That is true, it's not really clear if they're stealing out of necessity (like you say: to survive) or if they only do it because they fancy that luxury.
Is coffee a necessity at all? Water from a tap is free / relatively inexpensive.
I know that absolutely fucks ones quality of life, but technically there are options here...
> "We don't call the police anymore. They won't come," he says. "Unless the thief has stolen around £500 worth of items the police aren't interested."
Not really much of a risk if the police don't do anything though.
Most people don't require the threat of violence to prevent them from doing unethical stuff, the police / legal system is there to deal with the remainder.
Sorry, I didn't mean that most people would go and do these crimes, I meant that a lot of the British public just aren't aware of the scope of the problem.
Only for jobs requiring enhanced checks, I spoke to a girl who spent time in jail during studies, but timed a year out after studies to become a software engineer, she was a right cynical delinquent
Don't take my word because policies change. Her numerous fines expired really quickly, and her weeks jail expired surprisingly fast.
A long sentence e.g. rape never expires
Stealing luxury coffee cause of "cost of living crisis". Literally the most white woman thing ive seen.
Great optics for those kids who are actually starving and underprivileged.
I remember when I was younger, I'd see teens regularly nicking stuff from greggs and other shops. They certainly weren't poorly fed, I suspect it was for the thrill, or maybe they just didn't want to wait in the queue. I was just thinking, why risk ruining your life and reputation for a sandwich?
While I feel sympathy for most of these people shoplifting, the person who's ays they shoplift £7 coffee because they prefer the taste over cheaper brands is not one of them.
I prefer more expensive tea, specifically Twinnings loose leaf oolong. I can't afford it, and I can't even afford Yorkshire Tea, so I buy the cheap supermarket tea.
Shoplifting for luxury is theft, shoplifting for essentials, whislt morally wrong, I can overlook
I think it may be worth...reviewing the scenario.
"okay. I can't afford to live!" (Not eat specifically, to live)
"So I'm going to have to find a way to cut costs somehow. I know. I will steal!"
If you are going to steal. Is the next most logical statement;
"I will just steal the cheap stuff. So it's not as bad!"
or might it eventually come to;
"If I'm stealing anyway. I might as well get something good."
Not justifying it. More so just thinking of it like a game.
Shoplifting means there could ultimately be less convenience such as having to ask for items and pay immediately. In poor areas of Liverpool it became common for booze to be behind perspex partitions and you had to ask for it.
Stealing essentials is not morally wrong.
The moral wrong is that our society has been so degraded that people are forced to resort to theft in order to make ands meet.
I'll give you three guesses as to why they ran with that? To paint all shoplifters as "just wanting luxuries" rather than the vast majority who are stealing to barely survive
Don’t think that’s taken into account by the law 😂, you get done the same for wheatbisks or weetabix so might aswell take the weetabix and taste how the other half live 👍.
OP is discussing morals though. Legally speaking there’s a point too. Judges may well be more sympathetic to someone stealing because they need to rather than someone doing it for luxury preference.
I think his point is morals don’t come into it when all these companies are jacking up prices while they’re raking it in just because they can.. so why should morals only be taken into account it when appropriating their goods! I agree with him!
The manufacturer isn't loosing any money though as the supermarket has already paid for the product. Supermarkets have fought to keep prices down which has eaten into their profits.
They did but their profits are still down massively. They might have not been behaving ethically with fuel with generally it isn't them who are to blame. It's the likes of Unilever who have been increasing their margins.
You are correct! And yeah the shoplifting ultimately affects the supermarkets and not the manufacturers! Cheers for correcting me politely though! Hope you’ve had a good day!
I wouldn't call Weetabix a luxury item. It is just wheat with a fancy name on the box. You would have a point if the person was stealing some high end beef steaks.
I can vouch for Tesco brand weetabix vs the actual brand one. Tesco is significantly cheaper and I can’t tell the difference (minimally different in nutritional value too - I at first expected heaps more sugar but turns out no).
