There is presently being considered in the UK parliament a ‘Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill’. It is wide ranging in it’s intended effects. So much so that citizens are worried and they are asking questions are;

Are these new legal powers necessary and if so are stricter legal powers the best way to achieve the intended result?

In other words, is shooting the cockerel the best way to have a lie-in?

It is coincidental that the timing of these proposals coincided with a public vigil for a murdered woman, Sarah Everard. Sarah was tragically murdered, allegedly by an off duty police officer, whilst walking home.

The vigil was held in Clapham Common in South London. Unfortunately there were ugly violent scenes when police enforced the Covid regulations, which ban such public events. The confrontation had been foreseen. Prior to the vigil, an organisation called ‘Reclaim These Streets’ approached the police and then the High Court. The High Court told the organisers to sort it out with the police.

The question has to be asked, how ‘negotiations’ failed to find a solution that eliminated the risk of confrontation and violence.

People with an iota of problem solving sense and mediation skills, will know that if you set up two sides with conflicting agendas, they will always disagree with each other.

The BBC News webpage comments; For almost a year, the ambiguities and omissions within the coronavirus restrictions have left both the police and the public grasping for answers as to what is possible in public. It’s so complex we’ve even seen people fined for walking while holding a cup of tea.

The Covid ‘regulations’ are already a cause for antagonism between the public and the police. The police are having a hard time maintaining public confidence in their impartiality and fairness. The Police are currently lumbered with issuing Enforcement Notices, fines of £200, under the Covid Regulations.

Personally, I can see good reason to remove the police from the enforcement of Covid rules.

Police are principally responsible to protect the public from those breaking criminal law. They stopped being responsible for lost dogs and parking on double yellow lines long ago, so why are they involved with Covid rules?

One possible solution would be to create a new temporary role of ‘Covid Enforcement Officers’. This process of specialist enforcement officers has already been successfully with non-criminal offences, such as parking fines. Police used to issue parking fines decades ago. Then Traffic Wardens were created for this purpose and currently used ‘Parking Enforcement Officers’ have the role.

The Home Office might be able to recruit volunteers to enforce Covid Rules, given the large number of community spirited citizens who have already put their names forward for public service during the emergency. Alternatively, or as well as, the Home Office could pay CEO’s in the full time role. Alternatively or in addition, the Home Office might use the services of those currently paid to ‘furlough’ at home. This at least would be a better use of tax payers money. The role might also be given to a strictly selected portion of those ‘homeless’ and living in hotels at public expense and even released prisoners. Both groups who might well rise to the being awarded public trust and benefit for the rest of their lives for some experience of employment. My point is that there are many avenues to explore before dismissing the role of CEO.

Let us next examine the subject of public protests during the Covid state of emergency. It cannot be denied that where there is a public protest planned over an issue of current high public interest, there is good reason for respecting public feelings. If the government restricts the human right of protest it runs the risk of appearing draconian. When the government and rule of law is perceived by citizens to lose the high moral ground, ‘policing by consent’ becomes difficult to impossible. We see this in Hong Kong and Myanmar at the moment where protest has effectively been made illegal.

The problem for the British government that the vigil in Clapham Common posed, was for a potential ‘mass Covid spreading event’ to take place. This was the fear and Police had a duty to prevent such an outcome. They would be sure to be blamed for not using their powers should there be a subsequent localised outbreak of Covid infection.

The problem solving method used was for both sides to line up against each other like in a medieval battle. Even the High Court ran from this confrontation. All were victims in my view of the process of dualistic thinking or ‘either or’ solutions.

The way I would look at this problem is that it is not only a ‘police’ responsibility. In most problem solving processes, problems will be found to be widely shared. Who might the other stake holders be?

Just of the cuff I would suggest that the problem was owned by the organisers, those attending, the Park Authorities and the by-laws, the National Health Service (local hospitals), Human Rights organisations, the Courts, scientists of the health and social variety, the local MP and London Mayor’s Office, Legislators and the Home Secretary.

The only intervention the government could conceive was a new law, because that is what governments do; a classic case of ‘digging the hole deeper’. This is how they intend to make the present police powers more stringent;

The Bill being proposed wishes to prevent public protest that creates “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community”.

The lack of any nuance to this ‘nail – hammer’ thinking was, in my opinion, is woeful. If the complexities of solving a problem are embraced, then solutions are abundant.

