TimeOnline clearly thinks the "bible class" aspect of this story is most relevant. Indeed, perhaps so -- since this kind of violence happens weekly in the UK, if not more often, and seldom makes the news otherwise...

Bible class teenager who killed gang rival

A churchgoing teenager who who was also the head of a South London gang was sentenced to life imprisonment yesterday for the murder of a schoolboy rival.

Adu Sarpong had been to a Bible class with friends hours before a bloody street battle with a rival gang in which he stabbed Alex Kamondo, 15, with a kitchen knife.

Sarpong, 18, who was convicted at the Old Bailey, was the leader of K Town Crew, which clashed with Kamondo’s gang, Man Dem Crew, in Kennington in June. Up to 30 youths fought with knives, hammers, metal bars, bottles and a samurai-style sword....

In the fight that followed, Sarpong plunged the knife into Kamondo’s chest with so much force that it broke a rib and the handle snapped off. Kamondo, who lived on the nearby Kennington Park estate, suffered a single 20cm stab wound that pierced his left lung and heart.

I'm sure the bible class contributed to his violence, eh?

While I'm sad that Jesus's teachings about loving your enemies didn't apparently penetrate his skull, the thing which stands out to me (in contrast with these journalists) is the utter failure of Britian's anti-crime policies.

People here in the US argue that if we just ban guns, we'd get rid of a "gun culture" which is said to cause crime. Yet in the UK, they've done precisely that. And what do they have instead? Something they call a "knife culture".

Senior judge hits out at knife culture

A senior judge has criticised the growing knife culture for causing "death and devastation" as he sentenced a teenager for the fatal stabbing of a 15-year-old boy on a south London estate....

Judge Gerald Gordon said during sentencing at the Old Bailey on Friday that widespread knife crime, which has blighted English streets in recent months, "must be stopped".

"It is the carrying and using -- often as here, for miniscule motives -- (of) such knifes that is causing death and devastation to families and that has got to be stopped," he said.

Forgive my facetiousness, but I'm not sure the judge paid sufficient attention to the details of the violence -- which involved "knives, hammers, metal bars, bottles and a samurai-style sword." Aside from making cooking impossible, banning knives will still leave such gangs with the hammers, metal bars, bottles, bricks, cricket bats, wires (garottes), tyre irons, frying pans, poison darts, etc.

For all the whinging (forgive the Britishisms) about "root causes", there's scant attention paid to them: the "root cause" of violence isn't guns, nor knives, nor hammers, metal bars, etc. The "root cause" is human pride (often called "self-esteem", and deliberately cultivated), and the prime enabling factors are the many governmental and social "improvements" which have converted the UK from an extraordinarily safe nation to a rather dangerous and violent one.

But hey, they don't have as much "gun crime" as they used to! Now they use hammers. Soon, they'll return to the days (or have they already?) when gangs of robbers waylayed unwary or weak travellers. When handguns arrived, even a frail old woman could strike fear into those kinds of thugs. Now, well, she'll get done over because we promised "society" will keep her safe. Too bad "society" can't be there when you most need 'em.

Finally regarding the church angle, a rejoinder might be: "Well, the kid was going to a church. Clearly that wasn't any help in his case." That's entirely fair -- look at how unrepetant this young murderer was: "He smirked and looked up at the gallery [jury] as he was led from the dock." Not much contrition there.

But there are no guarantees. Being in a church, or even a member of the clergy (as we've seen demonstrated here in the US) doesn't mean you're not going to commit crimes, or that you take it seriously. (Good heavens -- some clergy don't even believe in the Christian God.) But, on the whole, despite this particular story, I strongly suspect church involvement decreases the odds of such violence.

In fact, the very mention of this angle in the Times coverage rather demonstrates my point: had the kid been heavily involved in a mosque, that angle, in my experience, would be entirely omitted; had the kid been an atheist, likewise. But the very fact they've been playing it up demonstrates this is a man-bites-dog story, something contrary to even the expectations of the secularists at the Times.