Litter, shoplifting, private security guards: Britain is turning into a Third World country

It was little things that made me fall in love with Britain. You didn't have to count your change in shops. You almost never saw private security guards. You could drink from the tap. You could flick a switch and the light would actually come on.
You could get into a taxi, confident, not only that you wouldn't be mugged, but that you'd be driven by the shortest route and charged the correct fare. If you stopped at a red light, you would not have every car behind you hooting in fury. You could send valuables by post.
Arriving as a seven-year-old from Peru, I felt a glow of wonder at these things that, even now, has not entirely left me. I thought then, and I still think, that people who have grown up in this country are unconscionably blasé about what made it special.
Only much later did I find a phrase to explain what differentiated Britain, not just from Peru, but from most places. That phrase was 'social capital'. Because Britain was a high-trust society, everyday transactions were frictionless. The cost of doing business was low, because neither side had to take expensive precautions against fraud. Social capital gave Brits a sense of patriotism and responsibility. They accepted election results when their party lost, obeyed laws with which they disagreed, paid their taxes grumblingly but honestly.
That, at least, was how it used to work – to the wonder of foreign visitors throughout the 19th and 20th centuries. But our social capital is flooding away.
We see it in lots of ways. Take the epidemic of shoplifting. Last year, retailers logged 20.4 million incidents of theft, an increase of 3.7 million on 2023. Or look at our filthy streets. The touristy parts of central London manage to pick up most of the debris, but every other part of the capital is grubbier than before lockdown, with fast-food wrappings and cartons blowing about forlornly.
The Government's response is to ban single-use vapes. Now vapes do contribute to the detritus, but that reaction is a classic example of politicians tackling a side-issue because they can't bring themselves to face the main one – rather as they responded to the Manchester Arena bombing, not by cracking down on the immigration loopholes that had let the Abedis into Britain, but by requiring staff at small venues to do anti-terrorism training.
The problem is not that vapes are messy, it is that people no longer care how their streets look. Why this has happened – largely over the past five years – is an underexplored question.
Have we imported a new population from countries where dropping litter is normal? Is it a consequence of fewer people being in offices, either because they have discovered invalidity benefits or because they are pretending to work from home? Or was it the lockdown itself? Did being cut off from human contact, raptly scrolling through online conspiracy theories, push a generation into anomie?
We should be asking the same questions about stealing from shops, which now costs retailers (or, rather, non-shoplifting customers) £2 billion a year. The thing that used to hold most people back from shoplifting was not fear of criminal sanction – few are caught, fewer detained and almost none prosecuted – so much as a feeling that it was unacceptable. That feeling, like so many things, was vitiated by the pandemic. At the same time, mass immigration dilutes the homogeneity on which high-trust societies depend.
When a nation's character alters, the enforcement of its laws shifts before the laws themselves. In theory, we still have statutes against theft. In practice, the police are less interested in enforcing them than in going after people with unfashionable views.
It is unthinkable that someone like Lucy Connolly, jailed for an intemperate post, would be in prison had she nicked stuff from M&S – not even had she been caught a dozen times before. Coppers are ceasing to be citizens in uniform and becoming enforcers of state ideology. The task of protecting property thus falls to everyone else. It is in this way that we are most visibly becoming a low-trust society, reminiscent of the poorer parts of Latin America or Africa.
The rich are retreating into gated communities, hiring security firms, posting sentries (these are especially obvious outside synagogues, which have felt unprotected since anti-Israel protesters were allowed to behave menacingly at their doors while the police looked on). Walls are springing up – including a hideous new fence around Parliament.
In my native Lima, big houses had uniformed watchmen (Latin American Spanish is full of delicious English loanwords, and a security guard is known as a 'guachimán'). How long before London goes the same way?
For those who cannot afford their own guachimanes, there is always do-it-yourself enforcement. A news item about a couple who traced their stolen Jaguar through its airtag and stole it back has unleashed an online flood of similar recollections. Always the same story: a car stolen, owners calling police to beg them to intercept it before the thieves found the airtag, the police sitting on their hands, the owners acting themselves.
Private citizens are plugging the gaps left by our crumbling state apparatus. A group of volunteers has been washing graffiti from Tube trains – prompting the extraordinary response that they should have left it to the experts as they might be using the wrong cleaning fluids.
Robert Jenrick, the tireless shadow justice secretary, spent a morning personally confronting fare dodgers, asking them on camera why they felt they should not pay like everyone else. The numpties at Transport for London, sensing that they were being shown up, complained that he had not sought their permission to film on their property.
I happen to believe that lots of things that are badly done by the state could be better done by private individuals. I don't understand why the Government needs to own and operate London Underground, and there is a strand of libertarian thought that holds that most of the functions of the police should indeed be hived off to private firms.
But we are a million miles away from libertarianism. We have the highest taxes since the 1940s, we have more than tripled the national debt since the turn of the century and we are passing pettifogging laws on everything from the regulation of football to what employers must do to prevent their staff from overhearing the wrong things in the workplace.
It is in this sense that we are most authentically becoming like a developing nation. A Government that aspires to do things that are none of its business simultaneously fails in its core responsibilities – above all, in its duty to provide a functioning justice system that protects property.
How long before we move from confronting people who push through ticket barriers to actual vigilantism? A friend in Islington tells me that his local Co-op recently removed some items from its shelves and put everything else – even food – behind anti-theft locks. It was responding to a spate of aggressive shoplifting that had seen its guachimán beaten up twice.
As word spread, local residents decided to organise a rota of cricket-bat-wielding volunteers to protect the shop. But, Islington being Islington, there were enough lawyers on the local WhatsApp group to point out that the volunteers would end up being arrested.
What a sad decline. Lee Kuan Yew once recalled how, when he was studying law at Cambridge, he had taken the Tube to Piccadilly Circus and had been astonished to see people buying newspapers and leaving the correct price in an honesty box, open to any passer-by.
Such behaviour is now unthinkable in Piccadilly Circus. It might be found in Singapore, which has successfully inculcated in its huge immigrant population a sense of national cohesion. But in Britain, partly because of what Eric Kaufmann calls asymmetric multiculturalism – that is, celebrating minorities while denigrating the majority – any such sense of trust is evaporating.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Times

