1)Pulling out American and British troops from Iraq (which many radical Muslims believe would result in the subsequent increased Islamification of that country).
2)Extinguishing the state of Israel.
3) Increasing the Islamification of not only Muslim schools, areas and institutions, but also of the larger non-Muslim society.
4) Finally, and on a smaller scale. The banning of short 'un-Islamic' skirts being worn by non-Muslim women. (In response to the grievances of that British bomber whose words were taped by the police. He said that his terrorist group should blow up nightclubs. And by doing so kill the 'tarts' inside.)
Of course we can safely guess that the Fabian Society will simply assume that the grievances of radical British Muslims are simply the result of poverty, unemployment and the alienation they feel from the larger society. Such a view will suit the prior political predispositions and biases of the Fabian Society. But is it always about such things?
Simply because a group has grievances, it doesn't follow that we should sympathise or agree with them and be critical of their purported causes. Terrorists throughout history have always had grievances – some undersandable, some not.
I know that such possible interpretations of the radicalisation of many British Muslims may offend or potentially (politically) disable the interested parties, but shouldn't they at least consider their possible truth? Shouldn't everyone consider them?