Consider the premise that the primary role of law enforcement is not to prevent crime, but to avoid vigilante justice. In that case, it is perfectly logical to ignore crimes with low probability of identifying the criminal and (relatively) low cost to the victim. If the perpetrator is exposed, it's now in the interest of law enforcement to step in and avoid a (potentially escalating) conflict between victim and perpetrator.

They seemed pretty helpful in this case. If they had said they were on it, it would have discouraged him from taking initiative- and they would probably fail 99% of the time retrieving a stolen bike- they often get shipped out-of-state in batches by pros.

Was a reasonable comment until the last part.

I was kind of in agreement, that in the UK the police seem to have little time to devote to what many consider real crime - i.e. burglary and theft, yet seem to spend endless hours policing language on twitter. Anarcho-tyranny.

They don’t have time to investigate. They’re happy to show up at an arrest after all the investigation work is done and the thief is handed to them on a silver platter. Especially given the alternative.