I think the impact constant anti-social behavior is often underestimated. I think a lot of people could relate to some of the behavior displayed on the Panorama report, even if it is far less dramatic. There is even a new term, NFH, or Neighbors From Hell which has entered the lexicon which suggests it is a common problem.

It is always the victims that have to put out. The perpetrators get visits from the council, they get warning letters, more warning letters, more visits. The behavior might die down temporarily by which time the process goes back a few steps. At a previous address I once complained about a neighbor living in a council house only to be told by the guy from the Housing Office that I was the only one complaining, implying that I was exacerbating the situation. I suggested to him that I had to work to pay a mortgage to be able to live in my house whereas my neighbor stays at home all day, bored and pays far less. Shouldn't they be even more stringent in how council tenants, in particular, behave? He reluctantly agreed.

Something else which aggravates anti social behavior is the pack mentality. A lot of this type of aggressive behavior would be reduced if people where moved around and integrated rather than 'dumped' together in area where they congregate and cause trouble. Aggressive people own their own can be far less aggressive.

Alcohol is a big factor. This country definitely has a problem with alcohol. It is obsessed with it. When some relatives from Australia came out here about 18 months ago they couldn't believe their is a chain of shops called 'Bargain Booze'. Wouldn't we be horrified if we sent our kids to get some bread and milk from the local shop called 'Crack House' or 'Opium Den' or 'Bong Joint'? Are we surprised when we see very young kids drinking alcohol when it can be bought cheaper than a soft drink? We shouldn't be.

Thee question is whether we want to get control of our communities back or not.