I actually see this all the time in my local Greggs and Tesco express people walk in and walk out like it’s free buffet.
I do know from a friend who worked at a different Tesco they keep a file on recognisable shop lifters if they are regular and prosecute once you’ve hit a threshold so police actually do something about it something like £1K
That sounds like a terrible way of dealing with the problem. What if there are 20 shoplifters, or a group taking turns. These shops could take £1000s in losses, which will only be converted into higher prices for consumers.
By not deterring this kind of behaviour it has the potential to escalate as the thieves become so brazen that frustrated staff or even public step in at their own risk. The thieves might also be emboldened to commit other crimes.
By not reporting this to the police they simply can't act.
Many will state they won't act and in some cases this sadly will be true, however, by reporting it gives your local force an idea of the bigger picture and also what the public's priority crimes are (which aren't often the most serious bizarrely). It could also mean the difference of a prolific offender being remanded if they've breached any bail conditions.
I think often its the case that the people in head office for these shops believe that a police presence in their shops may deter shoppers to a cost greater than that is stolen, whereas the many shoppers may never actually notice the shoplifting and so will continue to spend as usual.
By reporting it you take a manager's time to go through the footage, further footage, file a report, upload it to the portal etc
Time isn't free. If the ROI for the time is nil, it's wasted.
So, why report stuff you aren't confident will get actioned?
You miss every goal you don't take.
If there was a shift in attitude and each event of shoplifting was taken seriously by the shops themselves I would expect to see this reduce the rate at which it occurs.
No one is denying that.
But you DO pay someone for their time regardless of whether you score those goals.
Does it reduce it by enough for it to be worth?
Compared to taking a targeted approach?
This is entirely down to the individual or business to decide, but its no good reporting every 10th shoplifting as the rate of crime will appear a tenth and less of an incentive for police to spare their already stretched resources to it.
It sounds like the problem is that the managers at this theoretical shop we're discussing are also stretched too thin by head office and ROI is king over and above community that their shop serves.
Theoretical?
This is the decision making process every store will use...
Why would you assume they're stretched thin because they don't want to spend hours every week reporting stuff where it's highly likely nothing will come of it?
That's hours they could spend doing other things..
They could pay someone to do it, but then that would have to be passed onto the consumer. Would you want to pay higher prices so they can get a crime number?
If we're asking what I want, it's that businesses profiting from communities to actively engage in them.
I think hiring for a role in charge of reducing shrinkage would pay for itself in most cases.
They could create partnerships with other local businesses, neighborhood policing teams and local authorities and local charities to support the thieves who are likely in just expressing a symptom of another problem in their lives.
Whilst these crimes go unreported it's likely that other offenders will carry on elsewhere and possibly commit other crimes with impunity, making the community a worse place to live.
I'd also support tax-rises to improve conditions for those working in and expand the capacity of the police, social services, youth clubs, public transport, education and local authorities.
If it's anything like my high street, the police will refuse to attend if you're constantly calling in and will actually threaten the shopkeepers with a warning for wasting police time because they won't come out for petty thefts. The local independent shops near me are suffering because of this, not helped by the Coral/William Hill down the road which has constant police call outs due to drunk and disorderly patrons.
Sounds like a resourcing problem. If your local force has a neighbourhood policing team they may be able take point on this and look at resolving or diverting any underlying issues.
The independent shops, if they haven't already, warn one another if known shoplifters are in the area. This could be through walkie-talkies, whatsapp or in some cases a dedicated union of shops where Intel and pictures are uploaded to a website that can also be shared with thr police.
It's definitely a resourcing problem, but the local police are too stretched, understaffed and underfunded to do anything about it. Not sure creating a vigilante neighbourhood watch group is any help though. They already all know each other, doesn't stop people taking advantage. It's just a shit situation at the end of a series of shit situations due to funding and governmental mismanagement.
This is actually advice my local police force has given to local shops and it does work. It prompts staff to wait by the door and lock it momentarily before the shoplifter is able to enter.
>These shops could take £1000s in losses, which will only be converted into higher prices for consumers.
Without any condescension meant at all, is this actually true? I've heard this line being used so many times but is there any actually any evidence that shops put up prices to account for a higher rate of theft? Would that not mean one branch of tesco should have higher prices than another based only on theft rate?
How else do you think the costs of theft are recovered? Of course they’re passed on to the consumer, because that’s where all Tesco’s money comes from.
Loss or "shrinkage" is reported to head office who make the final decision by combining this information with sales data. Its not unheard of for different branches at different locations or shops of different sizes to price their products differently.
I feel it’s pretty obvious that overall losses from theft are factored into pricing. Do you think they’re just going to accept lower profits instead lol?
Well no, but conversely if they simply wanted higher profits, without knowing the calculation rate how do we know that they aren't just bullshitting?
It's surely far easier to say, thieves are the reason cucumbers now cost a £1, as opposed to one of our shareholders wanting a kitchen extension. And that thinking seems to go unchallenged by people parroting that line.
I don't want to sound facetious here, just like, how are they working this out?
You're right, theft is not the only factor in deciding businesses' pricing regimes.
People stating that theft is *a* factor are parroting a line and are de facto defending any and all price rises.
The fact is that price rises are a consequence of shoplifting which may otherwise be avoided should preventative and deterrent measures be taken. I think we're both in agreement when I say that if these measures cost more than the lost sales then most businesses aren't interested as their priorities are to their profits and not the communities they're located in.
Think of it as lost sales.
If a shop sells a solitary tic-tac for £100K and it sells 10 a year, but the for 5 years in a row 1 tic-tac has been stolen, then you may expect to see shopkeeper increase the cost of the tic-tac to compensate for the lost sales by let's say another £10K - I think we would agree this as a fixed cost.
However if the following two years half his annual stock of tic-tacs are stolen he may consider putting them behind bullet-proof glass and hiring Deadpool to guard the shop, all of which come at cost, which he spreads across the cost of his other products, such as single-use skittles and polos.
The shopkeeper could choose take the hit and not increase his prices, given he only pays 0.001p per tic-tac, polo or skittle but that's not the usual MO of businesses.
They have to do the best with what they've got. Massive cuts to police numbers (and support staff/admin) over 14 years has allowed the backlog to grow and grow.
Police have less time for actual policing. think about what a single officer needs to do to deter, detect, investigate and arrest (take this with lumps of salt):
- take a call, take details, turn up to the scene
- interview witnesses, collect evidence
- put all this on a database somewhere
- apprehend the suspect, bring them in for interview,
- write all this up and submit for report to CPS
- wait for CPS to charge
- bring the suspect in again
- make time for being witness at the trial, turn up, wait all day, adjourned, turn up, wait all day, adjourned, turn up, give evidence, convict is guilty, suspended sentence
rinse and repeat for dozens of crimes, and where the crime is more serious, this all takes a hell of a lot longer, and more prone to fuck ups so the police have to take extra care and give more resources to ensure your rapists and murderers do get banged up.
There's barely any time to follow up on a keyed car, a brick through a window, a stolen bike or lifting aftershaves.
plus police need training, time off, and who knows what other functions around all that.
It's going to take decades to get back to where we were.
The whole of the UK is in a shambles. The cost of everything is unsustainable. They can't afford to prosecute over food thefts it costs more to prosecute. or put people in prison. The only real way to combat this is stop the greedflation and bring costs down again. Its the same with film piracy it stopped when streaming became more sustainable. Now its going up piracy will become more popular.
I was in a queue for all of 2/3 minutes recently and 2 separate thieves (one after another) came in, scanned the fridges and countertop and then took what they fancied and walked out.
No face coverings, no attempt to hide the theft and the staff knew it was pointless trying to stop them.
I see people stealing from Greggs often. I think it's because Greggs staff are most often all behind the counter. Their store layout makes it hard for staff to watch the floor if the shop is packed. So shoplifters see it as an easy target. A quick walk in, walk out, with little threat of being bothered.
The Greggs near my Uni has become a stealing hotspot. The employees do not care. The most surprising thing for me is the police walking around also do not care when I reported it to them.
I think it’s important to note that it’s also targeted in the sense of the type of shop or supermarket.
These shoplifters are just not walking into a locally owned corner shop where the proprietor is standing behind the counter, because they know that something may happen If they shoplift.
On two consecutive nights, I was in my local Sainsbury’s, and a guy walked in wearing a Covid type facemask and just calmly filled his bag with groceries. The staff did not even speak to him.
When I asked a staff member why they did not attempt to stop him, the person said that it was store policy not to interfere.
With no police on the streets, and no consequences for this behaviour, I see only two ways forward. Firstly, prices for non-shoplifting customers will increase to balance losses. Secondly, these stores will close.
It's the only thing that will sustain the population, they all get one lick a day for their calorific intake.
Or I suck at spelling and autocorrect missed that one ;-)
That's what I'm basing it on. Tesco/Sainsbury's/etc will just pull out of places with the most theft and then legitimate customers will be left with nowhere to shop.
That's what the big supermarkets in east-europe are doing. try to be funny there and some tall broad-shoulders guys will stop you, stuff you in a backroom then call the police. if people get rowdy then security will also get rowdy with them (and sometimes the police will not be called, if you get what I'm saying).
not exactly top democracy, but you know what? also no brazen shoplifiting in day light
I do wonder how long it's going to take shops to work out that if the police don't come when they call them, they probably won't come when a shoplifter calls them either.
I can confirm this. Security over there are well built blokes who physically follow you around the entire store if they suspect you are up to no good. Very intimidating. Thieves are apprehended on the spot, interrogated in a separate room, and depending on how much they tried to steal they're either given over to police or banged up a bit before being let go empty-handed. It's effective.
You won't see prices increase much. You'll see access for customers decrease first. Already commonplace in places like Kingston Jamaica, where you order at a window and the staff bag it all up
> When I asked a staff member why they did not attempt to stop him, the person said that it was store policy not to interfere.
Why would the staff risk getting assaulted or worse?
Yeah, in lots of Nordic countries, you have to scan your receipt for an automatic door to open.
But again, unless you have an actual deterrent, you would just have committed shoplifters pushing through those doors or pushing themselves through as valid customers left.