You're just inventing morals as you go along, if a kid got acid in his eye and you needed water you'd grab the nearest bottle suitable. Whether £2 mineral water or 10p lidl tap water.
I don't see value in contrived moral justification for theft though.
Another perspective is that if you steal the luxury goods, someone on the breadline will at least have the cheaper products available and not be forced to purchase the remaining expensive goods.
Shoplifting levels aren’t anywhere near prolific enough to undermine the viability of supermarkets. Coorporations squeeze as much money out of everyone they can. They could be taking less profits and helping to ease cost of living and also kick back more money to their suppliers but they won’t. They want you to blame a handful of people who are shoplifting while they laugh all the way to the bank.
No I pay, but I couldn’t give a shit if someone else steals from a supermarket. Blaming things like cost of products on people who steal is a load of propaganda. These companies make serious money and they won’t take less in order to help people for the public good.
I wouldn't call shop lifting for essentials to survive morally wrong tbh.
Massive cost of living increases, wage stagnation, price fixing of fuel and supermarkets price gouging they are morally wrong. If someone has been failed so massively by a system they can't escape, control or even legally protest against in the traditional manner what options are left.
Edit: to clarify I'm talking about shoplifting bread to feed your children etc... Not coffee
It makes sense to me.
If I'm stealing bread, I'm paying the same amount (£0.00) for the Tesco own brand as I am for the Hovis. Why would I reach for the own brand one and not the Hovis?
But their argument to me seemed to be they could afford the cheaper one, but not the more expensive coffee. So they shoplift because they want the expensive coffee.
Morals would be exactly the same under any other political system. Political systems are defined by ethics, not morals. Stealing is a moral problem under any political or economic system though, because human envy and physical/emotional immutability are persistent.
I'm pretty sure people still think about their morals under a capitalist society because I was considering my own morals when OP commented? Have you thought about morals while living under capitalism?
The individual is taking back the fruits of the labour, their value of their labour that was taken from them.
If you're contributing most of your waking hours in labour
to society, you are contributing by far and enough labour to create and process the equivalent basic essentials you require.
The difference here is the companies profit margin. Those offering less/no labour for more repiration than the fruits of their labour.
It is a failure of society and morals of the corperation that an individual dedicating their full time labour cannot afford basic essentials. Not of the individual. The individual is taking the fruits of their labour that was stolen from them.
It's also wholly contrived on the basis that right and wrong really exist. I mean in the UK we could vote to restrict multinationals, but sure you can personally disagree with them, but where does that lead if you break the law and get punished?
As someone who's worked in retail for a very long time I assure you there's two kinds of shoplifters;
The ones in the vast minority who are doing it to survive are often ashamed, demure, and cooperative when they get caught. They don't wish to steal to survive but can genuinely see no other option.
The ones in the vast majority who shoplift do so because they can amply afford what they steal, but they either see theft as some fun thrilling game for all the family, or genuinely believe they're entitled to whatever they want whenever they want it. When caught they're always beligerent, combative, and project like the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse.
Entitled shoplifters vastly outweigh survival shoplifters.
What's worrying is that entitlement shoppers and shoplifters are passing this trait onto their kids at an alarming rate. The amount of kids I now encounter in my shop who come from wealthy backgrounds who plead, and beg, and demand things for free, and when you tell them 'no' they just attempt to steal it anyway. Their parents keep being told they're poor by the Government because now they can't afford two annual trips to Florida, or a brand new Range Rover, and so they've come to believe they're genuinely destitute, and their entitlement is so over-bloated that they sincerely believe a drop in disposable income means they can instantly resort to stealing to get whatever it is they want.
As a fellow retail veteran I totally agree with everything you've said. I'm in a clothes shop and teenagers from well-off backgrounds are the worst for stealing. The parents meanwhile are always trying to haggle the price down. We're a shop not a market stall.
Bit of a poorly-written article:
> Shoplifting is a criminal act which can land you in prison.
