22 June 2017:

Pop stars including Robbie Williams, Rita Ora and members of One Direction have teamed up for a charity single to raise funds for victims of London’s Grenfell Tower fire.

The single, a cover of Simon and Garfunkel‘s 1970 song Bridge Over Troubled Water, was organised by music and TV producer Simon Cowell, and released on streaming services including iTunes and Spotify overnight.

It topped iTunes charts in the UK just hours after its release and has already reached the top 20 in Australia.

All proceeds from the song will go to the London Community Foundation, to assist those affected by last week’s disaster, which saw a fire sweep through the 24-storey apartment block in London.

79 people have so far been confirmed dead in the tragedy, with hundreds still unaccounted for amid protests at Theresa May’s government’s response to the disaster.

The track, which begins with an emotional verse from grime rapper Stormzy, also features stars including Jessie J, James Blunt, Craig David, Geri Halliwell and Roger Daltry, each taking turns singing lines from the song.

It’s backed by Queen’s Brian May, Chic’s Nile Rodgers and The Who’s Pete Townshend who provide musical accompaniment, as well as a choir of locals from the tower’s North Kensington community, including survivors of the blaze. …

The song has been praised online, particularly Stormzy’s rap, which listeners described as “moving”.

The rapper begins the song telling victims “I refuse to forget you, I refuse to be silenced, I refuse to neglect you”, before reflecting personally on the tragedy.

“That could be my mum’s house, that could be my nephew, that could have been me up there, waving my white plain tee up there… I just hope that you rest and you’re free up there,” he says.

Racist Daily Mail blames London Grenfell Tower disaster victims


This 20 June 2017 video from London, England says about itself:

Grenfell Tower survivor Mahad Egal with an import message of community unity in the wake of the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

By Margot Miller and Robert Stevens in England:

UK’s Daily Mail tries to scapegoat resident for Grenfell Tower inferno

21 June 2017

Amid protests and growing demands for justice to be meted out to the political and corporate figures responsible for the dozens of deaths in the Grenfell Tower fire, the Daily Mail attempted to scapegoat a resident.

Stooping to new lows, on June 16, just two days after the fire, the Mail named the occupant of the flat where the horrific inferno that gutted the tower on the Lancaster West estate London allegedly began.

As well as naming Behailu Kebede, a father of one, originally from Ethiopia and employed as a taxi driver, the newspaper published five photos. One of the captions on a photo of Kebede stated that his ‘faulty fridge started the Grenfell Tower inferno. …”

The Mail tracked down Kebede, who they reported was in “emergency accommodation close to the scene of the disaster.”

An indication of the impact of the Mail reporters’ intrusive behaviour is given by the quotes from Kabedi: “‘I am very upset’. Asked whether the fire started in his flat, he replied: ‘I’m busy, I’m busy. Goodbye’.”

According to all reports, after the fire began, Kebede immediately raised the alarm and tried to alert as many people as possible. One of Kebede’s neighbours is even reported by the Mail, in the same article in which it disclosed his identity, as stating, “‘He knocked on the door, and he said there was a fire in his flat. It was exactly 12.50 am because I was sleeping and it woke me up. ‘The fire was small in the kitchen. I could see it because the flat door was open. There was no alarm’.”

Kebede cannot be blamed in any way for the fact that Grenfell was turned into a towering inferno within minutes in the early hours of June 14. Citing BBC Panorama, on Monday, the Mail, as part of an effort to distance itself from its earlier report, wrote, “Firefighters who successfully tackled the fridge fire that started the Grenfell Tower thought their job was done and began to leave—only realising how quickly it had spread when they stepped outside. Units were called to what they believed to be a standard fridge fire at the doomed high-rise, and within minutes told residents the fire was out in the flat.

“The crew was leaving the building when firefighters outside spotted flames rising up the side of the building. …”

The only reason for the Mail to disclose Kebede’s identity was to deflect the growing anger of the population in London and nationally, who are demanding the real culprits be held responsible, towards a single individual.

Kebede’s ethnic background is a not-insignificant aspect of his treatment by the Mail, given that we are dealing with a hate sheet that regularly churns out a torrent of anti-immigrant bile.

