I have gone away, had a cry about my Muslim family and the people killed and injured in London, and am back less angry.
Katie Hopkins' article reads to me as poorly written, and ill thought through. She comes across as a bigot, and was completely wrong to suggest that Sadiq Khan needed any validation. I don't care that his dad is a bus driver, it is irrelevant. Those saying Sadiq Khan is a true Londoner, because he was born here, are both missing the point, and actually being inadvertantly offensive themselves. Where he was born shouldn't make the slightest difference to anything. The section about banning bikinis on the underground was dog whistle politics, completely. However, she has said nothing illegal here, and I will defend to the end her right to spew such bile. And for others to agree with her. That is freedom of speech.
She has occasionally said something that I agree with, albeit things like "it is Saturday", or the time. In this article, the only thing I can find to agree with is that something must be done. I agree that lots is being done already, but I would like the UK to do more.
I would like us to stop entering or starting wars in the ME which are unasked for by their citizens, and which show a concerning amount of Western Imperialism, oil grabbing tendencies, and a woeful failure to plan. I would like radicalisation to be addressed in environments where there are men and women vulnerable to it e.g.in prisons and universities.
I would also like those who have concerns about the extent of Extremist Islam, but who may not use language which is 100% acceptable, to be heard and understood. Many people use the term Muslim terrorists, which could suggest that they think all Muslims are terrorists. But it only takes the briefest of conversations to establish that they mean Islamic Extremists, but haven't used the right terminology. The problem is, if such people are immediately described as being racist, they are unlikely to engage with you further. Language is hugely important, but the intention behind it more so. Failure to enter into dialogue with potential bigots, because pejorative terms have been used prior to intentions being clarified, means that the conversation which may change bigoted opinions cannot happen.
I would love for everyone to accept that if Muslims and their family members think that Islamic Extremists are a sizeable minority in this country, that patronising them by reducing the issue to a "handful" or "tiny minority" does not cut it.
It actually feels racist to have non-Muslims imply that they know better about what is going in in Muslim communities than those living in them do. I have found many of the posts on here hugely patronising on behalf of my family. If you want to know what is causing this rubbish, how about deferring to those who are most likely to know?
To conclude my epic diatribe 
, many people have a worldview based in an echo chamber, which has not accurately reflected the UK as a whole, for over 10 years. Being a lefties liberal is great but only if our arguments win. Otherwise they are just arguments. The method of calling people racists at the drop of a hat, does not cut it anymore. It patronises those who you seek to protect (who may not feel that the person was being racist). And it hampers discourse.
So insinuating that anyone who can identify with some of what KH wrote, must not have a balanced viewpoint on life in the UK, serves what purpose exactly?
The result is, it offends those whose viewpoints you would seek to change. We are losing votes as a result of this, thereby affecting our ability to bring about real change. it saddens me that the egos of some on the left, with whom I have always identified, can be so strong and self-defeating. This country has changed, and the left had to change with it.