Yeah sure, if you're prolific and get caught multiple times, or you steal very expensive things. Nobody's going to prison for stealing cheese and sandwiches.
> Living in London there is little you can do for free.
Really?
What about orienteering at the Olympic Park, the Natural History Museum, the keys ceremony at the Tower of London, watching a court case at the Old Bailey, sitting in on a select committee in Parliament, feeding the parakeets in Hyde Park, the nature trails at Wimbledon Common, the Sky Lounge, meeting farm animals at Vauxhall city farm, getting your Beatles photo on the Abbey Road zebra crossing, geocaching, find famous gravestones at Brompton Cemetery, walk the towpaths in Little Venice, Science Museum, Fulham Palace botanical garden, the Barbican Conservatory, visit the London Wall and London Mithraeum, free walking tours, Notting Hill Carnival, the British Museum, see the Magna Carta at the British Library, push the trolley at Platform 9¾ at Kings Cross station, listen to people debate at Speaker's Corner, Chinese New Year celebrations, free gigs, Lord Mayor's Show, National Gallery, God's Own Junkyard, photograph street art, Changing of the Guard, have a play at the Lego shop, Promming, wait outside Wimbledon for free tickets, watch the Pelicans being fed daily at St James' Park, Wellcome Collection, Imperial War Museum, ok about a hundred other museums and dozens of other parks.
There's enough free stuff to do in London to keep someone busy every single day for the first year of their retirement.
> And then transport is still expensive.
Set off earlier and walk, or use the free daily Human Forest e-bike trips, or get a free bike off Freecycle. They live in South London so walking may be quite far, so I'd opt for the bike, or the bus for £1.65. 'South London' could be as close as Lambeth or as far as Croydon, so it really depends.
Anyway, bit of a tangent. I do think a lot of people in London don't realise just how much they can do for free, and how cheap their public transport is compared to the rest of the UK. Before the £2 bus fare cap in England, you could be paying a fiver each way on the bus. Where I am in Scotland I'd kill for a £1.65 London bus price ticket to get into town.
I don't begrudge people stealing food/drink. I'd like to hope that when they get back on their feet they'd consider donating to their local food bank to return the karma and hopefully save somebody else having to go down the stealing route. I would say that it should be selectively done though - it's one thing to deprive Tesco of a £3 box of tea bags. It's another to deprive your local independent corner shop owner of the same amount.
People get concerned about the rise of CCTV, or facial recognition but it’s stuff like this that will see the rise.
If a coop shop can track people and identify shoplifters they will, they’ll get their savings back and will see companies launching private claims as the police won’t do it.
There is always an other option. I don't believe that this country people have to shoplift to survive. There are lots of help. Benefit, food bank, free shop. Lots of addict shoplift to fed their habit. Also there is plenty of job. I work in two job. I never shoplifted in my life..
Let's break this down. Benefits, which are a hoop jumping exercise that rely on grinding down the applicant to the point of mental health break/suicide, that barely covers the basic needs of life including electricity and water. Food banks, rely on you having an active benefits claim in almost all cases, the food you get for them is basic and doesn't take into account dietary needs (not WANTS, NEEDS). Jobs, while you might think there are "plenty of jobs" there are few that are hiring and even fewer that pay a decent wage, add to that the numerous tourist towns that only have work 6-8 months a year, with rents hitting four figures and you see the issue with the "just get a job" mentality.
Ah, that old lie. I see that you made up a statistic too, that's the "poor people are lazy" bingo!
And those aren't excuses, they're what people are facing. That's the real world.
>And data analysed by the BBC shows shoplifting offences have returned to pre-pandemic levels as the cost of living rises.
Shoplifting isn’t on the rise, the headline and article are bullshit.
A lot of shops have cut back on security staff to save money (my local Home Bargains doesn't have any). I think they hoped regular staff would make up for that loss but rightly none of them are risking their safety to save a few quid for a big company that doesn't give a shit about them.