No one should accept the claim that the fire was even caused by a faulty fridge. The Mail report makes no mention of the warning made by the Grenfell Action Group, who posted in a blog last November: “The Grenfell Action Group believe that the KCTMO [Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation—who ran the block on behalf of the local council], narrowly averted a major fire disaster at Grenfell Tower in 2013 when residents experienced a period of terrifying power surges that were subsequently found to have been caused by faulty wiring.”

Such was the opposition to its article scapegoating Kabede that the Mail was forced to issue through gritted teeth a statement just hours after it was published, stating: “For the record MailOnline believes that, while much is still unclear, the blame for this tragedy lies squarely with those responsible for managing and renovating the tower and the authorities in charge of the policies and safety regulations within which they were operating.”

The Mail’s report met with such a groundswell of public hostility that its comments section solicited the following responses, from among 544 who overwhelmingly opposed the newspaper:

  •  “This is not his fault. In these tower blocks a fire is meant to be containable not spread in 15 minutes. He went to his neighbours and started banging on [t]heir doors to make them aware of what was happening.”
  •  “Not his fault. Faulty manufacturer of fridge and faulty construction of tower. That fire should never have spread the way it did. Most flat fires rarely spread beyond a floor or two. The only ones to blame are the ones who decided to save a couple pennies by slapping that cheap covering on the building.”
  •  “I feel so sorry for this man. He, like everyone else in that tower block didn’t know they were living in a death trap. The blame lies elsewhere.”
  •  “He didn’t cause the deaths. … Remember there were no sprinkler system, inadequate fire escapes, poor building compl[i]ance & bad advice for the situation. Stop holding him up as the villain in this story.”
  •  “It was the building that was faulty because fires don’t spread that fast unless there is something very flammable there.”

These comments reflect a growing oppositional mood within the population to the ruling elite.

The Mail article prompted about 1,300 complaints to the press watchdog, the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso). The Guardian reported that the complaints in their majority related “to privacy and harassment clauses in the editors’ code. A number of complaints focus on intrusion into grief and shock.” It added, “The article ranks among the top five most complained-about to Ipso.”

The response to the Mail is public recognition that Kebede, like all residents of Grenfell Tower, is a victim of successive government policies that have aided and abetted corporate mass murder.

Far more important than where the fire actually began is why it was able to rapidly spread and sweep up the outside of the building in minutes, engulfing other flats and creating such a conflagration. This is because last year the building was covered in a combustible cladding that served to channel the fire upwards in a chimney effect. It is already established that the flammable cladding material was chosen by those companies overseeing the “refurbishment” of the tower because it was £2-per-square-metre cheaper than a fire-resistant alternative. The savings made amounted to just £5,000.

Grenfell Tower lacked any essential fire safety standards and was a death trap. There was no central fire alarm system, no sprinkler system and only one stairwell for escape.

In addition, some witnesses who escaped and local residents reported seeing blue flames as the tower set alight, which is consistent with the escape of gas. Recent work on the flats involved the gas supply. A number of residents and the Grenfell Action Group previously reported their concern to the KCTMO and Fire Brigade about exposed gas pipes.

The Financial Times reported that only in March, just three months before the fire broke out, the “Grenfell Tower’s leaseholders association wrote to the London Fire Brigade complaining about the still-exposed gas pipe and its location in the stairwell. … The pipe, the letter says ‘has put our life in danger and we don’t feel secure in the building any more’.”

This 20 June 2017 video from London, England says about itself:

A Grenfell Tower support worker speaks out about the problems Grenfell Tower survivors and other local residents evacuated from their homes have in accessing emergency support.

By Conrad Landin in Britain:

More tragedy fears as Tories lower fire standards in schools

Wednesday 21st June 2017

FIREFIGHTERS and teachers joined forces yesterday to warn that new building regulations “significantly increase the fire risk in schools.”

Last summer the government announced that it would not, as expected, require new schools to fit sprinkler systems. The decision was met with protests from the National Union of Teachers and the Fire Brigades Union.

The government’s Building Bulletin guidelines also increased the permitted size of compartmented areas in all schools, which are designed to stop fires from spreading.

The bulletin no longer requires each floor to be compartmented in unsprinklered schools and does not include sections from the original 2007 Bulletin discouraging the use of combustible materials for cladding buildings.