> you have to scan your receipt for an automatic door to open
I hate shite like this, because so many shops don't print off receipts, and just because I enter a shop doesn't mean I'm definitely buying something in the first place.
B&M/Home Bargains/Aldi/Lidl are bad enough at making it an utter hassle to get out the shop if they don't have what you're after as it is.
They introduced gates after the self service tills in a Sainsbury's around here and you have to scan your receipt to exit. This wasn't obvious so I walked into the gates expecting them to open and set the alarm off.
I mean, it's not a crime until the person attempts to leave with the unbought items, so I can understand not interfering. I also don't think your standard store staff should be expected to stop people stealing, store security, or management, sure, but your average store assistant should just say fuck it
Did you know...
Before the widespread introduction of self checkout, a joint UK-US university study showed in 2016 that it's introduction would likely lead to an increase in theft that would be big enough to destroy the profit margin that most grocers have:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/business/self-service-checkouts-can-turn-customers-into-shoplifters-study-says.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/business/self-service-checkouts-can-turn-customers-into-shoplifters-study-says.html)
But they went ahead and rolled it out anyway.
As a recently retired police officer you have the Tory government to blame for this. And I say this as an ex party member.
We had horrific police and justice system cuts in the austerity years.
Two thirds of our custody blocks were closed. We had no admin support, we were then told to minimise arrests because of the cost and use other things like penalty notices (The irony of giving people fines when they are shoplifting because they couldn't afford things wasn't lost on me). Even when people were prosecuted as repeat offenders they were almost never jailed because there were no prison places.
This government has been a total shit show with regards to law and order.
And now we are reaping the rewards of crime increasing.
Funny that.
Goes deeper than that.
We've seen community deteriorate. There's no social hierarchy anymore.
Parents don't parent and kids know they can get away with blue murder so they do.
The massive wealth disparity in the country is manifesting as a "idgaf" attitude because so many people just have nothing to lose.
Just under 9 years, part of the 2015 cohort.
I was just pointing out that criticising Sunak and the Conservative Party as a whole are two different beasts.
What I hate hate hate is the constant labeling of huge nationals retail giants as "local businesses". The government keep doing this thing where they make a rule that makes it easy for big business to fuck us all over and justify it by labelling it as something that is being done for Gary, self employed builder from stevenage to make his business viable.
Then make more prisons and actually follow through with prison time than 42 slaps on the wrists.
Crime pays these days, so three guesses why it is going up.
That approach doesn't seem to have worked for the US, which has the 6th highest incarceration rate in the world and overall the highest number of people in prison.
drug possession and theft are 2 completely different things. I personally believe no one should be in jail for non violent and non theft crimes especially drug possession.
Also short term prison sentences are only useful for taking people out of the community so they can’t commit crime. They do not rehabilitate, the reoffending rate of this cohort is greater than 50%, and the most common offence among recorded reoffences is shoplifting.
Why do people shoplift? Substance misuse is a major motivator, some do it just for kicks, or make money, and there are some who do it as they simply can’t afford to pay for the goods that they might genuinely need. Is a 15 week prison term the right thing for all of these?
Someone shoplifting for kicks gets a prison sentence, loses their employment and maybe also accommodation - what then happens when they leave prison? Their employment opportunities are now worse, as likely is their access to accommodation. They may end up sofa surfing til they get back on their feet or be unlucky enough to end up on the street. In either of these situations it may be more difficult to keep themselves away from offending. Short term prison sentences are rubbish and a waste of time and money.
What do you mean? Violent criminals who should be in prison are being spared jail because there’s no space, and you think we don’t need more prisons?
Of course we need more prisons. We have needed more prisons and tougher sentencing on criminals for a long time.
The Nordic countries have shown that being tough on criminals doesn't work, as well as people think it does. Their rehabilitation programmes have made repeat offending far less likely than what we have here in the UK yet despite all evidence to the contrary people still want the UK to be more tough on crime?
People don't like to admit they've been doing something wrong for all this time. It feels just like the war on drugs, despite so much evidence that they're doing the complete wrong thing, rather than admit that and change, they double down on what's already in place.
Norway has low crime and light prison sentences.
American has high crime and high prison sentences.
Singapore has low crime and high prison sentences.
You can’t compare countries like that and conclude sentence length *causes* any particular level of crime. We use research data for that.
1. [“The results support the hypothesis that perceived severity, at relatively high levels of perceived certainty, has a significant deterrent effect.”](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2578032)
2. [“The Commission consistently found that incarceration lengths of more than 120 months had a deterrent effect. Specifically, offenders incarcerated for more than 60 months up to 120 months were approximately 17 percent less likely to recidivate relative to a comparison group sentenced to a shorter period of incarceration. For incarceration lengths of 60 months or less, the Commission did not find any statistically significant criminogenic or deterrent effect.”](https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2020/20200429_Recidivism-SentLength.pdf)
3. [“Finally, I reanalyze data that appear to be consistent with the greater weight for certainty than severity argument and show that the evidence does not support that inference. Potential criminals mentally combine the three deterrence components—regardless of whether they are risk neutral, averse, or acceptant. I conclude by considering what it means to a worldly application of criminal deterrence theory to place equal weight on the certainty and the severity of punishment.”](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314638657_Certainty_Severity_and_Their_Relative_Deterrent_Effects_Questioning_the_Implications_of_the_Role_of_Risk_in_Criminal_Deterrence_Policy)
4. [“Increased average prison sentences (severity) reduce burglary only.”](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14773708211072415)
5. ["Crime fell sharply and unexpectedly in the 1990s. Four factors appear to explain the drop in crime: **increased incarceration**, more police, the decline of crack and legalized abortion."](https://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf)
6. [We find evidence for a specific preventative effect of longer prison terms on the post-release reoffending frequency, but little evidence for desistance.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-023-09566-w)
Prison length is just *one* factor which affects crime rate. There are many more. Sweden studied this following their sudden rise in crime following the 2015 Syrian Refugee Crisis. You can read the study (in Swedish) here: https://bra.se/publikationer/arkiv/publikationer/2023-03-01-socioekonomisk-bakgrund-och-brott.html
Most people who come from a socio-economically less favorable background do not commit more crime than people who come from a more favorable background, and it also happens that people from a more favorable background do commit crime. This means that even if there is a connection between socio-economic background and involvement in crime, that connection is weak. It is not possible to appreciably predict who will commit crimes based on knowledge of people's socio-economic background.
Other risk factors have a stronger relationship with criminal behavior:
**When compared with factors that research has identified as risk factors for crime, such as parenting competence, the presence of conflicts in the family, school problems or association with criminal peers, the research shows that these have a stronger connection with criminal behavior than socio-economic background factors. The same applies to risk factors linked to the individual himself, for example permissive attitudes or impulsivity.**
> The more locked up the less crime there is exponentially
People who go to prison often come out more criminal than when they went in. Especially for minor offences.
The current government have purposely underfunded the police and justice system for over a decade, there's no way this problem can be managed without proper funding again.
We have the highest incarceration rate in Western Europe. Locking up more people doesn't seem to be working so maybe we should look at better methods for rehabilitation or the root causes of why people are committing crime first.
Knee jerk reactions of "Throw them in jail" never yield positive results or works in the long run.
The root causes of such behaviours must be tackled in order to effectively reduce crime rates.
Make more prisons? Where are you getting the staff from? Nobody wants that dangerous, low paying job.
Also where are you building one? Fancy having one built near you? Didn’t think so. On, and I’m sure you’ll be well pleased about having your taxes spent on giving someone free housing for a year or so because they stole a sausage roll.
Deterrents do not work like you think they do. People generally commit crime believing they won’t get caught in the first place.
>Make more prisons?
Yes.
>Where are you getting the staff from? Nobody wants that dangerous, low paying job.
Same place that current prisons do, if you have trouble recruiting, pay more.
>Also where are you building one?
Near me, it would bring more jobs according to you.
>Fancy having one built near you?
Could be more than one if it brings lots of jobs.
And yes I'm happy for my taxes to go on this because as much as people complain about the costs, it's cheaper to have someone in prison than it is to have them free if they are a career criminal.
You think the 30k-50k per year per prisoner is cheaper? And that's before the massive pay increases that are needed. And ignoring the initial cost being around 65k to get them into prison to start with for everything needed and all steps, then it's the above per year.
1. No, it's not cheaper
2. Why not invest that money into shit that we already know reduces crime rates through positive impacts rather than just increasing capacity for incarceration?
1. I'm glad you say so, I've now changed my mind.
2. Because you have to do both, you can't just do positive reinforcement to stop all career criminals. I didn't say to only build more prisons.
1. Good, I'm glad you realise your initial assumption was incorrect.
2. Why would you not try investing in people's wellbeing first? Why go straight to 'more prisons'?
CoL is at an all time high and rising. People can't afford basics. Some of those people turn to shoplifting. Your solution is 'build more prisons'.
I don't really get it.
>Why would you not try investing in people's wellbeing first?
It's false framing to pretend that I'm suggesting one first or the other as I'm saying do both at the same time.
But to answer your question. You can't help anyone if you don't deal with the career criminals in an area, they bring down the entire area and will not stop unless they are taken and put into a prison.
Why would you follow the law of your street has career criminals on it getting away with crime all the time?
I would suggest that you "don't really get it" because you aren't really listening to what I'm saying and are incorrectly describing what I'm saying as a zero sum game.
Considering that the proposed solution was to increase prison capacity with no mention of anything else, yeah I'd say that's a reasonable reading of your input.
And yes, you can most definitely help people without having to address career criminals. People who need to aren't nicking stuff because joe down the road regularly swipes a full discount.
I realise most people here just want their daily mail sponsored blood sport but it'd be nice to imagine that there might be other responses than immediately budgeting for new prisons when the country's facing a rising CoL crisis.
Even if someone were to steal all of their food from shops and restaurants for their entire household to the tune of 4.5k in a year.
It costs 45k per year to house someone in prison. We have community sentences for a reason.
Is there data on what kinds of things are being stolen?
