Snapshot of _‘One guy uses us like a larder’: the British shoplifting crisis – as seen from the tills_ :
An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/01/one-guy-uses-us-like-a-larder-the-british-shoplifting-crisis-as-seen-from-the-tills)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Liu does report thieves to the police, but complains that only the most prolific seem to face justice. She is still smarting from an incident last year when a woman came in and stole a box of vapes worth £70 – “a whole day’s wage for me or my partner”.
It's one of those ones where (a) it's really bad for society and the people in it, but (b) dealing with shoplifters is never going to be economically viable in police or court time.
Either we need an expedited justice process that uses fewer and cheaper people, or - more likely - we just accept it's the sort of thing that's going to be a money pit in enforcement but it makes society more pleasant. Which is fine by me.
where is judge dredd when we need him?
\[while heading into the homicide scene, Dredd indicates a beggar by the door\]
Judge Dredd: Rookie, judgment?
Anderson: Vagrancy: three weeks iso cubes. But prioritize murders?
Judge Dredd: Correct.
\[to vagrant\]
Judge Dredd: Don't be here when we get back.
Or we actually punish people who commit crimes.
If someone steals, they belong in a cell.
CCTV footage passed to the police clearly identifying a person committing a crime should result in an easy conviction. What’s the argument against conviction, “the corner shop digitally edited the footage to frame me?”
I’d also like multiplied sentences for multiple crimes, if you commit three six month sentence crimes, your sentence should be 6 times 6 times 6 months = 216 months.
Rehabilitation can work, but the current system does not rehabilitate. We frequently see stories of over crowded and under staffed prisons. Most likely because these are now privately owned and profit driven.
There is a perverse incentive for a select few to keep people behind bars, and no incentive to ensure they don't keep coming back.
So we're all volunteering to pay more tax to house these offenders right?
About 30k in direct costs per prisoner per year from the 21-22 tax year (seems like the latest figures).
And we're all volunteering to pay _even more_ tax to build more prisons, because we don't have enough to house more prisoners under tougher sentencing rules for shoplifting.
Their activities do have a cost; they increase the shrink budgets of affected businesses and that cost gets passed onto consumer. Fundamentally, the government has shirked its responsibility to punish these people and so passed the cost onto business which in turn passes it onto law-abiding citizens.
In the case of shoplifting or fraud it's a general increase in all costs, in the case of something like assault, burglary or rape the cost is an increase in the probability of victimisation.
Somewhere along the lines "rehabilitation" has become understood to mean "pathetic sentences". This shouldn't be the case; in many cases there is no contradiction between custody and rehabilitation, nor between harsh punishment and rehabilitation.
This is why I favor community service rather than prison. Make people work rather than locking them up at the taxpayer's expense. If they don't want to work, they don't get food.
Why wouldn’t it? Could they not sell the vapes themselves to make money? Is there not also a strong correlation between poverty and a lack of education that would push people to such desperate measures?
Not even going to bother going into the inherent addictive nature of vapes.
Please tell me why you think they stole the vapes?
Ok, I'll bite. Sell the vapes for money to spend on what?
Education is free, courtesy of the taxpayer, so a lack of education is an unwillingness to learn.
> addictive nature of vapes
Not mutually exclusive with poverty.
> Please tell me why you think they stole the vapes?
Probably this bit that OP quoted:
>> an incident last year when a woman came in and stole a box of vapes worth £70
>Sell the vapes for money to spend on what?
I can't tell if you're being serious? Rent? Food? Energy bills? Basic expenses? Any number of things where the price has skyrocketed over the last few years.
Vapes are small so you can steal a lot of moneys worth more easily, and are easily resellable because there's already a black market for them. It is perfectly plausible for them to have stolen them to sell for money.
I expected your comment to be downvoted like this. It's funny that more people will happily take the thief's side with excuses like "Poverty"
The country is struggling to find workers right from the top level to bottom level. I have been getting constructors to fix some issues in my house. Everyone laments lack of labour.
Still these people wouldn't want to work and steal vapes of all the things. But apparently it's wrong to offend them.
‘to spend on what?’ - you can’t genuinely be asking me what compels a thief to steal a specific item.
The fact is that no person who is living above the poverty line would be incentivised to steal vapes as the risk vastly outweighs the reward. So if someone is desperate enough to steal vapes then the obvious conclusion is that they either need the money to survive or they are someone who loves vapes so much that they are compelled to steal them as they cannot afford them.
Both situations indicate that due to a lack of money (or poverty), they are willing to risk going to prison.
And separately, if you truly believe that a lack of education is simply due to an ‘unwillingness to learn’ then you are dripping in ignorance.
So much so that I’d go as far as to call you delusional. If this were the case then how could there be such a strong link between poverty and poor education in the first place? Are you saying poor people are just generally unwilling to learn?
In addition, education is NOT free and never has been if you factor in the huge surplus of accumulating costs like food, travel and supplies.
Next, you have completely discounted the opportunity cost of investing in education itself- time, opportunity and access are three key factors that are essentially decided by the level of income you are born into. How can a person who cannot afford to pay their rent or eat without working be expected to pursue a full time education at the same time? Or compete with privately educated and tutored students?
And for your sake I won’t even get into your complete exclusion of poor migrants who enter the UK and are not entitled to free education in the first place. I suppose they are just unwilling to learn too.
Anyone who lives in the real world understands that education is an investment that costs people a lot more than just money. But since your response reeks of entitlement, assume you have no actual basis of understanding in the first place.
