Whilst I found the meeting last night quite interesting - I also found it very frustrating. I ended up with a sense that only Frank Field understood the depths of misery that can be perpetrated by youths who have no sense of how to live in a community.

It was particularly interesting that Camden was raised (as ASBO capital of the UK) as I have just been elected to Camden Council - knocking out a Labour councillor. However, I think its wrong for people to take from Labour's poor results that the voters didn't like the authoritarian ASBOs. Indeed, most of the people for whom crime was the major issue saw ASBOs as not harsh enough - or at least - not effective enough.

I agree. There is a "duration mismatch" between punishment and prevention. Prevention, whether it is reducing deprivation, working with difficult kids, rehabilitating prisoners, is very important work--but it takes a long time and isn't always successful. In the short term, we still have to deal with neighbors from hell. I also think the comments about how New York City reduced crime were only part of the story. I worked in the Dinkins administration, that preceded Guiliani, and I remember how disdainful we were of his plan to prosecute petty crimes against property. But doing that, and putting more police on neighborhood beats, really helped. It showed that the City cared about poor people's neighborhoods. And it took off the street, for long sentences (which in some cases may have been too long, I acknowledge)recidivist criminals who had been cycling through the criminal justice system and returning to neighborhoods to wreak havoc again and again. These efforts at better policing spurred community and business groups to invest in their neighborhoods. Businesses formed improvement districts (BIDs), that hired security guards but also contributed to improvements to high streets. Community groups helped, too. But one wouldn't have done without the other.

Of course a lot depends on what stage in the cycle you interact with the behaviour.

We, Middlewich Town Coucil and our vision group, use outreach work with youngsters to see what they want and also to inform them what is and is not acceptable.

I think just acknowledging them as individuals helps in the early stages.

Later on it is vital to involve their parents or guardians as often they collude by not knowing where their children are and suppling money or alcohol to them, I suspect for a quiet time.

Respect therefore plays a part as does confronting the perpetrators with the victims and those responsible.

Personally I would give young people the benefit of the doubt until it is obvious they are habitually causing problems.

You need to look at the underlying reasons why anti-social behaviour happens and tackle it even if it is not the most popular thing to do.

We have found that ASBOs are very effective if used judiciously. A few councils have been handing them out like smarties, possibly because they believe that ASBOs are an ideological panacea. Most of our ASBOS are not taken out against young people. In one case (unfortunately only one that I know about, but there could be others) the actual process of getting the ASBO caused one young chap to actually mend his ways, it attracted his and his parents attention enough for them to actually co-operate with those who were trying to help and eventually the ASBO was lifted.
Young people need limits and the erosion of school discipline has reduced the ability to enforce those limits. Fining parents sounds like a great idea but if a parent is perpetually drunk what good is that. Potentially violent parents could also end up taking their displeasure at a fine out on their child, so we could create the kind of abuse we are trying to prevent.
A bit of zero tolerance now and again can work wonders, but Giuliani took it too far, he simply moved the crime from Manhattan to New Jersey.
Anti social behaviour is not directly related to deprivation, otherwise the "third world" would be full of it. Its more to do with dissociation. If you see loads of other people driving round in new cars you feel resentful that you can't have one. Its part of the Thatcher Legacy. If you go to Scandinavia where there is very little difference between the material wealth of the "top" and "Bottom" of society there is almost no anti-social behavior - because there is nobody to resent.
New Labour should think about how its "respect" agenda can work both ways. Is there really equality of opportunity in this society, are laws really enforced fairly? or do they just look for quick fixes that grab headlines?

People misunderstand Camden's approach to ASBOs and I agree with Russell that to attribute any election result on ASBOs would be misleading.

First, to see them in the prism of enforcement vs prevention creates a false opposition - both can operate alongside each other (and learn from one another). Camden had/has the highest drug treatment rates/funding in inner London. Despite this over 80% of ASBOs were drug-related and most of the banning orders were on people coming into the borough from our three mainline stations. In a vast majority of cases these people had persistently refused treatment from street services. Very few youth ASBOs were ever taken out so talk of youth ASBOs is misleading. Camden has high youth provision, and the highest amount of funding for voluntary and community groups in London, unlike other boroughs which cut funding to community groups.

Secondly, opponents either tend to think that (a) they are too draconian or (b) ineffective or, bizarrely, (c) both at the same time which seems to suggest that some people are against them intuitively or just don't know why.

Thirdly, Asbos are only one tool and to be effective go alongside extra CCTV, street wardens, PCSOs, Safer Neighbourhoods etc. This takes investment and commitment.

Finally, Lib Dem Islington took a diametrically opposed public view to Camden on ASBOs - look at the results there.

Theo Blackwell - a Camden Labour councillor

Greenman said: "Its more to do with dissociation. If you see loads of other people driving round in new cars you feel resentful that you can't have one."

but on the road those that are most anti-social are those with the flashiest (but not necessarily the most expensive) cars.

Your right that its not solely to do with deprivation. Somewhere there is an attitudinal shift that has affected the affluent and the deprived. Its just that generally the effect on the deprived is more marked and visible.

Do we take it from that then that 80% of anti-social behaviour is drug related?