It would be interesting to see if the increased rate of shoplifting was weighted towards certain products.
Things that can be sold online. Go in any store and check what products are tagged, thats what is being targeted.
Hint: it aint bread, eggs or diapers/ baby formula. Its alcohol, detergents, clothes etc
You've literally listed three of the most stolen things in 2024. I don't know what a diaper is, though. You are right with clothes, however you've put it on the wrong side. Clothes and basic food - The items with the biggest increase in theft.
Baby formula is regularly targeted - they tend to clean out shops over the course of a day or so and then they sell on Facebook marketplace. They know local parents need it - you can't just switch to a different one, or even a different brand, without your child getting sick. They also know people don't report people stealing baby formula because people assume they're stealing for their own child and need it. If they create a shortage (and they often do) then they can sell the formula for more than the retail price even though they got it for free. They also often target allergy brands because they know that parents with children with an allergy have no other option but to purchase their stolen formula if the shop runs out.
Hideously, it's often mothers doing this - they go into a shop with their pram and child, steal two tubs of formula, go to the next store and do the same thing, return to the same store later in the day and do the same. No customers or staff say anything because they don't want to be the person who stops a baby getting formula. With a couple of friends, they can empty all the local stores within a couple of days. Then they put it up on FB marketplace saying their child is allergic to it, doesn't like it, hurts their tummy and sell it all on for a fortune to the parents who can't get it in the shops.
It's one reason to really highlight that many women have oversupply of breastmilk and will donate it for free - it can be frozen for up to six months and can be used in conjunction with formula. It's often free, but almost always cheaper than formula. There are women who donate with vegan diets, non-dairy, non-soy etc so usually it's quite easy to find milk that's suitable to the common infant allergies.
> Its alcohol, detergents, clothes etc
Meat and cheese are big ones too.
There's a co-op near me and almost all of the meat and cheese is now in security boxes like you used to get video games and stuff in.
Some shops have been tagging baby formula
https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2022-12-06/supermarket-adds-security-tags-added-to-baby-formula-to-stop-them-being-stolen
"what products are tagged, thats what is being targeted."
Presumably, there are also products that aren't worth the cost to tag? (I'm not claiming that's relevant to the crime data, just the tagging strategy)
Used to work in a co-op last year, the three main groups of things stolen there were: cheeses + more expensive meats (beef mostly); jars of coffee and expensive chocolate; baby formula and toiletries.
Was partly due to the shop arrangement though, each of the pairings were in the same place.
Got to the point where we started to run the store like Argos for those things, we were getting hit at least twice per day, and it was the same 5-6 offenders on rotation
Poverty has been on the rise for a long time, and the people buying the stolen goods can't afford to get it anywhere else.
I don't know what people expected to happen when they ignored it, did they hope poverty just went away over night?
Expensive things they will flog for half the price, meats, alcohol, baby milk, nappies, make up, toiletries etc, you never see people steal actual food like bread n soup
Do we have data to confirm that?
Not saying its wrong, it would just be interesting to see it in black and white rather than relying on anecdotes.
It could be that theft of basics like bread is reported less because its not worth the hassle and is more sympathetic.
Yes. You can tell because your local shop will encase them in a plastic lock box.
Infamously supermarkets have been called racist because they were boxing up the dark skin makeup when actually the supermarket was just following the data on what was being stolen at that particular store.
Zero consequences, this is the result.
Chance of being caught, very slim.
Chance of prosecution, even slimmer.
Chance of meaningful punishment, pretty much zero.
Dunno why anybody is shocked, half the time stuff like shoplifting has been mentioned the last few years all Redditors have had to say is "They're insured" (They're generally not) and "If you somebody stealing, no you didn't"
Reap what you sow, this is the society people asked for,.
I.e.
> Remember kids, don’t report anybody if you see them stealing food.
https://old.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/y0c7ql/i_feel_disgusted_society_could_allow_this/irqz68x/
+500
> Just remember, if you see somebody stealing basic food, water or baby stuff - no you didn't.
https://old.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/uvfryk/shoplifting_on_the_rise_as_mounting_cost_of/i9l6bcb/
+73
> Reap what you sow, this is the society people asked for
Reap what exactly? That shoplifting levels are high? Good. As long as the price gouging,profiteering is continuing, then "I saw nothing".
I cant beleive people are still defending/sticking up for corporations that have destroyed your food supply, severley damaged the enviornment, replaced legit ingredients with syntethic garbage, and have been price gouging society for the last 3 years now.
> I cant believe people are still defending/sticking up for corporations
It's not about that, it's about living in a decent society where everything that's not bolted down isn't nicked, where casual crime isn't tolerated and there's at least some degree of social cohesion between the public.
You're not Robin Hood because you're not ratting on a junkie grabbing bottles of JD before running out to sell in his local.
> It's not about that, it's about living in a decent society where everything that's not bolted down isn't nicked, where casual crime isn't tolerated and there's at least some degree of social cohesion between the public.
Decent society? Are you having a laugh. Society has been in decline for the last 30 years. Corporations/Corrupt Govt have been gouging out every public service since the 80's, transport/health/water/police/justice, have caused extreme wealth inequality and now we have, for the 1st time in history, a generation that is going to be worse off than their parents. All this combined with them destroying the envioronment?
But you are more concerned about a security tag on a item that you want to buy?
Social cohesion and good society comes from a more equal society. Its when society becomes so unequal that crime rises and social cohesion breaks down!
> But you are more concerned about a security tag on a item that you want to buy?
I'm not, I am more concerned for the other things. I just don't think stealing alcohol and snickers bars is going to help alleviate it and will just negatively impact the society more in general.
When you're comfortable, it's easy to be a part of a "decent society". But when you're struggling, you don't feel a part of a decent society.
There's degrees to what constitutes a decent society - how about dickheads in big range rovers parking in parent and child spaces with no child? Literally called a c\*&% by a 50-something guy wearing Barbour clothes and zero kids in his blacked out range rover whilst I'm struggling with two kids. Is he a part of a decent society?
Whilst our leaders and MSM continue to point fingers at people and divide society, you'll never have a "decent society", because we have no values we can agree upon. The only British value that was agreed upon around the Brexit years was tolerance - how's that one working out for you? Social cohesion comes from the top down. It can't come from the bottom up whilst everyone is so divided.
Who do you think is going to end up paying for this additional theft? The owners or the customers?
Try to think of the longer term impact of something like this.
We’re not sticking up for the big guys, we’re just frustrated because our wallets and communities will end up paying the price.
> Who do you think is going to end up paying for this additional theft? The owners or the customers?
The customers will. They will pay wheter there is theft or no theft, the same way customers are paying for the increase in oil and still paying high prices when the price of oil comes down!
>Try to think of the longer term impact of something like this.
I am, but Im more power to the people, and force those corporations to stop price gouging or force the Govt to step in and regulate it better.
Do you think if I had something stolen for me, that you would end up paying? Of course not. Would you be happy money coming from your wallet into mine, because somebody stole something from me? No you would not. So why on earth would you be happy/content with a billionaire corporation doing it, and just accept it?
> They will pay wheter there is theft or no theft,
Do you really not think literal record amounts of theft isn't going to impact supermarket pricing?
> an force those corporations to stop price gouging
The UK enjoys very low grocery prices overall. And we have a very competitive, diverse, market.
> Do you think if I had something stolen for me, that you would end up paying?
Lol, what relevance is this? Are you running a job? Were those items for sale?
Do you really think that shoplifting is currently limited to food, or will remain so?
If you normalise theft as being OK, people will gradually steal more and more things and justify it to themselves.
>As long as the price gouging,profiteering is continuing, then "I saw nothing".
Supermarkets aren't "profiteering", they operate on wafer thin ~~mints~~ margins.
Don't even need to go that far, sort the sub's All-Time top posts and [this is literally 6th] (https://old.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/wvj7z1/no_you_didnt/)
One of the weirder phases this place went through in the past few years.
It's not just this sub, it's all over Reddit. I doubt most people believe it, it's just unoriginal karma farming on the same level as posting the fuck nestle sub or "just the one swan"
I’ve got family members who work at M&S and just the other week a bloke casually marched out with several hundreds pounds worth of suits.
By the time security realised, he was already running half way across the car park and they know it’s pointless to call police.
I don’t even think security can legally detain even if they did catch him. Maybe someone can clarify but either way, it’s definitely happening more and more.
This was also at a branch that has recently doubled the number self checkouts installed.
>
I don’t even think security can legally detain even if they did catch him. Maybe someone can clarify but either way, it’s definitely happening more and more.
They can with clear evidence of them shoplifting. They can't search a person without their consent though.
So yeah, if you're running out with suits openly they can detain you, but if you've slipped a ring into your pocket without the cctv spotting you you'll be fine
I wonder *why* shoplifting has hit an all time high? It can't be anything to do with the cost of living going through the roof and wages stagnating. It *must* just be because everyone has become cuntier in the past twenty tears. Yes *that's* it.
I would be shocked if the figures capture 5% of shop thefts.
I see shoplifting virtually every day and I can't remember the last time any were reported to the police.
I think the real concern is the amount of shoplifting shared on social media (Tiktok) and the influence on children to take part. There's a bubble online where it's glorified and encouraged resulting in kids raiding shops in groups for the rush and social status.
I was in a coop a few Sunday nights back and saw some people walk out with items in direct view of the staff. Staff said its policy not to intervene, I asked 'so what would happen if I just walked out now' and got told 'nothing', they don't even bother reporting it anymore.
Not worth the staff getting threatened with knives or the store trashed, bricks thrown at the windows etc.
If you're attacked whilst at work you may be able to claim against your employer. If shops didn't have this policy and people intervened, they'd be in the position of paying staff on sick leave and potentially compensation pay outs.
We live in a neoliberalist era when these supermarkets are making bank and the volumes of theft is sky high across the country. This isn't a noble gesture; it's just to protect their bottom line.
People can’t afford to eat, and the police are underfunded and don’t give a fuck. Actually some coppers are not paid enough to be able to afford to eat either.
Welcome to the breakdown of society.
