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_

---

Saturday night’s vehicle-ramming incident in Derby resulted in seven people suffering serious injuries. Witnesses reported that the collision occurred in the city’s Friar Gate area, known for its pubs and bars. They described how a black Suzuki Swift “deliberately” mounted the pavement, knocking down a number of pedestrians. A 36-year old man, reportedly of Indian origin, was subsequently arrested on suspicion of several charges, including attempted murder. Police, as careful as ever to avoid inflaming local tensions, said they were keeping “an open mind” as to the suspect’s motive.

Like many English provincial cities, Derby has increasingly faced concerns around crime, drugs and immigration. Derbyshire Police later revealed that counter-terrorism officers are assisting the investigation, raising suspicions of an ideological motive. Indeed, officers may face the usual accusations of opacity around the incident, but in this instance an open mind is especially appropriate: violent, non-terror-related attacks involving cars outside pubs and clubs are hardly unheard of.

Counter-terrorism officers will quickly seek to either prove or disprove a terror-related motive, via the usual fast-tracking of intelligence and data communications analysis. Even if the suspect has no pre-existing intelligence traces, it’s increasingly common for lone-wolf terrorists to have stayed off the police radar. Indeed, Islamist terrorist organisations have instructed would-be “martyrs” to use vehicles, knives and other improvised methods to carry out attacks. As a security report by the Rand Corporation commented, “for such attacks, the barrier to entry is remarkably low; the main skill required is the ability to drive. Citing a separate report, it said: “No community, large or small, rural or urban, is immune to attacks of this kind.”

As such, motor vehicles have long been a favoured terrorist weapon across Europe, especially among lone attackers. It’s now been just over nine years since the vehicle-ramming attack on the Houses of Parliament, when the Islamist-inspired terrorist Khalid Masood killed five people and injured at least 50 more. In the aftermath of the Westminster attack, bollards — known in the sterile language of security professionals as “Hostile Vehicle Mitigation” measures — became commonplace around shopping centres and pedestrianised areas. Sceptics on the political Right, alleging political cowardice around issues of immigration and radicalisation, began referring to them as “diversity barriers.

As police and local authorities strove to prevent terrorism through the use of physical security measures, officialdom’s employment of political tools seemed less effective. For every set of HVM barriers, critics argue, there’s an instance of failure by initiatives such as Prevent. Physical reminders of terrorism have become a contentious issue, as Christmas markets and outdoor events increasingly require armed police patrols and public awareness campaigns. Official gaslighting of once-unthought-of measures as “routine” merely hardens suspicions of a lack of political nerve to address the underlying issues.

In Derby, despite the serious injuries sustained by victims, police will be relieved they aren’t dealing with an act of mass murder. Senior officers and Government officials will hope the incident is demonstrably non-terror related, whereby it will slip off the news agenda like the Liverpool car-ramming incident. If it does prove to be terror-related, official and unofficial narratives will inevitably clash, raising tensions in Derby and beyond. The narratives are familiar: “Don’t look back in anger,” if you will, versus simmering cynicism and resentment that successive governments have failed to grasp sensitive issues of counter-terrorism, integration and the downsides of Britain’s increasingly multicultural society.