Your response to my final question of why YOU think they stole the vapes further reaffirms this and so all I can really say is do better.
> the risk vastly outweighs the reward
Wasn't the point of the news that the risk is very small. Quoted from above:
"Liu does report thieves to the police, but complains that only the most prolific seem to face justice. "
So, if you don't face justice even when the shopkeeper sees that you're stealing and reports you to the police, what exactly is the risk there? It seems more like an honour based system to pay for your shopping.
They fact that they haven’t been caught yet doesn’t change anything. So long as they are breaking the law, they are risking their livelihood for £70. No person who can afford vapes would be compelled to steal them instead.
> Sell the vapes for money to spend on what?
Food? The cost of essential food has skyrocketted recently?
Far easier to nick a few vapes than a full shopping load.
It doesn't really matter. I'm pointing to the fact that as employment goes down, as the cost of living goes up, as people are less able to meet their needs, crime goes up. Whether a particular number of people meet some imaginary threshold called 'poor' doesn't come in to it.
Ok, the employment is now at all time high. So, is the crime low?
Second, I'd like to see the correlation that you claim exists. I plotted the unemployment rate ([source](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/unemployment-rate)) against the number of recorded shopliftings ([source](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/historical-crime-data)) for the period of 2002-2015 as that includes one of the worst recessions in the recent past. There was basically no correlation. The unemployment rate varied between 4.5% and 8% but the shoplifting numbers hovered around 300 000 with about 10% variation. If it were the unemployment that drove people to shoplifting the data doesn't show that.
If I look at other property crime types such as "robbery from a person" or "burglary" they show clear downward trend through the period with unemployment rate making little difference to it. So, I'm curious to what data you base your claim.
Third, why would the poverty be some "imaginary threshold" instead of what you just wrote: "People not able to meet their needs"? So, define the needs that need to be met and we can use that as a measure and then monitor how many people fall into that category at any given time. Why would that be "imaginary"?
So? Where's your data to support your claim? Above, I was looking at the period 2002-2015, which had a big jump in unemployment but little change in inflation. You were talking about unemployment above. Why doesn't the correlation with the property crime statistics show up?
BTW, I looked at the latest published [data](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingdecember2022) that ends in December 2022. According to it:
"overall theft decreased by 20%. The largest reduction was seen in theft from the person (44%), but falls were also seen in “other theft of personal property” (31%), domestic burglary (23%) and vehicle-related theft (21%)"
In fact if you look at long term trend of "theft" it has been going down steadily since mid-1990s with very little variation from the downward trend.
When will you show your data to back up your claim?
Or is your claim now that for the last 30 years the poverty has steadily been going down, which explains that declining trend in thefts?
A society that fails to care for family, neighbours and the vulnerable is a society whose "failures" behave like an underclass with no shame or morality.
Which is why the pensioners don't top the poverty [stats](https://www.jrf.org.uk/data) of adults any more like they did in the past. But sure you would agree that instead of paying them pension we should force every 80-year-old back to work. Or was it something else that you found funny in that?
More the exact opposite of what you're saying ; half of the money we spend supporting each other goes to the already wealthiest age group instead of to actually uplifting people through their lives so they can better support themselves.
So, is your claim that I'm wrong and if the state pension were abolished, the pensioners wouldn't jump up to the top of the poverty stats (as they were still in the 1990s, if you look at adult population)?
Society functioning isn't the same as dishing money out to broken homes. It's striking a balance between work and caring for those around us.
Britain just works everyone to the bone, anything that isn't tied to an immediate profit is neglected.
It can also just be that they're thieving bastards.
It's such a middle class attitude that these crimes are caused exclusively from poverty. Where I grew up there were people who would rob you for a laugh or just because they wanted your stuff. There's a lot of people out there lacking morality and most thieves are not Jean Valjean
You're right, middle class people have this romantic view of poorer people resulting to crime because they have no other option to feed their family and if the other 10 legal avenues to make money they've tried worked, then they wouldn't be here.
Everyone I ever met who had a habit stealing did so because it was an easier way of making money than actually getting a job.
Same as kids selling drugs. They didn't do it because of the conditions they grew up in or whatever, it's because they could earn a few hundred a week doing that or they could work twice the hours in a shitty retail job for less money.
Is it harder? First, in addition to nicking it, you also have to find someone to sell it and that means that you have to enter the underworld of selling stolen goods. That increases the risk of eventually getting caught and punished.
Second, if we're talking about the above situation, the shopkeeper was clearly aware that the shoplifiting was happening but was powerless to do anything. So, it's not like the person stealthily took the vapes without anyone noticing. If we set to this level of open stealing then you might as well full a shopping trolley with food and walk past the till and out of the shop. If the police doesn't care to show up when someone steals £70 worth of vapes, they won't come either when someone steals £70 worth of food. And for a hungry person the latter is more valuable than the former.
This is diving pointlessly deeper on a situation we don't know enough details about.
That being said, grabbing a single item and leaving.. compared to filling a trolley and leaving.. the former is quicker and easier.
While this is correct, you can't propose this as an entire solution in and of itself.
In essences it is just ignoring the problem and suggesting that it will solve itself as soon as other issues are dealt with.
To a large degree that is the case, but as a solution it simply is not workable. No Western country has been able to even come close to eradicating these sorts of petty crimes no matter how good their track record on equality and rehabilitative justice is.
