In the comments, Nikw211 steers us to the pages of the Observer, where Ms Martha Gill has some thoughts on shoplifting.

First, some setting of the scene:

And,

All rather grim. If not entirely surprising to readers familiar with this blog’s Progressive Retail Experience series. The collection to date, some 495 entries, can be found here.

Ah, that mood of lawlessness.

Ms Gill links to an article including figures by the British Retail Consortium showing a steep increase in predation. Unmentioned by Ms Gill, however, is the equally marked rise in retail staff experiencing physical abuse, sexual assault, and threats with weapons. Thieves, it turns out, are “becoming bolder and more aggressive” as shoplifting has blurred into mob robbery and open, gleeful looting. Though, again, this detail is not explored in the Observer.

Ms Gill, you see, is in search of less obvious, more exotic victims:

Retailers who’ve been sexually assaulted or threatened with machetes may, I suspect, take a different view. And whether the person wielding the machete could be construed as “vulnerable,” a feat accomplished in the Observer article, may not, at the time, have been foremost in their minds.

Except, of course, that studies on the subject repeatedly point out that the majority of shoplifting is not done out of some noble desperation, but rather for kicks, or status, or for black market resale, including the aforementioned baby formula. In reports on the phenomenon and its common causes – say, by the same British Retail Consortium – the words alcohol abuse and drugs crop up frequently, as do the words gang activity and organised crime.

By most estimates, shoplifters are on average caught around 2% of the time, usually after dozens, even hundreds, of thefts; and of those apprehended, roughly half are turned over to the police for prosecution. The National Association for Shoplifting Prevention adds, “While the romanticised face of shoplifting is the starving parent stealing bread to provide for a child, the reality is this is rarely the case.”

Apparently, Ms Gill could not find space in her article for such insights. Instead, Observer readers are treated with a detour into the world of Dickens and literary solidarity with shoplifters – “quite often we are on the side of the light-fingered lifter.” Indeed, we’re told that shoplifting can be construed, by those so inclined, as an act of “social defiance.” We are, however, reminded that small businesses should, perhaps, where possible, be spared such predation – and that, “stealing is not always the best way… to address inequality.”

Eventually, we arrive at the offering of solutions. Naturally, this being the Observer, rumblings of punitive consequences are frowned upon. Jail time for repeat offenders is, we’re assured, “exactly the wrong approach.”

Says Ms Gill,

What those difficult moral problems might be is not made entirely clear. Nor is it obvious why imprisoning habitual thieves, thereby interrupting their criminal adventures, should be considered a total failure and unworthy of the effort.

Instead, with some contrivance, responsibility for thievery is laid elsewhere:

Retailers, it seems, are asking for it. What with those short skirts. Sorry, accessible goods.

Ms Gill then cites academic Gloria Laycock, whose solution to the swell in shoplifting and mob robbery is suitably unobvious and therefore statusful:

Quite how a supermarket might function with all of its goods rendered inaccessible, hidden away under lock and key, is, sadly, left to the imagination.

The general idea, presumably, is that the rest of us, the law-abiding, should resign ourselves to ever more inconvenience and social degradation, and being increasingly alienated from our own neighbourhoods, because punishing habitual criminals, even those armed with machetes, is terribly unfashionable. At least in certain circles. Those inhabited by academics and Observer columnists, for instance.

And so, the preferred, progressive trajectory, as implied above, entails a more demoralised, more dangerous, low-trust society. In which pretty much anything one might wish to buy will be out of reach or shuttered away, and in which every customer will by default be treated as suspicious. Because apparently, we mustn’t acknowledge a difference between the criminal and the law-abiding. Except, that is, to imagine them as more vulnerable than we are.

We will lock up the product, but not the thief. And utopia will surely follow.

Ms Gill is not alone, of course. According to her Guardian colleague Owen Jones, expecting persistent shoplifters to face consequences for their actions is now among “the worst instincts of the electorate.” Because shoplifters are “traumatised,” apparently. The real victims of the drama.

