550 - (FREE TO READ) Integrity / Stopping a robbery in the UK (VIDEO)
Notes and thoughts on motivations for crossing the line from witnessing a crime to becoming directly involved.
Copyright © 2025 by Jeth Randolph
All Rights Reserved.
No part of this work may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the author.
Third-party information and viewpoints do not represent my personal views or work. This is not legal advice. This content is purely educational and does not advocate for breaking any laws. Do not break any laws or regulations. Consult with your solicitor.
Integrity / ĭn-tĕg′rĭ-tē / definition:
Noun
1 - Steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code.
2 - The state of being unimpaired; soundness, such as a building’s foundations.
3 - The quality or condition of being whole or undivided; completeness.
Another definition is said to be doing the right thing, even when no one is around.
Might it also be, for some, the being seen to do what they believe to be the right thing, by as many people as possible?
I’ve written before about experiences of working in retail security and plan to again, with a couple of articles drafted as notes, while I consider them.
UK retail crime in 2025 continues to escalate, with shoplifting at a 20-year high and violence against retail workers surging. Robbery with weapons is now common, particularly involving knives. While 2025-specific figures for armed robberies are not fully available, in reports retailers are referring to a “spiralling” crisis.
This video, which I talked about at last night’s workshop, has been shared from social media, alleged to be from an attempted retail robbery involving a weapon in the East of London, near to where I used to live and work.
I don’t know the full incident as usual as it wasn’t part of the video (See below) that this man uploaded. A couple of things occurred to me watching it and I’ll share my notes from reading up that I did after the clip.
My subject area of interest on this Journal is always the idea of being protective of the self and personally exploring that idea to it’s various conclusions in the context of being an average person so that readers could consider the ideas presented, either agree or reject them, and then come to there own conclusions for their personal use in self protection.
For me, involving yourself in incidents is to bring risk that should be carefully considered - and one should be especially honest with oneself about and analyse what is motivating of involvement in the first place if it could have been easily avoided.
One of these risks is that there may be serious legal fall out for your actions in some cases if it can be said that you overstepped the mark between defending yourself or stopping a crime, and wandered into what could be viewed as punishing someone (a right not allotted to your station in the hierarchy, whatever the crime and even if you are the victim). Your statements, language used and actions may also be looked at and used against you.
My first interest in this video is the compulsion to do this while broadcasting to viewers on social media and giving a speech about “Integrity” - such a specific word to use - as a national characteristic (not usually what we mean or expect either when referring to the idea of “while holding “ in training, although technically it is!).
My second point of interest is to look at what the situation is like now in the retail sector with regards to violent theft as opposed to my recollections of it.
Current UK situation for 2025
Police and retail figures for armed robbery in 2025 are not fully available but:
General Robbery Trends: Police recorded 81,019 robbery offences in England and Wales in 2023/24, a 7.8% increase from 75,012 in 2022/23. The ONS notes robbery as both a violent and property crime, often involving weapons, with an average prison sentence of 47.7 months (if they are caught). In 2024, robbery reports totaled 74,048, a 3.7% rise from 71,425 in 2023, with a crime rate of 1.28 per 1,000 people.
Armed Robberies in Retail: A 2024 report by Better Retailing analysed Freedom of Information (FOI) data from 17 police forces, revealing that shop robberies involving weapons outnumbered unarmed attacks in 2023. including sharp weapons (knives, glass bottles, screwdrivers, up 6%), unidentified weapons (up 39%), firearms (down 64%), and blunt objects (down from 7). The ACS Crime Report 2023 noted that in crimes involving weapons, 37% involved knives, 30% involved blunt objects, and 23% involved other weapons.
Who? / What? Retailers reported to Retail Express that weapons were increasingly common in store robberies, becoming a “daily” threat. Incidents involving knives and syringes have led to serious injuries and psychological trauma among staff. The BRC highlighted aggressive incidents where workers were threatened with machetes, indicating a rise in the severity of robberies.
While specific 2025 data on robbery with weapons is not yet easy to find, the upward trajectory of retail crime and armed robberies from 2023/24 suggests it will continue to rise. Various industry reports indicate that without significant intervention, trends could worsen due to low police response rates (61% of retailers rated police response as “poor” or “very poor”) and emboldened criminals. Retailers believe official figures underestimate the problem, as many incidents go unreported due to distrust in police response.