Following last week’s horrific fire at Grenfell Tower in west London, which did not have sprinklers fitted, three union leaders have raised concerns over the government’s refusal to recognise the risks of its new policy.

Association of Teachers and Lecturers general secretary Mary Bousted said: “It is shocking that the government continues to ignore the recommendations on fire safety in schools. The government, now more than ever, needs to make assurances that they will prioritise the health and safety of pupils and staff in school buildings and implement the changes required to keep them safe.”

It is thought that the cladding of Grenfell Tower allowed the fire to spread to engulf the entire building.

FBU general secretary Matt Wrack said: “It is staggering we still have to have this debate with the government in the current circumstances.

It highlights the endless problems we have faced when raising fire safety issues over several years.”

The unions spoke out as Labour demanded answers from the government after leaked letters appeared to show that ministers had been repeatedly warned that fire regulations were not keeping people safe at blocks such as Grenfell.

The 12 letters, sent by the all-party parliamentary fire safety and rescue group in the aftermath of a 2009 fatal fire at Lakanal House, south London, show that ministers were warned that people living in high rises were at risk and warned the government “could not afford to wait for another tragedy,” according to the BBC’s Panorama.

This 20 June 2017 video says about itself:

Fire Safety Test On Grenfell Tower Type Cladding

Australian government TV channel conducts fire safety test on cladding used in the Grenfell Tower as opposed to fire retardant cladding.

By Julie Hyland in Britain:

UK government deregulation led to Grenfell Tower inferno

21 June 2017

The Grenfell Tower inferno reveals the appalling human cost of the UK’s “light touch” regulation celebrated by successive Labour, Tory and Liberal Democrat governments.

For almost 40 years, the assault on health and safety regulations has gone hand in glove with Margaret Thatcher’s notorious dictum that there is “no such thing as society.”

One of Thatcher’s first acts was to prevent local authorities from building homes on the grounds that the “market” would provide. This cleared the way for the huge growth in land and housing prices—and rampant speculation—that has turned London into the world’s fifth most expensive city.

Accompanying this has been the dismantling of housing and planning regulations to reduce the cost “burden” to business.

In 1986, the Thatcher government scrapped the London Building Acts. This originated out of the Great Fire of London in 1666, which destroyed 80 percent of the city. Fully 70,000 of London’s then 80,000 inhabitants lost their homes or premises. The exact loss of life is unknown.

According to the Telegraph, the Acts stipulated that “external walls must have at least one hour of fire resistance to prevent flames from spreading between flats or entering inside.” But “those rules were replaced by the National Buildings Regulations and the crucial time stipulation was scrapped.”

Grenfell Tower was completed in 1974 so its design was unaffected by this change. Significantly, however, the new regulations specified that external building materials would now only have to meet “Class O” regulations, and most crucially did not have to be non-combustible.

During a supposed refurbishment of the block in 2016, external cladding was added to improve the building’s appearance when viewed from nearby luxury housing. A fire-resistant cladding option was rejected on the grounds of cost—a measly £5,000 difference. Moreover, it is reported that this combustible material was laid over the top of gas pipes.

Claims of ignorance as to the dangers posed do not wash. As far back as 1999, under Tony Blair’s Labour government, parliament was informed of the potential risks of fire spreading via external cladding systems.

After the deaths of six people in the Lakanal House tower block fire in Camberwell, south London in 2009, the coroner, Judge Frances Kirkham, wrote to then-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Eric Pickles with recommendations including the installation of sprinkler systems. An estimated 4,000 tower blocks nationally were said to be at risk, with non-fire-resistant external panelling cited as a factor in the spread of fire.

Despite repeated assurances by former housing minister Gavin Barwell, now Theresa May’s chief of staff, nothing was done. In 2014 then-Housing Minister Brandon Lewis rejected forcing construction companies to fit sprinkler systems, arguing, “The cost of fitting a fire sprinkler system may affect house building—something we want to encourage.”

Only last year, fire chiefs wrote to local councils following an investigation into a fire at the Shepherd Court tower block, also in West London, in August. This had uncovered that external cladding helped the fire to spread. In its report into the blaze, Insurers RSA stated that flammable material in insulation panels “melts and ignites relatively easily” and can cause “extremely rapid fire spread and the release of large volumes of toxic smoke… This allows extensive and violent fire to spread, and makes firefighting almost impossible.”

