Yes, if we’re serious about stopping the spread of Covid, we really must arrest more women at vigils

We’re lucky to have a police force that cares about us so much, they arrest us to stop us getting ill

The police have been very clear, the reason they had to arrest women at the vigil last weekend was because they were breaking Covid regulations. We’re lucky to have a police force that cares about us so much, they arrest us to stop us getting ill.

Maybe this is why the government has announced a new law banning protests. They’re terrified that demonstrations will spread germs.

It’s the same in Myanmar. The army has been kind enough to arrest protestors, because staying out all day in the Burmese heat could lead to all sorts of skin problems in later years.

The chief of police, Dame Cressida Dick, excused the police behaviour, in which women were bundled to the floor, saying this was “fiendishly difficult policing”. It is a dilemma we all face in our lives. You’re walking up the street, perhaps to get some bread and milk, and you see a group of mourners outside a church, remembering someone they loved. At that moment, we face a fiendishly difficult choice. Do we pass by respectfully, or do we grab one of them, shove them face down on the floor, and handcuff them behind their back before hurling them into a van? These are the desperately awkward decisions the police are faced with.

Dame Cressida also replied to critics of police tactics, saying, “I won’t take notice of people who weren’t there”, though she wasn’t there, and all the people that were there confirm the police caused the scuffles. This means no one who either is or isn’t there can ever know what’s happening, which could lead to a major shake-up of our legal system.

And Dame Cressida can announce these changes by sitting in a field on acid, gazing at a twig while saying, “Reality is an illusion. How do we know anyone is actually… there?”

The people who normally defend the police after a confrontation have found their job a bit tricky, given the nature of the vigil, and that one woman who attended the event was Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Cambridge.

But they’re very skilful, so before long, columnists and politicians will claim that some of the women had nuclear weapons, and the police had been informed the virus is spread by candles, and that some of the protestors weren’t even real women, they were agitating duchesses from outside the area.

Other groups, such as celebrating Rangers fans, have been allowed to congregate in much bigger numbers, but that’s because Rangers fans are renowned for their calm, reflective behaviour, unlikely to spread a virus as they barely move or speak, and when they do it’s in the calming tone of those apps you put on when you can’t sleep. So you can’t compare them with rowdy candlelit vigils.

Read more:

• The EU’s vaccine war is daft, dangerous and counterproductive to fighting Covid
• A century after Lenin’s radical economic reforms, little has changed in Putin’s ‘modern’ Russia
• The government has cut grants for electric cars – but I can understand why

Despite the fiendishly difficult situation, and the lack of numbers that mean they can’t deal with almost any reported incidents of violence against women, the police have found the resources to protect the most vulnerable part of our society: statues.

Each night this week, several police officers stood guard around a Winston Churchill statue. This is a huge sign of progress, because for years, the feelings of statues have been tragically ignored. We all read the harrowing account of a statue of Simon de Montfort, who faced incessant bullying from a statue of Clive of India, continually mocking the size of his plinth. But that was in different times, when this sort of abuse was considered “banter”, so nothing was done.

Now, at last, the statues are being protected, and if that means women have to wait a bit longer before their complaints are dealt with, they’ll have to put up with it.

The new bill curtailing protests states that demonstrations will be banned if they are “annoying”. This leaves plenty of ways we’ll still be free to show our displeasure. For example, if there’s something you feel strongly about, such as the idea that black lives should matter, you will still be allowed to imagine negative thoughts about the government, as long as they in no way interfere with positive vibes towards anyone in authority.

The bill also states a protest can be banned if it is likely to cause “unease, alarm or distress”. So one solution might be to divert protests away from built-up areas such as London, to a forest in Bavaria, as long as the organisers can guarantee they will cause no unease, alarm or distress to easily startled chaffinches.

From now on, if you’re protesting about an issue, such as selling arms to appalling regimes, you must do so without risking causing distress to the people you’re protesting about, as this could affect the King of Saudi Arabia’s mental health, and that is simply unfair.

All the great protests of the past, that we applaud today, were carried out in this way, without causing any alarm or unease. The Suffragettes didn’t annoy people, they made their case by mowing the lawn. Nelson Mandela didn’t see the need to cause distress, he opposed apartheid by painting a series of watercolours. You didn’t see Martin Luther King causing alarm or unease by making angry speeches, he made his feelings known by staying indoors and watching a box set of Homes Under the Hammer.

And that’s how the world’s problems get solved. For example, look at the progress this government has made in understanding coronavirus. One year ago, they insisted huge horse racing and football events should go ahead, despite the virus starting to spread everywhere. Now they’re so committed to stopping it spreading, they make arrests at a vigil on a common.

So they’ve learned the lessons from past mistakes. We should all be encouraged by that.