Fair enough, then this caveat should still apply: “Trends in police recorded violence with and without injury should be interpreted with caution, as improvements to recording practices have had a substantial impact on the recording of violent crime over the last 10 years. For further information, see Section 19: Data sources and quality”

The ONS states that crime is generally down. That’s all I claimed. The OP has been editing away to make his point seem less racist are more pertinent to these follow up replies, which is utterly tedious.

This whole forum seems to have had a lurch into extremism over the past year or so. Either that or these people have been lurking in threads I wasn’t looking at before. I find it crazy that people are downvoting my response which cited facts and pushed back against blatant misinformation and veiled racism. We live in a crazy world where people think this rhetoric is reasonable and ok.

> The perpetrator was a second-generation African migrant

He isn't a migrant. He was born in Wales. He's British. 100%. This is exactly the kind of language that starts the wheel of hatred rolling.

Nobody knew anything about him when the riots were fomented by the white supremacist lunatics. They just made it up because it fit their narrative and allowed them to go after brown people. They invented a muslim sounding name and claimed he was an asylum seeker. None of which was true.

> The UK government initially refused to release information about the perpetrator

They didn't "refuse". It's normal practice for the police to not release the details of an alleged perpetrator.

> which caused speculation and confusion about the attack.

Speculation is not a good enough reason to try burning down a hotel with refugees in in. I'm sorry, but there is no defence for the violence and hatred that was stirred and fomented by the white supremacist lunatics (and by Musk et al).

What happened with those children is tragic. Truly. But that doesn't give a free hand to white supremacist lynch mobs.

> It's a bit odd to focus on the anti-government protests and call them terrorists, when they were out protesting because the government failed to adequately protect them from an actual terrorist.

That's a fucked up sentence. He committed a crime, not an act of terrorism. A horrific crime, yes, but what came after was not an "anti-government protest". It was a riot where people were actually trying to murder immigrants based on no information other than what they had made up themselves. I mean, a mosque was attacked the following day and the perpetrator is a Christian (or at least his family is). That's not a protest, that's pure extremist hatred.

> it would depend on how you define extremism

I don't need to, the government already has widened the definition to include white supremacists and has a list of proscribed groups. This allows Prevent (the de-radicalisation programme that was originally set-up for Islamist terrorists and potential terrorists) to work on de-radicalising white supremacists too and for MI5 to focus some of its energy on preventing extremism and violence in the UK.

> However there are plenty of fundamentalist/extremist views within the UK which exist regardless of what the right wing does.

I am certainly not saying "right wing bad". I'm saying "far-right white supremacy bad". And probably "far-right bad" in general, just like I'd say "far-left bad". Extremism, in general, requires you to move away from compromise. Whether it's far-left or far-right, in my judgement it will always lead to conflict.