SUCCESS at last? It would be satisfying to think that some of the concerns of this column are picked up and acted upon in places of power.

So, vanity being what it is, the temptation exists to present the Government's newly-announced plans for harsher treatment for drink drivers and other serious motoring offenders as an outstanding victory for the column, which called for just such action only a week ago.

But of course it's just a coincidence. And what the Government proposes falls well short of what is needed - certainly of what this column has often advocated.

The heavily-emphasised "up to ten years in jail" for the worst offenders merely confirms the present maximum. True, the Government is urging that it be imposed more often. But, with all crimes not carrying a mandatory sentence, judges are reluctant to impose the maximum, which risks an appeal, costly to the public and possibly damaging the judge's reputation. This is not likely to change. More crucially, a ten-year maximum, which means five in effect, is by no means long enough.

At least the Government is considering life driving bans for those with three serious convictions. But the "up to ten years" driving ban suggested for those guilty of a second serious offence is also insufficient. Most bans would be less, when they should be more. The fear, at say 25, or 35, of losing one's licence for 20 years would be a major deterrent - and hence life saver.

This is the point. Very few people don't know of a family devastated by a road tragedy caused by reckless driving. Those responsible are indeed little less than murderers and must be treated so.

The only exceptions are very young drivers, often teenagers, who haven't shed the urge to show off. Often a cause of multi-tragedies, these present a separate problem, the key to which is an entirely different attitude to the car, which needs to be stripped of glamour and seen simply as a means of getting around.

If the Government, the motor industry, the advertising industry, macho motoring correspondents and some surprising others (even Blue Peter has done items on the fun of driving fast) catch up next week, I'll be happy to let them all share the credit.

SOMETHING else I've also been urging for years is a ban on boxing. The virtually complete absence of public backing for the BMA's campaign to outlaw this "sport" amazes me.

Setting two men to fight each other can't be a good thing, can it? But far from banishing this distressing spectacle, we've extended it by allowing women to fight.

Going back decades, I forecast that boxing and smoking would be two activities of the 20th Century that the 21st would view with abhorrence in the first case, and disgust in the second.

Following the tragic injury to Scarborough boxer Paul Ingle, the Government's swift "reassurance" that it has no intention to ban boxing is entirely consistent with the character of New Labour, which lacks any vision to lead on social matters.

However, in fervently wishing Paul Ingle well, I add the hope that his fight for life proves the one that at last brings home to the people the horror - the medieval horror - of pitting two people against each other, even when willing, with the aim of knocking each other unconscious.

MORE on the column's influence, or lack of it. One place where my recent pleas not to cut berried holly has had no effect is Ambridge. Young William Grundy has been trying to flog the stuff. He approached Shula Archer who said: "No thanks, I can get all the holly I want at Brookfield" - obviously with dad Phil's permission.

Not the best advert for the Farmer as Conservationist. So, at least for another 12 months, leave the holly berries for the birds.

www.thisisthenortheast.co.uk/news/ mead.html