But … the ’cause and effect’ argument can be likened to the ‘chicken and egg’ metaphor?

In other words the Sun headlines will only arise whenever there is a ready made audience willing to feed of such rubbish – in other words the likes of the Sun et al pander to an existing gestalt rather generate one from scratch?

My fear is that by placing too much emphasis on external factors (daft medical concepts, legislation, silly newspaper headlines, etc) it MAY detract from our responsibilities to take ownership of our behaviour – this, I believe is an essential aspect of maturation.

I take your point though about susceptible groups in our society being encouraged to act on such drivel.

So you don’t think feelings can be whipped up. Or do you?
When for two decades the Government (not a Party – the GOVERNMENT) was bombarding Britain with the notion that homosexuality is an illness, that it’s wrong, that it’s shameful, that it’s sinful, that they’re taking over the country, that they’re spreading disease… you don’t think that’s gonna whip up resentment and push some buttons amongst the most idiotic/slow witted sections of society?

You don’t see any cause and effect?

When the Sun in 2004 started its campaign against the England v Portugal referee and the guy had to move from his house you don’t think the Sun had a responsibility, albeit indirect…?

When the News of The World in 2000 ran its anti -paedo crusade and a paediatrician in Wales had their house smashed…?

When…

Responsibility for unprovoked violence rests quite simply with the individual as well the type of home/environment they were brought up in – tolerant, caring families do not produce people who engage in this type of crude violence.
You don’t have to be Sigmund Freud to work out such acts of unprovoked aggression are little more than a mechanism to externalise inner feelings of frustration or anger.

Very few people are so feeble minded that they are buffeted from one piece of legislation to the next – not unless they are already somewhat damaged to begin with.

Copeland (aka Mr Angry) typified such an individual judging by the horrendous level of violence he perpetrated – yet his own father was unable to offer any sort of meaningful hypothesis as to why his son behaved in the way that he did.

Yes, it would be. And no-one is directly blaming them.

However, there are statistics out there indicating that, in the months following the introduction of Section 28 in 1988-89, gay-bashing incidents rose significantly.

What I’m saying is. Governments set the tone, always within a (more or less) veneer of respectability. But then there ‘s always some nutjob (is this word allowed?) out there that will take it one step further. Copeland was one.

I found his fathers comments very revealing, he said (allegedly);
“I just believe he was easily influenced by people who saw they could indoctrinate him with their views. I just don’t believe he went looking for it himself,”

Yet at school Copeland was known as ‘Mr Angry’ and it seems he soon took refuge in alcohol and even heroin – in short he exhibited all the hallmarks of a dysfunctional young man with serious anger issues.
By the time he was apprehended Copeland had adorned his flat with extensive nazi memerobilia – but his Dad’s comments suggest an air of incomprehension : there does not seem to be any sense of personal culpability either from the family or the bomber himself.

Five psychiatrists believed Copeland suffered ‘paranoid schizophrenia’ although I cannot find any reports of the family trying to find medical help for this dreadful mental affliction – was it because they did not realise their son was a stark raving nutter, or was it because he was not in fact mentally ill in the first place?

If was mad (rather than bad) then we cannot blame Thatcher and her socially divisive policies.

At any rate the vehicle for his anger (gays/blacks/asians/jews, etc) was in certain respects of secondary importance (although not for the victims of his shocking crimes, of course).
On another day Copeland might have directed his rage toward children (a second Thomas ‘Dunblane’ Hamilton) or toward women (a second Peter ‘yorkshire ripper’ Sutcliffe).

The key question is WHY did Copeland became so angry that the only way he could obtain release (in his mind) was by blowing innocent people to smithereens – perhaps this is a question that ALL bombers should exercise themselves with?