First Dominic Cummings exemptions, now BLM political protesters!

Call to refund all social distancing fines imposed to date…

Government accused of double standards.

The government’s policy on gatherings and social distancing was always going to head the buffers at some time; it was just a question of when.

For a country which traditionally has enjoyed the freedom to protest and demonstrate on a variety of political issues, the new lockdown rules on restricting gatherings, including political ones, were alien to the British public and was never going to be popular.

Many have been against this from day one, but have not risked the force of the law being applied to them.

However, it took until the weekend of 30th May, the previous weekend, for anti-lockdown protests to take place. Many were arrested and fined at Hyde Park in London for breaching the government’s rules on gatherings and social distancing.

In the lead up to this taking place, these anti-lockdown protests (which were organised for other cities too) by what is called the “UK Freedom Movement,” were heavily criticised by the government.

The promotion of the planned protests was censored on social media platforms, and people were warned off from attending by the government. Those thinking of attending were told that they would face the full force of the law, and anyone attending was irresponsible, not thinking of others, and could spread COVID-19 by doing so.

It was not surprising that in such circumstances, the numbers were low, with estimates of between 50 and 200 at the Hyde Park meeting.

Piers Corbyn, former local Councillor and brother of Jeremy, was attacked as a right-wing conspiracy theorist and much more.

It is interesting to contrast this with this weekend’s protests, which were heavily promoted by some of the media, and no censorship on social media.

The government, and indeed much of the media, could not have been more different.

Gone were the threats of arrest and fines, gone were the attacks on the irresponsibility of attending and breaching the laws on gatherings and social distancing.

Instead, there were simply calls on people not to attend with nothing else said, no warnings not to participate.

No one was called conspiracy theorists, extremists, or anything else derogatory.

Worse, the government and the police actually said they could understand why people wanted to protest and gave a vague pleading to those going to exercise social distancing.

The message was effectively: it is against the law to do this, but in your case, we are going to turn a blind eye as long as you do your best with social distancing.

In these circumstances, with much of the media promoting these Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests too, it was perhaps surprising there were not many thousands more attending them.

It had been turned into a sort of trendy must go to, me#too event.

Anyone with any sense could have seen these protests were going to end in disaster.

If a government gives the impression that lawbreaking is okay, then you will encourage people to break the laws even more badly.

And this is exactly what happened. Numerous police were injured, particularly in London, when fireworks, bicycles, and more were hurled at the police. A mounted policewoman was thrown off her horse, which bolted and had her ribs smashed. In London, also, a statue of wartime Prime Minister Winston Churchill was defaced with “he is a racist” slogans.

It is no use some of the BLM friendly media saying that most of the protesters were peaceful. That is not the point. They should not have been there anyway breaking the law.

It was obvious that it was going to be virtually impossible not to break the law.

The government and police would have been aware of the major violence and extensive looting ( or sacking) of shopping centres in the USA, which had come about as a result of the American BLM protests there.

They were only prevented from being worse by strong police and national guard responses.

In these circumstances, even though the UK is very different to the USA, it was still the height of risk-taking, to take such a complacent attitude to the UK BLM protests.

In Bristol, the situation became so out of hand that protesters had the time to use ropes to haul down a heavy statue of prominent city personality and slave trader, Edward Colston.

The police did absolutely nothing as the statue was daubed with paint, trampled upon, and hauled to the harbour where it was rolled into the water.

Disturbingly, the senior officer in Bristol said he had “no regrets” about not intervening to stop this vandalism, even though it would have been easy to do so. Is the marker for future policing in the country, that police will not prevent such actions if they support the political causes concerned? Are not the police supposed to be enforcers of the laws of the country, not the enablers of political causes getting out of hand?

This was undoubtedly a day when the government lost control of law and order and surrendered to mob rule and criminal behaviour.

Priti Patel, the Home Secretary, was reduced to condemning the actions of the BLM protesters over the weekend, but that was too late after the horse had bolted ( very much in the true sense of the word).

Remember that the government previously had 20,000 troops on standby in case they had problems with the public objecting to their lockdown policies. This was recently reduced to 10,000, but they were available, but not used. In fact, they were not needed as the only fault was the inaction of the police, which was solely the responsibility of their senior officers and political masters. Front line officers were, in reality, put at risk by such lack of action.

Questions were asked about where was the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, but both he and the Home Secretary have to share the blame for the turn of events at the weekend.

After the events of the weekend, the PM tweeted that protesters had “no right to attack the police” and that “the demonstrations had been subverted by thuggery.” All totally correct, but he continued with the mixed government message of “people have a right to protest peacefully and while exercising social distancing.” No mention of it being against the law to have gatherings of more than six people.

It is blatantly obvious that the government, perhaps unwittingly, with the help of the BLM protesters, have torpedoed the lockdown social gatherings policy.

The BLM protesters clearly do not support it; otherwise, they would not be “risking” their health and that of others by breaching the lockdown rules.

That applies especially to those from the BAME community in the protests as it is well known they are at much higher risk of catching the COVID-19 virus.

This weekend a number of people out and about having normal non- political social activity in parks and beaches were fined for social gatherings and social distancing infringements.

On the spot fines of £1OO.

How can the government allow blatant breaching of its laws because those concerned are supporters of a particular political campaign, BLM, yet punish everyone else who breaks those same laws? It is inconsistent and unfair.

There were no such fines and arrests for breaking the law for those attending the BLM protests. The only arrests were a few for criminal damage and breach of the peace, with many not even being charged for these serious offences.

The government policy is in tatters because of their double standards and hypocrisy.

The only fair way forward is to refund all those who have been fined and arrested for social distancing type offences. It is not equitable to have one law for one set of the people (the general public) and another for others (people who are considered morally superior and therefore exempt from the laws which apply to everyone else).

It is outrageous to have laws that do not apply to everyone and which the government applies in a politically correct way.

People are already saying, “ if the laws don’t apply to ‘Black Lives Matter’ protesters, then they don’t apply to us either!”

The policy is effectively dead and was halfway there after the Dominic Cummings scenario.

The government has no alternative but to end these unfairly enforced policies without delay.

It was a major mistake to implement them in the first place.