JUST when you think that all hope has receded, a glimmer of light appears at the end of the tunnel.

I refer to the impending Government crackdown on litter louts long overdue but, I suppose, better late than never.

The idea is that fines are to be doubled with a newly-recruited army of neighbourhood wardens who are being appointed to tackle the problem.

These fixed-notice fines will be handed out by the new public appointees, in much the same way penalties are handed out by traffic wardens. Culprits would have 21 days to pay their £50 and hauled up in court if they fail to do so. Even better, persistent offenders could be forced to sweep the streets or scrub off graffiti.

That's fine. But seeing is believing. Make no mistake, the whole issue of anti-social behaviour is now high on the agenda. For there is undoubtedly now a collective weariness as every public building or wall seems to have been daubed and paths, rivers and canals bear depressing testimony to our selfish, thoughtless, ugly throwaway society.

It is a constant reminder of just how bad things have become. But don't take my word for it. Ask the people who live from St John's to Worcester city centre, those who must reside along Vandal Alley.

Where is this? For those who don't know, I'll tell you. It runs from Angel Place, along South and North Quay, over the Sabrina Bridge, Hylton Road and then into student bedsit land.

Thursday, Fridays and Saturdays are the worst. There's noise well into the early hours and when morning comes, the plastic bottle and takeaway cartons lie exactly where they were cast just a few hours before. Not to mention unmentionable deposits on people's doorsteps as reported in last Tuesday's Evening News.

As I said, don't take my word for it. People who must put up with this are only too eager to talk about the problem. I've met them.

So I make no apology for returning once more to the theme of litter, graffiti and vandalism. Together with the street safety issue, it is the matter that most concerns Worcester residents. Everything else takes a back seat.

For people are sick to the back teeth with the idiots whose notion of personal freedom is to reduce that of others. This subject is talked about in pubs, front rooms and over meal tables across Worcester.

And at long last, some action may be on the way.

News of the Government crackdown has been welcomed by Councillor Derek Prodger, a man who has long campaigned to clean up Worcester's streets. I'm pleased that his efforts for so long sneered at by the usual negative bunch of losers have now, in a sense, been recognised.

The man's a breath of fresh air. Unlike the councillors who put party above people, here is a public representative who actually campaigns for his city. As his detractors jump up and down like meerkats on heat, wisely, he refrains from point-scoring and just gets on with the job the job of making Worcester a better place in which to live.

Mike Layland's another one. For some time, he's been championing the plight of the poor souls in Ronkswood who must endure round-the-clock anti-social behaviour. Now, most people would think that his stand would be universally applauded.

But what does Worcester's MP say? On Page 5 of the Evening News on Wednesday, November 21, we carried a report stating "city councillors have been criticised for failing to pull their weight in the fight against anti-social behaviour".

Although it had been confirmed that Worcester will be allocated extra police officers in the New Year, city MP Mike Foster said councillors should not shirk away from their responsibilities.

Coun Layland, an Independent, had earlier told the Evening News that his Nunnery constituents felt compelled to take action themselves against yobs who had smashed windows and kicked down fences.

But Mr Foster said that extra police officers were only part of the solution. Councillors should use the tools available to them, saying that only one Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) had been applied in Worcester over the last two years.

The community-based orders can be applied for by local authorities, as well as police forces, against people causing harassment, alarm or distress to one or more people. Coun Layland replied that the orders were not easy to implement and accused Mr Foster of passing the buck.

Hang on a minute. I would have thought that the Worcester MP would have allied himself without qualification with a leading Worcester councillor who is campaigning against thuggery in Worcester. If not why not?

That is not to say that Mr Foster doesn't share the same concerns as all right-thinking people. He is obviously as much against vandalism as the rest of us. But he's sending the wrong message. The fact is that a unified front must be presented in the face of those who seek to diminish our quality of life.

After all, not all of us live in safe, tree-lined avenues where the houses are predominantly detached, where there's a nice, middle-class babysitting circle and where the problems of the inner city rarely if ever present themselves. Right?

Mr Foster needs to take his eye off the fox for a moment. There is another quarry that needs chasing and it doesn't wear a red, furry coat.

Quite how this new wardens idea will work remains a bit of a mystery. For example, just how will one person approach a gang of eight, nine or 10 teenagers throwing soft drinks cans into the Severn? And, indeed, is it reasonable to expect this of someone with, say, the same status as a special constable?

Other scenarios are not difficult to imagine. For example, street-drinking remains a problem, with all the attendant litter. So, a warden approaches a drunk fuelled on three or four litres of white cider and asks him to pick up the empty plastic bottle. What happens then? It doesn't take great stretches of the imagination we're not talking rocket science here.

But all this is a start. In the meantime, parents, schools and society in general need to ram home the idea that litter, graffiti and vandalism is not acceptable. And despite the crassness of the criticism aimed at public representatives such as Derek Prodger and Mike Layland, there are hopeful signs that public disquiet is beginning to filter through to New Labour's Establishment.

After all, if Tony Blair accepts there's a problem, there must be something in it. And that being the case, it should be good enough for his underlings in the provinces, yes? What's sauce for the goose and all that.

Let's just hope the message sinks in. And I'm optimistic... if not exactly holding my breath.