A few weeks ago my wife Julie and I were in a well-known High Street bakery when a man walked in, took a baguette and walked out again.
It happened so quickly that I was unsure whether my eyes had deceived me. I looked to the counter and saw the young man serving and he’d clearly seen what happened. Whether his two colleagues preparing the food also had I don’t know but Julie confirmed it.
Five minutes later another man did the same. Again, no reaction from the staff. I was too far away to intervene before he left the shop so I spoke to the server and asked him if he saw that and whether he needed a witness. “It happens all the time,” he said. “We’re not allowed to confront, let alone stop them, so it goes on all day. In any case, I’m not going to put myself in danger for a bread roll.” I completely understood this as you never know who’s carrying what and how they might react if apprehended. However, it did bring home to me the ambivalence of some businesses to protecting their stock and revenue, revenue that we as customers make up through increased prices.
When doing nothing costs everyone
It came as no surprise to me then when I read of long-term Waitrose worker Walker Smith who confronted a shoplifter for stealing a bag of Easter eggs. He was going about his normal duties in the company’s Clapham Junction store when a customer brought the thief to Mr Smith’s attention. The 54-year-old, who’d been an employee for 17 years, spotted the man in question and grabbed the bag. The thief snatched it back and a short struggle ensued. Mr Smith managed to retain the stolen goods and the shoplifter fled. Whilst untrained members of the public shouldn’t be encouraged to put themselves in danger and apprehend thieves, he should certainly have received a pat on the back for stepping up and protecting the company’s assets. Instead, he was sacked.
Waitrose have explained this to say that they take the safety and security of their staff and customers seriously and that their employees are expected to follow policies. I get that but is somebody standing up to blatant thievery and lawlessness really gross misconduct? There couldn’t have been trained and accredited staff available to step in so why was Mr Smith penalised for taking what he saw as the right and proper action? Theoretically he was trying to make a citizen’s arrest which is entirely lawful.
Given his age, the prospect of obtaining similar employment must seem bleak, so it is heartwarming to see Iceland supermarket offer him a job in response to his courage.
I’m always cautious referring to ‘the good old days’ with phrases like, ‘I remember when…’, but in the good old days I remember when stores, particularly national chains employed either their own full-time store detectives and security or collaborated with others so that they could operate collectively. Why did that stop? Money, that’s why.
The General Secretary of the shop workers union, USDAW, says she supports greater physical security in stores citing that 59 per cent of their members would feel safe and more secure were that to be in place.
This hands-off policy the bakery and Waitrose perpetuate goes around like wildfire amongst the shoplifting community creating a free-for-all among those who prefer not to pay.
Who’s really responsible for stopping shoplifting?
Predictably Marks and Spencer’s CEO shifts the responsibility for filling his disinvestment gap onto the police. Of course, I accept it is their job to arrest thieves and tackle gangs but it is also the job of businesses, particularly the larger ones, to step up to protect their own stock and prevent those who not only steal what the rest of us have to pay for but also create an atmosphere of fear and lawlessness for those who work in or visit their shops.
It is all well and good CEOs bleating to the press that somebody should do something to protect them but all the time they allow people to wander in and out of their bakeries or shops helping themselves to whatever they please, they haven’t got a leg to stand on.
I originally wrote this for my weekly column in The Argus, published on Monday, 13 April 2026.
