
The rise of the middle-class shoplifter
You wouldn't steal a car,' the Noughties video piracy PSA infamously pointed out. 'You wouldn't steal a handbag. You wouldn't steal a television.' Twenty years on, it feels like many of us would steal just about anything else though. Call me crazy, but I've always subscribed to the notion that nicking stuff is, well, wrong, and that the law is something that should largely be abided by in a civilised society. But these days, I increasingly feel like an outlier — a hopelessly naive hick amid a sea of otherwise upstanding citizens who believe they're inherently entitled to a 'five-finger discount' whenever they like. All the evidence seems to suggest that we've entered the era of the middle-class shoplifter.
I present to you exhibit A: an anonymous first-person piece recently featured in The Times, in which the writer confessed to stealing 'a magazine here, a Mother's Day card there, anything I felt I shouldn't have to pay for.' The author in question, a Gen Z graduate in the first round of post-uni job hunting, justified this recently acquired criminal habit by framing it as the natural response to an overstretched budget. Yet in the same breath, they admitted: 'It's not as if I was Aladdin, stealing what I couldn't afford. But I was stealing what I didn't want to pay for.' Therein lies the distinction: 'want', not 'need'. 'Would not', rather than 'could not'.
Their first intentional theft was telling: a pain au chocolat. We're hardly talking Les Mis's Jean Valjean here, forced into snatching a hunk of bread to fend off starvation. No, what we're looking at is a person who quite fancies a bougie pick-me-up pastry with their morning coffee, and believes that they deserve to have it for free. 'Everything we desire is dangled like a carrot in front of us daily on social media — and we are not willing to wait for it. We are, after all, the impatient generation,' the writer concluded. Now, before you think I'm here to use this as a stick with which to beat the already much-maligned Gen Z, I promise I'm not — far from it. The truth is, most people I know are middle-class millennials with, at this stage, fairly good jobs, mid-tier salaries and comfortable lifestyles to match. And yet a considerable majority of these people would, and do, quite happily steal things they can easily afford on a regular basis.
They barely seem to think of it as shoplifting. We're never talking big-ticket, expensive items; just like that anonymous Gen-Zer, these part-time kleptos are merely 'forgetting' to scan an item or two on their Waitrose shop. Maybe that almond croissant goes straight in the bag for life without being 'beeped' through first. Perhaps an avocado 'accidentally' gets put through as a carrot. There's always plausible deniability baked in — 'Whoopsy! Silly old me!' — and always the reliance on their obvious middle-class credentials to protect them from criminal conviction should they get busted by staff. 'It was a simple mistake, your honour, of course I didn't mean to pass off that sourdough as a plain white loaf!'
I'm no longer all that surprised by the revelation that most of my generally law-abiding friends and acquaintances have developed a very specific blind spot that means they find this behaviour perfectly acceptable. It's become normalised to the point where I feel like I'm the one who should be justifying my decision to pay for all items in the bagging area. There's even a term for this recent phenomenon of well-to-do thieves outwitting the self-scan system: Swipers, coined by City University criminology professor Emmeline Taylor as an acronym for 'seemingly well-intentioned patrons engaging in regular shoplifting'. These people 'would not steal using any other technique, they're not interested in putting chocolate down their pants or a piece of steak in their coat', she previously told The Times. Their numbers have grown substantially since the introduction of self-service checkouts.
Yet the trend for purloining isn't confined to groceries. Far from being the preserve of students, the act of swiping a glass from a club or restaurant is just as prevalent among my mates in their thirties. Only now, there's not even the excuse of being skint and wanting to drink cheap box wine out of something other than a Sports Direct mug at a house party — the reasoning is simply that they like the design and think it would make a quirky addition to an already extensive glassware collection. They spend enough on drinks, goes the (to my mind) flimsy justification; in a way, they've already paid for that cut-glass tumbler. An image of Bilbo Baggins in Peter Jackson's Fellowship of the Ring springs to mind, the much-memeified line where the hobbit stubbornly looks down at the One Ring and defiantly mutters, 'After all, why not? Why shouldn't I keep it?' (Because it's not yours!, I want to shriek hysterically in response.)
The same goes for fancy napkins, crockery, silverware — I've even seen a salt and pepper shaker disappear into the designer bag of a professional who I know for a fact earns at least twice my salary. A 2023 survey from catering equipment supplier Nisbets found that a staggering 37 million Brits have stolen glasses from restaurants, 17 million have stolen tableware, and 4 million steal from eateries on a weekly basis.