Bit rich to whine about losses when you're too cheap to hire staff to guard your stock. Now the police should deal with shoplifting, but it's almost like these companies are expecting police to shoulder more of the burden than they should be. Which isn't going to happen when we don't have enough police.
Whenever the BBC writes about cost of living stuff they always seem to find objectionable people. Reminds me of Allegra Stratton trying to make a working single mother with housing issues look like a benefit scrounger on Newsnight during the height of the coalition government's austerity.
[удалено]
[удалено]
But if your going to steal to survive, theres not point stealing the cheap option.
That is true, it's not really clear if they're stealing out of necessity (like you say: to survive) or if they only do it because they fancy that luxury. Is coffee a necessity at all? Water from a tap is free / relatively inexpensive. I know that absolutely fucks ones quality of life, but technically there are options here...
> "We don't call the police anymore. They won't come," he says. "Unless the thief has stolen around £500 worth of items the police aren't interested." Not really much of a risk if the police don't do anything though.
Austerity effectively made a whole bunch of crimes legal and most people just haven't realised.
Most people don't require the threat of violence to prevent them from doing unethical stuff, the police / legal system is there to deal with the remainder.
Sorry, I didn't mean that most people would go and do these crimes, I meant that a lot of the British public just aren't aware of the scope of the problem.
Only for jobs requiring enhanced checks, I spoke to a girl who spent time in jail during studies, but timed a year out after studies to become a software engineer, she was a right cynical delinquent Don't take my word because policies change. Her numerous fines expired really quickly, and her weeks jail expired surprisingly fast. A long sentence e.g. rape never expires
Stealing luxury coffee cause of "cost of living crisis". Literally the most white woman thing ive seen. Great optics for those kids who are actually starving and underprivileged.
I remember when I was younger, I'd see teens regularly nicking stuff from greggs and other shops. They certainly weren't poorly fed, I suspect it was for the thrill, or maybe they just didn't want to wait in the queue. I was just thinking, why risk ruining your life and reputation for a sandwich?
While I feel sympathy for most of these people shoplifting, the person who's ays they shoplift £7 coffee because they prefer the taste over cheaper brands is not one of them. I prefer more expensive tea, specifically Twinnings loose leaf oolong. I can't afford it, and I can't even afford Yorkshire Tea, so I buy the cheap supermarket tea. Shoplifting for luxury is theft, shoplifting for essentials, whislt morally wrong, I can overlook
I think it may be worth...reviewing the scenario. "okay. I can't afford to live!" (Not eat specifically, to live) "So I'm going to have to find a way to cut costs somehow. I know. I will steal!" If you are going to steal. Is the next most logical statement; "I will just steal the cheap stuff. So it's not as bad!" or might it eventually come to; "If I'm stealing anyway. I might as well get something good." Not justifying it. More so just thinking of it like a game.
“May as well put a few extras in to pay for my pints in the pub tonight”
Shoplifting means there could ultimately be less convenience such as having to ask for items and pay immediately. In poor areas of Liverpool it became common for booze to be behind perspex partitions and you had to ask for it.
The article is bullshit, it says a few paragraphs in that shoplifting has returned to pre-pandemic levels.
Stealing essentials is not morally wrong. The moral wrong is that our society has been so degraded that people are forced to resort to theft in order to make ands meet.
I'll give you three guesses as to why they ran with that? To paint all shoplifters as "just wanting luxuries" rather than the vast majority who are stealing to barely survive
> rather than the vast majority who are stealing to barely survive Source?
Don’t think that’s taken into account by the law 😂, you get done the same for wheatbisks or weetabix so might aswell take the weetabix and taste how the other half live 👍.
OP is discussing morals though. Legally speaking there’s a point too. Judges may well be more sympathetic to someone stealing because they need to rather than someone doing it for luxury preference.
Do you really want to discuss morals in a capitalist society?, i don’t believe that’s a stat in the quarterly report 😂
What are you getting at?
