San Francisco’s shoplifting epidemic is shocking to behold. But we shouldn’t imagine that the same couldn’t happen here. In fact, we’re well on our way. According to the British Retail Consortium, theft from stores across 10 UK cities is up by 26%. More, “incidents of violence and abuse against retail employees have almost doubled on pre-pandemic levels.”

On Tuesday, Asda Chairman Stuart Rose told LBC that “theft is a big issue. It has become decriminalised. It has become minimised. It’s actually just not seen as a crime anymore.”

In the absence of an adequate response from the authorities, retailers are beginning to take defensive measures. For instance, home furnishings company Dunelm is now locking up duvets and pillow cases in cabinets; Waitrose is offering free coffees to police officers to increase their visibility; and Tesco plans to equip staff with body cameras. 

The “progressive” response to this phenomenon isn’t quite as deranged as it is in in the US. Nevertheless, British liberals have responded as expected. A piece in the Observer is typical. You’ll never guess, but apparently it’s all the Tories’ fault: “Starving your population and then ‘cracking down’ on it for nicking baby formula or a can of soup can start to make a government look rather unreasonable.”

But as the writer ought to know, the issue here isn’t the desperate young mum hiding a few groceries in the pram. Nor is it the schoolboy pilfering the occasional bag of sweets. Rather, the real problem is blatant, organised and sometimes violent theft of higher value items. Criminals who never previously thought they could get away with it increasingly now do — thus presenting a material threat to retail as we know it. 

But instead of addressing the issue head-on, the writer blames the victim: “Once goods were kept behind counters, but since the birth of large supermarkets they have been laid out near the door, ready for the taking.” How terribly irresponsible of them! On the other hand, perhaps the open display of goods isn’t just a convenience for customers, but instead the hallmark of a high trust society. 

In fact, modern shops are a minor miracle of civilisation: public spaces, stacked high with products from all over the world, that passing strangers may freely inspect and handle, but which aren’t looted by anyone who feels like it.

Surely, that’s something worth defending. But if you’d prefer to abandon retailers to their fate, then don’t moan when they do what it takes to survive. Some will close, of course, and others will move their operations online. Those who stay open will guard themselves and their stock behind plexiglass and electronic tags. And then there’s the hi-tech solution: the fully automated and completely cashless store, in which customers have to be authenticated to even get in. 

Remember that retail facilities like this already exist. One day, when they become the norm, we’ll remember what shops used to be like. Then, we’ll ask why no one stood up for them.

---

Peter Franklin is Associate Editor of UnHerd. He was previously a policy advisor and speechwriter on environmental and social issues.

peterfranklin_

---

Ann Widdecombe was exceptional in many ways. She was a professional whizz before equal pay. She remained a staunch social conservative as her party became desperate to imitate New Labour. She eventually sealed her place in the hearts and minds of Middle England with her hapless hair-straightening on Celebrity Big Brother, and endearingly clumsy foxtrots on Strictly Come Dancing. It is heartbreaking that this fun and principled woman may have spent her final moments in physical and mental anguish.

​While watching daytime television and scrolling social media can be depressing at the best of times, yesterday it was tainted further by the constant barrage of those lining up to complain about Widdecombe’s “divisive” or “controversial” views — even as it became clear a murder investigation had been launched into her death. While the TV station awaited a police statement on her suspected murder, Sky News veteran Adam Boulton saw fit to label Widdecombe as a “spinster” and “old maid”, even speculating on her virginity. LGBTQ campaigner Peter Tatchell, meanwhile, called her a “BIGOT” in a now-deleted tweet.

But anyone with firm moral principles — an idea seemingly alien to the current chattering classes — is bound to be deemed “divisive”. By their very nature, principles are in opposition to those which they are not. Individuals such as Widdecombe who are courageous enough to stick by their principles will inevitably inspire some level of disagreement because they are following their conscience, rather than simply what is fashionable or convenient at any given time.

​Of course, plenty of commentators are not really using these words in the way they were once used — to actually mean a specific thing. That would be far too simple. For these types, terms such as “divisive” and “controversial” have become cowardly euphemisms for “Right-wing and therefore bad”. As a result they have no reservations about aiming it at Widdecombe, perhaps the most prominent socially conservative female Briton since Mary Whitehouse.

​Many who took to the airwaves yesterday said little about one of Widdecombe’s most commendable political achievements: being one of the few Members of Parliament who emerged practically unblemished from the grubby expenses scandal. She received little thanks for this, and saw David Cameron’s failure to nominate her for a peerage when she left the Commons in 2010 as a “snub”.

​​Back in 1997, Widdecombe invited the wrath of many of her tweedy Tory colleagues when her concern for animal welfare led her to condemn fox hunting. She was also a longtime supporter of a sanctuary for donkeys across Israel, Egypt and the Palestinian Territories. What’s more, she was known to have spent years helping her nephew in his struggle with substance abuse. Many politicians would have used this difficult episode as an opportunity to boast publicly about their good deeds, but Widdecombe obviously did not think it appropriate.

​No doubt this refreshing privacy was also guided by her firm inner faith, for which she garnered significant mainstream ire. Widdecombe experienced years of agnosticism before eventually embracing Christianity in her 30s. In 1993, she became a high-profile convert to Catholicism after the Church of England began ordaining female priests. She never stopped defending, in line with traditional Christian teaching, the dignity and value of life at all stages — which of course meant her opposition to abortion and euthanasia.

Widdecombe’s penchant for ignored causes naturally extended to her co-religionists, 388 million of whom are thought to be facing persecution across the world. Aid to the Church in Need, a charity that works to help oppressed Christians, yesterday revealed that Widdecombe was in talks with the BBC to develop a documentary on kidnapped girls from religious minorities in Pakistan who were forced to convert and marry their kidnappers.

​While Widdecombe’s detractors seem keen to try and smear her legacy, flimsy accusations of bigotry and mocking of her iron-clad moral beliefs are often compliments in disguise. A fearless defender of free expression, she would certainly have encouraged us to take them in our stride. Indeed, we should all aspire to be as stubborn as her when it comes to the things that matter. Only a dull, uninspired commentariat would suggest otherwise.

---

Georgia Gilholy is a freelance writer living in London.

llggeorgia

---