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_

---

A London teacher has been banned from working with children after telling a Muslim pupil that “Britain is still a Christian state.” Given the fallout which followed the 2021 Batley caricature incident and the 2023 Wakefield Quran “desecration”, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. But this case feels different: a simple statement of fact — that Christianity remains the UK’s largest faith and its established religion — has been treated as if it were an act of hostility.

This is just the latest instance where safeguarding concerns have been used to discourage discussion of British values and heritage in the classroom, and it lays bare our inability to discuss basic issues as is necessary in a multicultural society. The primary school teacher reminded a Muslim pupil that Britain was a Christian country after catching several pupils washing their feet in the bathroom sinks as part of a ritual ablution ahead of prayer. He then told them that the school was non-faith, and suggested that a nearby Islamic school might be more appropriate if they wanted a religious environment.

Three children complained about his conduct, saying that it made them feel upset and scared, and the headteacher dismissed him for gross misconduct. This was a major overreaction to a simple historical statement, one which suggests we have reached the point where even a factual assertion can lead to professional ruin.

Yet the irony is hard to miss. The conversation the teacher attempted to start is exactly the kind of conversation our society needs but continually avoids. Modern Britain is often described as a secular, liberal, and pluralistic society, but we cannot simply wish away the country’s Christian inheritance, including its established church, its moral assumptions and its cultural memory. These have shaped everything from our public holidays to our intuitions about fairness, duty and restraint.

Over the past 50 years, however, accelerating secularisation and the growth of other faith communities have stretched our understanding of British identity. The idea of “being British” has become more elastic. With that elasticity has come a heightened sensitivity around cultural and religious differences. The tension is clear. Christian identity remains a historical fact, woven into the national fabric, yet it has become increasingly politically and socially fraught to assert in secular public spaces.

Conflict over ideas is unavoidable in a multicultural society. A culture is a shared system of beliefs, values, customs and behaviours. Having several cultures coexisting in one nation makes disagreement inevitable. What allows such a society to function is not identical values but instead a shared commitment to mutual respect and the dignity of differing worldviews.

This requires us to distinguish between emotional sensitivity and genuine safeguarding, between intellectual honesty and the policing of discourse. A liberal democracy cannot survive on avoidance. It depends on teaching people, especially children, how to navigate disagreement with confidence and charity, rather than shielding them from every uncomfortable exchange. Schools are a microcosm of society, and the tensions found there should not be ignored. Indeed, some courage in the curriculum would make awkward conversations later in life far less likely.

If there is a fair criticism of the teacher in this case, it is the suggestion that the pupils should attend another school. Children don’t decide which school they go to. But that misstep should not obscure the deeper problem. Our institutions seem increasingly unable to hold together honesty about Britain’s heritage with genuine sensitivity toward those who do not share it. The more pluralistic our society becomes, the more uncomfortable these conversations will be. They are also more essential now than ever.

---

Jide Ehizele writes on faith, culture, and belonging in modern Britain.

OBEhizele

---