On-the-spot fines loom under police crackdown
Today’s police can’t clip you round the ear like Dixon of Dock Green, but give them respect anyway, writes Jim Duffy
People who continue to flout coronavirus lockdown rules will be breaking the law and could be arrested by police.
Those who ignore tougher restrictions on movement could be hit with a £60 fine initially and another for £120 for a second offence, the Home Office has warned. The powers have already come into affect in England, with First Minister Nicola Sturgeon confirming Scotland would enforce similar measures over the coming days.
Officers will be able to order members of the public to go home, leave an area, and have the power to disperse a group, using “reasonable force, if necessary”.
The move comes as Chief Medical Officer Catherine Calderwood warned about 40,000-50,000 Scots are likely to be infected.
People could face “on-thespot” fines and even prosecution if they breach new lockdown powers to tackle the coronavirus crisis.
Police now have powers to disperse gatherings of two or more people outside, as well as ordering people home if they are found to be outside without good reason. These reasons could include shopping, getting medicine or one daily form of exercise a day.
But the new controls have already provoked a backlash south of the Border where one police force was accused of an over-the-top approach.
The powers were introduced as it emerged the number of deaths from the virus had risen by three in Scotland to 25, while the number of new cases is up by 175 to 894. In the
UK overall, the daily death toll topped three figures for the first time after 103 fatalities emerged yesterday, taking the overall total to 578.
Chief Medical Officer Catherine Calderwood warned about 40,000 to 50,000 Scots were now likely to be infected.
First Minister Nicola Sturgeon revealed yesterday that emergency laws to enforce coronavirus restrictions passed at Westminster this week will come into force through new regulations being enacted in Scotland.
The police will be able to issue “prohibition notices” and fines could be issued, while in some cases Scots could be prosecuted.
But Ms Sturgeon insisted the police will take a “soft touch” approach.
“We expect the vast majority of people to do the right thing without any requirement for enforcement,” she said.
The level of the fines, as well as any potential jail terms, are still being finalised, the First Minister said.
“Enforcement powers I hope do not have to be used, but they are there to make sure the right things are done to delay the spread of the virus,” she said.
Police will also have powers to close down listed businesses and premises, as well as ensuring those which stay open, like supermarkets, enforce social distancing.
The powers will be similar to those in England where those who defy tough restrictions on movement could be hit with a £60 fine initially and £120 for a second offence, reaching £1,000-plus for repeat offenders. The authorities south of the Border have also announced that deliberately spreading coronavirus will now be treated as a serious assault punishable with a jail term of up to two years after a spate of coughing and spitting attacks on police officers and paramedics.
Ms Sturgeon said: “We will now enforce the restriction on people staying at home.
“Those found not to be acting in line with the regulations will be directed to return home or made to return home.”
An extra 1.5 million face masks have also been brought into use from the NHS central stockpile amid concerns over a lack of protective equipment for health workers.
The masks had passed their “expiry date”, the First Minister said, but they had now undergone testing and been deemed fit for use.
Ms Sturgeon said she was aware of concerns over protective equipment for frontline NHS staff. “I want today to take the opportunity to emphasis to NHS workers and those working in the wider care sector that we know how important this is,” she said.
The head of Police Scotland, Chief Constable Iain Livingstone, said officers had already been speaking to people who flout the rules “to make it very, very clear what the expectations are and why they need to comply with those requirements”
He said: “If they refuse, as I understand some of the legislation that’s going to be implemented, we would have power to instruct them to return home and to use reasonable force if required.”
This current generation at school – or not at school under current circumstances – will have no idea what “two of the belt” means. I bet I could ask 100 second year schoolies what the phrase refers to and even with a multi-choice option, 100 would still get it wrong. But many of us schooled in the 1960s and 70s know exactly what it means.
No one liked the belt, never mind getting it from the head teacher. There were a couple of occasions when tearaways in my class got six of the belt. But that was for rather serious misdemeanours, like breaking into the school over the weekend to set it on fire. No, two swings of the strap was more than enough to inflict pain, but more importantly, I would suggest, to maintain order.
I believed it worked. So when it was abolished, we saw unruly behaviour rise and discipline fall. And I believe it was that exact moment – rightly or wrongly – when Scotland’s attitude to rules, discipline, order, teachers and the police changed.
Kids who grew up to be young adults were no longer afraid to mouth off, answer back or take liberties. Which is ironic as many would argue that the belt was a primary blocker to kids’ liberty.
It was probably at this time that the police in Scotland were also using their version of “two of the belt”. In short, a kick up the backside to the local tearaways who were shoplifting or daubing poorly crafted graffiti on walls. It worked at the time, many older officers would argue.
Of course, in such a libertarian country now that would be frowned upon. But, as we lock down all over Europe, the Scottish police may have lost the capacity to shock and awe – with a kick up the backside. Many of you reading this will immediately disagree with such crass action. But, while you may vent and recoil at what is essentially unlawful violence by our cops, it did happen – frequently. Not out of malice or a wanton propensity for hurting others, but just to let a few wrong-uns know who was in charge of the streets.
This was important when cops did not have fancy digital radios and back-up only minutes away. Many beat officers, years ago, were on their own on a night shift. For them, their ‘neighbour’, or officer patrolling an adjacent beat, could be a mile away when they needed help. Ergo, letting the few who would disturb the peace know that they were not afraid to clout them every now and then kept the peace. But, times have changed.
Do I think that individual officers meting out summary justice occasionally was a good thing? I wasn’t in their shoes and didn’t understand the context of what they had to endure to keep safe and maintain respect on the streets then, so I have to hold judgement. But, if asked whether today this kind of behaviour is appropriate I would answer – no. It is not ‘needed’ any more. Our police officers are well-equipped, well-trained and well-cared for now. But one question still remains, despite all the modernisation and professionalism of the police coupled with 30 years without the belt: just how much respect do we have for those in authority, especially at a time of crisis like this?
Our police officers may be asked to perform some tough gigs over the next few weeks as they clamp down on infringements relating to coronavirus. They will be put in situations where they will have to exert presence, tact, negotiation and perhaps force. If it gets to the