X Close

Forget San Francisco — Britain has a shoplifting epidemic too

September 7 2023 - 7:00am

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_

The sporting boycott against Russia is breaking down

2014 Winter Olympics mascot ‘The Polar Bear’ during the opening ceremony in Sochi. Credit: Getty

2014 Winter Olympics mascot ‘The Polar Bear’ during the opening ceremony in Sochi. Credit: Getty

July 10 2026 - 10:00am

The supposedly apolitical and neutral arena of sport has never truly been either. From the infamous 1956 Soviet–Hungarian water polo match — a bloody microcosm of the conflict that had been raging beyond the pool — to Cold War rivalries, elite sport has long served as a stage for competition between nations as much as individuals.

Now the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has decided to lift its suspension of the Russian Olympic Committee, paving the way for Russian and Belarusian athletes to compete at the 2028 Los Angeles Games. It was, the organization stressed, a technical decision since the “ROC no longer includes as its members any regional sports organizations in territories falling under the jurisdiction of the National Olympic Committee of Ukraine”.

But why, really, did the IOC make the decision? The verdict appears less a reflection of Russia’s conduct in Ukraine than a consequence of debates surrounding Israel. Russian Sport Minister Mikhail Degtyarev bragged of his country’s “extensive diplomatic work to reinstate our athletes”, a campaign which relied on the argument that it was hypocritical to exclude Russia while allowing Israel to compete at a time of conflict. The IOC itself noted that “an athlete’s participation in international competition should not be limited by the involvement of their government in a war.”

Expect other sports to shift position now. In April, World Aquatics permitted Russian and Belarusian athletes to compete under national flags, followed by World Boxing allowing them as neutrals. The IOC is letting international federations integrate Russia into global tournaments and world championships at their own discretion, with Degtyarev vowing that Moscow will “take advantage of this” and ensure “all sports reinstate Russian national teams”. Fifa is already reviewing Russia’s exclusion from the World Cup. While Uefa and World Athletics are upholding their bans, such a hardline position may be difficult to maintain now that the momentum has swung behind permitting Moscow.

This is a win for the Kremlin. For all he has personally done to degrade it, Vladimir Putin cares deeply about his country’s prestige on the global stage. Russia’s readmittance into elite sport offers him the spectacle of international legitimacy, reinforces the message that Moscow remains an indispensable power and sparks nationalistic feeling that he can appropriate. The IOC’s decision removes an incentive for him to end the war to secure Russia’s return to diplomatic normality.

Any triumph for Russia in this regard constitutes a loss for Ukraine. Kyiv will interpret this as further evidence of waning international concern, especially after one of its athletes was disqualified for a helmet commemorating slain sportsmen. The chorus of Western disapproval at Russia and Belarus being at this year’s Paralympics amounted to a symbolic boycott of the opening and closing ceremonies, while the competition continued as usual.

While the IOC may be congratulating itself on not inviting Russian state officials, that gesture is cosmetic. The Kremlin does not need to dispatch ministers when its most loyal envoys will simply arrive in tracksuits. With vetting of athletes’ views on the war now abandoned, Moscow is free to send full-throated supporters of the conflict and potentially even its veterans to the Olympics. Russia can thereby needle Kyiv, no doubt sparking some especially bitter heats, while selling a propaganda narrative of Russians conquering on both Ukrainian and American soil.

Putin will rejoice that parts of the international community have apparently yielded to a Kremlin lobbying campaign. The President — and state media — will draw parallels with the wider war, noting that Moscow’s persistence and refusal to concede ultimately brought success. Los Angeles 2028 may be a while off, but Russia has scored the first victory.


Bethany Elliott is a writer specialising in Russia and Eastern Europe.

BethanyAElliott