an hour ago

• Times

HS2 boss took home £4.5m during ‘appalling mess' of project

The former chief of HS2 took home £4.5 million of taxpayers' money while presiding over an 'appalling mess' of a project that wasted billions. Mark Thurston was at the helm of the disgraced scheme for six and a half years before leaving in September 2023 and then becoming chief executive of Anglian Water. He has been banned by ministers from receiving a bonus at the water company for the last financial year because it was found to have polluted our rivers. While at HS2, Thurston's pay ranged from £585,000 to £676,000 a year including bonuses and other taxable benefits. During his time at the government-owned company he took home £4,449,977. He joined HS2 in 2017, shortly after parliament signed off the building of the project's first phase. He previously worked on the 2012 London Olympics and Crossrail, now the Elizabeth Line, the heavily delayed new railway through central London. Thurston's oversight of HS2 was put under the spotlight this week when his successor's initial findings into the failures of the project were published. Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, told the Commons on Wednesday that the scheme had become an 'appalling mess' after years of mismanagement. She said: 'It gives me no pleasure to deliver news like this. Billions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been wasted by constant scope changes, ineffective contracts and bad management.' Mark Wild, who took over the running of HS2 in December last year, has been carrying out a root and branch review of the scheme in an bid to stem ballooning costs and restore proper oversight. Wild's salary will be declared in accounts published this summer although his base salary is said to be lower than Thurston's. The project was originally due to cost £32.7 billion — in 2011 prices — with the first leg between London and the Midlands opening in late 2026. The pared-back scheme could now cost more than £100 billion. In a letter to Alexander, published on Wednesday, Wild said: 'The position I have inherited in HS2 Ltd is unacceptable; the organisation has failed in its mission to control costs and deliver to schedule.' It was announced that Thurston, 58, was leaving HS2 in July 2023. He said the project was the 'highlight of my career', adding: 'I have agreed with the board that someone else should lead the organisation and programme through what will be another defining period for HS2.' His appointment to Anglian Water, which he joined in July last year, caused much comment, not least because of government criticisms of the financial stewardship of HS2. Responding in November last year, he told The Times: 'If customers want to challenge my appointment, all I can say is that it was a very thorough and comprehensive process. 'The board clearly thought I was a good fit. They have to account for that and only time will tell whether it was a good appointment.' Transport bosses are traditionally the highest paid public servants in the country, with those in the rail industry in particular receiving the biggest remuneration packages. The last time the Cabinet Office reported on senior civil service pay was in 2023 with figures for the previous year. The list was not updated in 2024 by the Conservatives before the election. It revealed that the 45 highest paid staff at HS2 had a combined pay packet of £8.9 million. Of the top 20 best paid, only six still work at the company three years later. It is understood that many senior executives left the company after Rishi Sunak cancelled the northern leg of the project in October 2023. A spokesman for HS2 Ltd said: ' Mark Wild is leading a comprehensive reset of HS2 to ensure the project can be delivered for the lowest reasonable cost. This includes reviewing and simplifying the structure of HS2 Ltd itself — putting more focus on front-line delivery of the railway and bearing down on unnecessary costs. 'This year, we have frozen pay and withheld all bonuses for staff in the highest grades at HS2 Ltd.'