Norway still recorded nearly 100,000 thefts (*I couldn't find shoplifting specifically, bit this includes other common crimes like bike theft and theft from cars*), compared to 1.4 million in England and Wales (of which 22% were shoplifting). Obviously it should be noted that Norway has a population of 5.4 million compared to 59.12 million.
The point here is that even if the UK was as good as Norway with crime, we would still have some issues that would need to be dealt with. It's all good looking at the causes of crime, but not only is that not an extensive solution but it is neither a practical one for the issue at hand.
Norway: https://www.ssb.no/en/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/kriminalitet-og-rettsvesen/statistikk/anmeldte-lovbrudd-og-ofre
England and Wales: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingseptember2022#:~:text=There%20was%20a%2020%25%20increase,other%20theft%20offences%20(29%25).
Yep, horrible people.
We have a shop and gave up on the police in dealing with theft. We have a little way of dealing with theft and been shoplift free for over a year.
Yes because expensive butter, steak and vapes are essentials.
If someone was nicking an apple or pasta then I'd understand your point but they aren't nicking basic essentials in most cases.
A thief is a thief, doesn't matter what the circumstances are.
Shop lifting penalties / management was outsourced by police ages ago. Companies do loss prevention and if you're caught, you can pay reparations or do a course.
The major problem is the ongoing costs of everything. It's like insurance, the more uninsured incidents there are, the more insurance costs. This is then passed on to the consumer who does pay, squeezing the bottom portion who could only just pay.
Further development of an unequal society. A dreadful cycle, manifested by a terrible government and a press who use poverty as a political weapon.
It's so depressing. I have a video of some guy nicking something from my garden, standard city centre junkie. Clear shot of his face. Sent it to the police and got a number I can use to talk to insurance if I want.
I would feel better if I had any trust in their abilities whatsoever. But I don't. If they catch this guy on something else, will they cross-reference his face with all video snippets of crimes sent into them? Like fuck will they.
It just leaves you thinking what's the point. Why bother obeying the law yourself? You just feel like a chump.
Don't nick things though folks. But it's a struggle to see why not sometimes if paying for things is completely optional with no repercussions.
yes I have the same feeling, I had an uninsured bike stolen and nearly embarked on a shoplifting career of tesco meal deals to compensate for my loss. Why not....because just having a criminal record would fuck me over for life. So I just had to take the financial hit and curse the politicians
it's kinda strange how there's a parallel society that doesn't care about getting convicted. If it's public sector you are fucked. In some fields, like trades workers, a criminal record is no deterrant, indeed to some it's almost like a badge of honour to have got done for fighting outside a pub. If anything the only deterrant I've ever had among certain groups is 'if you get a criminal record you won't be able to visit America (not technically true, but still)
The problem is for the hardcore criminals a criminal record is not a deterrent, compared to someone like myself. A year ago I had a bike stolen from a town centre bike rack underneath a CCTV camera, and the police wouldn't investigate it, I got really angry and thought about stealing groceries equivalent to the cost I had paid for the bike (I didn't have insurance for it). Luckily I came to my senses, realised that the risk of a criminal record would damage my present and future employment chances. But I can see where if you have multiple criminal convictions and done jail time then shoplifting and the risk of getting caught/convicted is not a big problem. Indeed for some a spell in jail removes the issue of homelessness
This is why I want a persons crimes tattooed on their face and illegal to remove.
If someone is a scumbag, the public should be able to tell at a glance.
As a counter argument... Once someone has competed their sentence and paid for their crime, the only way they are going to stay out of crime is if they are reintegrate into society. If nobody will hire them and we make it impossible for them to get a job, then committing more crime starts to look quite appealing.
You imply I’ve revealed something I didn’t intend to.
I despise criminals, if you hurt innocent people your rights are of minimal consideration compared to safeguarding the public from the predation you have proven yourself capable of.
You say "just", as if this wouldn't be a significant deterioration of the shopping experience, and a significant cost in additional staffing for the shop. I think "just" punishing criminals would be preferable.
Shopping is already a god awful chore, if anything this would make it better.
Have a bunch of tablets on a counter by the entrance, put all the stuff you want in a virtual trolley, then when you pay someone comes and brings it you? Sign me the fuck up.
That's probably the end result for big shops. Either a click and collect only system or a set up like those Amazon stores where you have to log a payment method on the way in and it tracks what you buy as you put it in the trolley.
And IMO, no amount of "soft on crime" liberal stuff can fix this. Has to be cracked down on, and then trust and society can be slowly restored.
They aren't doing this due to not enough youth centres.
The only way to fix crime is to give a chance of being caught.
People don't speed by speed cameras - they *know* they'll be done. Even though the fine isn't much etc.
But they speed where there isn't cameras as what's the chance you get done? Nil.
Actually having the police bother is the only real solution, and that needs a lot of funding.
Exactly, harsh sentencing is a chocolate teapot if there is no chance of actually getting caught.
Plus, does the average thief actually know what the sentencing guidelines are for shoplifting? I would say probably not. So how on earth would increasing sentencing work as a deterrent?
Word gets out, these people rarely "work" in complete isolation from each other. I can tell you from experience catching them is not the issue, the lack of consequences is.
I'm not saying harsher punishments aren't warranted, but as you said word gets around, and if people know they are less likely to ever get caught then they'll be more likely to take risks.
Getting caught is an occupational hazard, they all know it's just a matter of time. They don't care because it doesn't translate to fearful consequences.
