Once upon a time there were those who manifested marked anti-social behaviour, but who, it was felt, were not entirely criminal, insofar as they seemed to be not entirely aware of, or indifferent to the antisocial nature and consequences of their behaviour, and could not, therefore, be held entirely responsible for their actions. At the same time there were no discrete clinical indications, such as delusions or hallucinations which could justify designating them as insane. These people were called “moral imbeciles”. Some time in the first half of the 20th century, the term was felt to be derogatory, and hence the term “psychopath” came into use. The term “psychopathic disorder” is still used in medico-legal contexts as in the Mental Health Act, but in general, “psychopath” in turn has become a term of derogation, and the term “personality disorder” has replaced it. If this man’s behaviour was motivated by psychotic beliefs, then it was not the work of a psychopath. It appears that you are using the term “psychopath” as tabloid-speak, meaning something along the lines of “a very very very bad person”. It is one thing when a commenter uses pejorative appellations such as “nutjob, wingnut, moonbat” and so on simply because s/he has a profound dislike for certain individuals, but I think that bloggers have an obligation to be as accurate as possible in their use of language. Besides which, I would have thought that those on a left-wing blog would regard with some measure of compassion when it comes to the acts of someone who acted while under the influence of mental illness.

We cannot blame the Tory government for the likes of Copeland – such a claim is far too simplistic.

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?

What’s different about Copeland’s case is that we didn’t have endless articles blaming ourselves and asking to what extent our relatively tolerant, permissive society had contributed to his feelings of alienation and how far we should go to accommodate the views of the far-right.

Out of interest shatterface – because I see this absurd claim made fair bit – can you point to any sane leftwing commenter (and I don’t mean the far left idiots from the SWP) saying our permissive society is bringing us terrorism?

#2 We cannot blame the Tory government for the likes of Copeland – such a claim is far too simplistic.

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.

Clause 28 was a reprehensible example of small minded bigotry but NOT the primary cause of gay bashing, in my humble opinion.

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.

Sunny (4): No ‘sane’ commentator on the left would say that ‘permissiveness’ has been the cause of alienation as that would be stretching the term ‘sane’ beyond it’s usefullnes but there are plenty of unhinged people like Mad Bunty in the Guardian who are willing to excuse terrorist violence if it will rid society of wanton, drunken ‘slags’.

.6 a&e charge nurse

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…

The notion of homosexuality as an ‘illness’ was even endorsed by the medical profession at one point, so yes, Claude, I fully accept that these ideas are hardly conducive to a fair society.

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.