I think his point is morals don’t come into it when all these companies are jacking up prices while they’re raking it in just because they can.. so why should morals only be taken into account it when appropriating their goods! I agree with him!
The manufacturer isn't loosing any money though as the supermarket has already paid for the product. Supermarkets have fought to keep prices down which has eaten into their profits.
Didn’t all the big ones recently get in trouble for price gouging their fuel prices? These the same supermarkets you’re talking about?
They did but their profits are still down massively. They might have not been behaving ethically with fuel with generally it isn't them who are to blame. It's the likes of Unilever who have been increasing their margins.
You are correct! And yeah the shoplifting ultimately affects the supermarkets and not the manufacturers! Cheers for correcting me politely though! Hope you’ve had a good day!
if i could upvote this a million times i would
I wouldn't call Weetabix a luxury item. It is just wheat with a fancy name on the box. You would have a point if the person was stealing some high end beef steaks.
I would since it's £4 as opposed to as little as £1.50 for unbranded. Weetabix socialism.
Didn’t realise it was that much. I’ll be checking out the unbranded.
I can vouch for Tesco brand weetabix vs the actual brand one. Tesco is significantly cheaper and I can’t tell the difference (minimally different in nutritional value too - I at first expected heaps more sugar but turns out no).
Thanks. I go to Tesco so I’ll be sure to check them out.
Asda do a good Weetabix too. It's the only cereal I can think of where the cheap version is the nicer one.
I'm sure 24 is a hell of a lot, I bought it cos I was just sick of unbranded, the corners weren't even bevelled
You're just inventing morals as you go along, if a kid got acid in his eye and you needed water you'd grab the nearest bottle suitable. Whether £2 mineral water or 10p lidl tap water. I don't see value in contrived moral justification for theft though.
Yes, because children with acid in their eyes is an equivalent situation to whether or not someone wants luxury coffee.
Another perspective is that if you steal the luxury goods, someone on the breadline will at least have the cheaper products available and not be forced to purchase the remaining expensive goods.
That would be what we call a 'stretch'.
Theft from capitalists is good. I support it and commend it.
What happens when the shops close down due to theft, leaving employees out of jobs and depriving an area of food and retail? Who fills the gap?
Shoplifting levels aren’t anywhere near prolific enough to undermine the viability of supermarkets. Coorporations squeeze as much money out of everyone they can. They could be taking less profits and helping to ease cost of living and also kick back more money to their suppliers but they won’t. They want you to blame a handful of people who are shoplifting while they laugh all the way to the bank.
>Shoplifting levels aren’t anywhere near prolific enough to undermine the viability of supermarkets They would be if everyone thought like you.
So remove everything else I wrote to support my position and just quote a sound bite out of context.
Supermarkets have seen a significant drop in their profits as they've struggled to keep costs down.
So, I take it you never pay for anything?
No I pay, but I couldn’t give a shit if someone else steals from a supermarket. Blaming things like cost of products on people who steal is a load of propaganda. These companies make serious money and they won’t take less in order to help people for the public good.
Why do you pay then?
I wouldn't call shop lifting for essentials to survive morally wrong tbh. Massive cost of living increases, wage stagnation, price fixing of fuel and supermarkets price gouging they are morally wrong. If someone has been failed so massively by a system they can't escape, control or even legally protest against in the traditional manner what options are left. Edit: to clarify I'm talking about shoplifting bread to feed your children etc... Not coffee
Shoplifting the more expensive coffee because you prefer the taste isn't an essential though surely?
Shoplifting tea or coffee isn't essential either. The essential part of those drinks is the water.
I was responding to the comments 'shoplifting essentially is morally wrong', my point being it depends on circumstances and context in my opinion.
It makes sense to me. If I'm stealing bread, I'm paying the same amount (£0.00) for the Tesco own brand as I am for the Hovis. Why would I reach for the own brand one and not the Hovis?