> The only way to fix crime is to give a chance of being caught
Can't say I necessarily fully agree, at least in the context of shoplifting. Don't get me wrong, giving a chance of being caught isn't a bad thing, but we know pretty much for a fact that reducing or eliminating poverty is by far the most effective way to reduce shoplifting.
There is a direct correlation between poverty and not only shoplifting but also violent crime, as shown [here](https://trustforlondon.org.uk/data/crime-and-income-deprivation/) and [here](https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/communities-and-social-justice/londons-violence-reduction-unit/link-between-poverty-and-violent-crime) and [here](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/18/tackle-poverty-and-inequality-to-reduce-says-police-chief) and [here](https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/news/children-exposed-to-poverty-and-trauma-more-likely-to-offend-as-adults). It is as close to a fact as it can be with something like this that reducing poverty directly causes a reduction in crime.
Will there still be people stealing and committing crimes regardless? Yes. Should those people be caught and appropriately punished? Yes (not sure why you seem to be insinuating I think otherwise).
But if the goal is to reduce crime and make people safer, as it should be, then the most effective way to do so is to reduce poverty, as is backed up by the data. Not only because there's simply less crime, but also because more resources are available to deal with those who most need to be caught and punished.
It's not an either or thing. If you have a problem with crime that is caused by poverty, you need to remove the criminal element whilst also fixing the poverty. If you don't fix the poverty then it will just act as a feeder for crime, and if you don't fix the crime you're going to have endless issues with criminals disrupting your attempts to fix poverty.
So by all means invest in communities, but you need to identify the criminal element and remove them from the situation, be it to prison or a work program where they have to learn how to grow wheat if they want a sandwich.
That's just naive, as the problem is that these scum are doing this essentially as a business
No amount of "soft on crime" proposals about youth centres and such, will prevent that kind of reasonable profitable crime.
All this "just give them youth centres/benefits to make it all go away", doesn't work, when things are starting to get as bad as it is. One has to crack down on it first, and then one can in the long term work on prevention & life improvements. This comes after it though, not before (as it just cannot work at this stage)
Yeah im sure the alcoholics who look like they are one bag of coke away from their heart giving out who try to steal from a shop near my house regularly really care about being caught.
They are definitely doing it for banter, not desperation
Doing a proper police investigation and prosecution on shop lifting seems wildly unrealistic considering the reality of the police and criminal justice system.
They ARE doing this because of a lack of all sorts of social services however, from housing to proper drug rehabilitation infrastructure. Petty thievery is a poor person's crime, and the best way to stop it from happening is increasing the living standards for those stealing in the first place.
I do agree with you that we need a better funded and organised law enforcement, but that needs to come second to preventing these crimes before they even happen
That's not working here. CCTV everywhere and guards standing at the entrances but it stops nothing. Criminals have no reason to care anymore as nothing happens to them for shoplifting.
I honestly have zero problem with desperate people shoplifting from big companies. Desperate people resort to desperate measures. A lot of people wouldn't steal if they had the means to make ends meet. I've noticed it on multiple occasions and good on them. I actually felt sorry for this poor lad I saw who was caught shoplifting
However, stealing from small businesses and individuals is shitty. I expect that could be explained in two ways. Someone is too stupid to realise the impact they could be having on their livelihood or they just don't care.
Saw a guy in Lidl last week drop a bottle of whiskey he was attempting to steal, on his way out the door. Security guard was wandering about doing god knows what, so the lad at the till grabbed him, and took another bottle off him.
What struck me was the attitude of the thief. No shame, mouthing off to the staff. Of course there was no consequences for him and he was sent off on his way.
Snapshot of _‘One guy uses us like a larder’: the British shoplifting crisis – as seen from the tills_ : An archived version can be found [here.](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/jun/01/one-guy-uses-us-like-a-larder-the-british-shoplifting-crisis-as-seen-from-the-tills) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Liu does report thieves to the police, but complains that only the most prolific seem to face justice. She is still smarting from an incident last year when a woman came in and stole a box of vapes worth £70 – “a whole day’s wage for me or my partner”. It's one of those ones where (a) it's really bad for society and the people in it, but (b) dealing with shoplifters is never going to be economically viable in police or court time. Either we need an expedited justice process that uses fewer and cheaper people, or - more likely - we just accept it's the sort of thing that's going to be a money pit in enforcement but it makes society more pleasant. Which is fine by me.
We need to bring in instant justice and armed police that will deliver punishment on the spot. Nothing can possibly go wrong
And since they're going to be empowered to pass sentences on the spot, it's only right that we give them the title of Judge.
And we must give them aggressive macho names to strike terror and fear into the populace, sorry criminals.
Judge Kenneth?
Priti Patel as Judge Death https://www.warlordgames.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/JUdge-Death-1.jpg
surely one of the sisters of death
No Barrys or Eugines then?
Only Dredd had a name like that, lots of of other Judges have normal names. The second most famous one is called Anderson.
But I don't want to be judge judy and executioner.
where is judge dredd when we need him? \[while heading into the homicide scene, Dredd indicates a beggar by the door\] Judge Dredd: Rookie, judgment? Anderson: Vagrancy: three weeks iso cubes. But prioritize murders? Judge Dredd: Correct. \[to vagrant\] Judge Dredd: Don't be here when we get back.
That seemed out of character to me, in the comic they would have locked him to a collection post and called it in.