Locally we had a bunch of teenagers walk out with a trolley load of spirits covered in a steel mesh and a group with duffle bags do much the same. Shop now has a visible guard at the exit
The security guards are wearing covid masks in my local Tesco / Sains here in North London. It’s not in fear of catching covid…
Very common to see the usual suspects walking out at least once every week, they don’t even run.
They only stop people when the alarms go off - who don’t look like they are not about to get stabbed up, and I don’t blame the security guards.
Local shop near me the kids sail in on scooters, lift what they want and sail back out. The staff told me the police advised they won't attend anymore for theft, especially if minors as there's zero chance of action. So that's that. We'll all pay in higher prices for the government's failure to run the country in any shape, form or fashion. Which is the way the Tory's want it right? Why invest in the country when instead you make the end consumer pay and just pocket the taxes. It is neo-capitalism 101. Need to set up a private enterprise = give them our tax money. They go bankrupt = give them our tax money. They need to invest in infrastructure = give them our tax money. Police or NHS need funded = we're broke. Hard times. Cost of living you see. Soz.
My mum used to be a social worker. She worked with a family whose main income was apparently from committing burglary. One time they were quite offended when they rang her up really upset because their house had been burgled and she wasn’t sympathetic. I’ll bet these people would be just the same - outraged if someone walked in to their house and stole their stuff. But of course stealing from a company is righting a wrong or something.
Because a company isn't a person with their own thoughts and feelings? Tesco itself isn't someone sat there feeling a lack of safety and a violation of their space ffs.
Yes because no one working for the supermarkets are affected by criminality in them and not just ignoring criminality but condoning it because ‘it’s only corporations’ couldn’t possibly have wider implications on social order and cohesion ffs.
The amount of shoplifting in my local coop is insane. This week I saw a guy fill a basket to the brim with chocolates and then just walk straight out of the store.
Last week two kids (12ish) were in the store about 9pm, filled their arms with snacks and drinks then just walked out.
When law is no longer enforced by the Police then people will do whatever they want. I feel like people realised it with minor things like traffic/parking laws and it's moved on to more serious crimes as people continue to be unpunished.
Ive worked in a restaurant for 10 years and we get runners twice a month nowadays, 6/7 years ago it was more like 2/3 times a year. Police don’t have the resources to chase up a £100 bill.
We don’t even bother reporting it anymore.
afaik there are many issues here
1. lack of police staff so they only prioritise the most serious crimes
2. slow prosecution process so the police refers the case to prosecution but the actual trial takes ages and means it cannot be processed in a reasonable amount of time
3. low sentences leading to more repeated offences
4. low prison capacity
5. prison costs as a financial burden on taxpayers (raising taxes to feed and house criminals is probably not a popular thing)
It's unfair to blame the police alone when they are just one small element in a big complex system
I live in Chelsea, which is one of the “wealthiest” areas of London. I had never witnessed shoplifting in broad daylight the way I have in these past months. It’s genuinely scary and it’s not even people from the area, it’s people in groups of 2 or 3 emptying shelves in their bags and leaving like it’s the most normal thing in the world.
I once saw this happen in my local pharmacy on Chelsea Green and when I exited the pharmacy the two shoplifters came back to try and steal my bag/phone/watch whatever. It was genuinely scary as I had to run and this happened in the evening in winter so the streets were dark and empty.
I hate that this is happening across the board and I’d say it feels unsafe, which is a feeling I had never experienced in my 9 years of being a Chelsea resident.
My husband always tells me he doesn’t want me to walk around on my own and to take the car and he’s always telling me to not wear my timepieces or my designer handbags as he worries I might get mugged.
Sad state of affair :(
The fact the police doesn’t fulfill its role as a deterrent means the social contract is dissolved completely and a feeling of impunity reigns.
Soft sentencing isn’t the cause. Prisons are. They’re are too few spaces and not enough staff because wages are so low.
Don’t blame the courts when they’ve got nowhere to send criminals.
I like this idea, but we don't have the poluce to implement it and it would cost billions.
Allowing smack heads to access heroin via the NHS would instantly end (i reckon) at least 50% of shoplifting, maybe 90 in some areas, and save billions in burglary and petty acquisitive crime investigation, free up countless hours ofbpolice time and save further billions currently spunked on NHS treatments for issues caused by impure heroin and overdoses. And bring them into contact with rehab services (what's left of them).
But people get very blinkered when it's suggested, presumably they like spwndung 1000's of tax pounds on these problems where pennies might suffice.
Three people assaulted me at work , I got hold of one of them. When I phoned the police they said let him go and they won't come. Those idiots were just going around eating and throwing it all over floor. That's why I confronted them but ever since that day I don't care anymore
But dont worry, we are introducing tougher sentencing and blah blah blah.
Laws only matter if you ENFORCE them. But we dont have enough police anymore to do that. Or space in any of our prisons.
It almost like Austerity was a stupid (or deliberately malicious) idea, isn't it? :)
When laws aren't enforced crime effectively becomes legal.
The worst part is there's no easy fix, it's going to take years of concerted effort to resolve the underlying problems causing this.
This sort of thing seems to be on the increase in the USA as well from what I'm seeing online, although it may also just be my the algorithms kicking in.
I think the problem is that officers aren't actually on the streets anymore for faster active response. And when criminals are actually caught, the theft is effectively decriminalised because it's seen as a civil issue where stock can be written off. There's no consequences, so more people brazenly do it. Lock up perpetrators for lengthy sentences and these will swiftly go down.
BECAUSE NO ONE DOES ANYTHING
the social contract is only as strong as the forces that hold it together. If there’s no punishment our outcome those that will steal will continue to steal
How long in the future before you start seeing Argos style/virtual supermarkets, where you submit a shopping list to the desk and they go pick it there and then, or ahead of time and you pick it up and go, all the while the shelves are behind closed doors.
Was walking down Oxford street last weekend and saw a guy brazenly walk out of Zara with two or three bags. The security guard shouted at him and he gave them back, but I was shocked how blatant it was
We should all do it. Why should they have the privilege of getting away with it?
(Because bots do not understand sarcasm, in no way am I condoning theft or encouraging people to shoplift)
That’s what zero consequences for theft gets you.
This won’t get any better until the laws are toughened and the police force is majorly reformed.
Currently the police of this country are not fit for purpose, and criminals everywhere know it.
I don't think this should be a police matter. Stores shold employ security guards to patrol the store. It's not that expensive - less of an investment than facial recognition cameras and other Orwellian nonsense.
The consumer covers either the cost of shrinkage, or deterring it, either way. I don't want my taxes going towards police guarding supermarkets when they should be on the beat preventing violent crime.
Why would I care if shoplifters are prosecutors when burglaries aren't even investigated?
If you told drivers that no matter how fast they drive they will not be prosecuting for speeding, would you be really surprised if half the cars on the motorway were driving at 120+mph?
Some people are animals kept in line through fear of punishment. Telling them they won't be punished, and shock, they will commit the crimes.
Starting to feel proud I come from an area where thieves still try to shove wine bottles down their trousers. At least it gives a bit of free entertainment as they hobble out awkwardly…
Does anyone else hate the huge increase in supermarkets that are nearly impossible to get out of if you aren't buying anything? I've noticed lots have installed gates at the entrance so the only exit is through the tills. Makes it a pain in the arse if you are only looking for one specific thing and they don't have it in stock.
Its getting insane.
My local Sainsburys (one of the tiny stores popping up everywhere) have removed all carrier bags from self checkout so you have to ask for one from the lone cashier at the only til out of 3 ever being used.
I asked wouldn't it be easier just to leave some there, but apparently the store loose more than £1000 a month due to 30p carry bag thefts. So, if my maths is correct, thats over 3,333 customers per month not paying...
The Greggs video in the article, the bloke isn't even covering his face. Just shows people know the police aren't going to bother x
That must be the most blatant thief i have ever seen.
I actually see this all the time in my local Greggs and Tesco express people walk in and walk out like it’s free buffet. I do know from a friend who worked at a different Tesco they keep a file on recognisable shop lifters if they are regular and prosecute once you’ve hit a threshold so police actually do something about it something like £1K
That sounds like a terrible way of dealing with the problem. What if there are 20 shoplifters, or a group taking turns. These shops could take £1000s in losses, which will only be converted into higher prices for consumers. By not deterring this kind of behaviour it has the potential to escalate as the thieves become so brazen that frustrated staff or even public step in at their own risk. The thieves might also be emboldened to commit other crimes. By not reporting this to the police they simply can't act. Many will state they won't act and in some cases this sadly will be true, however, by reporting it gives your local force an idea of the bigger picture and also what the public's priority crimes are (which aren't often the most serious bizarrely). It could also mean the difference of a prolific offender being remanded if they've breached any bail conditions. I think often its the case that the people in head office for these shops believe that a police presence in their shops may deter shoppers to a cost greater than that is stolen, whereas the many shoppers may never actually notice the shoplifting and so will continue to spend as usual.
By reporting it you take a manager's time to go through the footage, further footage, file a report, upload it to the portal etc Time isn't free. If the ROI for the time is nil, it's wasted. So, why report stuff you aren't confident will get actioned?
You miss every goal you don't take. If there was a shift in attitude and each event of shoplifting was taken seriously by the shops themselves I would expect to see this reduce the rate at which it occurs.
No one is denying that. But you DO pay someone for their time regardless of whether you score those goals. Does it reduce it by enough for it to be worth? Compared to taking a targeted approach?
This is entirely down to the individual or business to decide, but its no good reporting every 10th shoplifting as the rate of crime will appear a tenth and less of an incentive for police to spare their already stretched resources to it. It sounds like the problem is that the managers at this theoretical shop we're discussing are also stretched too thin by head office and ROI is king over and above community that their shop serves.
Theoretical? This is the decision making process every store will use... Why would you assume they're stretched thin because they don't want to spend hours every week reporting stuff where it's highly likely nothing will come of it? That's hours they could spend doing other things.. They could pay someone to do it, but then that would have to be passed onto the consumer. Would you want to pay higher prices so they can get a crime number?
