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.

Nostalgia ain't what it used to be

I think that sociologists have denied us something important: the "golden age". If you remember times when things were better you are accused of indulging in golden age thinking; that it was never thus, or if it was, there was a significant downside that you are ignoring.

So if you reflect on a green and pleasant land, when there was no point talking about organic, because everything was, and when there was no rural crime to speak of, then you will be told that actually people lived in grinding poverty and you are better off now. Plus you will be made to feel unsophisticated and foolish (which perhaps one is).

I want to talk knives. Though I live in France, I like to follow events in the UK, and knife crime among youths seems to be a hot topic.

Well, here's something from my golden age. "When I was a boy" (hem) most of had knives. A dagger in a sheath was part of the Boy Scout uniform. We used to take knives to school. I know, because we played the following interesting game.

There was a Stander and a Thrower and of course spectators. Stander stood with his feet together and Thrower threw a knive into the ground to the left or right of his feet. If the knive was more than a hand-width from Stander's foot, Stander won. If the knife was less than a hand-width, Stander moved his foot to touch the knife, which was then removed and the procedure repeated. If Thrower managed his end of it well, Stander would eventually be so spread-eagled that he would topple over. At that point Thrower won.

I guess Health and Safety had not been invented yet, because we were allowed to get on with this game during playtime. I can remember one boy getting a knife in the foot, but it seemed a rarity.

One more thing. In my Golden Age when knife-carrying was commonplace we never threatened another boy with a knife or used it in anger. I feel this came from us. It would have been, somehow, utterly disgraceful.

Postscript: I am indebted to Brother Tobias for reminding me that the game is played reciprocally, where the two face each other and take turns throwing the knife.