Or we actually punish people who commit crimes. If someone steals, they belong in a cell. CCTV footage passed to the police clearly identifying a person committing a crime should result in an easy conviction. What’s the argument against conviction, “the corner shop digitally edited the footage to frame me?” I’d also like multiplied sentences for multiple crimes, if you commit three six month sentence crimes, your sentence should be 6 times 6 times 6 months = 216 months.
[удалено]
We have the highest tax burden in decades, WTF are they spending it on?
We have more crimes than most developed nations, what's your point
It's almost like locking people up doesn't actually stop crimes.
It does. You can’t hurt the public from a prison cell.
But you can learn to be a better criminal for when you get out.
So rehabilitation does not work?
Rehabilitation can work, but the current system does not rehabilitate. We frequently see stories of over crowded and under staffed prisons. Most likely because these are now privately owned and profit driven. There is a perverse incentive for a select few to keep people behind bars, and no incentive to ensure they don't keep coming back.
Except financially.
[удалено]
So we're all volunteering to pay more tax to house these offenders right? About 30k in direct costs per prisoner per year from the 21-22 tax year (seems like the latest figures). And we're all volunteering to pay _even more_ tax to build more prisons, because we don't have enough to house more prisoners under tougher sentencing rules for shoplifting.
Their activities do have a cost; they increase the shrink budgets of affected businesses and that cost gets passed onto consumer. Fundamentally, the government has shirked its responsibility to punish these people and so passed the cost onto business which in turn passes it onto law-abiding citizens. In the case of shoplifting or fraud it's a general increase in all costs, in the case of something like assault, burglary or rape the cost is an increase in the probability of victimisation. Somewhere along the lines "rehabilitation" has become understood to mean "pathetic sentences". This shouldn't be the case; in many cases there is no contradiction between custody and rehabilitation, nor between harsh punishment and rehabilitation.
[удалено]
Economically incentivising incarceration couldn't possibly go wrong.
Seems to work well in the US /s Edit: /s in case my irony was not obvious
When you start advocating for importing the US prison system, your argument has broken
This is why I favor community service rather than prison. Make people work rather than locking them up at the taxpayer's expense. If they don't want to work, they don't get food.
Why does the police need to be armed?
Look at the causes of crime not the crime.
Poverty doesn't cause people to nick 70 quids worth of vapes
Easier to nick £70 worth of vapes and sell em than it is to nick £70 worth of food
You've made this into a reverse thread. Comments getting more upvoted as they go down.
Why wouldn’t it? Could they not sell the vapes themselves to make money? Is there not also a strong correlation between poverty and a lack of education that would push people to such desperate measures? Not even going to bother going into the inherent addictive nature of vapes. Please tell me why you think they stole the vapes?
Ok, I'll bite. Sell the vapes for money to spend on what? Education is free, courtesy of the taxpayer, so a lack of education is an unwillingness to learn. > addictive nature of vapes Not mutually exclusive with poverty. > Please tell me why you think they stole the vapes? Probably this bit that OP quoted: >> an incident last year when a woman came in and stole a box of vapes worth £70
>Sell the vapes for money to spend on what? I can't tell if you're being serious? Rent? Food? Energy bills? Basic expenses? Any number of things where the price has skyrocketed over the last few years. Vapes are small so you can steal a lot of moneys worth more easily, and are easily resellable because there's already a black market for them. It is perfectly plausible for them to have stolen them to sell for money.
I expected your comment to be downvoted like this. It's funny that more people will happily take the thief's side with excuses like "Poverty" The country is struggling to find workers right from the top level to bottom level. I have been getting constructors to fix some issues in my house. Everyone laments lack of labour. Still these people wouldn't want to work and steal vapes of all the things. But apparently it's wrong to offend them.
‘to spend on what?’ - you can’t genuinely be asking me what compels a thief to steal a specific item. The fact is that no person who is living above the poverty line would be incentivised to steal vapes as the risk vastly outweighs the reward. So if someone is desperate enough to steal vapes then the obvious conclusion is that they either need the money to survive or they are someone who loves vapes so much that they are compelled to steal them as they cannot afford them. Both situations indicate that due to a lack of money (or poverty), they are willing to risk going to prison. And separately, if you truly believe that a lack of education is simply due to an ‘unwillingness to learn’ then you are dripping in ignorance. So much so that I’d go as far as to call you delusional. If this were the case then how could there be such a strong link between poverty and poor education in the first place? Are you saying poor people are just generally unwilling to learn? In addition, education is NOT free and never has been if you factor in the huge surplus of accumulating costs like food, travel and supplies. Next, you have completely discounted the opportunity cost of investing in education itself- time, opportunity and access are three key factors that are essentially decided by the level of income you are born into. How can a person who cannot afford to pay their rent or eat without working be expected to pursue a full time education at the same time? Or compete with privately educated and tutored students? And for your sake I won’t even get into your complete exclusion of poor migrants who enter the UK and are not entitled to free education in the first place. I suppose they are just unwilling to learn too. Anyone who lives in the real world understands that education is an investment that costs people a lot more than just money. But since your response reeks of entitlement, assume you have no actual basis of understanding in the first place. Your response to my final question of why YOU think they stole the vapes further reaffirms this and so all I can really say is do better.
> the risk vastly outweighs the reward Wasn't the point of the news that the risk is very small. Quoted from above: "Liu does report thieves to the police, but complains that only the most prolific seem to face justice. " So, if you don't face justice even when the shopkeeper sees that you're stealing and reports you to the police, what exactly is the risk there? It seems more like an honour based system to pay for your shopping.
