My wife was almost in tears, watching the sensationalist news coverage of the young children, crying at the death of their father. He had gone to ask some youths to be quiet and was viciously stabbed and left for dead. Just a quick point – we know he had children, we can safely assume they would be upset – was there any need to show them on television? Not really.

The main point is that people who live close by, know these youths and their drug-fuelled intimadatory behaviour. How can this be allowed? Anti-social behaviour drags down the lives of the people exposed to it – and yet you hear of it happening all over the country. If these youths are caught and convicted – at massive cost to the taxpayer – what will they get? Kudos for doing time, to play some snooker, muck around and meet more of their kin, before coming out and resuming their careers.

I heard David Cameron’s speech and phrase stolen from Tony Blair that says he wants to be tough on crime and the cause of crime. Unless he means something drastic, it’ll all be much of the same, spun a different way, with some stats that prove it’s working – ignoring the stats that show it is not. Normally, being “tough” on something would mean that he intends to throw lots of resource and money at it. It’s not enough.

The causes of crime tend to be education, or lack of it – and this is normally handed down by parent to child, and so the vicious circle is established. How do you stop that? It’s not money – the behaviour is ingrained from an early age by their experience – and then it’s too late – at least for the vast majority. On various television programmes, the youngsters and their (normally absent) parents are usually well dressed, in the latest trainers, standing in front of expensive plasma television screens. Most agree it is education – but in some areas and in some schools and with the quality of parenting, how can they possibly turn out any differently? How do you stop the circle? The school may improve, but the home life and environment will not.

More police? More “Bobbies on the beat”? Does that work, or does that just create confrontation? It could be a start, but some areas are no-go areas for the police already, and this may just increase the amount of ghetto areas where those inside are even more scared and isolated. What about areas where people are well behaved? I do mean young children who hang around together with groups of peers – which I completely understand is part of growing up. Is it fair to them to have police coming up to them and asking them what they’re doing and where they are going, just because they’re wearing hoodies and laughing and joking in groups of 10 or more? Sometimes they’re not vicious gangs, sometimes they’re just teenagers growing up.

Perhaps we only have the option of ramping up the punishment? Perhaps people who are caught assaulting people, intimidating honest citizens, selling drugs and the like should be a lot more frightened of being caught? When I was young, the fear of my mother’s temper kept me in check. I was worried about teachers shouting at me – nowadays, the pupil – or worse, their parent(s) – would give the teacher a good hiding. When people tell me they’re a teacher, I automatically think a screw MUST be loose. The pupils, and later young errant adults truly believe that there is no accountability for their actions. At that age, probably being a bit over conscious of their own self, I think they can only be focused by a genuine concern for “what happens if I get caught doing this?”.

So what are the options? What are the options that we have available where the bureaucrats in Brussels would not work themselves into a frenzy, accusing the Government of human rights abuses? Where are they when a man gets stabbed, trying to quieten down a ruly mob of youngsters? In a big house, out in the countryside somewhere, drinking red wine and telling people what a splendid job he/she is doing – that’s where.

I think it’s time we chose between passive tolerance (accepting that the consequences are people have no accountability and nothing to lose) or an agressive intolerance to those actions which are clearly unacceptable.

There is crime and there will always be crime in any walk of life – this much IS life. Sometimes you are unlucky and you are a victim. That’s a fact. We need to work against that as much as possible by standing up and using a firm hand on those that wish to exploit society. Jail terms should last for their entire duration – not this crazy situation where you are out in under half the time. Jail time should be tough (but fair) – you should never come out of there thinking that it wasn’t so bad. I don’t mean that inmates should be allowed to intimidate one another, but that they should work, work for society – and do it for no recompense. Any misbehaviour should result in extension to their time, maybe solitary confinement, and in more extreme cases – corporal punishment. No personal possesions, no comfort at all, no television, nothing should be allowed in prison. If you don’t like it – don’t do the crime. People who commit crime should have reduced human rights – why should they keep them? The victims lose their rights, during and often after the crime. That needs to be reversed.

It will cost money – extra jails, staff. I think it’s worth paying. To tackle the cause of crime would be nice, but we don’t have the time. Let’s tackle the criminals first, and then the cause of crime. It might be a smaller task. It’s too easy to engage in criminal behaviour – let’s turn it into a more risk dominated activity.

This is all quite common sense – but politicians and liberals are blinded by their own desire to be politicians and liberals. I’m sure that if they were to live on some council estates and some of the streets in Britain today, they may soon change their minds.