Throughout the pandemic, there have been
regular calls from some for the police to be more pro-active against those
breaking the coronavirus rules, demanding a crackdown with more fines and
arrests. On Saturday, the Metropolitan Police gave us a clear demonstration of
what a crackdown looks like. Suddenly, it seems that some of those previously
egging the police on to do more to enforce the rules aren’t quite so sure – or,
rather, they want to apply different rules to different groups and causes. Clearly
the police could and should have adopted a different approach to the proposed
vigil and worked with the organisers to ensure that the event could take place
in as safe a way as possible; the flat refusal to do so underlines a degree of
incompetence and lack of empathy which is hard to understand. But on what basis
do we expect the police to distinguish between, say, a beach party and a vigil,
both of which involve an assembly of a greater number of people than is
permitted under current legislation? That is not to argue that there is some
sort of equivalence there; clearly there is not. But distinguishing between the
two involves the application of values and judgement, and there is a real
question as to whether the police are the best people to make that call,
particularly if their role is defined simply as ‘upholding the law’.
Differential application of the law is, of
course, one of those traditional British values of which politicians are so
fond, although that isn’t the way they usually describe it. In practice, Lady Justice
has never been as unseeing as the blindfold she traditionally wears might lead
us to believe. Being part of the ruling elite has long bestowed a degree of
indemnity – the Covid rules applied to Cummings were clearly not the same rules
being applied to others, to quote just one recent example, and there was never
the same expectation that someone like him should abide by the rules. It hasn’t
always been as blatant or rampant as it has become since England elected a
fundamentally dishonest man as its Prime Minister. Previous regimes haven’t
always been as confident about what they could get away with, but the current
regime seems to be pushing at an open door. The new Police, Crime, Sentencing
and Courts Bill currently wending its way through parliament actively seeks to
extend police powers to decide what is or is not ‘acceptable’ behaviour,
including criminalising any assembly of people which causes “serious
annoyance”, effectively giving the police on the spot the power to decide
the meaning of both ‘serious’ and ‘annoyance’. They are targeting dissent and opposition.
For many of us, Saturday’s events
underline the need for policing in a democracy to be based first and foremost
on consent and a sense of social solidarity; but the current government is
taking us in a completely different direction, where policing is seen as
enforcement of rules by whatever means are necessary. To them, Saturday will look simply
like a one-off mistake, rather than a problem with the approach. If they come
under enough pressure, a sacrificial head might roll to protect other more culpable heads, but they won’t see it as a reason to
change their approach. The question is whether, and to what extent, people at
large go along with that view. The way in which so many have been calling for
the police to be more heavy-handed in other circumstances is not exactly a
cause for optimism. Wales doesn’t have to follow England on this, but following
England towards becoming an authoritarian state is precisely what will happen if we don’t take control of our own
future.
Posts
