Forum Topic

The fact that you have failed to grasp the concept of shoplifting being a low yield crime has given me some insight into why you hold the views you do.Nobody but the hard of understanding would have assumed that meant that there wasn’t much shoplifting.I haven’t seen the Channel 4 documentary, but I’ve never disputed that high value retail theft by foreign nationals is a thing.However, it is not something that is generally done by illegal immigrants who can’t, as you seem to believe, fly in and out of the country. The criminals committing these crimes come in by legal means which has been facilitated by the loss of access for the UK to the Schengen Information System II which allows real time checks on criminal records. When you say the UK is seen as a soft touch it is probably because of this reason. How much this kind of crime makes up of total shoplifting I don’t know but it seems safe to assume that, in terms of the number of cases, as opposed to value stolen, it is very small.So to be clear, most shoplifting in this country and all that takes place on Chiswick High Road is not carried out by illegal immigrants organised by criminal gangs. Criminality among illegal immigrants is a thing and there are many involved in drug dealing, drug production and prostitution but the tenuous nature of their existence means that these represent a tiny fraction of those that arrive in the country and a lower proportion than in the general population. This is because most people whose right to stay in this country is uncertain keep their heads down working in low paid jobs and avoid all risk of contact with the authorities. Your indefatigable efforts to spread falsehoods about these people seems to be based on a combination of falsehoods and prejudice. I assumed you were picking these up from social media because you consistently recycle right wing tropes that appear there. I generally don’t see these appear in broadcast media or any news source which makes some attempt to check evidence before saying something is a fact.Your latest falsehood, that illegal immigrants make up a significant proportion of the people dodging fares on public transport, is yet another made up thing from a dark place on the internet which I remain unconvinced that you don’t frequent.My impression that your views are formed by social media came from the earlier discussion you referred to about the presidential election where you were adamant that Joe Biden had full blown dementia. When people suggested you watched long form interviews and press conferences and said that their own experience of this disease indicated you were wrong, you went back to referencing the carefully edited clips from social media which were trying to make out he had lost it. Interestingly these stopped appearing once he stepped down as the candidate. His performance since, while not disproving the claim that he is old and getting older, has provided no evidence of total incapability.As for my own view at the time that the Democrats might have been better off sticking with Biden, we will never know. Here is what I said before he stepped down, “Changing candidates at this stage is tricky. The easiest option would be to switch to the Vice President as that would mean that campaign donations could still be used. Anyone else would start with an empty war chest because the money can't be just transferred to a different campaign.“We do have recent polling for key swing States which suggest a Kamala Harris could give a boost of about 1% in the Blue Wall. However, whether that sticks when she is in the spotlight is debatable. She is from California and therefore lacks the local contacts and appeal in the Blue Wall that Biden provides and she performed poorly in her bid for the Democratic nomination.”It’s doubtful that Biden would have won if he’d been kept on but it might have been closer.

Francis Rowe ● 42d

Francis, it must be terrible being so wrong all the time. You were 100% wrong about Biden and you clearly have no understanding about shop theft, who is doing it and what it’s worth. “The value of retail theft in 2023 was £7.9 billion” Yet Francis asserts: “The yield from theft of this crime is low so it has to be carried out multiple times.”So in your eyes £7.9 billion in a year is a low yield? “Fewer than 15% of shoplifting offenses lead to a suspect being charged. More than half of shop theft offenses in the UK are closed without a suspect being identified.” If the suspects aren’t identified how on earth can you assert that 70% have Class A drug addition? You obviously refuse to believe all the evidence of criminal gangs controlling the lucrative shoplifting industry.  You obviously are unaware of the Ch4 report by Cathy Newman. “International gangs ‘flying in and out’ of Britain to shopliftCathy NewmanPresenterIt’s terrorising retail staff and costing millions of pounds a month.And, say police, foreign organised crime gangs are travelling here to go on shoplifting sprees because they see the UK as a soft target.Just 14% of shoplifting offences in England and Wales result in any kind of charges.So retailers are being forced to take matters into their own hands.We’ve been to watch the companies and private security trying to shut down the criminal gangs.”The criminal gangs are using illegal immigrants to do their shoplifting. It’s highly lucrative organised crime. Stop illegal immigration and you cut off their workforce. BTW Francis, you are also 100% wrong on your assertion that I form opinions from Facebook.  I don’t do FB and and don’t to TwitterX so think again.  Clue - I read broadsheets and watch mainstream news channels on TV.

Steve Taylor ● 43d

Full marks for sophistry but once again you are betraying a fairly profound misunderstanding of the problem.Nearly all habitual shoplifters are ultimately caught. The yield from theft of this crime is low so it has to be carried out multiple times. Half the time people get away with it, half the time they don't. Not all offences are charged because that would take up too much court time so the CPS will select a number of sample charges.70% of shoplifters have a Class A addiction, much of the rest have alcohol dependency or are in desperate financial straits. There may be the occasional case of a criminal gang targeting high value items in shops for theft and it may be that some of the people involved are foreign nationals but this represents a tiny proportion of what is a very serious problem."I don’t dispute that data because those genuinely seeking asylum are indeed less likely to commit crimes while they are awaiting processing or a decision although we have all read horrific accounts of those who do commit the most terrible crimes"You have probably read more about these sort of crimes because your opinions are formed by reading Facebook posts shared by right wing goons to amplify any case in which an immigrant commits a serious murder or rape.As you acknowledge they are less likely to commit a crime than the general population but there inevitably will be cases where this happens. This point has been made on this forum before, but there will also be cases in which people call Steve are commit heinous crimes. If I was denigrating all people called Steve as a result you would be upset. If I was saying people called Steve are responsible for the shoplifting wave on Chiswick High Road but it doesn't show up in the data because they haven't been caught you'd be inclined to use your go to insult of 'moron'. You'd be right.

