I did read it. Sounds to me like you're just making up an arbitrary and contradictory set of rules to justify why we should look into one group and not the other. Dozens of Muslims (so called if you prefer) are killing hundreds of people around the world but don't investigate the Muslim organizations they belong to because different. One guy, who is, by the sounds of it, suffering from mental illness, commits a single murder and we have to investigate his organization even though they immediately denounce his actions and don't advocate violence.
How about the police just turn any murderer's life upside down and investigate everything they ever said or did or anyone they ever knew, no matter who he/she is, and let the chips fall where they may?
I'm not advocating investigating them. I'm advocating subjecting them scrutiny. I'm not saying that they should face arbitrary criminal investigation following a crime they had no apparent direct involvement with; I'm saying they should be scrutinised as to why an apparent supporter of theirs has engaged in such violence and how their rhetoric may have influenced his actions. A lot of other people need to be scrutinised in the current British political climate, on all sides of the fence, but with regards to this particular incident, Britain First require it the most.
And as for the mental illness thing, that doesn't change the fact that he was allegedly a neo-nazi. Maybe he would still have committed such an attack if that wasn't the case, but mental health doesn't automatically make people neo-nazis any more than it makes them artists or Confucians.
I'm sure plenty of Islamist extremists have mental health problems aplenty, but I don't see many people jumping on board saying that some controversial fundamentalist Imam who might have influenced the attacker but didn't actually advocate violence doesn't need scrutiny because the attacker was mentally ill.
And as for Britain First not advocating violence, they made a statement after the attack stating that they
"hope this person is strung up by the neck from the nearest lamp post; that's the way [they]
view justice"; which sounds an awful lot like an advocation of violence to me.
You might argue that that's an advocation of tough justice or whatever blah blah blah... But fundamentally, that is violent rhetoric, and rhetoric like that is what can tip people, be they neo-nazis, islamists, or animal rights activists into performing extreme and undesirable acts.
Overall, the only person I directly blame for this attack is the attacker himself, and if he really does have serious mental health problems or something, then maybe one could argue his responsibilties were diminished; but everyone has to take a long hard look at themselves and ask "how can we make our society less violent? Less divisive? More open to debate and less open to the sham that politics in our society has become that has both driven up apathy and extreme unfounded views?" Britain First may or may not have inspired this attack, but everyone else in the system has to ask how British politics got so toxic to begin with.
The answer is Murdoch, The Express, and The Daily Mail, if anyone's wondering, with the Mirror deserving a slap on the wrist too.