The Independent

an hour ago

• The Independent

Rantzen warns peers not to hamper progress of assisted dying law

Assisted dying campaigner Dame Esther Rantzen has urged members of the House of Lords not to block landmark legislation on the issue. The Terminally Ill Adults (End Of Life) Bill cleared the Commons with a majority of 23 votes on Friday, but opponents have vowed to continue their resistance in the unelected chamber. The legislation could face a difficult passage through the Lords, with critics poised to table amendments to add further restrictions and safeguards to the Bill. Dame Esther told BBC Radio 4's Today: 'I don't need to teach the House of Lords how to do their job. They know it very well, and they know that laws are produced by the elected chamber. 'Their job is to scrutinise, to ask questions, but not to oppose. 'So yes, people who are adamantly opposed to this bill, and they have a perfect right to oppose it, will try and stop it going through the Lords, but the Lords themselves, their duty is to make sure that law is actually created by the elected chamber, which is the House of Commons who have voted this through.' Dame Esther, who turns 85 on Sunday and has terminal cancer, acknowledged the legislation would probably not become law in time for her to use it and she would have to 'buzz of to Zurich' to use the Dignitas clinic. Paralympian and crossbench peer Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson told BBC Breakfast: 'We're getting ready for it to come to the Lord's and from my personal point of view, about amending it to make it stronger. 'We've been told it's the strongest Bill in the world, but to be honest, it's not very high bar for other legislation. 'So I do think there are a lot more safeguards that could be put in.' Conservative peer and disability rights campaigner Lord Shinkwin said the narrow Commons majority underlined the need for peers to take a close look at the legislation. He told Today 'I think the House of Lords has a duty to expose and to subject this Bill to forensic scrutiny' but 'I don't think it's a question of blocking it so much as performing our duty as a revising chamber'. He added: 'The margin yesterday was so close that many MPs would appreciate the opportunity to look at this again in respect of safeguards as they relate to those who feel vulnerable, whether that's disabled people or older people.' Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who steered the Bill through the Commons, told the PA news agency she hoped peers would not seek to derail the legislation, which could run out of parliamentary time if it is held up in the Lords. She said: 'I would be upset to think that anybody was playing games with such an important and such an emotional issue.' A group of 27 Labour MPs who voted against the legislation said: 'We were elected to represent both of those groups and are still deeply concerned about the risks in this Bill of coercion of the old and discrimination against the disabled, people with anorexia and black, Asian and minority ethnic people, who we know do not receive equitable health care. 'As the Bill moves to the House of Lords it must receive the scrutiny that it needs. Not about the principles of assisted dying but its application in this deeply flawed Bill.' Meanwhile, one of the leading opponents of the Bill, Conservative Danny Kruger, said 'these are apocalyptic times'. In a series of tweets on Friday night, the East Wiltshire MP – who is at odds with his mother, Great British Bake Off judge Dame Prue Leith in her support for legalisation – accused assisted dying campaigners of being 'militant anti-Christians' who had failed to 'engage with the detail of the Bill'.

BBC News

an hour ago

• BBC News

Millais School in Horsham welcomes backtrack on admitting boys

A girls' school in West Sussex said it was pleased council staff "recognise the concerns raised" about a consultation on it becoming Sussex County Council opened a fresh consultation on Thursday about a proposal to admit boys to Millais School in Horsham from local authority decided in March to make the change after a previous consultation, despite the school's board opposing the council abandoned that decision three months later, saying it "concluded that information linked to the consultation was incorrect and misleading". Millais School's headteacher Alison Lodwick said she welcomes the "opportunity for all points of view to be resubmitted and reviewed fully"."Similarly to West Sussex [County Council], Millais want the best educational outcomes for the for young people across our local community," she added. Anyone who wants to give their views has until 18 July to do Sussex County Council said on the consultation website that it "will consider or re-consider all responses and representations, including views previously expressed". The local authority added: "We have acted promptly to concerns raised about the previous process and want to make sure there is time for everyone to respond before the end of the current school year."A cabinet member could make the decision as soon as the end of July but this "will depend upon the responses received", according to the council. Boys bused outside Horsham Millais School published a policy paper in May 2024 opposing the reform, in which it claimed there were "huge social and emotional benefits" for pupils at girls' schools and the council was proposing a "very major change" to the school's ethos."We believe passionately that there is crucial space in Horsham for both coeducational and single-sex options to co-exist," the secondary school to the June consultation, Millais School has had excess capacity since 2021, impacting its budget, while some boys in Horsham were sent to schools outside the district."The pressure for places is likely to increase in the future," the council said. Millais School is the only single-sex school of the four secondaries in Forest School in Horsham was a boys school until West Sussex County Council decided in 2020 to make it co-educational.