Then there's public transport. In recent years, I've come to realise just how many of my peers see train fares as 'optional', a nice-to-have extra if you can be bothered or think you might get caught. The rationalisation is frequently that 'train fares are too expensive', without any acknowledgement that perhaps the number of people who refuse to pay for an essential service drives up the price for everyone else. More than three-quarters (79 per cent) of Londoners who travel by Tube or national rail at least one day a week have seen people evading fares in the last year, according to a 2024 YouGov poll, including 49 per cent who see it 'very or fairly frequently'. Fare dodgers reportedly cost Transport for London (TfL) £130m a year and, whether true or not, the majority of the public (54 per cent) believe that fare dodgers can afford to pay for travel – and that they simply choose not to.
Between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024, Northern Rail had to investigate 57,302 reports of attempted fare evasion, issue 41,922 Penalty Fare Notices and attend 172 court sittings. As Mark Powles, commercial and customer director at Northern, said at the time: 'The reality is that fare dodgers expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab for their journey — and that's just not on.' Nobody likes having to cough up for things. Most of us would, of course, love to have everything we wanted for free. But whenever people explain away their pilfering by banging on about 'victimless crimes', the question I always come back to is this: what would happen if everybody decided that they were somehow exempt from the social contract? What would happen if everyone believed that they were inexplicably entitled to go through life using goods and services without ever paying for them? 'Total anarchy', seems to be the most obvious answer. So if playing by the rules makes me woefully uncool in the modern era, then hey, just call me a loser. French patisserie tastes all the sweeter without a guilty conscience anyway.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Khaleej Times
21 hours ago
- Khaleej Times
UAE: Over 32,000 visa violators recorded in first half of 2025
More than 32,000 UAE visa violators were apprehended from January to June this year, the Federal Authority for Identity, Citizenship, Customs and Port Security (ICP) announced on Tuesday, noting inspection campaigns were carried out 'to enhance compliance with the laws and regulations governing the residence and employment of foreigners in the country.' 'A number of those apprehended were also detained in preparation for being referred to the competent authorities to enforce the law against them,' said Major Gen Suhail Saeed Al Khaili, director general of the ICP, adding the 'inspection campaigns were aimed at reducing the number of violators and to ensure a dignified life for residents and visitors in the UAE."


Gulf Today
15-07-2025
- Gulf Today
Charlie Kirk says 'I'm done talking about Jeffrey Epstein'
Justin Baragona, The Independent The marching orders have been received, and some of Donald Trump's most loyal foot soldiers in the MAGA media ecosystem are already dutifully falling in line. After the right-wing uproar over the Justice Department's Jeffrey Epstein memo hit a crescendo this weekend after the president's Truth Social post calling for the MAGA base to let it go and leave Attorney General Pam Bondi alone, key Trump ally Charlie Kirk declared on Monday that he was "done talking about Epstein" for the time being. Kirk's announcement comes a day after he spoke to the president on the phone to express his support for Bondi, according to CNN. Bondi has come under extreme fire from MAGA critics, including Kirk, who have blasted the attorney general for releasing an unsigned memo last week concluding that Epstein had no "client list," died by suicide while awaiting trial, and did not blackmail prominent figures who allegedly took part in his underage sex trafficking. "Members of the president's inner circle have also reached out to some of Bondi's critics to essentially ask them to ramp it down, noting that Trump, at this moment, was not getting rid of his attorney general," CNN added. "Sources cautioned that while Trump was currently still supporting Bondi, things could always change." Trump privately doubling down in his support for Bondi comes after he took to his social media site on Saturday afternoon to complain about his "boys" and "gals" continuing to obsess over the Epstein case, adding that files related to the disgraced financier were "written by Obama" and "Crooked Hillary" and were therefore not worth "caring about." He added that his supporters should cease calling for Bondi to be fired over the memo. "They're all going after Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is doing a FANTASTIC JOB!" Trump blared on Truth Social. "We're on one Team, MAGA, and I don't like what's happening. We have a PERFECT Administration, THE TALK OF THE WORLD, and 'selfish people' are trying to hurt it, all over a guy who never dies, Jeffrey Epstein." Over the weekend, Kirk - the founder of MAGA youth organisation Turning Point USA — hosted the group's Student Action Summit in Florida, which saw many of the attendees raging about the way the Trump administration has handled the Epstein case. While much of the anger was directed at Bondi, who once claimed she had the deceased sex offender's long-fabled "client list" on her desk for review