Joan Smith: I'd rather confront a terrorist than a litter lout

At the end of June, when two men tried to drive a blazing Jeep into the entrance of Glasgow airport, members of the public risked their lives to help the police. A baggage handler, John Smeaton, was praised for his courage in tackling a man who continued to struggle with officers despite having set himself on fire. Mr Smeaton emerged unscathed from an incident in which he could have been seriously injured. It seems likely, in the post-9/11 world, that many of us would behave as he did if lives were at stake.

Contrast this outcome with two incidents this month in which someone has decided to "have a go" in (on the face of it) much less threatening circumstances. Nine days ago, Garry Newlove left his house in Warrington, Cheshire, to remonstrate with a bunch of teenage boys who were allegedly throwing stones at a mechanical digger. Mr Newlove, a 47-year-old father of three, died in hospital two days later after a savage beating. Five days earlier, a London man was sitting in his sister's car at traffic lights in Upper Norwood when a couple of youths threw litter in through an open window. Evren Anil, 23, got out to remonstrate and was immediately set upon. He died in hospital last week.

These events have prompted an anguished debate about the problem of "feral" teenagers and under-age drinking. Statistics show a dramatic increase in teenage drinking and the case for stricter regulation – which might include new limits on where people are allowed to consume alcohol – is compelling. But the larger question is what it all means for the long-standing assumption that the public should not turn a blind eye to antisocial behaviour.

When I was in my twenties, I didn't think twice about pursuing someone who had dropped an ice-cream wrapper and politely suggesting that they dispose of it in a more suitable place; they were almost invariably embarrassed, accepting that they had broken the social contract which makes us all responsible for public space.

These days, asking someone to behave responsibly risks being met with a torrent of abuse or worse. After a series of trivial incidents which have escalated into horrifying violence, the authorities have issued contradictory advice. According to the Home Office, people should call the police and avoid putting themselves at risk. The detective investigating Mr Anil's death took the opposite line, praising the dead man and saying he was entitled to intervene.

This bewildering situation has come about for two reasons. One is the unreliability of the police in responding to 999 calls, which means that individuals are too often in the position of having to tackle petty crime themselves or let it go unpunished; over the past decade, the Government has poured money into salaries and pensions right across the public services without making it conditional on delivery. The other is the barely repressed rage which lies behind a great deal of antisocial behaviour. The Tories claim this is because we now live in a "broken" society, but the problem is largely confined to easily identifiable groups of young men.

They belong to a subculture which scorns academic achievement and believes that all that matters is being "hard". It is actually evidence of a fragile masculine identity which cannot tolerate "disrespect" or being ignored. Teenage boys from this background go out actively looking for trouble, medicating their inner turmoil with alcohol and drugs. The result is a bizarre situation in which it may be as dangerous to challenge a group of youths over dropping litter as it is to confront a terrorist.

Interesting? Click here to explore further