No action was taken.

This is not the result of “mistakes” and oversight. It is a deliberate policy. Consider the fact that only last year, the government junked the “expectation” that all new school buildings should be fitted with sprinklers. The expectation, which had been in force for only nine years, was not compulsory and was not retroactive, meaning that schools built before 2007 were exempt. Just 30 percent of new school buildings had actually obliged.

Sprinkler systems account for less than two percent of total construction costs. According to the Association of British Insurers, there had been 1,500 fires in schools and educational premises over that year. But even this was considered an unwelcome regulatory burden on corporations.

The dismantling of health and safety regulation was stepped up in the wake of the 2008 financial crash, which was used as an opportunity to further liberate big business from its regulatory shackles. The Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition of 2010 pledged a “one-in, one-out” rule, whereby no new regulation could be brought in unless another was junked.

Prime Minister David Cameron pledged, “I will kill off safety culture.” Declaring “war” on the “excessive health and safety culture that has become an albatross around the neck of British businesses,” he said, “We need to realise, collectively, that we cannot eliminate risk and that some accidents are inevitable.”

Liberal Democrat Business Secretary in the coalition, Vince Cable, introduced a Cabinet “Star Chamber” charged with bringing “an end to the excessive regulation that is stifling business growth.”

No less than two reviews were commissioned in two years to decide what regulations should be jettisoned, under Lord Young and Professor Löfstedt.

Cameron wrote to ministers in April 2011, “I want us to be the first government in modern history to leave office having reduced the overall burden of regulation, rather than increasing it.”

The 21,000 statutory rules and regulations in force were to be slashed in half. All existing regulations were published on-line, sector-by-sector, with the invitation to “the public and interested parties” to say which should be scrapped.

Whereas in the past the assumption had been regulations should remain unless there was a “good case for getting rid of them,” the government was changing “that presumption; we are changing the default setting,” Cameron wrote.

Ministerial teams were held “personally accountable for the number of regulations contained within and coming out of departments, and the burden they impose… they must go, once and for all.”

Cameron determined that “businesses will no longer have to report minor accidents; up to a million self-employed workers will be exempted from health and safety regulation completely; a new panel will give firms the right to challenge controversial inspection decisions; and from this month, the Health and Safety Executive begins the task of abolishing or consolidating up to half of existing regulations.”

Corporations were no longer held to account automatically in the event of an accident, and insurers were instructed not to try to enforce “insane levels of compliance” on them.

In 2012, the “one in, one out” rule on deregulation became “one in, two out”. By 2015, the government was celebrating that it had cut house-building regulations by 90 percent.

Following the Leave vote in last year’s Brexit referendum, the financial oligarchy was salivating over the prospect of a “bonfire” of European Union regulation. The Telegraph celebrated Brexit as a “golden opportunity” “to get rid of as many regulations as possible.”

“Free trade, competition and a state that sets light but well enforced rules: these are the best ways to ensure not only a healthy market but also a fair one,” it pontificated.

Conservative ministers John Whittingdale and Michael Gove encouraged the Confederation of British Industry to draw up a list of regulations they wanted abolished or reformed.

May’s so-called Brexit “Great Repeal Bill”—the transfer of EU-derived laws to UK bodies or ministers, provides for “Henry VIII clauses.” These parliamentary procedures date back to the 16th century, when King Henry VIII effectively gave himself the powers to rule by decree. It enables ministers and civil servants to decide what regulations should be kept, amended or discarded without recourse to parliament.

John Longworth, former CBI director general urged the formation of another “Star Chamber” to oversee this process that is “not frightened to think the unthinkable.”

As an indication of what is intended:

In January parliament voted down the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Bill. The Bill, which only applied to private households, sought to update 1957 legislation that required properties with an annual rent below £80 in London and £52 elsewhere to be fit for human habitation. The 1957 legislation was enforced against the background of notorious and ruthless slum landlord profiteers, such as Peter Rachman, who operated in the Notting Hill area, in which Grenfell Tower is located.

No homes in London now fall below that rental value. Still the Bill was rejected by a majority of 93, 72 of whom were private landlords, on the grounds that it would place “a huge burden” on landlords.