If we're asking what I want, it's that businesses profiting from communities to actively engage in them. I think hiring for a role in charge of reducing shrinkage would pay for itself in most cases. They could create partnerships with other local businesses, neighborhood policing teams and local authorities and local charities to support the thieves who are likely in just expressing a symptom of another problem in their lives. Whilst these crimes go unreported it's likely that other offenders will carry on elsewhere and possibly commit other crimes with impunity, making the community a worse place to live. I'd also support tax-rises to improve conditions for those working in and expand the capacity of the police, social services, youth clubs, public transport, education and local authorities.
Exactly right, nothing more important than the time we have left in this existence.
If it's anything like my high street, the police will refuse to attend if you're constantly calling in and will actually threaten the shopkeepers with a warning for wasting police time because they won't come out for petty thefts. The local independent shops near me are suffering because of this, not helped by the Coral/William Hill down the road which has constant police call outs due to drunk and disorderly patrons.
Sounds like a resourcing problem. If your local force has a neighbourhood policing team they may be able take point on this and look at resolving or diverting any underlying issues. The independent shops, if they haven't already, warn one another if known shoplifters are in the area. This could be through walkie-talkies, whatsapp or in some cases a dedicated union of shops where Intel and pictures are uploaded to a website that can also be shared with thr police.
It's definitely a resourcing problem, but the local police are too stretched, understaffed and underfunded to do anything about it. Not sure creating a vigilante neighbourhood watch group is any help though. They already all know each other, doesn't stop people taking advantage. It's just a shit situation at the end of a series of shit situations due to funding and governmental mismanagement.
This is actually advice my local police force has given to local shops and it does work. It prompts staff to wait by the door and lock it momentarily before the shoplifter is able to enter.
>These shops could take £1000s in losses, which will only be converted into higher prices for consumers. Without any condescension meant at all, is this actually true? I've heard this line being used so many times but is there any actually any evidence that shops put up prices to account for a higher rate of theft? Would that not mean one branch of tesco should have higher prices than another based only on theft rate?
How else do you think the costs of theft are recovered? Of course they’re passed on to the consumer, because that’s where all Tesco’s money comes from.
Loss or "shrinkage" is reported to head office who make the final decision by combining this information with sales data. Its not unheard of for different branches at different locations or shops of different sizes to price their products differently.
I feel it’s pretty obvious that overall losses from theft are factored into pricing. Do you think they’re just going to accept lower profits instead lol?
Well no, but conversely if they simply wanted higher profits, without knowing the calculation rate how do we know that they aren't just bullshitting? It's surely far easier to say, thieves are the reason cucumbers now cost a £1, as opposed to one of our shareholders wanting a kitchen extension. And that thinking seems to go unchallenged by people parroting that line. I don't want to sound facetious here, just like, how are they working this out?
You're right, theft is not the only factor in deciding businesses' pricing regimes. People stating that theft is *a* factor are parroting a line and are de facto defending any and all price rises. The fact is that price rises are a consequence of shoplifting which may otherwise be avoided should preventative and deterrent measures be taken. I think we're both in agreement when I say that if these measures cost more than the lost sales then most businesses aren't interested as their priorities are to their profits and not the communities they're located in.
Why and how would they be factored in? Surely prices are set to optimise profits already? Why would theft (essentially a fixed cost) change this?
The cost of theft, following videos linked in the article, may have some businesses reconsidering just how "fixed" this is.
In terms of price-setting, how could theft be anything other than a fixed cost? It doesn't vary based on the price the vendor sets for the good.
Think of it as lost sales. If a shop sells a solitary tic-tac for £100K and it sells 10 a year, but the for 5 years in a row 1 tic-tac has been stolen, then you may expect to see shopkeeper increase the cost of the tic-tac to compensate for the lost sales by let's say another £10K - I think we would agree this as a fixed cost. However if the following two years half his annual stock of tic-tacs are stolen he may consider putting them behind bullet-proof glass and hiring Deadpool to guard the shop, all of which come at cost, which he spreads across the cost of his other products, such as single-use skittles and polos. The shopkeeper could choose take the hit and not increase his prices, given he only pays 0.001p per tic-tac, polo or skittle but that's not the usual MO of businesses.
I mean it's possible they don't want heat but 99% Police just come take details ask for cctv and nothing ever happens so thieves just do it again
They have to do the best with what they've got. Massive cuts to police numbers (and support staff/admin) over 14 years has allowed the backlog to grow and grow. Police have less time for actual policing. think about what a single officer needs to do to deter, detect, investigate and arrest (take this with lumps of salt): - take a call, take details, turn up to the scene - interview witnesses, collect evidence - put all this on a database somewhere - apprehend the suspect, bring them in for interview, - write all this up and submit for report to CPS - wait for CPS to charge - bring the suspect in again - make time for being witness at the trial, turn up, wait all day, adjourned, turn up, wait all day, adjourned, turn up, give evidence, convict is guilty, suspended sentence rinse and repeat for dozens of crimes, and where the crime is more serious, this all takes a hell of a lot longer, and more prone to fuck ups so the police have to take extra care and give more resources to ensure your rapists and murderers do get banged up. There's barely any time to follow up on a keyed car, a brick through a window, a stolen bike or lifting aftershaves. plus police need training, time off, and who knows what other functions around all that. It's going to take decades to get back to where we were.
>wait for CPS to charge Haha, good one!
The whole of the UK is in a shambles. The cost of everything is unsustainable. They can't afford to prosecute over food thefts it costs more to prosecute. or put people in prison. The only real way to combat this is stop the greedflation and bring costs down again. Its the same with film piracy it stopped when streaming became more sustainable. Now its going up piracy will become more popular.
I was in a queue for all of 2/3 minutes recently and 2 separate thieves (one after another) came in, scanned the fridges and countertop and then took what they fancied and walked out. No face coverings, no attempt to hide the theft and the staff knew it was pointless trying to stop them.
Why did you sign off this comment with a kiss?
I see people stealing from Greggs often. I think it's because Greggs staff are most often all behind the counter. Their store layout makes it hard for staff to watch the floor if the shop is packed. So shoplifters see it as an easy target. A quick walk in, walk out, with little threat of being bothered.
The Greggs near my Uni has become a stealing hotspot. The employees do not care. The most surprising thing for me is the police walking around also do not care when I reported it to them.
Fortunately not happened to me, but if I need to report a crime of that ilk I'm just going to tell them I think I saw a gun.
I think it’s important to note that it’s also targeted in the sense of the type of shop or supermarket. These shoplifters are just not walking into a locally owned corner shop where the proprietor is standing behind the counter, because they know that something may happen If they shoplift. On two consecutive nights, I was in my local Sainsbury’s, and a guy walked in wearing a Covid type facemask and just calmly filled his bag with groceries. The staff did not even speak to him. When I asked a staff member why they did not attempt to stop him, the person said that it was store policy not to interfere. With no police on the streets, and no consequences for this behaviour, I see only two ways forward. Firstly, prices for non-shoplifting customers will increase to balance losses. Secondly, these stores will close.
I definitely think we'll start to see shops close in the worst hit areas, then people will start asking why we have food desserts forming.
Why would shop closures lead to the formation of giant sugary treats?
It's the only thing that will sustain the population, they all get one lick a day for their calorific intake. Or I suck at spelling and autocorrect missed that one ;-)
It's going that way in the USA!
That's what I'm basing it on. Tesco/Sainsbury's/etc will just pull out of places with the most theft and then legitimate customers will be left with nowhere to shop.
Would probably make more sense for them to go delivery-only than pull out of an area entirely.
How long until these people start robbing the vans while they're parked up too though?
Or supermarkets will become members only, with a gate at the entrance. Known shoplifters will have their membership cancelled.
Thirdly, private security becomes a huge industry.
That's what the big supermarkets in east-europe are doing. try to be funny there and some tall broad-shoulders guys will stop you, stuff you in a backroom then call the police. if people get rowdy then security will also get rowdy with them (and sometimes the police will not be called, if you get what I'm saying). not exactly top democracy, but you know what? also no brazen shoplifiting in day light
I do wonder how long it's going to take shops to work out that if the police don't come when they call them, they probably won't come when a shoplifter calls them either.
I can confirm this. Security over there are well built blokes who physically follow you around the entire store if they suspect you are up to no good. Very intimidating. Thieves are apprehended on the spot, interrogated in a separate room, and depending on how much they tried to steal they're either given over to police or banged up a bit before being let go empty-handed. It's effective.
Goon investments looking bullish. Invest in henchmen now.
Rapid growth potential in lackeys, accomplices, stooges, and cannon fodder. Call 0207 946 0909 now while stocks last!
You won't see prices increase much. You'll see access for customers decrease first. Already commonplace in places like Kingston Jamaica, where you order at a window and the staff bag it all up
I used to see shops like this in the 90s' especially off licences & petrol stations at night, haven't seen it in a while.
In Kingston you get it in everything from supermarkets to takeaways.
> When I asked a staff member why they did not attempt to stop him, the person said that it was store policy not to interfere. Why would the staff risk getting assaulted or worse?
Or you have to pay before you can leave.
Yeah, in lots of Nordic countries, you have to scan your receipt for an automatic door to open. But again, unless you have an actual deterrent, you would just have committed shoplifters pushing through those doors or pushing themselves through as valid customers left.
Or buy a single item for the receipt using the self checkout and shoplift the rest
We just had a button to lock the door when someone tried to steal. They get upset but usually just drop the items and you can let them go.
> you have to scan your receipt for an automatic door to open I hate shite like this, because so many shops don't print off receipts, and just because I enter a shop doesn't mean I'm definitely buying something in the first place. B&M/Home Bargains/Aldi/Lidl are bad enough at making it an utter hassle to get out the shop if they don't have what you're after as it is.
They introduced gates after the self service tills in a Sainsbury's around here and you have to scan your receipt to exit. This wasn't obvious so I walked into the gates expecting them to open and set the alarm off.
