The London Bridge attack, and the extraordinary circumstances surrounding it, has inevitably led to all manner of speculation and comment, from the question of early release for prisoners to the issue of police numbers, from denunciations of “human rights QCs… who facilitate violent jihadists to get away with murder” to an attack on gun controls.
There is probably only one thing of which we should be certain: that the passersby who tackled Usman Khan were courageous beyond measure. In their actions is seen the best of humanity.
As for the rest, there are more questions than answers. Was it right to release Khan on licence? Who took that decision? On what basis was he invited to an academic conference? What relationship did the organisers, Cambridge University’s Institute of Criminology, have with Khan prior to the event? Were the police aware of Khan’s presence? Were his movements being monitored?
These are all important questions, and ones that need answering. But equally important is not jumping to conclusions or imagining that we can know the answers before we know the facts.
The attack reveals both the benefits and the drawbacks of 24-hour instant news culture. We have information about the attack, and about the background to it, much more quickly than we would have had previously. But we are also led to jump to unwarranted conclusions and to act as if we possess more knowledge than we actually do.
Especially in the middle of an election campaign, the easy answers are both inevitable and to be resisted.
• Kenan Malik is an Observer columnist
