This is Peter Kosminsky, the maker of Britz, as quoted in the Radio Times for 27 October-2 November (page 35):
What rapidly became clear [after the 7 July 2005 bombings in London] was that these were not mercenaries or émigrés who'd come here to blow us up - these were Brits. [Three were] second-generation Pakistani-Muslim Britons. People born here, brought up here, educated here. And yet they were so angry or alienated that they felt themselves unable to express what was upsetting them through normal means. So they blew themselves to bits, taking with them as many of their fellow citizens as they could manage. It was pretty clear what the next film should be - to try to figure out how that could come about.It's reported in the same place that Kosminsky likes to ruffle feathers. With what boldness and originality he does it, does he not? In any case, a few questions:
1) Why shouldn't the next film have been about the effects on the victims, those killed, maimed and bereaved?
2) If anger and alienation are the key thing, why are these feelings more interesting in Brits than in 'émigrés'?
3) As regards 'they felt themselves unable to express what was upsetting them through normal means', never mind what they felt - were they in fact able or unable?
4) Are we to take their act of blowing their fellow citizens to bits as an act of self-expression?
5) Why do most angry, to say nothing of upset, people not blow their fellow citizens to bits?
6) Is there a better way of ranking the importance of different moral issues than the one that seems to animate Peter Kosminsky?