Blaming the government certainly gets us nowhere. The murder of two-year-old James Bulger by two ten-year-old boys in 1993 occurred under a Conservative regime. I don't think Mr Cameron is a fool (nor do I hold any brief for Labour), and I expect he knows his history, but trying to milk this case for short-term political capital is unimpressive.

Myth 2) The young killers' home lives were described as 'toxic', and there appear to have been numerous signs that all was very far from well. Again, I must judge from media reports, but the brothers' lives seem to have followed the usual pattern in such cases, a pattern recognized at least as long ago as the 1930s. There is always toxicity, always a screed of warning signs. Why was nothing done?

The relevant myth here is that parents have the right to bring up their children without interference in whichever way they like, unless they are physically cruel or neglectful to their children. This ignores the fact that there are other ways to damage children severely than by beating or starving them. It also ignores the fact that damaged children go on to damage others. If lousy parenting inflicted no costs on society then we might be justified in doing nothing until the child's behaviour becomes too extreme to ignore. But the costs of this worst kind of parenting are huge.

Myth 3) People blame the system, in this case the local authority. With justification? It would seem so, and we can hope that this time lessons will be learned and services improved. Nonetheless, this is a move which is always made, and its usefulness is limited. It's an understandable move, because when we're confronted with the kind of behaviour we have here -- behaviour which makes us think 'I can't imagine what those kids were feeling', which comes with a surge of fear and grief and disgust -- then it's natural to feel completely powerless. So we look to blame others who had the power and failed to use it wisely.

Yet we have more power than we think. In fact we have more power than local authorities, systems, or governments, if we could only bring ourselves to use it. Cruelty can be prevented, if it's caught early. Repairing the damage later costs far more than stepping in before the cruel behaviour gets established. There are many things we could do. Some cost a lot, but not all.

Here's one that won't touch your wallet. We have the power of changing social norms, the usually underwritten, unspoken rules of conduct which govern far more of our behaviour than the law does. Social norms which view cruelty as unacceptable would go a long way to reducing the likelihood of the raw sadism seen in the Edlington case. They would also make it much easier for the system, the authorities, to do their job.

Who sets the social norms? We all do, yet some people are far more influential than others. How about a clear, un-ironic, coordinated statement of moral values from all of our major media outlets, in consultation with religious and secular authorities?

Likely? Of course not, because the commentariat, like the government, is scared to put itself in a position where it may be accused of dictating to consumers. (As if the way consumers behave has no influence on anyone but them; as if others have no right to demand they change their harmful ways unless the harm is actually illegal. There's more to social life than law.)

Scared, I allege? Scared to say that cruelty is wrong? People do that all the time! No. People condemn extreme cruelty, but deploring the end result while ignoring the conditions which create it isn't much use. Yet many people appalled by James Bulger's death see nothing so very bad about 'less serious' cruelty, even when that cruelty is damaging a child.

Bullying isn't just high spirits. Neither is killing or tormenting cats, dogs, invertebrates or any living creature for fun. Terrorising the wife and kids -- even if you don't actually hit them; even if you say 'I love you' afterwards -- isn't just a low-priority 'domestic'. Leaving a young child exposed to an habitually violent parent isn't just the freedom to bring up your kids as you see fit, or the route of least resistance. These are forms of cruelty. Their widespread tolerance in the name of individual freedom isn't genuine; many people hate this kind of stuff. But they're afraid to say so, for fear of being ridiculed as do-gooders, wimps or would-be social dictators. When no one speaks out, that creates an illusion of tolerance which probably does more to facilitate extreme cruelty than any number of gory DVDs.

Asking others to speak out, I should do so myself. I think bullying and domestic violence should be unacceptable behaviour by anyone, at any age, blood-relation or otherwise, irrespective of cultural or religious traditions, whether or not they lead to someone almost, or actually, being killed.

In practice, we've struck a bargain, because we're afraid and perhaps because we're lazy. The bargain is that we will pay professionals to deal with the extreme cases. The alternative takes effort: each of us sorting out in his or her own mind and stating clearly that cruelty is wrong, so that all of us as a society can decide what we will and will not tolerate. Some leadership from influential opinion formers would help, but alas, they're as fearful as we are of being ridiculed, threatened or worse.

Nonetheless, if you yourself want to help stop cruelty you'll need the courage to raise these basic issues of right or wrong, however unpopular that makes you. Where's the political leader with the vision and skill to do this without resorting to platitudes, oppressive traditionalism or downright racism? While we await him or her, and the political culture that would allow such a leader space to breathe, you have the knowledge. You have the power, too. Don't leave it to the system; the system will always be inadequate. Take a deep breath, I dare you, and use your power, as I've tried to do in this blog and in my book.