Francis Rowe ● 43d

For anyone who isn't resistant to their personal fantasies being challenged by actual facts, I suggest reading the following article which quotes Home Office figures showing that 70% of shoplifters are addicted to crack cocaine or heroine. If you don't trust the data, talk to people on the front line on Chiswick High Road and they will confirm.https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-67339319Shop lifting has increased significantly this year and rather than reaching the obvious conclusion that this is down to the cost of living crisis and more people being truly desperate, some people are resolute in the determination to blame asylum seekers and other immigrants.Of course they can cite individual examples of cases in which people from these groups have committed crimes and there have been high profile instances of organised theft of high value items by professional thieves who were foreign nationals but the data shows this is characteristic of a minority of cases. I've said it before the 'migrant crime' narrative is a lie peddled by those who want to spread hate in this country. The data that immigrants, those granted asylum and those seeking asylum are less likely to be convicted of a criminal offence (excluding those related to their immigration status) than the average for the whole population.The success of untruths about migrants enable to election of a vicious minded opportunist to be elected in the US and similar characters have won votes in other countries with the same tactics. We really need to be careful of not falling for it here.

Francis Rowe ● 44d

While London Underground revenue inspectors provide a visual deterrent, they do not pay for themselves (they cost far more than the revenue/compensation they 'generate').As for the barriers (that, laughably, the NYC Metro are now installing as their 'Holy Grail' of fare evasion), they offer fairly low resistance when pushed as - in the case of a real emergency - those of average strength should be able to push through them (assuming they haven't automatically opened in the case of an evacuation). Getting the balance right with gates is something many world metros (continue to) struggle with. Personally, I think it's a people problem, not an infrastructure one. For instance, Vienna is just one of many metros that doesn't have gates... but its people behave (better), something that's driven by better parenting perhaps?  The demographic of the fare evader in 2024 has changed, especially since the pandemic. While the feral youth (16-22) and labourers still make up the majority, you'll see more families herding their (chargeable) offspring thought the gates as well as tourists and even 'smart' professionals these days.As for data and CCTV, LU has a department that goes after the 'big money' evaders; the Rolex-wearing suited professionals who think they've found a loophole to shave thousands off their yearly commute. Seeing these types cry and beg to be 'let off' when they get a tap on the shoulder is quite the sight, and phrases like "you'll ruin me" is something you'll often hear.London has become a real mess, and a day doesn't go by when the High Road shops aren't targeted by thieves clearing out shelves in Greggs, Tesco, Boots and M&S. But what can we do? I hear a lot of "the staff should do something" from onlookers, but until you've been spat at, or worse, it's all very easy to lay the blame elsewhere. I'm not sure what the answer is but, like the title of this thread, I'm not sure it's fixable in my lifetime (although I live in hope).   

Mike Smith ● 46d

I stand corrected on the funding source for the re-branding, for which thanks. I am also perfectly well aware that the amount spent on it is a mere drop in the ocean compared to the cost of re-signalling and ATO upgrades. That's not the point.It is not the only waste of revenue. I worked for many years on and off in transport research. Expensive research was commissioned to justify all sorts of things but not necessarily the project that was covered, at least not at all directly. Just 2 examples (and I'm afraid that I can no longer remember the amounts spent):A survey across NW London bus users to find out what they would like to call the new "smart card". "Smart card" they replied (too early for smarty mcsmart face). It was named Oyster.An expensive survey on a mock up of rolling stock on Paddington station concourse asking participants (at great length) what features they would like to see on the new Crossrail trains. The survey was undertaken in around 2000. Even then, it was admitted that no one expected to see any actual trains running for at least a decade and I doubt that anyone expected the rolling stock to bear the slightest resemblance to the mock up. 2 decades + later, thank goodness it doesn't.I'm sure that similar things still exist, notwithstanding that much more useful research is also undertaken.In December 2015, it was reported that there had been an 8 year freeze on recruitment of revenue inspectors on tubes and overground and that numbers had dropped from the 270 to 175 with the expectation that another 20% would be retiring without replacement. There are currently 237 and 213 on buses. The cuts enabled a culture to develop that facilitated fare evasion. Just spend 5 mins at Turnham Green and watch how many people barge through the gates with impunity.Occasional mob-handed appearances by BTP or revenue officers do little other than to push the problem elsewhere. In 2019, TfL admitted to losing £91M to fare evasion. On-train revenue inspectors seem to have disappeared, although appreciably, it is much harder on tubes and overground trains than on mainline stock.Money spent on improved barriers would pay dividends in the long run - barriers actually get damaged much more quickly when they are regularly forced.Revenue checks need to be unpredictable and feel likely so that habitual offenders cannot predict when they are likely to be stopped. Strategic use of revenue staff is already possible as Tfl now have a considerable amount of data from automated ticketing as well as plenty of CCTV evidence. We probably need legislation making it possible to impose more social, financial and legal sanctions on persistent offenders.I don't have a magic wand or an easy answer any more than people who do this for a living do. As with many other societal problems, it will take political will, a change of emphasis within TfL and a multiplicity of measures to affect a solution to the broken window effect. However, the corollary to the broken windows is the perception that money is being spent on useless fripperies such as re-branding lines.

Charlotte Kasner ● 47d