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_

---

In less than a week, the revived assisted dying bill will be voted on in the Commons. The updated impact assessment, released last week, paints a dark picture of a future in England and Wales if the legislation were to pass.

When the bill was first introduced by Kim Leadbeater two years ago, the Government predicted that 2,183 people would end their lives per year by the 10th year the practice was legal. Now, the Government has increased this predicted number by 60%, to 3,502 deaths per year in England and Wales. The highest estimate now puts the estimated death toll at 6,257 people per year.

This is a far cry from what Leadbeater said when promoting her original bill that “only a few hundred” people would end their lives each year if it was made law. The Government, in its new impact assessment, is clear that this estimate does not even represent the definitive upper bound for how many deaths could occur. The report includes a comparison of what the death toll would look like if, for example, the actual and projected death rates from New Zealand, where assisted dying is legal, were applied. By the 10th year, according to this projection, there could be close to 10,000 deaths per year in England and Wales.

This is not the only stark warning coming from the new Government update. The number of people with learning disabilities who are expected to end their lives each year has increased. The report acknowledges that those facing pressure in their everyday lives, including poverty, poor access to healthcare, and financial hardship, are disproportionately likely to end their lives.

These are some of the most vulnerable people in society. The Government, which is neutral on the bill, is resolutely clear that the likely outcome of legalizing assisted dying is much worse than it had originally predicted.

It is not just the Government whose opinion has shifted on the impact of assisted dying once more data has become available. Polling has shown that the more detail the public are made aware of regarding what the assisted dying bill would allow, the less likely they are to support it, with support in one case falling to only 11%. Their support will likely fall further still in light of the new impact assessment and projected death tolls.

New Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, must now answer questions on this subject. Unlike his predecessor, he does not support this new attempt at legalizing assisted dying, saying that end-of-life care services must be fixed before any serious debate should happen. While he has said he will not be voting in the debate, his personal viewpoint on the matter and his willingness to state this publicly will surely sway some fence-sitting MPs who wish to ingratiate themselves with their new leader.

Any MP who takes a serious stance on the rights of vulnerable people, or who wishes to improve access to palliative and end-of-life care, should look upon these revelations from the Government and despair. This bill is not safe, nor can it be made safe by the tabling of a few amendments. Before estimates are raised even further, it must be withdrawn.