only to now claim it doesn't exist, the president himself also faced pointed accusations of hiding Epstein's supposed co-conspirators. "In 2016, we trusted the plan with Trump, but now Trump has become the deep state. What is more deep state than covering up for pedophiles?!" one SAS attendee exclaimed before referencing Trump's lengthy past friendship with Epstein. Kirk, along with other MAGA luminaries, devoted much of their time at the conservative confab to criticizing the White House's handling of the situation while warning the president that he risked alienating many of his most devout supporters by dismissing their concerns of an administration "cover-up" on Epstein. "Do I think this is the end of MAGA? No. I've never said that," Kirk told the Washington Post over the weekend. "Do I think the extra 10 to 15 per cent of [less inclined to vote] bros that are trading crypto and wake up at 2pm every day ... do I think they're going to be, like, 'Screw it?' Yeah. That's a huge risk." However, by the time Monday's episode of his podcast came around, Kirk made it known that he was going to heed the president's orders to shut up about the fiasco. "Plenty was said this last weekend at our event about Epstein," he stated. "Honestly, I'm done talking about Epstein for the time being. I'm gonna trust my friends in the administration, I'm gonna trust my friends in the government to do what needs to be done (and) solve it. Ball's in their hands."


Gulf Today
15-07-2025
- Gulf Today
It's beyond time to end the scandal of IPP
It comes to something when a senior member of a recent government – the former justice secretary, no less – describes actions by the state that were part of his remit as 'overbearing, unfair and almost totalitarian'. Yet this is how Alex Chalk KC, who held that office for 14 months in the government of Rishi Sunak, describes imprisonment for public protection (IPP) orders – which can keep someone in prison indefinitely after conviction for a relatively minor crime. Ousted from government by his party's defeat at the last election, and also from his parliamentary seat, Mr Chalk has returned to his legal practice. It is from this perch that he is now asking his successor, Shabana Mahmood, to consider new proposals — from the Howard League and a former lord chief justice, Lord Thomas — with a view to righting this now longstanding wrong, according to The Independent. At The Independent, we make no apology for returning once again to the iniquity of IPP orders that go against so much of what should constitute any civilised judicial system. Two features stand out. There is the glaring disproportionality in so many cases between the crime and the punishment, with some prisoners having served almost 20 years (and still counting) for offences such as robbing someone of their mobile phone or laptop. This is not, by the way, to diminish such crimes, but to point up the disparity between the standard tariff for such a conviction and the actual time served by many of those still subject to IPP orders. The other feature is the cruelty of imposing a sentence that has no end, which has been described by the UN as psychological torture. With no prospect of a release date, more than 90 such prisoners have taken their own lives. Altogether, more than 2,500 are still languishing in jail on IPPs. This is in spite of these indefinite prison terms having been abolished in 2012, just seven years after they were introduced. The clear mistake then was not to have made the abolition retrospective. It applied only to new convictions, not to those already in jail, leaving the glaring injustice that one day could make a difference between someone left to serve what could become a lifetime sentence and someone convicted of a similar crime with a clear idea of the timetable for release or parole. The failure to make abolition of IPP orders retrospective has had consequences of its own. At least some of those still not released are now so damaged by their experience and will be so hard to rehabilitate that they could indeed present a danger to society if they were released. This is the very opposite of what a penal system should set out to achieve and amounts, in Mr Chalk's words, to nothing less than a failure on the part of the state. At which point, there is an obvious and not unreasonable question for the former justice secretary to answer. If the injustices and perverse effects of IPP orders were so apparent when he came to office — as they were — why did he not do something about it? Why did he not condemn the policy in the same terms as he is doing now and make the changes he is demanding be made by his successor? Part of his answer is that he did do something. He reduced from 10 to three the number of years that a released IPP prisoner was on licence and so subject to recall. That is not nothing, but it was nothing like enough. Two small pleas might also be made on his behalf in mitigation. As he says, there was 'not a single vote' in even the change in the licence period that he made, because of the general lack of public sympathy for prisoners. As he does not say — but is a sentiment with which the current government could well concur — a year can be too short a time in UK politics when it comes to getting anything done. The ponderous nature of the legislative process can be a minus as well as a plus. On the other hand, the size of the Labour government's majority and the years it still has to run mean it has time on its side.