I want the streets to be full not empty street life to be richer not poorer

I want the streets to be full, not empty, street life to be richer, not poorer. Those concerned with civil liberties must recognise that as long as we are afraid of the streets themselves then one of our biggest freedoms has already been lost. While they are at it they might also like to consider whose liberty they are protecting - the right of people to terrorise public space or the right of the rest of us simply to inhabit it?SMThe "zero tolerance" approach to crime - in which any misdemeanour, however minor, is stamped upon by the police - has gained a new disciple, Tony Blair. He has joined a bandwagon whose passengers already include John Major, the Home Secretary, Michael Howard, and his Labour shadow, Jack Straw. They all appear to believe that one of the modern panaceas of crime is to pour large numbers of foot patrol officers into a "problem area" and ensure all laws are enforced.They argue that by clamping down on "minor" crime and nuisance - begging and abusive drunks, cyclists riding on the pavement, litter louts - many of the more serious offences and offenders will be eliminated.The enthusiasm for zero tolerance comes from its apparent successful introduction into New York's crime-ridden streets, and a pilot scheme in London's seedy Kings Cross .However, closer examination shows the scheme may be more about feelgood policing than about stopping serious crime.Zero tolerance was greatly influenced by the criminologists James Wilson and George Kelling, whose 1982 article, Broken Windows, argued that leaving a broken window unrepaired would encourage vandals to wreck the rest.The theory was put to the test in New York about three years ago. Under the direction of Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and his former police commissioner, William Bratton, the city's police made a priority of cracking down on "quality of life crimes", such as graffiti and begging.British politicians and police officers have flocked to New York to admire the results.A week ago Mayor Giuliani announced that a city once notorious for its violence now ranks 144th on the FBI's comparison of crime in America's 189 largest cities. The city's murder total last year fell below 1,000 for the first time in nearly 30 years The total is now less than half the figure recorded in 1990.

Theft and burglary have also dropped.But many criminologists believe other, more influential factors are responsible for the city's change of fortune. There has been a demographic shift in the American population, with fewer young males, the group most prone to violent crime. The turf wars between rival drug gangs are considered to have stabilised and many of the more bloodthirsty offenders are now behind bars.Evidence that this is a national trend is shown by the fact that about 125 American cities have seen dramatic falls in murder rates.But how does this approach translate to Britain, which is not yet overrun by drugs and guns?In the six-week-long Kings Cross experiment, an extra 20 to 25 police officers were redeployed to provide 24-hour, high-profile foot patrols. They were given strict instructions not to tolerate any law breakers or threatening actions. This included aggressive drunks, pushy beggars, people throwing litter, and drug users.

At any one time there were 20 to 40 officers working the patch.The flurry of arrests slowed to a trickle after a few days. But police believe the crime rate, for both small and big offences, dropped significantly during the period because of their tactics. Furthermore, they say, two neighbouring police areas did not suffer an upsurge in offences from displaced miscreants. Residents were also happy with the results.So zero tolerance is a big success? Not necessarily. Scotland Yard admits that keeping so many officers on patrol would eventually affect other services and could not be sustained for long without extra resources.With police forces throughout Britain struggling to make ends meet, they do not have the spare cash to lavish on hordes of extra beat bobbies.It is also too early to tell whether the Kings Cross scheme has reduced crime permanently. And with violent crimes rising by 10 per cent to 331,300 in England and Wales last year, the public may feel there are other priorities.Chief constables recognise these dilemmas, and Scotland Yard appears to acknowledge that one of the most important benefits from the pilot scheme was the feelgood factor.As a Metropolitan Police spokesman acknowledged: "By maintaining a higher police presence [in Kings Cross] we are reassuring the public and reducing the fear of crime. The idea was to tackle [that] fear."In an ideal world the police would make big cuts in the level of crime as well as making the public feel safe.