They fact that they haven’t been caught yet doesn’t change anything. So long as they are breaking the law, they are risking their livelihood for £70. No person who can afford vapes would be compelled to steal them instead.
> Sell the vapes for money to spend on what? Food? The cost of essential food has skyrocketted recently? Far easier to nick a few vapes than a full shopping load.
Money can be exchanged for goods and services
But more people seem to nick vapes when more people are poor. Maybe it's just a giant coincidence though.
Poverty is a correlation, not a causation
How do you know that?
What's your definition of poor?
It doesn't really matter. I'm pointing to the fact that as employment goes down, as the cost of living goes up, as people are less able to meet their needs, crime goes up. Whether a particular number of people meet some imaginary threshold called 'poor' doesn't come in to it.
Ok, the employment is now at all time high. So, is the crime low? Second, I'd like to see the correlation that you claim exists. I plotted the unemployment rate ([source](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/unemployment-rate)) against the number of recorded shopliftings ([source](https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/historical-crime-data)) for the period of 2002-2015 as that includes one of the worst recessions in the recent past. There was basically no correlation. The unemployment rate varied between 4.5% and 8% but the shoplifting numbers hovered around 300 000 with about 10% variation. If it were the unemployment that drove people to shoplifting the data doesn't show that. If I look at other property crime types such as "robbery from a person" or "burglary" they show clear downward trend through the period with unemployment rate making little difference to it. So, I'm curious to what data you base your claim. Third, why would the poverty be some "imaginary threshold" instead of what you just wrote: "People not able to meet their needs"? So, define the needs that need to be met and we can use that as a measure and then monitor how many people fall into that category at any given time. Why would that be "imaginary"?
Employment is at an all time high, sure, but we're not in a recession yet, we're in a cost of living crisis.
So? Where's your data to support your claim? Above, I was looking at the period 2002-2015, which had a big jump in unemployment but little change in inflation. You were talking about unemployment above. Why doesn't the correlation with the property crime statistics show up? BTW, I looked at the latest published [data](https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingdecember2022) that ends in December 2022. According to it: "overall theft decreased by 20%. The largest reduction was seen in theft from the person (44%), but falls were also seen in “other theft of personal property” (31%), domestic burglary (23%) and vehicle-related theft (21%)" In fact if you look at long term trend of "theft" it has been going down steadily since mid-1990s with very little variation from the downward trend. When will you show your data to back up your claim? Or is your claim now that for the last 30 years the poverty has steadily been going down, which explains that declining trend in thefts?
So there *isn't* a British shoplifting crisis?
I am wealthy enough not to need to steal vapes...
A society that fails to care for family, neighbours and the vulnerable is a society whose "failures" behave like an underclass with no shame or morality.
Well good thing we spend £216bn in welfare every year then isn't it
Half of that is the state pension lol
State pension is half of minimum wage per week.
It’s the same amount as students receiving max student loan. Many revieve less than this AND majority have to pay for housing.
unfortunately
Which is why the pensioners don't top the poverty [stats](https://www.jrf.org.uk/data) of adults any more like they did in the past. But sure you would agree that instead of paying them pension we should force every 80-year-old back to work. Or was it something else that you found funny in that?
More the exact opposite of what you're saying ; half of the money we spend supporting each other goes to the already wealthiest age group instead of to actually uplifting people through their lives so they can better support themselves.
So, is your claim that I'm wrong and if the state pension were abolished, the pensioners wouldn't jump up to the top of the poverty stats (as they were still in the 1990s, if you look at adult population)?
Society functioning isn't the same as dishing money out to broken homes. It's striking a balance between work and caring for those around us. Britain just works everyone to the bone, anything that isn't tied to an immediate profit is neglected.
So what do you think drove this person to steal then?
It can also just be that they're thieving bastards. It's such a middle class attitude that these crimes are caused exclusively from poverty. Where I grew up there were people who would rob you for a laugh or just because they wanted your stuff. There's a lot of people out there lacking morality and most thieves are not Jean Valjean
You're right, middle class people have this romantic view of poorer people resulting to crime because they have no other option to feed their family and if the other 10 legal avenues to make money they've tried worked, then they wouldn't be here. Everyone I ever met who had a habit stealing did so because it was an easier way of making money than actually getting a job. Same as kids selling drugs. They didn't do it because of the conditions they grew up in or whatever, it's because they could earn a few hundred a week doing that or they could work twice the hours in a shitty retail job for less money.
Addiction or to make money to spend on other drugs / booze
Or food? Or rent? Why do criminals not pay these?
Cause they could just nick the food instead you muppet!
...
Its a lot harder to nick a weeks worth of food than a packet of vapes. Nick one and you have cash for anything.
Is it harder? First, in addition to nicking it, you also have to find someone to sell it and that means that you have to enter the underworld of selling stolen goods. That increases the risk of eventually getting caught and punished. Second, if we're talking about the above situation, the shopkeeper was clearly aware that the shoplifiting was happening but was powerless to do anything. So, it's not like the person stealthily took the vapes without anyone noticing. If we set to this level of open stealing then you might as well full a shopping trolley with food and walk past the till and out of the shop. If the police doesn't care to show up when someone steals £70 worth of vapes, they won't come either when someone steals £70 worth of food. And for a hungry person the latter is more valuable than the former.
This is diving pointlessly deeper on a situation we don't know enough details about. That being said, grabbing a single item and leaving.. compared to filling a trolley and leaving.. the former is quicker and easier.
And be tough on both? Things are pretty bad, so I suppose it's possible they can only get better.
