MENTION the phrase "Zero Tolerance" to any policeman and the response will be a sharp intake of breath. It's a concept of policing that has been steeped in controversy ever since its inception in New York City in 1994.

Tough-talking police commissioner Bill Bratton told the world that if those charged with upholding discipline on the streets continued to ignore one broken window then other windows would be broken. The area would be perceived as being uncared for and the law-abiding citizens would move out. Criminals would then move in and serious crime would flourish.

So if police could stop the graffiti, vandalism and theft, the street violence and organised crime would be nipped in the bud.

And in New York it seemed to work with levels of criminal activity dropping as quickly as the fear of crime itself.

A simple principle, the common sense approach, yet when it winged its way across the Atlantic it was greeted with suspicion, not simply from the civil rights groups, as would be expected, but from the majority of senior police officers.

It would undermine the policeman's discretion when dealing with people on the streets, they said. It risked harsh treatment of minority groups. It threatened to ride roughshod over people's civil rights. No tolerance to petty crime might lead to no tolerance with the public, a police state where any dissent is crushed by force. Oppression would lead to resentment and ultimately civil unrest.

One of the few to embrace it was Cleveland Police Detective Superintendent Ray Mallon. As Zero Tolerance-style policing was introduced to the streets of Cleveland there, as in New York, crime plummeted.

Beat bobbies and detectives preyed on known villains, cracked down on the anti-social behaviour whether the misdemeanour was large or small. Crime fell by 20 per cent but the success was soon lost as the Force sank into a corruption inquiry.

Politicians who had been keen to embrace the concept as part of a law and order ticket now side-stepped the issue, leaving the public confused as to whether Zero Tolerance was a good thing or a bad.

Two weeks ago a Treasury Council report condemned Cleveland Police for using the policy without greater research and better management. The authors, two barristers, claimed it had failed to increase the detection rate or the amount of property recovered.

But yesterday, Zero Tolerance was back on the agenda as Prime Minister Tony Blair told senior police officers he wanted the streets cleared of the yobs who blighted decent people's lives.

They discussed issuing on the spot fixed penalty tickets - like those for speeding - to stop the trouble which happens nightly in town centres.

Drunks would not be dragged to the cash machine to pay on the spot fines, as originally suggested by Mr Blair.

But they could be issued with a ticket which would have to be paid, or face court action and a criminal record.

The idea marks a zero tolerance attitude to miscreants, as does the Crime and Disorder Act which was introduced this year.

Labour has appeared consistent in its tough stance on crime. Even in opposition, Mr Blair backed the policy as long ago as 1997 as he spoke of the need to clamp down on petty crime to deter the serious. Home Secretary Jack Straw is also keen to be seen to support the idea.

His advisor, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, says most forces adopt the principles of Zero Tolerance. While they may shy away from the phrase because of the negative connotations it has attracted, they still follow its path.

"The problem is the term as it means you are being intolerant," he says. "I prefer positive policing. You will also hear intelligence-led policing, flexible policing, or being firm and fair.

"It's all about making police officers confront those people who are being anti-social. It may even involve humiliating them in front of their pals. It's very much against anti-social behaviour. It hasn't to be tolerated. The police should tackle it in the first instance then everyone should take a stance against it. I do and I haven't been filled in yet so it must work.

"If you clean areas up then it creates a better environment which has the effect on serious offences and that is what happened in New York. That is what Tony Blair and Jack Straw support."

It's a philosophy being adopted across the North-East and North Yorkshire.

Durham Police's assistant chief constable Ron Hogg says: "We totally support any reasonable efforts to counteract the yob culture and we would be very keen to join the debate on what steps should be taken.

"However we do not believe there is a single easy solution. It will take a range of methods which must be appropriate to the local communities we serve."

Cleveland Police continues to use Zero Tolerance as part of a three pronged attack on crime.

"Zero Tolerance tackles the here and now problems of anti-social behaviour," a spokesman says.

"Problem-orientated policing looks at the long-term strategy and partnerships look at tackling crime with the help of other agencies to find better ways to address the problems in the future."

In North Yorkshire police use the firm and flexible route. "We have taken a firm stance on anti-social behaviour," says assistant chief constable Peter Walker. "We were one of the first forces in the country to be involved in obtaining anti-social offending orders in York and the breach of those orders. But we want to deal appropriately and flexibly with offending."

Northumbria Police welcomes the Prime Minister's input. Assistant chief constable Paul Leighton says: "We are pleased the Prime Minister has offered the police service the opportunity to discuss the issue of crime. We are committed to making the North-East a safer place to live, work and visit and will continue to deploy our resources as effectively as possible."

But while the talk at senior levels is tough, the rank and file view is that more action is needed.

Director of the Victims of Crime Trust Norman Brennan claims there is too much rhetoric and not enough being done.

"Labour comes in tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime, but the question I would like to ask is what has this party achieved in relation to law and order," says Mr Brennan, a serving police officer who was once badly injured in the line of duty.

He claims violent crime has increased (a theory that's expected to be confirmed when fresh national crime figures are released in a couple of weeks), so has the fear of crime, while police numbers have fallen and morale has never been as low.

"People should be asking themselves, do they feel safer since Labour came to power. If the answer is no then Labour policies will be put to the test at the next General Election.

"Labour should stop the spin, stop the window dressing, make the promises and keep them, then this country will start believing them."