AS THE father of a 21-year-old child, I am eminently qualified to admit that I’ve no idea what makes teenagers tick.

But you don’t have to be a Dad to despair at the way a single generation appears hell-bent on redefining attitudes towards violent crime.

When I was a teenager, there was always a knife available – usually a penknife – to enjoy a game of ‘Split The Kipper’ on the local rec.

But at no stage did any of us ever think that we would need to carry it with us at all times as protection or, in the case of so many tragedies, as a weapon to injure and kill.

It may be some time before we know what happened to chef Glyn Helliwell, but rest assured that the blade that killed him was carried by someone with intent to harm.

A knife amnesty is one approach, but is it really a solution when the people who carry knives are the least likely to respond to an invitation to give up their weapon of choice?

Solutions? Tougher policing? The return of National Service? Or even the successful technique pioneered in America where a zero tolerance policy on lower level crime has a major positive impact on more serious crime?

Chances are that at some stage in the next decade or so, major towns like Bournemouth will be awash with airport-style metal detectors at the entrances to pubs and clubs to weed out the potential killers.

A sad thought indeed, but far too late for the likes of Glyn Helliwell.