At which point, a thought occurs. If repeated thieving is so high-minded and so easily excused, perhaps Ms Gill and Mr Jones would be good enough to publish their home addresses, the whereabouts of any valuables, and the times at which they’re likely to be out, or at least preoccupied or unconscious.

Or do our betters only disdain other people’s property?

Update, via the comments:

Further to this Rachel Zegler interview clip, recently doing the rounds, some thoughts from another “actress/activist”:

Indeed, the other sex often seems replaceable — if you're a young, single, childless, careerist. https://t.co/sx86se38yL

— Geoffrey Miller (@primalpoly) August 13, 2023

Ms Belcamino is “an American actress, musician, writer, and social media personality based in New York City. She is best known for her political commentary and viral dances on Twitter.”

She has a degree in mental health counselling.

Update, via the comments:

Regarding this:

Mags asks,

Readers are invited to ponder the conceit that a massively expensive film based on a classic tale for children should exist chiefly to “empower our movement,” i.e., to affirm the politics of mouthy, ungifted actresses. Rather than, say, to entertain children.

Still, I suppose it’s to be expected that obnoxious, narcissistic women should want to re-write a tale that, in its various original forms, is pretty much a warning against female narcissism and spite.

Update 2:

Min points us to this video by The Critical Drinker, titled, “How To Destroy Your Own Movie.”

It is, it has to be said, a strange way to promote an upcoming remake of a children’s classic – to wheel out an actress who boasts of having “hated” the original film, made by the same studio, and who disdains much of the story on which it’s based. And who does so seemingly on-message. Especially when the future of Disney, its very existence, is looking uncertain.

And as The Drinker and others have noted, the glib and joyless ‘strong female character’ trope now sounds much more hackneyed and cringeworthy than a tale in which unlikely friends are made and love is found, and in which a malevolent, magic-wielding queen is chased by dwarves and an entire forest of critters, before being crushed under a giant boulder, rightly, and then devoured by vultures.

The merits of the remake remain to be seen, of course – though given the star’s pronouncements, and Disney’s current trajectory, hopes of a triumph, a film that will be remembered fondly for the better part of a century, seem misplaced. The 1937 animated version may, however, reward rewatching. Seen as a child, the Evil Queen’s comeuppance – very much deserved – is quite something. Not least the vultures’ look of delight as they circle down towards her crushed remains. A pointed, lingering shot that slowly fades to black – now securely lodged in the memory.

Also, open thread.

Speaking of crime and punishment, here’s a thread on prison and recidivism.

In short, we’re told – by a civil rights lawyer who claims that “cops and prisons are killing us all” – that neither custodial sanctions nor more lenient attempts at correction have much impact on rates of reoffending. This is then presented, by the same lawyer, as a reason not to imprison the predatory and murderous, who are apparently deserving of our sympathy. Unlike, one assumes, their numerous victims, and future victims.

And so, we arrive at the strange logic that if a person has been arrested many times for behaving like an animal, many times, and has consequently, belatedly, ended up in prison, thereby allowing the law-abiding some relief from his predation, then this is a bad thing. For which, we, not he, should feel bad.

As noted in the discussion, there’s a reliance, not least among progressives, on the notions of deterrence and rehabilitation as being how one determines whether prison is fitting or effective, or even an obsolete institution, something to abolish. But an antisocial moron with poor impulse control is likely to remain so until he dies, or is killed while engaging in criminal activity.

The concepts of punishment and incapacitation – of stopping a monster’s sociopathic activity and sparing others violation and misery, if only for the duration of his imprisonment – don’t seem to figure highly in progressive circles. Where, as we’ve seen, all kinds of contortions are very much in fashion.

Among the replies and linked tangents are some common, if unconvincing, suppositions. For instance, that habitual violent criminals – say, the kinds of creatures who gleefully sucker-punch elderly women because they happen to be of East Asian descent – will somehow be morally redeemed by “affordable housing” and “access to healthcare.”

