IN last week's column I wrote that there seemed to be a lack of World Cup fever.

What I overlooked was the tabloid's inevitable targeting of England's footballers in the run up to a major tournament.

This time the man in the spotlight is the England midfielder Raheem Sterling. The "sickening behaviour" that has caused a national paper to run a front page on him today?

Sterling's new tattoo.

The gun tattoo has caused fierce debate throughout the day. People spoke of it being totally unacceptable and offensive.

My opinion is a gun is an evocative image and getting a tattoo of one is not something I would have. But what someone chooses to do with their body is their choice.

And many people have missed the main point. Sterling wrote on instagram, to stress it reflects a vow he made to "never touch a gun" after his father was shot dead when he was a boy.

Put in that context it makes sense.

Despite that many rushed to judge Sterling badly anyway. The arguments were made it was glamorising gun violence, and he did it on purpose for the publicity.

How can it be glamorising guns if it is an anti-gun statement linked to the death of his father?

And the publicity came from the tabloids who for a long time have demonstrated an agenda through the number of stories written about him.

Never one to pass an opportunity to get some publicity, Piers Morgan was one of the most vocal to criticise Sterling.

In one of a number of tweets he wrote it was a tattoo which would be "seen by billions of people".

This is wrong of course because a sock will cover it when he plays football.

In another tweet to the player he wrote: "Here's an idea - stick a big X across that assault rifle tattoo and the words 'NO TO GUNS'. Then it works how I presume you intended it to work."

Morgan's campaigning against gun violence in America is excellent. But linking it to the wider gun issue, and lecturing him how Sterling should get his tattoo 'to look right' is ridiculous.

Like I say, with the context of his father's death it is an anti-gun statement. It doesn't need changing.

Sterling should simply ignore this tabloid newspaper created furore and anyone who completely missed the point like Morgan.