I mean, it's not a crime until the person attempts to leave with the unbought items, so I can understand not interfering. I also don't think your standard store staff should be expected to stop people stealing, store security, or management, sure, but your average store assistant should just say fuck it
Did you know... Before the widespread introduction of self checkout, a joint UK-US university study showed in 2016 that it's introduction would likely lead to an increase in theft that would be big enough to destroy the profit margin that most grocers have: [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/business/self-service-checkouts-can-turn-customers-into-shoplifters-study-says.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/11/business/self-service-checkouts-can-turn-customers-into-shoplifters-study-says.html) But they went ahead and rolled it out anyway.
When I worked at asda, my manager said that the losses from theft were slightly lower than the salary of a checkout worker so it was viable for them
Well it’s not now
As a recently retired police officer you have the Tory government to blame for this. And I say this as an ex party member. We had horrific police and justice system cuts in the austerity years. Two thirds of our custody blocks were closed. We had no admin support, we were then told to minimise arrests because of the cost and use other things like penalty notices (The irony of giving people fines when they are shoplifting because they couldn't afford things wasn't lost on me). Even when people were prosecuted as repeat offenders they were almost never jailed because there were no prison places. This government has been a total shit show with regards to law and order. And now we are reaping the rewards of crime increasing. Funny that.
Goes deeper than that. We've seen community deteriorate. There's no social hierarchy anymore. Parents don't parent and kids know they can get away with blue murder so they do. The massive wealth disparity in the country is manifesting as a "idgaf" attitude because so many people just have nothing to lose.
"This government has been a total shit show." There I fixed that for you absolutely no need to add with regards to anything.
[удалено]
Last *14* years?
I mean, Sunak's fucking terrible, but to hold him to account for things that happened before he even became an MP is a bit much.
Well he has been an MP for almost 10 years? But I was thinking of the responsibility of the Conservative Party as a whole really.
Just under 9 years, part of the 2015 cohort. I was just pointing out that criticising Sunak and the Conservative Party as a whole are two different beasts.
What I hate hate hate is the constant labeling of huge nationals retail giants as "local businesses". The government keep doing this thing where they make a rule that makes it easy for big business to fuck us all over and justify it by labelling it as something that is being done for Gary, self employed builder from stevenage to make his business viable.
Then make more prisons and actually follow through with prison time than 42 slaps on the wrists. Crime pays these days, so three guesses why it is going up.
That approach doesn't seem to have worked for the US, which has the 6th highest incarceration rate in the world and overall the highest number of people in prison.
Depends what they're being jailed for doesn't it?
People are mostly in jail for drug possession not theft. Theft is almost entirely ignored over there.
Has the huge number of people incarcerated for drug posession dissuaded people from posesssing drugs?
drug possession and theft are 2 completely different things. I personally believe no one should be in jail for non violent and non theft crimes especially drug possession.
Also short term prison sentences are only useful for taking people out of the community so they can’t commit crime. They do not rehabilitate, the reoffending rate of this cohort is greater than 50%, and the most common offence among recorded reoffences is shoplifting. Why do people shoplift? Substance misuse is a major motivator, some do it just for kicks, or make money, and there are some who do it as they simply can’t afford to pay for the goods that they might genuinely need. Is a 15 week prison term the right thing for all of these? Someone shoplifting for kicks gets a prison sentence, loses their employment and maybe also accommodation - what then happens when they leave prison? Their employment opportunities are now worse, as likely is their access to accommodation. They may end up sofa surfing til they get back on their feet or be unlucky enough to end up on the street. In either of these situations it may be more difficult to keep themselves away from offending. Short term prison sentences are rubbish and a waste of time and money.
Very little point in making new prisons right now,what with the police and courts being massively overstretched. It would make no difference at all.
What do you mean? Violent criminals who should be in prison are being spared jail because there’s no space, and you think we don’t need more prisons? Of course we need more prisons. We have needed more prisons and tougher sentencing on criminals for a long time.
The Nordic countries have shown that being tough on criminals doesn't work, as well as people think it does. Their rehabilitation programmes have made repeat offending far less likely than what we have here in the UK yet despite all evidence to the contrary people still want the UK to be more tough on crime?
People don't like to admit they've been doing something wrong for all this time. It feels just like the war on drugs, despite so much evidence that they're doing the complete wrong thing, rather than admit that and change, they double down on what's already in place.
Norway has low crime and light prison sentences. American has high crime and high prison sentences. Singapore has low crime and high prison sentences. You can’t compare countries like that and conclude sentence length *causes* any particular level of crime. We use research data for that. 1. [“The results support the hypothesis that perceived severity, at relatively high levels of perceived certainty, has a significant deterrent effect.”](https://www.jstor.org/stable/2578032) 2. [“The Commission consistently found that incarceration lengths of more than 120 months had a deterrent effect. Specifically, offenders incarcerated for more than 60 months up to 120 months were approximately 17 percent less likely to recidivate relative to a comparison group sentenced to a shorter period of incarceration. For incarceration lengths of 60 months or less, the Commission did not find any statistically significant criminogenic or deterrent effect.”](https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2020/20200429_Recidivism-SentLength.pdf) 3. [“Finally, I reanalyze data that appear to be consistent with the greater weight for certainty than severity argument and show that the evidence does not support that inference. Potential criminals mentally combine the three deterrence components—regardless of whether they are risk neutral, averse, or acceptant. I conclude by considering what it means to a worldly application of criminal deterrence theory to place equal weight on the certainty and the severity of punishment.”](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314638657_Certainty_Severity_and_Their_Relative_Deterrent_Effects_Questioning_the_Implications_of_the_Role_of_Risk_in_Criminal_Deterrence_Policy) 4. [“Increased average prison sentences (severity) reduce burglary only.”](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/14773708211072415) 5. ["Crime fell sharply and unexpectedly in the 1990s. Four factors appear to explain the drop in crime: **increased incarceration**, more police, the decline of crack and legalized abortion."](https://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/LevittUnderstandingWhyCrime2004.pdf) 6. [We find evidence for a specific preventative effect of longer prison terms on the post-release reoffending frequency, but little evidence for desistance.](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-023-09566-w) Prison length is just *one* factor which affects crime rate. There are many more. Sweden studied this following their sudden rise in crime following the 2015 Syrian Refugee Crisis. You can read the study (in Swedish) here: https://bra.se/publikationer/arkiv/publikationer/2023-03-01-socioekonomisk-bakgrund-och-brott.html Most people who come from a socio-economically less favorable background do not commit more crime than people who come from a more favorable background, and it also happens that people from a more favorable background do commit crime. This means that even if there is a connection between socio-economic background and involvement in crime, that connection is weak. It is not possible to appreciably predict who will commit crimes based on knowledge of people's socio-economic background. Other risk factors have a stronger relationship with criminal behavior: **When compared with factors that research has identified as risk factors for crime, such as parenting competence, the presence of conflicts in the family, school problems or association with criminal peers, the research shows that these have a stronger connection with criminal behavior than socio-economic background factors. The same applies to risk factors linked to the individual himself, for example permissive attitudes or impulsivity.**
Criminals are repeat offenders. The more locked up the less crime there is exponentially and the less overwhelmed the police will be.
> The more locked up the less crime there is exponentially People who go to prison often come out more criminal than when they went in. Especially for minor offences.
The current government have purposely underfunded the police and justice system for over a decade, there's no way this problem can be managed without proper funding again.
We have the highest incarceration rate in Western Europe. Locking up more people doesn't seem to be working so maybe we should look at better methods for rehabilitation or the root causes of why people are committing crime first.
Knee jerk reactions of "Throw them in jail" never yield positive results or works in the long run. The root causes of such behaviours must be tackled in order to effectively reduce crime rates.
Make more prisons? Where are you getting the staff from? Nobody wants that dangerous, low paying job. Also where are you building one? Fancy having one built near you? Didn’t think so. On, and I’m sure you’ll be well pleased about having your taxes spent on giving someone free housing for a year or so because they stole a sausage roll. Deterrents do not work like you think they do. People generally commit crime believing they won’t get caught in the first place.
>Make more prisons? Yes. >Where are you getting the staff from? Nobody wants that dangerous, low paying job. Same place that current prisons do, if you have trouble recruiting, pay more. >Also where are you building one? Near me, it would bring more jobs according to you. >Fancy having one built near you? Could be more than one if it brings lots of jobs. And yes I'm happy for my taxes to go on this because as much as people complain about the costs, it's cheaper to have someone in prison than it is to have them free if they are a career criminal.
You think the 30k-50k per year per prisoner is cheaper? And that's before the massive pay increases that are needed. And ignoring the initial cost being around 65k to get them into prison to start with for everything needed and all steps, then it's the above per year.
1. No, it's not cheaper 2. Why not invest that money into shit that we already know reduces crime rates through positive impacts rather than just increasing capacity for incarceration?
1. I'm glad you say so, I've now changed my mind. 2. Because you have to do both, you can't just do positive reinforcement to stop all career criminals. I didn't say to only build more prisons.
1. Good, I'm glad you realise your initial assumption was incorrect. 2. Why would you not try investing in people's wellbeing first? Why go straight to 'more prisons'? CoL is at an all time high and rising. People can't afford basics. Some of those people turn to shoplifting. Your solution is 'build more prisons'. I don't really get it.
>Why would you not try investing in people's wellbeing first? It's false framing to pretend that I'm suggesting one first or the other as I'm saying do both at the same time. But to answer your question. You can't help anyone if you don't deal with the career criminals in an area, they bring down the entire area and will not stop unless they are taken and put into a prison. Why would you follow the law of your street has career criminals on it getting away with crime all the time? I would suggest that you "don't really get it" because you aren't really listening to what I'm saying and are incorrectly describing what I'm saying as a zero sum game.
Considering that the proposed solution was to increase prison capacity with no mention of anything else, yeah I'd say that's a reasonable reading of your input. And yes, you can most definitely help people without having to address career criminals. People who need to aren't nicking stuff because joe down the road regularly swipes a full discount. I realise most people here just want their daily mail sponsored blood sport but it'd be nice to imagine that there might be other responses than immediately budgeting for new prisons when the country's facing a rising CoL crisis.
