Mike PannettWe must be fair to offenders, but let's start protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens

We know that people are worried about rising crime, that they don't feel safe, that they see offenders claiming more rights than their victims ever had. Some will say that our society is disintegrating, that we're fighting a losing battle, that there's no will to take the fight to the criminal element.

Some years ago, I was at a police training day. A civilian trainer asked the room full of cops: "If this country was invaded tomorrow, would you stand and fight or would you take your families and run to safety?"

To her great surprise, all of us said we would stand and fight.

I mention this to illustrate my contention that the vast majority of police officers want to make a difference but, as much as anything, they need to feel valued – by the public they serve, and by their political masters. Sadly, that is not always the case.

After 20 years in uniform, I came to the conclusion that the political pendulum has swung too far towards the rights of the offender and those who undermine society rather than contributing to it.

Let's have fairness, let's have understanding of the perpetrator, but let's also have common sense. Let's start protecting the rights of those who prefer to live within the law and contribute to society.

How many times have we heard it said that "prison doesn't work"? To judge by re-offending rates, you could say it doesn't – for the offender. But what about the law-abiding majority? In removing offenders from our midst, a custodial sentence protects us.

Yes, we need rehabilitation, but only after the full sentence is

served. At present, there are too many people who choose to act outside

the law with little fear of actually being put away.

Terrorism is once again a threat to our safety and security, and everyone agrees that we need to be protected. So it seems sensible enough to have a scheme whereby we keep tabs on who is in the country and where they are. But mention identity cards – or a national intelligence computer system – and there's immediate uproar.

Why? If I have nothing to hide, why should I feel that my freedom is threatened? The Human Rights Act was brought about to prevent the atrocities of the Second World War being repeated, but these days it seems to be used to protect villains, sex offenders and rioters. The police seem to be fighting with one hand tied behind their back, fearful of litigation and a bad press.

And then there are the gangs that plague our cities. In my experience, the only way to deal with gangs is to let cops confront, challenge and disrupt them. But that brings up another contentious topic: stop and search powers.

Ask yourself the question: you don't object to strict security measures at the airport, so what's the problem on your own street?

Ask any police officer, and you'll be told that the carrying of knives should result in an automatic custodial sentence, just as if you were found carrying a gun.

We have a generation of kids who don't feel safe on the streets, and

feel they need to "tool up" to protect themselves.

It cannot be right that a youth's fear of being assaulted outweighs any fear of punishment for carrying a deadly weapon.

Police officers, from the beat constable to the inspector, need to be re-empowered to use discretion to make their own decisions based on what they are confronted with, rather than being tied up with long-winded procedures. I was always taught, when faced with a difficult decision, to consider the views of "the man on the Clapham omnibus". In other words, what would the kind of people that you'd get on an average jury expect of you?

We're talking about common sense – and it always stood me in good stead. Today, officers are spending far too much time gathering, recording and submitting data to meet the Home Office crime recording requirements – and striving to meet meaningless targets. Statistics can be hugely misleading and can never show the full picture.

And what about Asbos? Isn't any crime a form of anti-social behaviour? In trying to restrain a wayward youth, an Asbo is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard. We already have a list of offences with which rowdy, disorderly, anti-social people might be charged: criminal damage, assault, being drunk and disorderly, harassment, etc.

The very term "anti-social behaviour" dresses up straightforward criminal activity as some sort of naughtiness. Rather than having the Home Office interfering with policing priorities and performance indicators, we should return to the days when each force concentrated on it own particular concerns.

There's a vast difference between policing, say, Croydon, or Bradford, and policing York or Easingwold.

But that is not to say that the rural copper doesn't need all the help he or she can get. And rural forces are chronically under-staffed. We

cannot afford to abandon our rural communities in favour of

the cities. I have worked in both and understand the differing pressures, but everyone deserves decent policing.

You cannot expect the police to cure all the ills of society. Historically, they have always been there to pick up the pieces. But perhaps we need to decide if we want a police "force" or a police "service" – because these days our officers feel more like uniformed outreach social workers.

Perhaps the answer lies with the public, after all. With the media focusing on the rights of the

minority who live with no shame and cause so much fear, hurt and despair, it may seem to us ordinary folk that the battle is lost. But we are a majority, desperate and waiting to be rallied

for the cause. Who is capable of rallying us?

Mike Pannett is a North Yorkshire police officer and bestselling author. His third book, Not On My Patch, Lad: More Tales of a Yorkshire Bobby, will be published shortly by Hodder & Stoughton, price 12.99.