Opinion: Rugby Police should be praised for their Peelian approach to the Coronavirus Act

Credit must be given this week to Rugby’s police officers – who have made it clear with words and actions that Robert Peel, the founder of modern policing in this country, is on their minds.

Last week the Coronavirus Act became law.

It gives a variety of institutions, including the police, power that is arguably unprecedented.

I think I speak for many when I say I didn’t want to see these powers having to become law in a society with a strong tradition of liberty.

The prime minister initially showed a reluctance – but perhaps his hand was forced when we saw the selfish continue to ignore social distancing advice.

I think we all hoped that people would be thoughtful enough to take steps to protect themselves and others without having to be forced to do so with profound new laws.

But a small number of people ruined it for the rest of us - we probably all saw the reports of tourist hot spots seeing record numbers of visitors over the weekend of March 21-22.

By all accounts, the new laws are having an effect, but in recent days some police forces elsewhere in the country have been criticised for what some commentators dubbed 'overzealous policing of the new rules.'

Some more extreme pundits have started to throw '1984' references around - perhaps not taking into account that officers were trying to navigate unprecedented legislation during a public health emergency - a situation that could understandably give rise to some confusion over how best to apply the new powers.

It's also apparent that police forces across the country might feel under an enormous amount of pressure to be seen to be taking tough action against those who think they are too important to follow social distancing measures.

Very quickly, Rugby Police made it clear in an online statement that policing by consent (one of Robert Peel’s key values) still stands, and that their first action with those ignoring social distancing will be to engage and persuade.

And in the days that came after, the force posted updates on its dealings with those found flouting the new laws - all of affirmed that officers had been using advice and persuasion as the first course of action.

Let's be realistic here - I think most of us would get a little buzz of satisfaction if we heard that the idiots continuing to flout lifesaving social distancing measures were subjected to a zero-tolerance policy.

But our police are built on a Peelian tradition of restraint and policing by consent – to ask them to potentially damage that tradition is short-sighted.

And although that point is hard to hold onto when you hear of the prize-winning idiots who are putting themselves and others at risk by ignoring the health advice - it's a point that, I think, is worth keeping in mind.

Obviously, I think almost all of us can agree that those ignorant enough to ignore officers who advise them to go home are more than deserving of a fine.