In February, the government celebrated the fruits of its anti-Red Tape challenge. Boasting that more than 2,400 pieces of regulation had been scrapped since the initiative began, it highlighted, “Businesses with good records have had fire safety inspections reduced from six hours to 45 minutes, allowing managers to quickly get back to their day job.”

This 21 June 2017 video from London, England says about itself:

John McDonnell in an ad lib doorstop interview has committed the Labour Party to installing sprinkler systems in all public housing blocks as well as fixing them to be up to modern fire standards.

By Lamiat Sabin in Britain:

Mayor tells May what he expects from inquiry

Wednesday 21st June 2017

PEOPLE directly affected by the devastating Grenfell Tower fire should be integral to any inquiry, Sadiq Khan told the Prime Minister yesterday.

In a letter to Theresa May, Labour’s London mayor made strong recommendations on the scope of an inquiry.

He said that those affected by the fire in the high-rise block — for which the death toll stands at 79 — should be granted “core participant” status, allowing them access to evidence and to make representations in the hearing or suggest lines of inquiry.

Evidence should also be preserved by police using powers of seizure, he added.

He urged Ms May to appoint a senior judge to lead the process and said the Prime Minister should not meet the chairman “to avoid questions over the integrity and independence of the inquiry.”

He also said that legal fees should be covered to make sure that the concerns of the Grenfell community are not drowned out by the financial backing of other parties involved.

Mr Khan advised that the inquiry be split into two halves, the first of which would deal with the cause of the fire, how it spread, the recent refurbishment, the management of the block, whether safety warnings were ignored, the handling of the fire and co-ordination of support and to those affected.

A second stage would would examine the lessons to be learned from the tragedy including whether previous advice had been absorbed, whether a re-examination of building and fire-prevention regulation is needed and if the regime for checking fire safety is adequate, and an audit of “wider resilience arrangements”.

Grenfell Tower disaster, London residents speak


This video from England says about itself:

“We cannot brush this under the table, some heads have to roll”

London residents speak on Grenfell Tower fire

By our reporters

20 June 2017

London residents and people living in housing nearby Grenfell Tower speak about the horrifying fire that has killed at least 79 residents, and the economic and political decisions that allowed it to happen.

This video from London, England says about itself:

Grenfell Tower Survivor Talks About Ongoing Trauma Resulting From The Fire

20 June 2017

Former Grenfell Tower resident Sid-ali Atmani talks to the BBC about the ongoing trauma as a result of the fire and the failure of the local council to help with this by placing them on the 8th story of a hotel.

London Islamophobic terrorism, not just one ‘bad apple’


This video from London, England says about itself:

Finsbury Park Attack: 15-Year-Old GCSE Student Expresses Anger Over ‘Media Cover Up’

19 June 2017

A 15yr old student spoke of the fear she has following the attack in Finsbury Park and what it means to her.

From daily The Morning Star in Britain:

Finsbury Park attack has roots in Tory policy

Tuesday 20th JUne 2017

SEARCHING questions must be asked about the latest outburst of violence on our streets.

Nothing can minimise nor justify nor excuse the actions of the hate-filled fanatic who targeted a group of people going about their business near the Finsbury Park Mosque in north London for the reason of their religion.

But personal condemnation of one murderer is not nearly enough.

As this newspaper made clear after the killings in central London two weeks ago, and has always made clear, the deeper causes of such terrorist outrages deserve intense scrutiny and action.

Recently months have seen three dozen people killed on the streets of Manchester and London by Islamist fanatics — acts that were at least in part a predictable and predicted reaction to the foreign policy of this country and its allies.

Now we have a man using a motor vehicle to deliberately target ordinary Muslims going about their daily lives, badly hurting several people, screaming about his murderous quest to “kill Muslims,” later laughing about what he had done.

Yet it would be entirely wrong to argue that this is “just” a hate crime.

As Kevin Ovenden shows clearly in these pages, Islamophobia in this country occupies a sordid special spot.

It is a hatred that has been whipped up by the powerful and become a political tool.

A tool with which to disguise the logical results of imperialist policy abroad, a tool to undermine political opponents at home.

Who can forget the Tories’ campaign last year against now London Mayor Sadiq Khan, and the campaign by Theresa May’s scumbag-in-chief Lynton Crosby to tar him as an extremist on what looked like the sole grounds of his faith.

