Stamping On Our Rights, In The Name Of Covid

The image of a woman being pinned and handcuffed by two male police officers has become the new symbol of violence against women in the UK.

But look closely at that image, and you will discover a far more harrowing meaning behind it.

Exerting Undue Authority

That night, hundreds attended a vigil to commemorate the memory of Sarah Everard, who disappeared while walking home in Clapham Common, London.

Her body was found days later, and charges have been brought against a Met Police Officer who allegedly kidnapped and murdered her.

The tragedy highlighted the dangers women face daily, and despite lockdown rules forbidding gatherings outside, the idea of a peaceful vigil proved popular with the public.

Throughout the UK, there was a show of unity as we took to the streets to pay respects to Sarah Everard.

Police were present at the gatherings, but only one force took any action - and took that action to the extreme.

The Metropolitan Police Force.

From the start, the Met was against the vigil, for it highlighted their ineffectiveness.

Not only were they unable to save Sarah, but she has been allegedly murdered by one of their own officers.

#ReclaimTheStreets brought the Met bad publicity, and like all large institutions under intense scrutiny, it circled the wagons and did whatever it could to disrupt the event, including brute force.

And they were able to do this with the perfect excuse: to uphold lockdown restrictions.

Last year the Black Lives Matter protest occurred during lockdown, and the police maintained a diligent hands-off approach.

Why was that allowed to go ahead without incident?

Are we supposed to believe that the use of said force was done in the name of upholding lockdown restrictions?

Apparently so, since a subsequent review of the actions of Met police officers has ruled that they "acted appropriately" in using such force. The report also said:

"The chorus of those condemning… show a distinct lack of respect for public servants facing… a sensitive and complex issue.

"It is one thing… to recognise that the scenes were worrying or upsetting (and to order an inspection such as this). It is another to jump to conclusions - and in doing so, undermine public confidence in policing - based on very limited evidence." Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS), reported by the BBC

HMICFRS is supposed to be an independent body, and therefore meant to give an impartial review of events as ordered by Home Secretary, Priti Patel.

However, despite the HMICFRS rather forceful defence of the Met Police Force, it's report is already being criticised by many in the UK as a "whitewash" - a desperate attempt by the UK government to brush aside the disturbing nature of the Met's actions.

But the coincidences already described at the beginning of this article are too blatant to ignore, and makes the HMICFRS's report all the more difficult to swallow.

It is obvious that the Metropolitan Police Force took advantage of lockdown regulations for its own benefit. And the government's attempts to justify the force's actions, despite the outcry it has caused, reveals a much wider issue.

The insidious advantage lockdown has given authorities to curb our rights.

Political Opportunity

Under the guise of protection during a health crisis, the UK government has managed to suppress all forms of protest and clearly plans to do so permanently, thanks to its controversial Police, Crime and Sentencing and Courts Bill.

If passed, the Bill will grant more powers to police forces to restrict protests even more - effectively bypassing a basic human right we all share.

Despite the criticism and controversy, the government hopes to slip this bill under the radar, piggy-backing on the current necessity of lockdown restrictions and hoping that the public won't notice.

It calls into question the continued sustainability of lockdowns in general. It also begs the question - at what point do they become a means for political opportunity?

We Can't Be on Hold Forever

As a health care professional, I believe the lockdowns were a necessary evil that helped prevent the healthcare services become overwhelmed and no doubt saved hundreds of lives while implemented.

But we are now fast approaching a crossroads.

With vaccination programs in place - and doing extremely well - the need for lockdowns, and indeed any form of restrictions, is passing.

That's not to say that our battle with Covid is over, but rather how we deal with it has to change.

The vaccine program combined with various other services, such as the Covid test hubs, antibody test centers as well as advanced medical treatments and continued awareness to social distance and wear masks, will all negate the need for future lockdowns.

There will no longer be a case for initiating restrictions whenever there's a future outbreak.

Covid is one of many hundreds of healthcare issues that have continued to rage on throughout the lockdowns. Cancer treatments, mental health issues, Operations and Endoscopic procedures are only some of the services forced to be limited or put completely on hold during the lockdowns. But, they can no longer be put on a back-burner for the sake of one virus.

Any future lockdowns will end up costing lives as a result.

Yet, the UK government has announced they are extending their special Covid powers until September.

It's hard not to take this news with a touch of skepticism.

If all these advancements are lowering the infection rate and death rate of the Coronavirus in the UK - then why do ministers need to prolong their emergency powers?

Not only does this mean the government will continue to enjoy their increased authority, it also means police forces - like the Met - can continue to action their new authority as they see fit.

They can be as forceful as they wish and - thanks to the HMICFRS's report today - can do so without fear of restraint.

Is this really in our country's best interests, or is this so that the government can continue to further its agendas free from the usual constraints of our democracy?

Only time will tell.