In response to:
gemini://gemini.ucant.org/gemlog/2026-04-23_the-uks-current-attitude-to-shoplifting.gmi
I believe it is essentially that:
a) If an employee is injured things get messy... is it worth it for a near minimum wage employee to get injured or killed over some product?
b) there's a cost involved with regard Insurance and/or making a financially gesture to support an employee that's injured or a family who is now a member down.
c) the employee and/or company will likely be sued if the perpetrator is injured, killed or *eugh* has their rights breached. Because the UK is mental.
Apr 23 · 2 weeks ago
6 Comments ↓
🐐 drh3xx [OP] · Apr 23 at 18:00:
A number of decades back you'd put some serious thought into doing a bank, Post Office or whatever over because some old boy that served in WW2 would likely have a crack at fucking you up and get a pat on the back for it. Now we're in a situation where defending yourself or your property is a "problem" and you'll likely be the one getting prosecuted whilst the villain walks free.
🚀 lars_the_bear · Apr 24 at 07:15:
@drh3xx : this is a sentiment I often hear expressed, but I'm not sure the evidence backs it up. If you intervene with "reasonable force" to prevent what is clearly an ongoing crime, you'll still get a pat on the back.
As for defending your property, the govenment state quite openly that "reasonable force" is an option:
— https://www.gov.uk/reasonable-force-against-intruders
The problem with store security is that there often _isn't_ an incontestable crime. "I stuffed that bottle of whiskey in my pocket because my shopping basket was full..." Then you're on shaky legal ground, and it doesn't surprise me that employers don't want to take the risk.
🌲 Half_Elf_Monk · Apr 24 at 14:01:
Interesting read, thank you for sharing. imho the failures occurred much further up the causailty chain than how a store sets its policies. @ucant 's example about untrained employees stopping SA is excellent in a number of ways, particularly in that it points to the vested human interest in justice, which escapes the current framework.
Speaking in categories like "employees" and "employer" (and even "criminal") reduces the human system to nonessential charactaristics, which can only be so helpful. A human being is more than, say, an employer/employee. Despite the benefits of looking at a human being as a worker, there's a lot of other factors to consider.
Broader cultural backgrounds also matter. Does this kind of thing happen in West Texas? It seems to me (and I'm open to new information about this) that the "not prosecuting shoplifters but the employees who stop it" stories occur primarily in urban areas with a history of progressive ideological committments, those with historically novel approaches to law enforcement (restorative or rehabilitive justice, as opposed to, say, puniitive). You can think whatver you want about these ideas, but at least own a correlation where it appears. Truth will only make the honest stronger.
Shop clerks wouldn't have to stop shoplifting if fear of the punishments of the law prevented the majority of them from happening in the first place. Both fear of punishment, and conscientious personality traits, have to do with the culture and character of a people-group. I dunno about you, but I'd rather corporations don't act like they have to solve that problem. They can put up metal bars, plexiglass, and locks over the product, but they can't make human beings just. It's neither practicable nor even possible.
The shoreline between "the right thing is derived from first principles about human nature" and "the right thing is whatever you have the strength to get away with", as those propositions live in the beliefs of individual people, explains most of this. Where does Justice come from? But there are uncomfortable implications about the insufficiency of economic tools and the worker/owner framework lurking behind the answers to this question. I imagine most people are just gonna keep complaining and shoplifting.
🚀 lars_the_bear · Apr 24 at 14:27:
@Half_Elf_Monk : "It seems to me [...] that the "not prosecuting shoplifters but the employees who stop it" stories occur primarily in urban areas with a history of progressive ideological committments,..."
I'd argue that, wherever they occur, these stories are primarily just that: stories.
There have been a couple of genuine, verified recent incidents where somebody has has been fired for tackling a shoplifter. We don't know the full facts of either case, and yet they're all over the press. There's no suggestion that either person has been prosecuted.
But we just love to read about this kind of thing in Britain, just like how we're going to be banned from using the word "Christmas".
🐐 drh3xx [OP] · Apr 24 at 18:34:
@lars_the_bear for clarity I don't know the details of those dismissals so wasn't
implying anything regards the article on that front. My Wife does work in a large store though and their policy for "loss prevention officers" is basically: do not attempt to physically stop anyone leaving the store. Some staff have previously been dismissed purely on the basis that they did. In the UK, if you are willing to ignore "please stop and come with me!" you can basically walk out the door with whatever. Unless you're persistent or hit a value threshold the Police are unlikely to do anything besides log it. You might be banned from the store but if you rock up again you'll just be asked nicely to leave.
🚀 lars_the_bear · Apr 24 at 19:13:
@dr3hxx : FWIW I posted my views on the relevant law here:
— larsthebear.me/shoplifting.gmi
You're right, of course. The problem is that the law in this area dates from the pre-Internet days. Potential shoplifters couldn't Google their rights, as they can now. Current store policies in this area stem from the fact that they keep getting sued, because people know their rights.
Few people are keen on giving anybody -- police or private citizens -- increased powers of arrest, because these are so easily abused.