I think some people are putting an interpretation on these events that the facts don't really support. I dont think this is a huge attack on the fabric of tolerant British society by the Sikhs. It isnt. I definitely think this is a terribly dangerous thing to have happened to our society, but I dont particularly blame the Sikhs. What we have is an offensive play written by a young iconoclastic Sikh playwright. That is right and proper, that is what young iconoclasts are for. We have a dignified protest by the venerable grey-bearded elders of the religion. That is right and proper, that is what grey-bearded elders are for. We also have a moderately violent semi-riot by a few young hot-headed Sikh yobs. That, if not right and proper, is the nature of the young yob (and Sikh yobs, ike the aboriginal kind, are not averse to a drop of lager).
    No, the big problem was the activities(or lack of them) of the police, and more important, of the government. The row and ructions were just the sort of things we expect to happen from time to time. The terrible thing is that the government sat back and let the mob determine what plays the theatre put on, instead of doing what they should have done: stepped straight in and said this play stays on, if it takes all the midlands police force, if it takes troops, if takes whatever it takes. The government's craven capitulation to a sectarian bunch of stone throwers is a tragedy. Very few people in this government seem to remember Kipling's famous and obvious political gem, that once you have paid them the Danegeld, you never get rid of the Dane. Give in to one mob, and you encourage the next lot. Simple, reallY.