Police "overreach" on lockdown doesn't just waste resources—it could also encourage bad behaviour

After the National Health Service, Britain’s police currently have some of the least-enviable jobs in the country. Already stretched and anticipating a huge strain in the months to come, they are among the most critical workers adapting to the unprecedented challenge presented by the coronavirus.

But there is growing concern that some overzealous members of the force might be sowing distrust by assuming extra powers, and admonishing behaviours during the lockdown which are not in breach of government legislation.

Some recent instances of police over-extending themselves are pretty benign, at face value. On Saturday, MP Stephen Kinnock tweeted a photo of himself on a garden chair on a porch, several meters away from his parents, who were sitting on their front doorstep.

The South Wales police replied to Kinnock’s tweet to say that his visit had not counted as essential travel, and that he ought to observe the government’s guidelines. Kinnock replied in turn, explaining that he had used the trip to deliver essential supplies to his elderly parents.

The tweet, which attracted considerable social media attention, highlighted an important point: that the guidance, or advice given by officials, often goes a step further than the government legislation around lockdown behaviour.

Since Kinnock’s father was well over 70, it would have been contrary to government advice for them to leave the house. Travel to provide basic necessities and supplies for the vulnerable, as in Kinnock’s case, is allowed in the legislation.

The police’s—sometimes faulty—interpretation of the advice can prompt disproportionate action against those who are not breaking the law. This has popped up in a number of areas. On Monday, the Association of Convenience Stores (ACS) told the BBC that “heavy-handed” officials, including police and local councils, had been “misreading” the rules in cracking down on convenience stores selling Easter Eggs, calling them non-essential items.

The ACS told the stores to continue to sell a full range of products, as the shops themselves had already been deemed essential, and there was no official definition of what could be sold within them. Such treat-based confusion is clearly widespread—Peterborough police posted a reprimand on their Facebook page after discovering a driver with a “non-essential” chocolate bar on the passenger seat.

Exercise is another area in which abiding by the letter of the law has fallen short of police expectations. Over the weekend, the Derbyshire police drew attention for using drones to film walkers on the Peak District. The police admonished those walkers for driving to take their exercise, and said that peoples’ number plates had been pulled. In response, the NPCC’s lead for out of court disposals, Deputy Chief Constable Sara Glen, said it was not illegal to drive somewhere for a walk or exercise outside more than once a day.

While the police’s intentions are noble, over-extending themselves in their interpretation of advice could prove counterproductive. According to nudge theory—widely used by governments to affect populations’ behaviour—people are more likely to consider new behaviours normal and achievable when they see regular examples of them.

While police forces might reasonably consider it a deterrent to publicise  “rogue” walkers, or contraband parties, highlighting compliance might be a more effective means of persuading people that abiding by the rules is normal. “Well done for doing a considerate weekly shop” could be a more useful message than “we’re in absolute shock over this party.”

This is in the force's interests as much as the public's. The emerging culture of police telling tales on lockdown-flouters on social media has already encouraged some clap-back. Netpol, an account which monitors police behaviour, is awash with reports of police disregarding lockdown legislation—and warnings about orders issued without legal authority. Each such report, whether or not it is true, adds to the aura of suspicion.

Encouraging an atmosphere in which curtain-twitchers tell tales on each other also puts more pressure on the force’s staggering workload. There has already been a surge in 999 calls from people who report seeing their neighbours take more than one form of outdoor exercise, creating a huge distraction for an official body still dealing with serious crimes. Fools’ errands—like a raid on a Liverpool nightclub which turned out to be empty—cost precious time and manpower.

With limited resources and ever-increasing responsibilities, an atmosphere of mutual trust between the police force and the public will be critical to ensure the sustainability of emergency measures. In Italy, where a national lockdown has already been in place for three weeks, signs of strain are already showing. Amidst increasing discomfort at being kept indoors, rising unemployment and socio-economic uncertainty, instances of civil unrest have been rising, with supermarkets being robbed, and gangs exploiting a destabilised system.

In order for the UK to maintain its lockdown with minimal additional disruption, absolute clarity and co-operation—both on behalf of the police and the public—will be necessary. In an era already defined by anxiety and uncertainty, trust in law enforcement will prove crucial to maintaining social order, and stemming the spread of coronavirus. Both the police and the public must be aware of the lawfulness of their behaviour, with the best examples of both, rather than misinformed chastisements, being celebrated.