Even for David Cameron, this week's bandwagon jumping was crass

By David Higgerson on Jan 25, 10 11:39 PM

It would be wrong to even begin to try and imagine what the families of the two children sadistically tortured in Yorkshire have been through during the last 18 months.

The attacks inflicted on a nine-year-old and a 11-year-old boy by two brothers, aged just 10 and 11, are said to be so horrific that it is impossible to report them in a way which wouldn't offend.

For the parents of the two victims of such torture and sexual humiliation, Friday's court verdict - indefinite custodial sentences for the brothers - is only the beginning. Somehow, the parents of the victims have to try and rebuild the shattered lives of their youngsters.

And the presence of David Cameron several hundred miles down the road using the case as proof of Labour's broken society won't help them in that process.

As cynical stunts to try and muscle in on an event for your own political ends, Cameron's trip to Gillingham must rank up there with the most crude ever.

The TV reporters had barely finished their first reports from outside the court before Cameron was using the case to talk of a broken society in Britain.

He managed to link the cases of James Bulger, Garry Newlove, Baby Peter and Ben Kinsella into one sentence and suggest that combined they showed society in Britain was broken.

But the very fact that these cases - spread across 20 years - live long in the memory is because they are out of the ordinary and because they do shock and dumbfound the vast majority of people in the UK.

If they didn't make the news, if they didn't make the public stop in their tracks, if they didn't horrify and appall in equal measure - then we'd have a broken society.

As it is, there is plenty Cameron could have said about perceived failings in 'the system' which could have prevented this latest tragedy, yet he failed to deliver any suggestions himself, instead opting to accuse Labour of some sort of cover-up.

Cameron defended his 'broken society' speech by suggesting it was the 'responsible thing to do to have a debate about how to improve society.' But he wasn't starting a debate, he was making a big, bold claim which in his mind isn't up for discussion - but which most people will simply dismiss as nonsense.

So how do you prevent such evil events taking place? Sadly, we'll never entirely stamp out evil. The best we can hope for is a 'system' which tries to spot tell-tale signs before such tragedies happen. And when they do happen, we have to learn the lessons.

Sadly, it seems Cameron is actually more interested in turning the suffering of two children into a political issue than he is about trying to ensure it doesn't happen again.