A ban from Fortnum’s is the worst penalty a posh shoplifter could imagine

The upper classes don’t much like being slapped on the wrist. But any kind of penalty or ban? That’s far, far worse. It’s the public aspect, the social aspect: that’s what’s most problematic.

If, say, you get thrown out of the Hurlingham Club for getting a little too sweary during a doubles game, that’s a bit of a nightmare. If you have your Garrick membership terminated after one too many loud mobile phone calls in the Reading Room, that’ll cause you more than a little discomfort at the Fotherington-Smythes’ annual Christmas party. But being banned from Fortnum & Mason is surely the worst penalty any posho could envisage. I mean, where else are you going to find Christmas crackers containing Sir Nigel’s Marmalade?

Spare a thought, then, for the royal aide who was allegedly caught shoplifting at the luxury department store, according to reports on Sunday, and – when security guards discovered a bracelet in the woman’s handbag as she tried to leave through a side exit – warned she would “be ejected” if she tried to set foot in the store again.

Such a shudderingly awful word: “ejected”. Then again “jailed” is arguably worse, and considering the shoplifting epidemic that cost British retailers more than £1 billion in stolen goods last year, and a “soft touch” justice system that has led to companies like Fortnum’s hiring their own private detectives, I’d say this alleged lady thief got off lightly.

I wonder whether there was a touch of entitlement to her behaviour? Apparently the reported theft was spotted in part because the aide was already being “monitored”, having allegedly helped herself to make-up samples during a previous visit. Which suggests a certain level of brazenness. Did she misunderstand the meaning of Fortnum’s (two) royal warrants, perhaps?