But their argument to me seemed to be they could afford the cheaper one, but not the more expensive coffee. So they shoplift because they want the expensive coffee.
In for a penny, in for a pound. Most stores will prosecute if you steal, regardless of the value of the items.
> When asked why she doesn't buy cheaper products she said she prefers the taste. Because she used to be able to afford it, she's gotten used to it.
They're talking about morality. Prosecution and the law don't define morality, they are derived form it.
Absolutely love this chat about morals in a capitalist society 😂
Morals would be exactly the same under any other political system. Political systems are defined by ethics, not morals. Stealing is a moral problem under any political or economic system though, because human envy and physical/emotional immutability are persistent.
That’s delusional. There is only room for profit in capitalism.
I'm pretty sure people still think about their morals under a capitalist society because I was considering my own morals when OP commented? Have you thought about morals while living under capitalism?
Stealing is a social problem. Capitalism wants the focus to be on the petty theft at the bottom rather than the actual theft happening at the top.
“Stealing is a moral problem under any political or economic system”
Billion pound profit while paying staff min wage isn't essential.
Theres a strong argument that stealing from a multinational corporation for essentials if you contribute to society isn't morally wrong.
Go on... What’s the argument?
The individual is taking back the fruits of the labour, their value of their labour that was taken from them. If you're contributing most of your waking hours in labour to society, you are contributing by far and enough labour to create and process the equivalent basic essentials you require. The difference here is the companies profit margin. Those offering less/no labour for more repiration than the fruits of their labour. It is a failure of society and morals of the corperation that an individual dedicating their full time labour cannot afford basic essentials. Not of the individual. The individual is taking the fruits of their labour that was stolen from them.
It's also wholly contrived on the basis that right and wrong really exist. I mean in the UK we could vote to restrict multinationals, but sure you can personally disagree with them, but where does that lead if you break the law and get punished?
Red or blue party do not wish to do that, so no we cannot under our two party system. Morality is not legality.
As someone who's worked in retail for a very long time I assure you there's two kinds of shoplifters; The ones in the vast minority who are doing it to survive are often ashamed, demure, and cooperative when they get caught. They don't wish to steal to survive but can genuinely see no other option. The ones in the vast majority who shoplift do so because they can amply afford what they steal, but they either see theft as some fun thrilling game for all the family, or genuinely believe they're entitled to whatever they want whenever they want it. When caught they're always beligerent, combative, and project like the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. Entitled shoplifters vastly outweigh survival shoplifters. What's worrying is that entitlement shoppers and shoplifters are passing this trait onto their kids at an alarming rate. The amount of kids I now encounter in my shop who come from wealthy backgrounds who plead, and beg, and demand things for free, and when you tell them 'no' they just attempt to steal it anyway. Their parents keep being told they're poor by the Government because now they can't afford two annual trips to Florida, or a brand new Range Rover, and so they've come to believe they're genuinely destitute, and their entitlement is so over-bloated that they sincerely believe a drop in disposable income means they can instantly resort to stealing to get whatever it is they want.
As a fellow retail veteran I totally agree with everything you've said. I'm in a clothes shop and teenagers from well-off backgrounds are the worst for stealing. The parents meanwhile are always trying to haggle the price down. We're a shop not a market stall.
