Skip to content

Car Crime U.K.

who knows, who cares?

Menu
  • Events Timeline
  • Stolen Vehicle Info’
    • ‘Form A Squad’ – Ineffective Action
      • The Vehicle Crime Task Force (VCT) – 2019
      • 2022 to 2023 National Vehicle Crime Working Group
    • Stolen Vehicle Recovery – Found in the U.K.
    • Stolen Vehicle Recovery – Found Abroad
    • OPERATION IGNEOUS – reducing reported car theft by 30%
  • Collision & Crime Reports
    • Police Theft Reports
    • Police Collision Reports
    • Police Disclosure Delays
  • Resources
    • Your Vehicle Theft Insurance Claim
    • Police Contact Emails
  • News
  • Links
    • Abbreviations & Terminology
  • Contact
Menu

Reducing Vehicle Theft by up to 30%

Posted on July 13, 2025July 16, 2025 by 5@mwosb.co.uk

Cost-Cutting Brilliance?

You have likely heard the tale. Someone asks a matchbox company: “Want to save 50% on your striking strip costs?” Of course they do. “Only put the strip on one side of the box!“. A success. The suggestion is rewarded.

Legendary, but unsubstantiated.*

Crime-Cutting Reality

Police officers approach the government: “We can cut vehicle theft by 30%. No reward needed – just investigate each report.” A success; false allegations are filtered out, no-crimed.

The system? Scrapped.

Currently, professional car thieves operate with near impunity.

What is the real scale of the problem? Who is tracking it? Who is fighting it?

Ask questions, query explanations. Demand the acquisition and provision of accurate numbers, facts. Push for lasting action, not excuses and misdirection.

Not all doom and gloom.

On the bright side, it may be that law enforcement agencies simply have not had the opportunity to pause and reassess their processes. Now is an ideal moment to put long-promoted principles into action: partnership and collaboration.

Insurers and their representatives have long taken proactive steps. Why would the police attempt to duplicate activity or look to re-invent the wheel? Instead, efforts should be aligned for maximum impact.

It is time to revisit crime reporting methodologies. While some refinements may require initial investment, the long-term goal is clear: to better support frontline policing, enabling optimisation and freeing up of limited resources.

A submission has already been made to the National Vehicle Crime Reduction Partnership (NVCRP), addressing this and several related challenges. It marks the start of what could be a transformative shift.

With renewed cooperation and clear direction, the sector is well-positioned to drive meaningful change. Momentum is building – let us hope, this time, it is heading in the right direction.


*The story is a popular anecdote in business and innovation circles, often told as an example of lateral thinking or the power of simple ideas to yield significant savings. While it is a compelling tale, there is no verifiable primary source confirming it as a true historical event involving a specific match company.

The Story has circulated for decades, particularly in marketing, business management, and creative thinking literature. It often appears alongside other parables e.g., the ‘NASA space pen vs. Soviet pencil’ myth used to promote creative, cost-saving thinking.

The story has variations, sometimes involving engineers, sometimes inventors, and often left unattributed.
Despite its popularity, there is no named individual or documented case from a match company archive or patent history confirming this actually occurred.

The anecdote may have originated as a thought experiment or teaching example rather than an actual historical event. It is sometimes confused with or linked to similar corporate legends, such as the idea airlines saved money by removing olives from salads. Such tales often exaggerate or simplify real events for didactic or motivational effect.

Unlike the vehicle crime reduction scenario, there is no confirmed evidence that the “one-side striking strip” matchbox story actually happened as told. It appears to be apocryphal, a business myth or parable, that continues to be cited widely as an example of ingenuity in cost-cutting.


07/2025

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts:

  • Thefts Down – Except for Newer Cars!
  • Increase Pre-Crush Retention Period to 28 days?
  • Reducing Vehicle Theft by up to 30%
  • ‘The Others’ … are you among them?
  • Vehicle Abandonments Raise Questions Over Theft Claims
  • The State of Vehicle Taking in the UK: A Crisis of Enforcement, Not Engineering
  • Keystone Krooks – but £1.4 million stolen!
  • 2024 Vehicle Theft – how well (or otherwise) did your constabulary perform?
  • Vehicle Crime. Is Police Language Bluring Facts?
  • Superficial Approach to Vehicle Taking Overlooked Organised Crime
  • Keyless Vehicle Taking – Really?
  • Accuracy & Consistency Required
  • Do we need new legislation?
  • A System Built on Blind Faith? The Flaws in Police Information Dissemination
  • Which? … What?
  • The Rise & Fall of Operation Igneous
  • Vehicle Taking – Quantity not Quality
  • Vehicle Theft: 30 years of Complacency
  • The Devalued Crime Report
  • Vehicle Theft Surge Demands Police Action on Crime Report Disclosures
  • FoIA – Staffordshire Police are not the worst offenders
  • Vehicle Repatriation
  • Crime Number Devaluation
  • Manufacturers Cause Vehicle Thefts …
  • PNC LoS Report Weeding
  • Staff-less-shire Police Report Disclosures
  • W. Mercia Police – RTC Report Disclosures
  • Delaying Finalisation of Insurance Claims (for some)
  • Policing (or not?) Vehicle Theft
  • Fraud Not Theft … face the facts!
  • Cloned Plates: Register of Keepers – Lacking Integrity?
  • Police Theft Report Disclosure
  • Headlamp Dazzle & Eye-Snatching
  • Scrap ‘six-week weeding’ of stolen vehicle VRMs
  • Police Vehicle Theft Reports – A Lack Of Understanding And Standardisation

Legal Disclaimer
The information provided on this website is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. While we strive to ensure the accuracy and relevance of the content, laws and regulations change frequently, and the application of legal principles varies based on specific circumstances.

No Legal Advice
Nothing on this website constitutes legal, financial, or professional advice. You should not rely on the information provided here as a substitute for seeking qualified legal counsel. If you require legal advice or guidance, we strongly recommend consulting a licensed solicitor or legal professional.

No Liability
We make every effort to keep the information up to date and accurate, but we do not guarantee the completeness, correctness, or applicability of any content. We accept no responsibility or liability for any errors, omissions, or reliance placed on the information contained within this site.

External Links & Third-Party Content
Any external links or references provided are for convenience only and do not constitute endorsement. We are not responsible for the accuracy, legality, or content of any external sites or third-party materials linked from this website.

User Responsibility
It is the responsibility of all users to verify the accuracy and relevance of any information before relying upon it. If you have a legal issue, you should seek advice from a qualified professional relevant to your situation.

By using this website, you acknowledge and agree to this disclaimer. If you do not agree, you should discontinue use of the site immediately.

© 2025 Car Crime U.K. | Powered by Superbs Personal Blog theme