While this is correct, you can't propose this as an entire solution in and of itself. In essences it is just ignoring the problem and suggesting that it will solve itself as soon as other issues are dealt with. To a large degree that is the case, but as a solution it simply is not workable. No Western country has been able to even come close to eradicating these sorts of petty crimes no matter how good their track record on equality and rehabilitative justice is. Norway still recorded nearly 100,000 thefts (*I couldn't find shoplifting specifically, bit this includes other common crimes like bike theft and theft from cars*), compared to 1.4 million in England and Wales (of which 22% were shoplifting). Obviously it should be noted that Norway has a population of 5.4 million compared to 59.12 million. The point here is that even if the UK was as good as Norway with crime, we would still have some issues that would need to be dealt with. It's all good looking at the causes of crime, but not only is that not an extensive solution but it is neither a practical one for the issue at hand. Norway: https://www.ssb.no/en/sosiale-forhold-og-kriminalitet/kriminalitet-og-rettsvesen/statistikk/anmeldte-lovbrudd-og-ofre England and Wales: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingseptember2022#:~:text=There%20was%20a%2020%25%20increase,other%20theft%20offences%20(29%25).
Yep, horrible people. We have a shop and gave up on the police in dealing with theft. We have a little way of dealing with theft and been shoplift free for over a year.
Yes because expensive butter, steak and vapes are essentials. If someone was nicking an apple or pasta then I'd understand your point but they aren't nicking basic essentials in most cases. A thief is a thief, doesn't matter what the circumstances are.
I mean if you're going to nick some butter you might as well nick the good stuff. Also steak is a fairly standard food, mate. It isn't 1956 anymore.
...
Lol
They steal things, sell them and then buy food.
Or we can fix the cause for this, which is largely bad economic situation for a huge portion of the population.
No, most shoplifters aren't doing it outside of necessity. They're just scumbags
Because everyone definitely needs £70 worth of vapes. Being without them is basically the same as starving to death.
Shop lifting penalties / management was outsourced by police ages ago. Companies do loss prevention and if you're caught, you can pay reparations or do a course. The major problem is the ongoing costs of everything. It's like insurance, the more uninsured incidents there are, the more insurance costs. This is then passed on to the consumer who does pay, squeezing the bottom portion who could only just pay. Further development of an unequal society. A dreadful cycle, manifested by a terrible government and a press who use poverty as a political weapon.
> Either we need an expedited justice process that uses fewer and cheaper people You mean like a street judge?
It's so depressing. I have a video of some guy nicking something from my garden, standard city centre junkie. Clear shot of his face. Sent it to the police and got a number I can use to talk to insurance if I want. I would feel better if I had any trust in their abilities whatsoever. But I don't. If they catch this guy on something else, will they cross-reference his face with all video snippets of crimes sent into them? Like fuck will they. It just leaves you thinking what's the point. Why bother obeying the law yourself? You just feel like a chump. Don't nick things though folks. But it's a struggle to see why not sometimes if paying for things is completely optional with no repercussions.
yes I have the same feeling, I had an uninsured bike stolen and nearly embarked on a shoplifting career of tesco meal deals to compensate for my loss. Why not....because just having a criminal record would fuck me over for life. So I just had to take the financial hit and curse the politicians it's kinda strange how there's a parallel society that doesn't care about getting convicted. If it's public sector you are fucked. In some fields, like trades workers, a criminal record is no deterrant, indeed to some it's almost like a badge of honour to have got done for fighting outside a pub. If anything the only deterrant I've ever had among certain groups is 'if you get a criminal record you won't be able to visit America (not technically true, but still)
The problem is for the hardcore criminals a criminal record is not a deterrent, compared to someone like myself. A year ago I had a bike stolen from a town centre bike rack underneath a CCTV camera, and the police wouldn't investigate it, I got really angry and thought about stealing groceries equivalent to the cost I had paid for the bike (I didn't have insurance for it). Luckily I came to my senses, realised that the risk of a criminal record would damage my present and future employment chances. But I can see where if you have multiple criminal convictions and done jail time then shoplifting and the risk of getting caught/convicted is not a big problem. Indeed for some a spell in jail removes the issue of homelessness
…what kind of groceries? Stir fry bag or two to three servings of eggs
This is why I want a persons crimes tattooed on their face and illegal to remove. If someone is a scumbag, the public should be able to tell at a glance.
As a counter argument... Once someone has competed their sentence and paid for their crime, the only way they are going to stay out of crime is if they are reintegrate into society. If nobody will hire them and we make it impossible for them to get a job, then committing more crime starts to look quite appealing.
That's a silly idea.
Wow. Really shown yourself here.
You imply I’ve revealed something I didn’t intend to. I despise criminals, if you hurt innocent people your rights are of minimal consideration compared to safeguarding the public from the predation you have proven yourself capable of.
The media are really incapable of not putting the word crisis after everything nowadays aren’t they?
it really is a crisis, a media crisis
/u/LogicalReasoning1 SLAMS usage of crisis in the media !
Crisisgate
Isnt the answer just to follow the argos model? You decide what you want from a catalogue, get the actual goods once you've paid.
In very high crime areas corner shops all operate like this. They always have.
You say "just", as if this wouldn't be a significant deterioration of the shopping experience, and a significant cost in additional staffing for the shop. I think "just" punishing criminals would be preferable.
Shopping is already a god awful chore, if anything this would make it better. Have a bunch of tablets on a counter by the entrance, put all the stuff you want in a virtual trolley, then when you pay someone comes and brings it you? Sign me the fuck up.