For instance in the case of this public vigil by, say one thousand people, it can be be managed to achieve the clearly set out objective…to let people have their moment of remembering peacefully and without disproporthionate harm to themselves or others. After all, if strangers mix inside a supermarkets without creating mass Covid spreading events each day, then a single outdoor event is considerably less risky. Experience of public gatherings outdoors, including when not socially distanced, has shown that mass Covid events do not take place afterwards. This was shown to be the case at recent public protests in the USA such as the Black Lives Matter marches or the infamous storming of Capitol Hill.

Aside from the spread of infection it is hard to see why any peaceful outdoor protest should culminate in;

“serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community” if managed properly.

There are clear Covid rules of social distancing, mask wearing and hand washing and the attendees would willingly follow such rules as they Sainsbury’s where public disorder is not considered an imminent threat.

A vigil by definition, is a passive affair where people sit or stand with candles and placards to express their feelings of solidarity, sadness and, in this case, discontent that a young woman’s public murder makes many women feel unsafe.

Imagine how a Problem Solving / Protest Management Meeting that I am envisaging, might have taken place. There would be numerous attendees with multiple points of view but with a overlapping and shared desired outcomes. The aim of the meeting will be to express and examine all views in a spirit of co-operation to solve a shared problem. The fruit of such meetings is that solutions can be just as impactive as force, but in a subtle and almost invisible way.

So if you were the Superintendent of Parks, would you not be a good person to involve in how to make this peaceful event as safe as possible whilst supporting the Human Right to protest? You could provide detail maps of the park showing entrances and exits, toilet facilities, how previous public events had been managed, first aid and other emergency considerations (normal for large gatherings), catering etc. etc. in as much detail as you need and that’s just the Park Keeper.

The Fire Service say they could provide sand bags for people to sit on at the required distances…good idea…and safe bins to dispose of used candles. The local press and police might hire a drone to take photographs from above. The police use it to monitor events and the press get some great photograhps. Those attending are told that by staying on their sandbags they images will be spectacular visually, whilst respecting privacy and not spying on indiviuals. Instead of a grid, an local artist might design a shape for the sandbags and candle holders, like a flower of rememberance. You get the idea. It’s soft management designed to delight not draw battle lines.

The Covid Enforcement Officers might have produced some posters which will be clearly displayed at the entrances to the Vigil Arena, reminding attendees of the Covid safety rules and the fines for infringement.

I could list the inputs of each party but you get the picture. Towards the end of the meeting the person representing the local police, shares that there is intelligence that the an anarchist organisation are planning to attend. There is a history of them creating public disorder and damage to property. A few mug shots are shared.

The Police therefore commit to having 200 riot trained officers on hand but out of view, in case of “serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community”. They confirm that there are existing laws under the Public Order Act, Criminal Damage Act and Breach of the Peace to make arrests and allow the vigil to continue peacefully.

Dame Cressida Dick, Metropolitan Police Commissioner, is at the meeting and says that she intends to take part in the Vigil. Everyone applauds. Apparently, several other celebrities and leaders of Human Rights and Women Safety organisations are also going to take part. There is decided to be a VIP area next to the area designated for the Press.

In this hypothetical scenario the event takes place and the Anarchist ‘rent-a-mob’ do make an appearance. They are ‘kettled’ away from the vigil into an area that the Park Superintendent recommended which is surrounded on three sides by high fences. Flood lights had been secretly positioned their and their switching on allows for CCTV surveillance to begin and the press to get some good pictures. The police keep them there until the vigil has ended and the park is clear. Two anarchists are arrested are, both for previous offences using outstanding warrants.

My conclusion is that any public protest with warranted public interest and sympathy, should be allowed to take place under Covid regulations, and the Regulations should be amended to permit this. It is for the committee of interested parties to decide what level of public interest and support exists, not the courts or the police.

In summary, when the only parties involved are cast as protagonist and enforcer, the result will tend towards the violent scenes sadly witnessed on Clapham Common. Giving the enforcers more powers to enforce is no solution, and leads to the very thing purported to avoid, that is;

“serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community”.

So in answer to the question at the top of this essay which was;

Are these new legal powers necessary and if so are they the best way to achieve the intended result?

…my answer is no. The existing laws were sufficient for the nine arrests made at this vigil. Next time, organisers should seek the help of the ‘partnership approach’ to public protest event planning. Use it or ignore it at your peril.