Oh, and more “theatre” for schoolchildren.

Update, via the comments, where Darleen adds,

In reply to which, pst314 quotes Theodore Dalrymple:

At which point, readers may register that the limited effect of imprisonment – and lenient alternatives – on rates of reoffending could be construed in ways that, shall we say, diverge from progressive orthodoxy. One might, for instance, infer that those incarcerated for serious criminal savagery – and who, on release, continue being criminal savages – are irredeemable, and therefore undeserving of pretentious sympathy. One might even infer that the wellbeing of such creatures is no longer a concern.

Update 2:

In hindsight, this post has become the first part of a trilogy of sorts. See also parts two and three.

From the comments, where a question is asked – and promptly answered:

Nope. https://t.co/FVOon2TJ4A

— The Critical Drinker (@TheCriticalDri2) July 20, 2023

Regarding which, John D replies,

Ah, but then those of a progressive inclination couldn’t piggy-back their Current Year politics onto someone else’s work, established over many decades. Plus, there’s lots of self-congratulatory subverting to be done. All that signalling about how antiquated and tiresome it is to have a white, male hero being daring and heroic. Because hey, nobody wants that.

The Screen Rant article, by Shaurya Thapa, is, it has to be said, not entirely persuasive. There’s some obligatory wittering about things from the past being “problematic” – among which, the fact that a film series about an iconic male character has always featured said male character:

Which does seem a bit like complaining that every season of the detective series Bosch features, among other things, a white, male detective named Harry Bosch.

But this is, we’re told, “the perfect time for a female Bond.”

A woman named James.

We’re also told, “A gendered spin on the character can open up more potential for exploring Bond’s individuality.” And this exploration of the character’s individuality will apparently be achieved by erasing a rather fundamental aspect of the character – his maleness – and replacing him with an entirely different person of a different sex.

Readers are invited to ponder whether similar transitions might enrich the character of, say, Miss Marple, who, via similar logic, could be depicted as male, and as always having been male. Thereby exploring her individuality. Answers on a postcard, please.

The recent, sex-swapped iteration of Doctor Who is invoked as a “positive example” on this front, as if Jodie Whittaker’s brief, unloved manifestation had been a rip-roaring success – despite the terrible writing and wildly unpopular retconning, both loudly derided by fans, and despite the subsequent, rapid death-spiral of viewing figures. Because boring and alienating much of your audience, and shrinking it dramatically, is a political triumph. A breath of “new life.”

Onwards and upwards!

Mr Thapa, by the way, has written over a thousand articles for Screen Rant. He claims many areas of expertise, and many “domains of knowledge,” including fact-checking. He also boasts of his “academic background,” details of which are, sadly, not divulged.

Lifted from the comments, which you’re reading of course – Just Stop Oil loons encounter rival group Just Stop Pissing Everyone Off:

🚨 | BREAKING: Just Stop Oil protestors have been surrounded by “Just Stop Pissing Everyone Off” protestors – preventing them from marching in the road pic.twitter.com/nyZy7qqbFv

— Politics UK (@PolitlcsUK) July 20, 2023

Update, via the comments:

Note the conceit, aired via bullhorn, that their ‘protests’ – physically obstructing thousands of people, including emergency vehicles, for hours, and doing it over and over again – are “peaceful,” benign, and terribly high-minded.

From here, it looks more like a narcissist’s power game, a kind of recreational sociopathy. I mean, if someone gets their jollies from screwing over random people and watching their victims’ exasperation and pleading – if that’s what makes our mighty warriors feel powerful and important – then the term recreational sociopathy doesn’t seem inapt.

And if someone’s idea of being caring and morally superior is to vandalise an art gallery, or to gleefully pour large quantities of oil across a road – an act morally analogous to sabotaging the brakes on random cars and motorbikes – then some questioning of their motives, and of the kinds of people they are, does seem in order.