Tony Blair says he is going to crack down on crime in the UK with a zero tolerance approach.

It is a get-tough strategy targetting 25 "hot spot" areas plagued by petty crime.

Zero tolerance has been borrowed from the New York Police Department. Minor crimes are pursued with the same severity as serious misdemeanours.

Their results are impressive with major crime in the Big Apple dropping 39% and murder down by 49% since 1993.

Zero tolerance will flush vandals, drug-takers and thieves out of inflicted communities by treating them as major criminals. Previously they would have got off lightly with a caution or a light sentence.

Do you think zero tolerance is the best way to tackle crime? Will an aggressive approach clean up problem areas?

Home Office Minister Alun Michael thinks that tolerating any sort of crime leads to an inability to maintain order.

"If you go in quickly you can stop things developing to the point where people give up on a particular estate or a particular area."

However in areas of high racial tension aggressive policing can lead to people feeling victimised. The police will be vulnerable to accusations of heavy-handedness.

It may work well in densely populated areas with high policing levels, but could be ineffective in areas where the population is more spread out.

What do you think?

Zero tolerance: Does it work?