I think I may just pinch myself. No, I'm not dreaming.

I wrote about knives recently. 'When I was a lad' we all had them, but didn't do bad things with them. That sort of smug twaddle.

There was an interesting following discussion about knife crime and based on my own experience it seems to me that owning or carrying knives is not the problem whatever the government thinks. I carry a knife with me all the time. It's invaluable.

Which leads me into a tiny digression. We had our village fête last weekend, and while I was waiting to be served some food I realised that the lady behind the counter was searching for a knife to cut the baguette with. I produced my knife which she accepted gratefully, cut up the baguette and handed it back. No shock horror at a strange man producing a knife and no shock horror of the "How do I know you haven't been slicing peanuts or kiwi fruit with that" variety.

Which leads me to digression number two. Oh dear. The last one. Anyway, I was serving behind the bar at this fête. Although our village is tiny, just a hamlet, the fête is a famous commemoration of the Resistance. It attracts a couple of thousand people every year, which is extraordinary. I was serving from 7 pm to about 1:30 am, one of six volunteers, so you can see that drink was flowing, yet I did not see one drunk / disorderly person all evening. The French, around here anyway, don't seem to drink, fight and projectile vomit the way the Brits do.

OK, back to the point. It is this quote from The Telegraph, in an article on knife crime: "The first responsibility when a child is in trouble or at risk of getting into trouble rests with the parents. We must hold parents responsible." Gordon Brown himself, no less.

So the thing that had me pinching myself was what that quote implies. Is is really the case that parents are *not* responsible for the mayhem that their children create? Good grief, when did we lose this particular plot? It explains a lot. Such as why some parents don't know where their children are or who they are with. Given that they are clearly already neglectful, their attitude might change if they were at least handed the bill for restorative justice.

I sometimes wonder if the great and the good, that is those who engineer society on our behalf, were ever boys (well, of course I accept that some of them were very pleased not to be). Boys, and especially adolescent boys, are really quite intrinsically dangerous. They need a lot of socialisation, and some of it heavy handed. They are not hugely influenced by discussions about why their behaviour is wrong (duh, is that actually news to them?) or how to meet the obligations of a contract put together by a well-meaning but criminally optimistic social worker.

"Boys will be boys". Indeed, and some of them are little shits too.

PS - I've noticed that the media tend to refer to "children in trouble" or "at risk". Be more accurate to call them "troublesome children". God, I'm in a real grump tonight.