The Tories’ man in that race, Zac Goldsmith, is now back as one of the party’s MPs after being soundly seen off by Londoners, at least in part for his transparently racist campaign.

Or how about when former Tory chair Sayeeda Warsi spoke of a “simmering underbelly of Islamophobia in the Conservative Party.”

Or when Tory Shipley MP Philip Davies — a nasty tyke for all sorts of reasons — refused to apologise after saying that Muslims should “fuck off” following a fake story in hate-mongering rag The Sun.

Or when May refused to criticise US President Donald Trump for his slurs against Khan after the London Bridge attacks.

Or when — despite a pause in campaigning and just hours after people were hacked to death — the former home secretary said there had been “far too much tolerance” of Islamist extremism.

But even these pale in comparison to the government’s Prevent “counter-extremism” strategy — an institutionally Islamophobic programme where 67 per cent of those targeted for extra snooping are Muslims, despite only making up 5 per cent of the population.

This language and these attitudes have consequences. Every day ordinary Muslims in this country face hatred, suspicion and violence.

The Finsbury Park murder took place just days after the first anniversary of Labour MP Jo Cox’s murder by another far-right terrorist, and the events where communities got together to show their unity.

That unity is our strength. We must reject division and unite against hatred, in all its forms. Unite against those in power who would use hatred to divide and weaken us.

Theresa May needs to address Islamophobia in her own party: here.

This video from Britain says about itself:

JK Rowling In Twitter Row Over Finsbury Park Attack

19 June 2017

JK Rowling has called on those spreading hate and division to stop, in the mean time entering into arguments with Katie Hopkins and Nigel Farage.

By Julie Hyland in Britain:

Fourth terror attack in UK since March targets Muslims

20 June 2017

One man was killed, and 10 injured after a van mowed down Muslim worshippers leaving prayers at 12.20 a.m. Monday in Finsbury Park, North London.

The driver, 47-year-old Darren Osborne, who was detained at the scene, reportedly yelled, “I’m going to kill all Muslims—I did my bit.”

Osborne, a father of four, had driven the rented van from his home in Cardiff, South Wales to the Muslim Welfare House, near Finsbury Park Mosque, where he waited until late night prayers had finished. On Ramadan holiday the mosque was especially busy and onlookers said many more could have been killed or injured.

Osborne drove onto the pavement, ploughing into a crowd that had gathered to help an elderly man who had become ill due to the heat. The older man died at the scene, eight others were taken to hospital, and two were treated on the street.

Onlookers described injured bodies lying across the street, as the van dragged people beneath it. When Osborne jumped from the cab, shouting his anti-Muslim statements, he was pinned to the ground by several men, while the local imam Mohammed Mahmoud shouted, “Don’t hit him—you do not touch him—hand him to the police.”

Osborne tried to goad the worshippers, saying repeatedly, “Kill me, Kill me.” When he was handed over to police, he taunted the crowd, “I’d do it again, I’d do it again,” as he smiled, waved and blew kisses.

The attack is the fourth terror attack in Britain since March—one in Manchester and three in London—that have claimed 36 lives so far.

On March 22, Khalid Masood drove a car into pedestrians on Westminster Bridge and fatally stabbed a police officer at the entrance to Parliament before being shot dead. Four others died and 49 were injured.

On May 22, suicide attacker Salman Abedi detonated his bomb at an Ariana Grande concert at the Manchester Arena, northwest England, killing 22 people and injuring 120.

On June 3, eight people were killed and at least 48 injured after a van was driven at high speed into people on London Bridge. The three occupants—Khuram Shazad Butt, Rachid Redouane, and Youssef Zaghba—then ran to neighbouring Borough Market, where they stabbed people indiscriminately before being shot dead by armed police.

Appearing at Finsbury Park yesterday, Prime Minister Theresa May pompously expressed her sorrow over “evil borne of hatred.” She has come under sustained fire for her indifference to the horrific inferno at Grenfell Tower, west London last Wednesday, where the current death toll is 79 people and rising. Worshippers at the mosque had reportedly being giving prayers to the victims only shortly before they were attacked.

May referenced London Bridge and the “unimaginable tragedy of Grenfell Tower” in her statement following her chairing of a Cobra emergency meeting. She spoke in platitudes about the “unbreakable resolve” and community spirit in this “extraordinary city of extraordinary people.”

