Deserved? That's totally subjective. According to your determination of what it deserved versus others that disagree with you, makes it subjective. You disagree with not only the manner in which they reported it, but to whom they focused the outrage of indignation. You support those that want to change the UK and Europe as a whole, those media outlets that do not agree with you are, as you say in the following part of this sentence, "siding with the terrorists." when the same argument can be legitimately made for those that support the side that you are on. Both are not accurate in and of themselves. Addressed earlier, but not quoted earlier for clarity's sake. Again, subjective. Downplaying it in whose eyes? Yours obviously, but there must be a large number that disagree with you for that many news outlets to be taking the same level of import in their reporting. And, out comes the name calling again. The hateful attack on what is supposedly hateful actions. Again, your beating the dog. Prove it. Take them to court and have them convicted. This entire line of accusations is nothing more than a deflection, an over the top condemnation of people that you disagree with and want to blame for a condition that people that hold the same ideology as you put forward here are partially to blame. So? First, what does his race have to do with it? Second, he was an asshole that deserves every harsh action that can be legally taken against him. Third, does that mean that everyone that is concerned over Islamic Terrorism, or Islamic Extremism, or immigrants that refuse to assimilate, or other such things are also right wing extremists? Why are White Right Wing Extremists any worse than Islamic Extremists in your view? Why are those that are concerned and voice that concern about Islamic Extremists called xenophobic, or anti-Muslim, or anti-Immigrant, but those that are actually Islamic Extremists are not called anti-Western, or anti-UK, or just plain bigoted, xenophobic, racists as well? Why is that?
