1
A friend was robbed. We’ve known each other for years but because his hometown is on the other side of the planet, in Sydney, we don’t spend enough time together. This summer, however, he’s based himself in Palma de Mallorca, where I also camp out, so our paths have not just crossed but nicely interwoven again. Last weekend, en route to see his mum in Scotland, he stayed at our house in London. On Saturday he nipped out to get provisions for lunch and, just as he returned, at the very point of entering our calm mews, a guy on a bike came from behind and snatched his phone, which unfortunately had his credit cards and Australian driving licence tucked into the case.
Back in the house, as his shock abated, we tracked his iPhone using the Find My app and watched as it crossed over Waterloo Bridge and headed south, off to a new life in Elephant and Castle. Should we follow? Potentially getting stabbed as well didn’t sound like fun. Another annoying crime, insignificant in a city where muggings like this are commonplace. He reported the theft to the police – well, filled in an online form.
In the hours that followed, as cards were cancelled, a new phone secured, we all tortured ourselves. I should have warned him about looking at his phone in the street; he should never have had his driving licence with his phone; we should have all gone to the deli together. Just the usual: the victim blaming themselves, not the perpetrator. I have felt bad about the incident all week; my neighbourhood looks so seductively nice, no wonder someone from Sydney got taken in. But then you read about a girl, aged nine, shot in Liverpool and a woman battered in the street for her watch and no police able to attend for 25 minutes, and you think how lucky you are.
2
I keep seeing ads that promise me that, yes, the product I am looking at is definitely way more expensive than its modest appearance would make one expect. There’s the tableware brand that asks, “It looks great but why is it so expensive?” A trouser company that promises you will pay way more than you had hoped. A dog food brand that insists it “isn’t cheap” and why? Well, “because we believe pets deserve the same luxury as we do”.
OK, first, as a dog owner, let me explain that while I would do just about anything for her, sadly she has no concept of luxury. The finest venison or a gift from a friend of what I believe to be a giant, dried bull’s penis? She’d rather have a chew on the latter (well, she might have a point). Souffléd chicken or a couple of pigs’ ears still with the fur on? I think you know the answer. And I don’t even eat meat.
But why this spate of expensive-is-better ads? We live in a moment of strange cross currents that are pulling us in different directions – the cost-of-living crisis makes (some) people uncomfortable about splashing the cash but we also know that buying cheap is often the same as insisting that a child in Asia stitches your knickers. So spat out of this tidal mess emerge brands that realise that forcing people to pay over the odds makes them feel better, makes them feel confident that they have done well by the world and the dainty of finger. I get it. But I promise you that, on the dog food front, desiccated bull’s bits are what most mutts go to bed dreaming of, so don’t fall for that one.
3
If you were a judge for a day, do you think you’d be the community-service sort of punisher or the straight-to-jail variety? I’d like to think that I would be the former but I worry that I might be the latter. Though – a slight pause here – if you go onto the website for the Old Bailey, the high court in London, you can type in the name of any street in central London and it will tell you about trials connected to crimes that occurred there. There are lots across the ages that involve my street. In 1827, for example, there was a burglary in a neighbouring mews but it went badly wrong and one of the three robbers, John Cranley, was apprehended just where you enter my road – perhaps the exact spot where my house guest was robbed. At the subsequent trial, Cranley, the records state, “was recommended to mercy by the prosecutor, who had employed him seven years, and believed him to be the support of an aged mother”. But the judge determined that his time was up and, aged 23, he was sentenced to death. And all for nabbing a ring and some coins. It seems harsh. Fair enough for an iPhone but a silly ring?