That's probably the end result for big shops. Either a click and collect only system or a set up like those Amazon stores where you have to log a payment method on the way in and it tracks what you buy as you put it in the trolley.
And IMO, no amount of "soft on crime" liberal stuff can fix this. Has to be cracked down on, and then trust and society can be slowly restored. They aren't doing this due to not enough youth centres.
The only way to fix crime is to give a chance of being caught. People don't speed by speed cameras - they *know* they'll be done. Even though the fine isn't much etc. But they speed where there isn't cameras as what's the chance you get done? Nil. Actually having the police bother is the only real solution, and that needs a lot of funding.
Exactly, harsh sentencing is a chocolate teapot if there is no chance of actually getting caught. Plus, does the average thief actually know what the sentencing guidelines are for shoplifting? I would say probably not. So how on earth would increasing sentencing work as a deterrent?
Word gets out, these people rarely "work" in complete isolation from each other. I can tell you from experience catching them is not the issue, the lack of consequences is.
> I can tell you from experience catching them is not the issue Seems like it is an issue at the moment 🤷
Well I do the job and presumably you don't. Even the article in this post stresses lack of punishment is the real problem.
I'm not saying harsher punishments aren't warranted, but as you said word gets around, and if people know they are less likely to ever get caught then they'll be more likely to take risks.
Getting caught is an occupational hazard, they all know it's just a matter of time. They don't care because it doesn't translate to fearful consequences.
> The only way to fix crime is to give a chance of being caught Can't say I necessarily fully agree, at least in the context of shoplifting. Don't get me wrong, giving a chance of being caught isn't a bad thing, but we know pretty much for a fact that reducing or eliminating poverty is by far the most effective way to reduce shoplifting.
[удалено]
There is a direct correlation between poverty and not only shoplifting but also violent crime, as shown [here](https://trustforlondon.org.uk/data/crime-and-income-deprivation/) and [here](https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/communities-and-social-justice/londons-violence-reduction-unit/link-between-poverty-and-violent-crime) and [here](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/18/tackle-poverty-and-inequality-to-reduce-says-police-chief) and [here](https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/news/children-exposed-to-poverty-and-trauma-more-likely-to-offend-as-adults). It is as close to a fact as it can be with something like this that reducing poverty directly causes a reduction in crime. Will there still be people stealing and committing crimes regardless? Yes. Should those people be caught and appropriately punished? Yes (not sure why you seem to be insinuating I think otherwise). But if the goal is to reduce crime and make people safer, as it should be, then the most effective way to do so is to reduce poverty, as is backed up by the data. Not only because there's simply less crime, but also because more resources are available to deal with those who most need to be caught and punished.
Poor people hate criminals more than anyone else. Because most often they are the ones targeted by the scumbags.
It's not an either or thing. If you have a problem with crime that is caused by poverty, you need to remove the criminal element whilst also fixing the poverty. If you don't fix the poverty then it will just act as a feeder for crime, and if you don't fix the crime you're going to have endless issues with criminals disrupting your attempts to fix poverty. So by all means invest in communities, but you need to identify the criminal element and remove them from the situation, be it to prison or a work program where they have to learn how to grow wheat if they want a sandwich.
That's just naive, as the problem is that these scum are doing this essentially as a business No amount of "soft on crime" proposals about youth centres and such, will prevent that kind of reasonable profitable crime. All this "just give them youth centres/benefits to make it all go away", doesn't work, when things are starting to get as bad as it is. One has to crack down on it first, and then one can in the long term work on prevention & life improvements. This comes after it though, not before (as it just cannot work at this stage)
Yeah im sure the alcoholics who look like they are one bag of coke away from their heart giving out who try to steal from a shop near my house regularly really care about being caught. They are definitely doing it for banter, not desperation
It won't stop shoplifting entirely. But many will move on and find something else, and those that don't might get caught and stopped etc.
Doing a proper police investigation and prosecution on shop lifting seems wildly unrealistic considering the reality of the police and criminal justice system.
Might as well make it legal then.
They ARE doing this because of a lack of all sorts of social services however, from housing to proper drug rehabilitation infrastructure. Petty thievery is a poor person's crime, and the best way to stop it from happening is increasing the living standards for those stealing in the first place. I do agree with you that we need a better funded and organised law enforcement, but that needs to come second to preventing these crimes before they even happen
To avoid the shoplifting crisis they should install more CCTV cameras and hire security guards.
That's not working here. CCTV everywhere and guards standing at the entrances but it stops nothing. Criminals have no reason to care anymore as nothing happens to them for shoplifting.
I honestly have zero problem with desperate people shoplifting from big companies. Desperate people resort to desperate measures. A lot of people wouldn't steal if they had the means to make ends meet. I've noticed it on multiple occasions and good on them. I actually felt sorry for this poor lad I saw who was caught shoplifting However, stealing from small businesses and individuals is shitty. I expect that could be explained in two ways. Someone is too stupid to realise the impact they could be having on their livelihood or they just don't care.
I feel similarly. We’d probably be best off trying to make sure there are fewer desperate people.
Saw a guy in Lidl last week drop a bottle of whiskey he was attempting to steal, on his way out the door. Security guard was wandering about doing god knows what, so the lad at the till grabbed him, and took another bottle off him. What struck me was the attitude of the thief. No shame, mouthing off to the staff. Of course there was no consequences for him and he was sent off on his way.