It’s important to remember that it’s not just “crimes” that are increasing, these incidents are directly related to soaring rates of:
Poverty
Mental health issues
Drug addiction
The floored guy in the video doesn’t seem to be fully all there (neither does his nemesis), not that that offers much consolation to the poor sod on the till having to deal with this crap daily for a low wage.
Thoughts on the specific use of the word integrity as a concern
I mentioned that it was such a specific word to use and to be broadcasting while in the middle of subduing a thief, who you are punching.
On a separate coincidental note, completely unrelated to the star of the phone broadcast of course:
Integrity tests are psychological assessments used primarily in some employment settings like some retailers, banks, or law enforcement agencies, to evaluate a candidate’s honesty, dependability, and propensity for undesirable behaviours (e.g., theft, rule-breaking, or dishonesty).
These tests often include questions about views and opinions towards what could be called deviant behaviour, such as whether respondents believe harsh punishments are justified for breaking rules and so on.
The idea is that individuals who have engaged in deviant behaviour themselves (or have lower integrity) may project stricter attitudes toward others' deviance as a way to deflect suspicion or align with perceived social norms perhaps for the following reasons:
“Projection and Overcompensation:
Projection is a defence mechanism where individuals attribute their own undesirable traits or behaviours to others. Low integrity individuals, aware of their own deviant history, might project these tendencies onto others and advocate for harsh punishments to distance themselves from their own actions. This can be seen as overcompensation, where they try to align with societal norms that condemn deviance, thereby deflecting suspicion and appearing more trustworthy.
For example, someone who has stolen might support severe penalties for theft to signal that they are against such behaviour, even if they have engaged in it themselves.
Fear of Detection:
Integrity tests assume that low integrity individuals support harsher punishments because they fear being detected for their own lack of integrity. By endorsing severe measures for others' deviance, they might hope to create a deterrent effect that also protects their own secrets. Naive respondents in test can believe that honest answers, including supporting harsh punishments, will improve their "integrity score".
Authoritarian Tendencies:
Some individuals with low integrity may exhibit authoritarian personality traits, characterised by a desire for strict social control and harsh punishments for those who violate norms. This could stem from a need to maintain order or exert power over others, especially if they feel their own behaviour is at risk of being exposed. Psychological literature on authoritarianism suggests that such individuals often support punitive measures to enforce conformity.
Lack of Empathy:
Research on integrity suggests that individuals with low integrity often lack empathy, as they may prioritise their own interests over others' well-being. This can make them more likely to support punishments without considering the impact on the affected party, focusing instead on maintaining social order or protecting their own position.
Social Desirability Bias:
In the context of being tested for integrity, individuals might respond in ways they believe are socially desirable. Supporting harsh punishments could be seen as aligning with perceived social expectations, especially if they believe it will improve their perceived score.“
Just a thought.
There are many videos circling now on social media of people calling for others to get involved and take the law into their own hands to aid various agendas. This video falls into that category as it shows, to me, punishment being meted out for a presumed sympathetic audience rather than just a disrupting of an alleged crime.
This trend should be noted and not bought into if you are serious about keeping yourself unharmed physically and legally. I am not advocating being a doormat to life, but to save your resolve for an incident that DIRECTLY affects your well-being not just the profits of a retailer (it’s highly unlikely they will pay your hospital or legal fees) and certainly not to further the agendas of hotheads, idiots and political BS that is everywhere seemingly online.
Back in 2023, there were news stories quoting a government politician who’d advocated that: “Members of the public who witness shoplifters stealing from supermarkets should arrest them, even if they have to use force, as police 'can't be everywhere', the minister for policing has claimed. Chris Philp urged members of the public to make citizen's arrests to snare thieves and called on retailers to use security guards to step in where it is safe to do so.”
Now, if an MP suggests doing this, or anything else for that matter, usually doing the opposite tends to be better for you rather than them.
“Section 24A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) allows any person other than a constable to arrest someone who is in the act of committing an indictable offence or whom they have reasonable grounds for suspecting to be committing an indictable offence. This power is exercisable only if the person making the arrest has reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to arrest the person in question for reasons such as preventing physical injury to themselves or others, causing loss or damage to property, or making off before a constable can assume responsibility for them. The section also specifies that the power of summary arrest is only exercisable if it is not reasonably practicable for a constable to make the arrest instead.”
I would be highly avoidant of carrying out such actions outside of my own home and only in the direst of circumstances - not to save a retailer a few quid on lost stock from an addict nicking stuff or robbing the place.
And I wouldn’t film myself doing it with excessive aggression while making statements that could put me in real trouble and think that I’ll look like a badass.