THE people of Worcester are currently being asked by the city council if it should clamp down on a variety of behaviours which have been labelled “anti-social”.

Among the actions listed in the city council’s consultation are being under the influence of drugs (including legal highs), urinating and defecating in public, feeding certain birds, including gulls, aggressive begging, and aggressive or inconsiderate riding of bikes, scooters or skateboards.

If the proposal goes ahead, police will have new powers to fine these offenders up to £70, or even ban them from the city centre.

There will be many who might feel that these powers might be deployed inordinately against some of the most vulnerable of our society, such as those with mental health issues, or rough sleepers.

The council seems to have anticipated this criticism; it says that “no action would be taken against genuine rough sleepers, with the powers reserved for use against individuals who are known to be part of an organised begging scheme”.

Even without this objection, there is the question: will this be an effective way of making life in the city centre better?

There is some evidence, albeit controversial, that its does.

In the early 1980s, US social scientists James Q Wilson and George L Kelling came up with the “broken windows” theory, which says that visible signs of anti-social behaviour create an environment that encourages crime and disorder. It was later tried in New York and other American cities.

If this is so, then the council is on the right track.

But there are also those who contend that broken windows policing disproportionally targets minorities and vulnerable elements in the community.

If they are right, then any such policy must be deployed with the greatest sensitivity, so as to avoid further stigmatising those who already get a rough deal.

But we cannot also forget the people for whom the city is a home, a workplace, a place to meet or shop.

Most would agree that they should not have to put up with unpleasant and even threatening behaviour as they go about their daily life.

And if this involves the use of the power of the law to make it work, a lot of people would support that.