Background: From custard to controversy
In recent years, activists have used dramatic, attention-grabbing protests to draw attention to their causes. A new report from The Telegraph alleges that the pressure group Take Back Power (TBP), seen by many as the successor to Just Stop Oil, is planning a coordinated series of shopliftings at Waitrose stores. The claims have ignited a debate about the line between political protest and criminal activity, and the potential risks to staff, customers, and retailers.
Take Back Power has framed its actions as a continuation of earlier demonstrations that aimed to force public attention on issues of power, policy, and environmental or social justice. Critics, however, warn that planning thefts introduces real harms, bypasses civil discourse, and risks criminal charges against participants that could undermine broader political goals.
The allegations and responses: what we know
According to the report, TBP leadership reportedly signalled an intent to target Waitrose, a high-end supermarket chain, with mass shoplifting as a form of protest. The Telegraph emphasizes internal communications and planning documents cited in its investigation. TBP representatives have declined to publicly confirm the specifics of any plan, while condemning what they call misinformation spread by opponents and rivals within the activist space.
Retailers and law enforcement agencies are closely watching the situation, citing concerns about shop floor theft, security strain, and potential incidents that could harm innocent shoppers. A spokesperson for Waitrose said the company would not engage in dialogue about specific protest tactics that could undermine customer safety, but stressed the importance of protecting staff and shoppers while safeguarding lawful expressions of opinion.
Public safety, legitimacy, and legal implications
The discussion around TBP’s alleged plans raises broader questions about the legitimacy of protest tactics. While peaceful demonstrations are a protected form of expression in many democracies, criminal activity—such as theft—is not. If credible plans to shoplift are proven, organizers and participants could face arrest, charges, and potential disqualification from future demonstrations.
Experts in political communication note that sensational tactics can backfire, potentially alienating sympathetic audiences and diverting attention from the core message. Critics of TBP argue that actions crossing into criminal behavior risk marginalizing supporters and provoking harsher responses from authorities and retailers alike. Proponents contend that high-profile disruption can compel policymakers to address grievances, a calculus that has long animated civil disobedience movements, though without providing a carte blanche for illegal activity.
What this means for activists, retailers, and consumers
For activists, the episode underscores the importance of clear ethical boundaries and the potential consequences of escalating tactics. Many groups emphasize nonviolent, lawful means of protest, arguing that sustainable change comes from engagement, policy pressure, and public conversation rather than risk or illegality. For retailers like Waitrose, preparations focus on maintaining a safe shopping environment and protecting staff and customers while respecting peaceful protest and freedom of expression.
Consumers can expect heightened security within stores, particularly during demonstrations or high-profile actions. Lawmakers and regulators may also revisit policies governing protest, shoplifting, and the protection of employees, with a view to balancing public rights with safety and order.
Bottom line
Allegations of mass shoplifting plans by a high-profile activist group highlight the tension between direct action and the rule of law. As investigations unfold, the public deserves careful, verified reporting and a measured dialogue about how best to pursue social and political aims without compromising safety or losing credibility.
