Greggs brings in ‘robocops’ which can sound 120-decibel sirens and flashing lights in bid to deter shoplifters
Greggs has begun deploying "robocop"-style deterrent devices in some of its bakeries in an effort to combat shoplifting, using loud sirens and flashing lights to startle and warn off would-be thieves. The move reflects the wider retail industry's struggle with rising theft, as chains increasingly turn to visible security technology to protect stock and staff without necessarily requiring extra personnel.
The devices reportedly emit sirens as loud as 120 decibels alongside flashing lights, designed to draw attention and discourage shoplifters from targeting stores. Greggs joins a growing number of British retailers experimenting with anti-theft tech amid persistent concerns about shop theft levels across the UK.
- Greggs installs loud alarm devices to deter shoplifters in stores
- Devices sound 120-decibel sirens with flashing lights
- Part of wider retail response to rising UK shop theft
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Retailers have faced a marked rise in shoplifting and abuse towards staff in recent years, and proponents argue that visible deterrents like the Safe POD are a proportionate, common-sense response to protect both stock and employees who should not have to confront potentially volatile situations themselves. Remote monitoring by trained security staff, rather than in-store personnel, allows for a rapid, professional response without putting shop workers in harm's way. Supporters see this as businesses using available technology sensibly to safeguard their premises, keep prices down for honest customers, and reduce the daily toll that theft and confrontation take on retail staff morale and safety.
The case against
Others worry that loud sirens and flashing lights represent an escalation towards treating ordinary customers as suspects, creating an unpleasant, anxiety-inducing shopping environment and risking embarrassing or distressing innocent people caught by false alarms or misjudged alerts. Critics also raise concerns about the broader normalisation of intrusive surveillance in everyday public spaces, questioning whether remote monitoring and dramatic deterrents are proportionate compared with addressing the underlying causes of theft, such as poverty or inadequate policing resources. There is also scepticism about whether such devices genuinely reduce crime or simply displace it elsewhere, while imposing new costs and atmosphere changes on shops and their law-abiding customers.