This was buttressed with her repeating the need to stamp out “extremist ideology” by denying it “safe spaces.” May has made clear this includes joining the United States in taking military action in Syria and strengthening counterterrorism legislation. She used the Finsbury Park assault to repeat her threat to gain powers for greater censorship of the internet by forcing internet companies to give up individuals’ private messages, such as through WhatsApp, and to force them to censor material or face heavy fines.

Nonetheless, May’s reference to not tolerating “extremism of any kind, including Islamophobia” was welcomed by the Guardian as a “distinct and important change in rhetoric” away from her previous “one-eyed” approach, targetting Islamic extremism.

Such claims disarm workers and youth as to the strengthening of the state apparatus and its implications. It also conceals that this latest attack—clearly motivated by anti-Muslim hostility—has been encouraged by the statements of numerous political leaders, including May, and by the media.

The prime minister seized on the attacks in Manchester and on London Bridge to try and strengthen her position under conditions of a snap general election that she had called two years ahead of schedule. Claiming that the country was at war with the ideology of Islamic extremism, she said it was “time to say enough is enough.”

“There is far too much tolerance” of Islamic extremism in Britain, she claimed.

In one sense this is true—at least as far as the intelligence and security services are concerned! Virtually every single person that has been involved in a terror attack in Britain since 7/7/2005 was known to the state. Many had been reported repeatedly as potential terror threats and were under surveillance. Italian intelligence services had informed their British counterparts, for example, that the London Bridge attacker, Youssef Zaghba, had attempted to travel to Syria and was considered a terror risk.

Butt had appeared on a Channel 4 TV documentary, “The Jihadis Next Door,” in which he threatened police and posed with an ISIS flag. Manchester bomber Abedi came from a well-known family of Libyan Islamic supporters of Al Qaeda, who were part of the western-backed overthrow of the Gaddafi regime in 2011.

The authorities allowed all these individuals to move around freely because they were part of a network of operatives protected by the British state, which has been used in the UK and US-backed regime-change operations in the Middle East.

The right-wing media has seized on the latest attack to up its anti-Muslim campaign. Writing in the Sun, Douglas Murray called for an end to “large-scale Islamic immigration,” the “permanent closure” of mosques “caught hosting anti-British views,” “imprisonment of everyone known to have connections with extreme organisations” and the deportation of dual nationals “caught associating with designated groups.”

In fascistic tone, the Daily Mail editorialised, “We need action—now. There is a war being fought on our streets and it’s time to deploy all the weapons at our disposal.” Its columnist Katie Hopkins went further. After the Manchester bombing she tweeted, “Western men. These are your wives. Your daughters. Your sons. Stand up. Rise up. Demand action. Do not carry on as normal. Cowed.” She also called for a “final solution” in another anti-Muslim tirade.

After London Bridge she claimed the capital was the victim of its “multiculturalism.” Speaking of London as if it was an enemy city, facilitating and colluding with Muslim extremists through its “endless tolerance to those who harm us,” she wrote that it was now, “The patriots of the rest of England versus the liberals in this city.”

Osborne’s precise affiliations are not yet known,

According to the Guardian, Osborne was an Internet follower of Paul Golding and Jayda Fransen, the leaders of the neonazi paramilitary gang Britain First.

but in travelling from Cardiff to London to mount an attack on Muslims leaving prayer he was taking such incitements to their logical, murderous conclusion.

The Muslim Welfare Centre, outside which the attack took place, had only at the weekend held a memorial meeting to Jo Cox. The Labour MP was murdered in West Yorkshire by a right-wing terrorist

Thomas Mair shouted “Britain First” as he shot Cox three times and stabbed her 15 times in broad daylight near the local library in Birstall, near Leeds. Britain First is the name of a UK fascist group. When first arrested, he described himself as a “political activist.” In court he said, “My name is death to traitors, freedom for Britain.”

Although a search of his home had provided extensive evidence of indirect links to fascist and far-right groups, little effort was made to explore his political sympathies during the trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment for murder.

Police records show an increase in Islamophobic incidents following the London Bridge killings, with 20 recorded on June 6, the highest daily tally for 2017. Commenters on social media were quick to point out that no politicians or columnists were demanding to know how Osborne had been “radicalised” and by whom.