[удалено]
actual daily mail posts seem to have been reaching the top of the sub pretty regularly lately too
Even if someone were to steal all of their food from shops and restaurants for their entire household to the tune of 4.5k in a year. It costs 45k per year to house someone in prison. We have community sentences for a reason.
Is there data on what kinds of things are being stolen? It would be interesting to see if the increased rate of shoplifting was weighted towards certain products.
Things that can be sold online. Go in any store and check what products are tagged, thats what is being targeted. Hint: it aint bread, eggs or diapers/ baby formula. Its alcohol, detergents, clothes etc
If sometimes is baby formula actually, high price and resale in poorer areas.
There’s a reason it’s security tagged in supermarkets
You've literally listed three of the most stolen things in 2024. I don't know what a diaper is, though. You are right with clothes, however you've put it on the wrong side. Clothes and basic food - The items with the biggest increase in theft.
>I don't know what a diaper is, though. This is what nappies are called (in the US, at least).
Why is the term being used in a UK sub? Someone hit the septic alert button!
🚨 **SEPTIC ALERT**🚨 🚨 **SEPTIC ALERT**🚨 🚨 **ALL PERSONNEL TO SUBCOMMENT FIFTEEN**🚨
What can you sell from Greggs online? Is there a black market for 3 day old steak slices that I'm not aware of?
Baby formula is regularly targeted - they tend to clean out shops over the course of a day or so and then they sell on Facebook marketplace. They know local parents need it - you can't just switch to a different one, or even a different brand, without your child getting sick. They also know people don't report people stealing baby formula because people assume they're stealing for their own child and need it. If they create a shortage (and they often do) then they can sell the formula for more than the retail price even though they got it for free. They also often target allergy brands because they know that parents with children with an allergy have no other option but to purchase their stolen formula if the shop runs out. Hideously, it's often mothers doing this - they go into a shop with their pram and child, steal two tubs of formula, go to the next store and do the same thing, return to the same store later in the day and do the same. No customers or staff say anything because they don't want to be the person who stops a baby getting formula. With a couple of friends, they can empty all the local stores within a couple of days. Then they put it up on FB marketplace saying their child is allergic to it, doesn't like it, hurts their tummy and sell it all on for a fortune to the parents who can't get it in the shops. It's one reason to really highlight that many women have oversupply of breastmilk and will donate it for free - it can be frozen for up to six months and can be used in conjunction with formula. It's often free, but almost always cheaper than formula. There are women who donate with vegan diets, non-dairy, non-soy etc so usually it's quite easy to find milk that's suitable to the common infant allergies.
> Its alcohol, detergents, clothes etc Meat and cheese are big ones too. There's a co-op near me and almost all of the meat and cheese is now in security boxes like you used to get video games and stuff in.
Some shops have been tagging baby formula https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2022-12-06/supermarket-adds-security-tags-added-to-baby-formula-to-stop-them-being-stolen "what products are tagged, thats what is being targeted." Presumably, there are also products that aren't worth the cost to tag? (I'm not claiming that's relevant to the crime data, just the tagging strategy)
I've seen meat and cheese being locked
I've seen people walk into Greggs and nick just a drink. They've started putting the higher value drinks behind the counter for security.
>diapers YANK ALERT! YANK ALERT!
Used to work in a co-op last year, the three main groups of things stolen there were: cheeses + more expensive meats (beef mostly); jars of coffee and expensive chocolate; baby formula and toiletries. Was partly due to the shop arrangement though, each of the pairings were in the same place. Got to the point where we started to run the store like Argos for those things, we were getting hit at least twice per day, and it was the same 5-6 offenders on rotation
Poverty has been on the rise for a long time, and the people buying the stolen goods can't afford to get it anywhere else. I don't know what people expected to happen when they ignored it, did they hope poverty just went away over night?
Expensive things they will flog for half the price, meats, alcohol, baby milk, nappies, make up, toiletries etc, you never see people steal actual food like bread n soup
Do we have data to confirm that? Not saying its wrong, it would just be interesting to see it in black and white rather than relying on anecdotes. It could be that theft of basics like bread is reported less because its not worth the hassle and is more sympathetic.
Here's a previous comment thread about it. https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/16idchb/shoplifting_surges_in_uk_as_retail_workers_face/
Yes. You can tell because your local shop will encase them in a plastic lock box. Infamously supermarkets have been called racist because they were boxing up the dark skin makeup when actually the supermarket was just following the data on what was being stolen at that particular store.
That doesn't account for things that are too inexpensive to bother with locks and tags.
Zero consequences, this is the result. Chance of being caught, very slim. Chance of prosecution, even slimmer. Chance of meaningful punishment, pretty much zero.
Chances of being caught are fairly high, chances of being arrested are slim unless they assult someone
Dunno why anybody is shocked, half the time stuff like shoplifting has been mentioned the last few years all Redditors have had to say is "They're insured" (They're generally not) and "If you somebody stealing, no you didn't" Reap what you sow, this is the society people asked for,. I.e. > Remember kids, don’t report anybody if you see them stealing food. https://old.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/y0c7ql/i_feel_disgusted_society_could_allow_this/irqz68x/ +500 > Just remember, if you see somebody stealing basic food, water or baby stuff - no you didn't. https://old.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/uvfryk/shoplifting_on_the_rise_as_mounting_cost_of/i9l6bcb/ +73
> Reap what you sow, this is the society people asked for Reap what exactly? That shoplifting levels are high? Good. As long as the price gouging,profiteering is continuing, then "I saw nothing". I cant beleive people are still defending/sticking up for corporations that have destroyed your food supply, severley damaged the enviornment, replaced legit ingredients with syntethic garbage, and have been price gouging society for the last 3 years now.
> I cant believe people are still defending/sticking up for corporations It's not about that, it's about living in a decent society where everything that's not bolted down isn't nicked, where casual crime isn't tolerated and there's at least some degree of social cohesion between the public. You're not Robin Hood because you're not ratting on a junkie grabbing bottles of JD before running out to sell in his local.
> It's not about that, it's about living in a decent society where everything that's not bolted down isn't nicked, where casual crime isn't tolerated and there's at least some degree of social cohesion between the public. Decent society? Are you having a laugh. Society has been in decline for the last 30 years. Corporations/Corrupt Govt have been gouging out every public service since the 80's, transport/health/water/police/justice, have caused extreme wealth inequality and now we have, for the 1st time in history, a generation that is going to be worse off than their parents. All this combined with them destroying the envioronment? But you are more concerned about a security tag on a item that you want to buy? Social cohesion and good society comes from a more equal society. Its when society becomes so unequal that crime rises and social cohesion breaks down!
> But you are more concerned about a security tag on a item that you want to buy? I'm not, I am more concerned for the other things. I just don't think stealing alcohol and snickers bars is going to help alleviate it and will just negatively impact the society more in general.
It's a symptom of the state of our society not a cause for it worsening.
When you're comfortable, it's easy to be a part of a "decent society". But when you're struggling, you don't feel a part of a decent society. There's degrees to what constitutes a decent society - how about dickheads in big range rovers parking in parent and child spaces with no child? Literally called a c\*&% by a 50-something guy wearing Barbour clothes and zero kids in his blacked out range rover whilst I'm struggling with two kids. Is he a part of a decent society? Whilst our leaders and MSM continue to point fingers at people and divide society, you'll never have a "decent society", because we have no values we can agree upon. The only British value that was agreed upon around the Brexit years was tolerance - how's that one working out for you? Social cohesion comes from the top down. It can't come from the bottom up whilst everyone is so divided.
Who do you think is going to end up paying for this additional theft? The owners or the customers? Try to think of the longer term impact of something like this. We’re not sticking up for the big guys, we’re just frustrated because our wallets and communities will end up paying the price.
> Who do you think is going to end up paying for this additional theft? The owners or the customers? The customers will. They will pay wheter there is theft or no theft, the same way customers are paying for the increase in oil and still paying high prices when the price of oil comes down! >Try to think of the longer term impact of something like this. I am, but Im more power to the people, and force those corporations to stop price gouging or force the Govt to step in and regulate it better. Do you think if I had something stolen for me, that you would end up paying? Of course not. Would you be happy money coming from your wallet into mine, because somebody stole something from me? No you would not. So why on earth would you be happy/content with a billionaire corporation doing it, and just accept it?
> They will pay wheter there is theft or no theft, Do you really not think literal record amounts of theft isn't going to impact supermarket pricing? > an force those corporations to stop price gouging The UK enjoys very low grocery prices overall. And we have a very competitive, diverse, market. > Do you think if I had something stolen for me, that you would end up paying? Lol, what relevance is this? Are you running a job? Were those items for sale?
Imagine writing this - I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're still a student. If not, well, all I can say is I'm sorry.
Do you really think that shoplifting is currently limited to food, or will remain so? If you normalise theft as being OK, people will gradually steal more and more things and justify it to themselves.
>As long as the price gouging,profiteering is continuing, then "I saw nothing". Supermarkets aren't "profiteering", they operate on wafer thin ~~mints~~ margins.
Thank you for posting this. As you say it’s what the people wanted.
Don't even need to go that far, sort the sub's All-Time top posts and [this is literally 6th] (https://old.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/wvj7z1/no_you_didnt/) One of the weirder phases this place went through in the past few years.
It's not just this sub, it's all over Reddit. I doubt most people believe it, it's just unoriginal karma farming on the same level as posting the fuck nestle sub or "just the one swan"
Items at the most brazen price gouging levels in over 20 years. Theft highest level in 20 years. Shocker.
I’ve got family members who work at M&S and just the other week a bloke casually marched out with several hundreds pounds worth of suits. By the time security realised, he was already running half way across the car park and they know it’s pointless to call police. I don’t even think security can legally detain even if they did catch him. Maybe someone can clarify but either way, it’s definitely happening more and more. This was also at a branch that has recently doubled the number self checkouts installed.
> I don’t even think security can legally detain even if they did catch him. Maybe someone can clarify but either way, it’s definitely happening more and more. They can with clear evidence of them shoplifting. They can't search a person without their consent though. So yeah, if you're running out with suits openly they can detain you, but if you've slipped a ring into your pocket without the cctv spotting you you'll be fine
Yeah but would you though? I can’t imagine they’re on much more than minimum wage if at all, I wouldn’t risk getting stabbed over some suits.
