Live and let live communitarism has failed - - so will other naïve and ineffectual containment policies
The last round of London attacks draws attention again to what politicians and top-level law enforcement officials understand to be the only solution to religiously-inspired assassinations. This is that the relatives of perpetrators are returned to their countries of origin.
Britain continues to be the Western nation most confused by this terrorism and this is characterised by a number of symbolic responses such as putting symbolically out into the streets armed police and soldiers when the authorities know that the lethal problem is part of a society woven into the British way of life and submerged there, writes our European correspondent.
The reason that the mass summary deportation of the relatives and families is known to be the only solution is that the attackers themselves welcome their pending status as martyrs. It is also known that their belief in tribalism and therefore family means that they fear their blood relatives especially getting caught up with and paying the price of their own lethal zealotry.
Britain, much more than any other EU zone country has applied what is known as communitarism to its refugee influx. This means that these communities are left substantially to practise their own way of life wherever they happen to settle in the UK.
This contrasts with the breeding grounds for the zealotry in Europe which are much more fractionated and are therefore much more removed from replicating the traditional family-tribal way of life.
There is however a security benefit of communitarism.
It means or should mean that in law enforcement terms that for refugee settlements of any duration relatives are much more likely to become aware of developing zealotry.
Britain has been confused also by a number of stereotypes about this now manifestly accelerating zealotry.
These have seen perpetrators and likely perpetrators given identi-kit personas of which poverty, alienation, and absence of opportunity have been to the fore.
These stereotypes in turn have been reinforced by a mesh of other such semi-comforting mantras such as that all the killers are young, male, and have some kind of justified underpinning grievance for massacring civilians.
In fact the evidence proves that these killers can just as easily by wealthy, privileged by society, well past youth, and female.
At the base of the entire pattern of attacks is the British horror of putting into the public forum anything at all to do with religion and the way in which it is calculated to inspire what is known in Britain as terrorism, but which religious scholars view as a history of ad hoc attacks by the inspired on anyone within killable reach.
So there is little new in all this , a notion that many in Britain in places of authority, and who should know better, rigorously cling to.
Spontaneous murderous attacks with whatever weapon is closest at hand is a familiar theme in the context of this historic religious zealotry.
The issue now is the length of time, and the length of the casualty list, that must pass before the only known and workable response is implemented in the form of sending back to their original countries the relatives of the known perpetrators.
This reprisal is quite simply the only counter-fanaticism strategy that is within the grasp of the British authorities.
Its border statistics have been proved as being wanting. Even if these are in fact performing to specification, the surveillance and apprehension response they are supposed to engender is flawed.
In the nations from which the refugees have poured over three generations law and order is maintained by the secret police.
What was once a touching policy toward religious zealotry has itself become a lethal problem in itself.
The British have always had a kind of reverse pride in failing to understand the East in practical terms.
The critical time line now is the one centred on how long this failure to grasp reality can continue.