The purpose of Covid-19 (CV) regulations is to stop the virus and save lives. The approach of UK Government (UKGOV) and the police to ensuring observance is “engage, explain, encourage”. Neighbours becoming informers chips away at trust and privacy at the heart of UK freedom.
CORNISH NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH AND THE ENFORCEMENT DILEMMA
Cornish residents reported to the local council 650 holiday lettings and usage of second homes in a period of five days, following a request by the council for such reports, according to the Times of 9th April. It is correct that holiday lettings are supposed to have ceased. The second home position is less clear as the very expression “second homer” implies a particular set of facts but in reality the facts will depend on the circumstances in each case. Also, the regulations make no use of that expression. It is however clear that no person may leave the place where they are living without reasonable excuse. The bigger question this episode raises is the degree to which it is a good thing for people to become judges of the behaviour of their neighbours and spies for the authorities? Do the police really want the busy body public calling them about the regularity of their neighbour’s movements from their house or the contents of their shopping bag?
Other reports exist of residents criticising people travelling by car to their place of work, even health workers to hospital. On the other hand , Manchester and Northampton police authorities each have reported concerns about the number of house parties occurring – where clearly people must have left the place they live in order to attend – and this has prompted the Police Federation of England and Wales to seek enhanced powers of entry to property to stop such events. Are not powers to enter where a crime is suspected sufficient? At least Priti Patel, Home Secretary, is rejecting the request and also other hard lines potentially to be taken by the police in certain areas: for example, Nick Adderley, Chief Constable for Northampton, has now clarified that his force is not adopting an approach of searching supermarket trolleys or setting up road blocks. Such an approach could easily undermine the consensual bargain between public and police which underpins enforceability of laws. It is however again to be hoped that over Easter weekend, such house parties and large social public gatherings will have been few and far between, so rendering it unnecessary for police to have to walk the tightrope of persuasion and education versus fines and physical enforcement.
GOVERNMENT MINISTER UNDER A MICROSCOPE
The newspapers of 10th April ( Guardian, Daily Mail, Telegraph and Times) all carried reports of Robert Jenrick, Minister for Housing, having travelled 40 miles to his self-isolating elderly parents, to deliver from a safe distance food and medical supplies; and calling into question the propriety of the visit, particularly as, in his role as a UKGOV spokesman, he was publicly urging the public to stay at home, other than for permitted reasons. The focus of media was on whether this was essential travel – not a concept in the rules but a nice round phrase which sadly may have the effect of extending them. Whether he travelled 40 yards or 40 miles, distance is perhaps irrelevant. Obtaining food for the vulnerable is so clearly ok that why was such a fuss made? Another agenda, or just the voracious desire to catch out and embarrass? The more concerning aspect was that a neighbour “witness” is said to have reported seeing Robert Jenrick in his parents’ front garden. Another case of a neighbour policing their neighbours?
CHIPPING AWAY AT FREEDOM, TRUST AND PRIVACY
Those recorded examples of reporting of neighbours seem petty. They are. There is however a balance to be struck. Police need the public to inform them of suspicious activity which may be part of serious crime, such as terrorism, drugs dealing, human trafficking and other serious anti-social behaviour. Equally perhaps the last thing authorities want is for every minor breach of regulation to be brought to their attention – at the moment, for example, people out today legitimately shopping or exercising will break regularly but not maliciously the 2metre distancing rule even if just for a couple of seconds. At the other end of the scale a 100 people party in an urban centre may need to be dealt with. Another example: it is not unusual also for residents of an area to be given speed cameras to check on motorists’ speed limit adherence – this certainly gets closer to undesirable undermining of social relationships. The UK has perhaps as wide a surveillance camera coverage as any country in the world – vital today for gathering evidence of crime and potential crime, but very intrusive on privacy. The development of Apps to help combat the CV crisis may result in tracking of whereabouts and the identity of people encountered, with some benefits, but also a further step for big brother. It seems today that it is best to assume that no personal data is safe, and with an iPhone privacy is foregone.
It will be an unfortunate by product of the CV war if a culture of informing on our neighbour becomes acceptable and so chips away further at freedom, trust and privacy which underpin the UK’s special society. Once lost, it will be very hard to recover it. The regimes of Nazi Germany, Eastern European and Russian Communism provide historic lessons, and maybe there are modern regimes today where similar authoritarian control is advancing apace and being extended under the camouflage of the CV crisis. Perhaps in the UK the public should think twice about the culpability of their neighbour and the seriousness of their misdemeanours against the purity of broad guidelines. If the police are being asked to persuade and educate, surely neighbours can discuss not accuse or inform?
NON-ESSENTIAL TRAVEL? – RURAL AND SEASIDE VISITORS WITH A PLACE OF THEIR OWN
The non-event over visiting his parents contrasts sharply with the press furore over the decision of Robert Jenrick’s family to live for a while at their house in Herefordshire. The Telegraph and Guardian of 11 April questioned whether this is a “second home” and so suggest the Jenricks cannot be there because of the terms of guidelines on second home visiting – which is not the same as living there for the time being. Some MPs call for his resignation. Maybe this is a case where hounding him out of office is unjustified; but with the Guardian and Telegraph devoting full page or more spreads to the issue, as judge and jury, quoting a neighbour in Herefordshire giving judgement on the application of the rules to the facts, once again he may not survive the opprobrium. Tories such as Anna Soubry (presumably with no axe to grind) add their demands for a scalp. Maybe coming and going is wrong. But living permanently for a sustained period by choice in a house one owns seems reasonable: and the rules are clear that a person may leave where they are living for reasons of work (and presumably return there) – perhaps Robert Jenrick did that? For example, if a vulnerable person chose not to live in their urban home for say 3 months but decamped to a rural retreat to minimise CV risk; or if parents decided their asthmatic child would be better off for a period in the seaside home instead, common sense says ok, that is where they are living.
It is right for now that people with a second property in a less populated area should not come and go from and to it, for common sense reasons let alone guidelines. These “visitors” (and it is believed there are some 3 million of them) with a second property which they visit (Visitors) and spend perhaps as much time as they can there, are neighbours to the people who were born in the communities and normally it is hoped each category treats the other respectfully. That should not change now. It will be the case in some of these communities that their economies depend on the Visitors to a large degree and the Visitors may be well integrated. If local communities and Visitors are each sensible and respectful, their relationships will emerge intact from the time of CV. And, come the Summer, the communities may be hoping very much for the arrival. Of the Visitors and the major contribution they make to local businesses. If the fear of overwhelming local healthcare provisions goes away, establishing herd immunity locally will matter and there will be no reason for Visitors and tourists to stay away. That should be borne in mind when a local resident considers “shopping” Visitors to the authorities for non-observance of guidelines.