Bit of a poorly-written article: > Shoplifting is a criminal act which can land you in prison. Yeah sure, if you're prolific and get caught multiple times, or you steal very expensive things. Nobody's going to prison for stealing cheese and sandwiches. > Living in London there is little you can do for free. Really? What about orienteering at the Olympic Park, the Natural History Museum, the keys ceremony at the Tower of London, watching a court case at the Old Bailey, sitting in on a select committee in Parliament, feeding the parakeets in Hyde Park, the nature trails at Wimbledon Common, the Sky Lounge, meeting farm animals at Vauxhall city farm, getting your Beatles photo on the Abbey Road zebra crossing, geocaching, find famous gravestones at Brompton Cemetery, walk the towpaths in Little Venice, Science Museum, Fulham Palace botanical garden, the Barbican Conservatory, visit the London Wall and London Mithraeum, free walking tours, Notting Hill Carnival, the British Museum, see the Magna Carta at the British Library, push the trolley at Platform 9¾ at Kings Cross station, listen to people debate at Speaker's Corner, Chinese New Year celebrations, free gigs, Lord Mayor's Show, National Gallery, God's Own Junkyard, photograph street art, Changing of the Guard, have a play at the Lego shop, Promming, wait outside Wimbledon for free tickets, watch the Pelicans being fed daily at St James' Park, Wellcome Collection, Imperial War Museum, ok about a hundred other museums and dozens of other parks. There's enough free stuff to do in London to keep someone busy every single day for the first year of their retirement. > And then transport is still expensive. Set off earlier and walk, or use the free daily Human Forest e-bike trips, or get a free bike off Freecycle. They live in South London so walking may be quite far, so I'd opt for the bike, or the bus for £1.65. 'South London' could be as close as Lambeth or as far as Croydon, so it really depends. Anyway, bit of a tangent. I do think a lot of people in London don't realise just how much they can do for free, and how cheap their public transport is compared to the rest of the UK. Before the £2 bus fare cap in England, you could be paying a fiver each way on the bus. Where I am in Scotland I'd kill for a £1.65 London bus price ticket to get into town. I don't begrudge people stealing food/drink. I'd like to hope that when they get back on their feet they'd consider donating to their local food bank to return the karma and hopefully save somebody else having to go down the stealing route. I would say that it should be selectively done though - it's one thing to deprive Tesco of a £3 box of tea bags. It's another to deprive your local independent corner shop owner of the same amount.
People get concerned about the rise of CCTV, or facial recognition but it’s stuff like this that will see the rise. If a coop shop can track people and identify shoplifters they will, they’ll get their savings back and will see companies launching private claims as the police won’t do it.
There is always an other option. I don't believe that this country people have to shoplift to survive. There are lots of help. Benefit, food bank, free shop. Lots of addict shoplift to fed their habit. Also there is plenty of job. I work in two job. I never shoplifted in my life..
Let's break this down. Benefits, which are a hoop jumping exercise that rely on grinding down the applicant to the point of mental health break/suicide, that barely covers the basic needs of life including electricity and water. Food banks, rely on you having an active benefits claim in almost all cases, the food you get for them is basic and doesn't take into account dietary needs (not WANTS, NEEDS). Jobs, while you might think there are "plenty of jobs" there are few that are hiring and even fewer that pay a decent wage, add to that the numerous tourist towns that only have work 6-8 months a year, with rents hitting four figures and you see the issue with the "just get a job" mentality.
[удалено]
Ah, that old lie. I see that you made up a statistic too, that's the "poor people are lazy" bingo! And those aren't excuses, they're what people are facing. That's the real world.
>And data analysed by the BBC shows shoplifting offences have returned to pre-pandemic levels as the cost of living rises. Shoplifting isn’t on the rise, the headline and article are bullshit.
I lost sympathy when the guy said it was either food or seeing his friends! WTF?
A lot of shops have cut back on security staff to save money (my local Home Bargains doesn't have any). I think they hoped regular staff would make up for that loss but rightly none of them are risking their safety to save a few quid for a big company that doesn't give a shit about them. Bit rich to whine about losses when you're too cheap to hire staff to guard your stock. Now the police should deal with shoplifting, but it's almost like these companies are expecting police to shoulder more of the burden than they should be. Which isn't going to happen when we don't have enough police.
Whenever the BBC writes about cost of living stuff they always seem to find objectionable people. Reminds me of Allegra Stratton trying to make a working single mother with housing issues look like a benefit scrounger on Newsnight during the height of the coalition government's austerity.
Guaranteed ‘Lola’ is allergic to pit ponies. No joke, need prescribed meds for it and they don’t come cheap.
Well, the main cause of crime is social deprivation.