As usual, following some disruption to the multicult fantasy, usually a jihad attack, the Establishment looks for some way to turn it into diversity gold.
There were the heroic bands of Pakis defending their shops during the riots a few years ago; they turned out to be engaged in a race war with negroes. There was Tariq Ali, father of one of the said Pakis who was run over after attacking a car full of negroes that was driving past. After being proclaimed (by Ed Miliband) the "True Face of Britain", Tariq turned out to be a member of Hizb-ut-Tahrir with a string of criminal convictions as long as a scimitar.
In the Charlie Hebdo attacks, there was the "Good Muslim" (with bonus points for being an illegal immigrant) who "saved" the Jews in a kosher food shop. Then, more recently, there was the Muslim security guard who allegedly turned back the would-be suicide bomber during the Paris attacks. All of these tales, when closely examined, turned out to be nine parts fantasy for every one part truth. (Although, to be fair, it looks as though the suicide bomber may have been turned back by a Muslim security guard, just not the one originally fingered, although maybe that will turn out not quite as advertised in the course of time).
Following the latest jihad attack in the London Underground, the myth-making machine gets into gear again. The starting point is someone on the scene, presumably a Muslim, shouting "You ain't no Muslim bruv" at the jihadist. The Guardian, predictably, has picked up on it and declares it "captured public feeling about the assault in Leytonstone underground station".
Did it really? I very much doubt that. But if ordinary British or European people expressed their true feelings about the immvasion and islamisation of their countries, they'd be banged up quicker than a jihadist with a AK47. So we can't really know what "public feeling" on the matter really is, can we? Someone on Twitter should start a 'ButYouAreAMuslimBruv tag to see if it runs.