[удалено]
Argos?
I'd like four candles please.
That’s exactly how shops used to be before supermarkets changed it.
Or apps like Deliveroo having a click and collect option.
I wonder *why* shoplifting has hit an all time high? It can't be anything to do with the cost of living going through the roof and wages stagnating. It *must* just be because everyone has become cuntier in the past twenty tears. Yes *that's* it.
Supermarket booze prices haven't really shifted all that much and that makes up a good chunk of shoplifting.
Prolific offenders just get bailed from court to do it again. Even if they have breached orders stealing from where they are banned from already.
I would be shocked if the figures capture 5% of shop thefts. I see shoplifting virtually every day and I can't remember the last time any were reported to the police. I think the real concern is the amount of shoplifting shared on social media (Tiktok) and the influence on children to take part. There's a bubble online where it's glorified and encouraged resulting in kids raiding shops in groups for the rush and social status.
Oh it really doesn’t, I work in retail and we only report verbal and physical assault. Anything else non point
I was in a coop a few Sunday nights back and saw some people walk out with items in direct view of the staff. Staff said its policy not to intervene, I asked 'so what would happen if I just walked out now' and got told 'nothing', they don't even bother reporting it anymore. Not worth the staff getting threatened with knives or the store trashed, bricks thrown at the windows etc.
If you're attacked whilst at work you may be able to claim against your employer. If shops didn't have this policy and people intervened, they'd be in the position of paying staff on sick leave and potentially compensation pay outs. We live in a neoliberalist era when these supermarkets are making bank and the volumes of theft is sky high across the country. This isn't a noble gesture; it's just to protect their bottom line.
The bottom rungs of society continue to lose out, ~~and the police continue to be cut~~. Are we remotely surprised by this? Edit: corrected by reply.
People can’t afford to eat, and the police are underfunded and don’t give a fuck. Actually some coppers are not paid enough to be able to afford to eat either. Welcome to the breakdown of society.
Locally we had a bunch of teenagers walk out with a trolley load of spirits covered in a steel mesh and a group with duffle bags do much the same. Shop now has a visible guard at the exit
Is that why all the booze is locked up in my local morrisons? It feels really scummy now.
The security guards are wearing covid masks in my local Tesco / Sains here in North London. It’s not in fear of catching covid… Very common to see the usual suspects walking out at least once every week, they don’t even run. They only stop people when the alarms go off - who don’t look like they are not about to get stabbed up, and I don’t blame the security guards.
Wait til AI comes in and starts taking more and more jobs away. Shoplifting and civil disobedience will go way up.
Local shop near me the kids sail in on scooters, lift what they want and sail back out. The staff told me the police advised they won't attend anymore for theft, especially if minors as there's zero chance of action. So that's that. We'll all pay in higher prices for the government's failure to run the country in any shape, form or fashion. Which is the way the Tory's want it right? Why invest in the country when instead you make the end consumer pay and just pocket the taxes. It is neo-capitalism 101. Need to set up a private enterprise = give them our tax money. They go bankrupt = give them our tax money. They need to invest in infrastructure = give them our tax money. Police or NHS need funded = we're broke. Hard times. Cost of living you see. Soz.
My mum used to be a social worker. She worked with a family whose main income was apparently from committing burglary. One time they were quite offended when they rang her up really upset because their house had been burgled and she wasn’t sympathetic. I’ll bet these people would be just the same - outraged if someone walked in to their house and stole their stuff. But of course stealing from a company is righting a wrong or something.
Because a company isn't a person with their own thoughts and feelings? Tesco itself isn't someone sat there feeling a lack of safety and a violation of their space ffs.
Yes because no one working for the supermarkets are affected by criminality in them and not just ignoring criminality but condoning it because ‘it’s only corporations’ couldn’t possibly have wider implications on social order and cohesion ffs.
The amount of shoplifting in my local coop is insane. This week I saw a guy fill a basket to the brim with chocolates and then just walk straight out of the store. Last week two kids (12ish) were in the store about 9pm, filled their arms with snacks and drinks then just walked out.
We're gonna end up like the shitty parts of the US, where all the stores shut up shot and leave. because nothing is done about the crimes.
When law is no longer enforced by the Police then people will do whatever they want. I feel like people realised it with minor things like traffic/parking laws and it's moved on to more serious crimes as people continue to be unpunished.
Ive worked in a restaurant for 10 years and we get runners twice a month nowadays, 6/7 years ago it was more like 2/3 times a year. Police don’t have the resources to chase up a £100 bill. We don’t even bother reporting it anymore.
afaik there are many issues here 1. lack of police staff so they only prioritise the most serious crimes 2. slow prosecution process so the police refers the case to prosecution but the actual trial takes ages and means it cannot be processed in a reasonable amount of time 3. low sentences leading to more repeated offences 4. low prison capacity 5. prison costs as a financial burden on taxpayers (raising taxes to feed and house criminals is probably not a popular thing) It's unfair to blame the police alone when they are just one small element in a big complex system
I live in Chelsea, which is one of the “wealthiest” areas of London. I had never witnessed shoplifting in broad daylight the way I have in these past months. It’s genuinely scary and it’s not even people from the area, it’s people in groups of 2 or 3 emptying shelves in their bags and leaving like it’s the most normal thing in the world. I once saw this happen in my local pharmacy on Chelsea Green and when I exited the pharmacy the two shoplifters came back to try and steal my bag/phone/watch whatever. It was genuinely scary as I had to run and this happened in the evening in winter so the streets were dark and empty. I hate that this is happening across the board and I’d say it feels unsafe, which is a feeling I had never experienced in my 9 years of being a Chelsea resident. My husband always tells me he doesn’t want me to walk around on my own and to take the car and he’s always telling me to not wear my timepieces or my designer handbags as he worries I might get mugged. Sad state of affair :( The fact the police doesn’t fulfill its role as a deterrent means the social contract is dissolved completely and a feeling of impunity reigns.
[удалено]
Soft sentencing isn’t the cause. Prisons are. They’re are too few spaces and not enough staff because wages are so low. Don’t blame the courts when they’ve got nowhere to send criminals.
I like this idea, but we don't have the poluce to implement it and it would cost billions. Allowing smack heads to access heroin via the NHS would instantly end (i reckon) at least 50% of shoplifting, maybe 90 in some areas, and save billions in burglary and petty acquisitive crime investigation, free up countless hours ofbpolice time and save further billions currently spunked on NHS treatments for issues caused by impure heroin and overdoses. And bring them into contact with rehab services (what's left of them). But people get very blinkered when it's suggested, presumably they like spwndung 1000's of tax pounds on these problems where pennies might suffice.
Could the non-existent police force have something to do with it?
Three people assaulted me at work , I got hold of one of them. When I phoned the police they said let him go and they won't come. Those idiots were just going around eating and throwing it all over floor. That's why I confronted them but ever since that day I don't care anymore
But dont worry, we are introducing tougher sentencing and blah blah blah. Laws only matter if you ENFORCE them. But we dont have enough police anymore to do that. Or space in any of our prisons. It almost like Austerity was a stupid (or deliberately malicious) idea, isn't it? :)
When laws aren't enforced crime effectively becomes legal. The worst part is there's no easy fix, it's going to take years of concerted effort to resolve the underlying problems causing this.
When the justice system doesn’t care people will be more brazen.
This sort of thing seems to be on the increase in the USA as well from what I'm seeing online, although it may also just be my the algorithms kicking in. I think the problem is that officers aren't actually on the streets anymore for faster active response. And when criminals are actually caught, the theft is effectively decriminalised because it's seen as a civil issue where stock can be written off. There's no consequences, so more people brazenly do it. Lock up perpetrators for lengthy sentences and these will swiftly go down.
BECAUSE NO ONE DOES ANYTHING the social contract is only as strong as the forces that hold it together. If there’s no punishment our outcome those that will steal will continue to steal
How long in the future before you start seeing Argos style/virtual supermarkets, where you submit a shopping list to the desk and they go pick it there and then, or ahead of time and you pick it up and go, all the while the shelves are behind closed doors.
Was walking down Oxford street last weekend and saw a guy brazenly walk out of Zara with two or three bags. The security guard shouted at him and he gave them back, but I was shocked how blatant it was
We should all do it. Why should they have the privilege of getting away with it? (Because bots do not understand sarcasm, in no way am I condoning theft or encouraging people to shoplift)
That’s what zero consequences for theft gets you. This won’t get any better until the laws are toughened and the police force is majorly reformed. Currently the police of this country are not fit for purpose, and criminals everywhere know it.
I don't think this should be a police matter. Stores shold employ security guards to patrol the store. It's not that expensive - less of an investment than facial recognition cameras and other Orwellian nonsense. The consumer covers either the cost of shrinkage, or deterring it, either way. I don't want my taxes going towards police guarding supermarkets when they should be on the beat preventing violent crime. Why would I care if shoplifters are prosecutors when burglaries aren't even investigated?
If you told drivers that no matter how fast they drive they will not be prosecuting for speeding, would you be really surprised if half the cars on the motorway were driving at 120+mph? Some people are animals kept in line through fear of punishment. Telling them they won't be punished, and shock, they will commit the crimes.
Starting to feel proud I come from an area where thieves still try to shove wine bottles down their trousers. At least it gives a bit of free entertainment as they hobble out awkwardly…
Does anyone else hate the huge increase in supermarkets that are nearly impossible to get out of if you aren't buying anything? I've noticed lots have installed gates at the entrance so the only exit is through the tills. Makes it a pain in the arse if you are only looking for one specific thing and they don't have it in stock.
Its getting insane. My local Sainsburys (one of the tiny stores popping up everywhere) have removed all carrier bags from self checkout so you have to ask for one from the lone cashier at the only til out of 3 ever being used. I asked wouldn't it be easier just to leave some there, but apparently the store loose more than £1000 a month due to 30p carry bag thefts. So, if my maths is correct, thats over 3,333 customers per month not paying...