Martial law involves...
“suspension of civil law by a government, especially in response to a temporary emergency.”
Where that suspension is supported by the military—albeit tacitly as it is in the UK—you (quite explicitly) have martial law. I’m not alone in maintaining this position.
Obviously, most states that exercise martial law are loathed to concede that’s what’s occurring: how then to criticise other nations who don’t share your ideals? And such an open concession would compromise what’s needed most by most governments: blind support from the subjective perspectives the state itself nurtures (ie a civic-minded sense of self similar to yours).
Given I maintain a flicker of hope for your generic Western mind, it might be worth highlighting that some parts of the UK had the martial law, of the highly visible variety you refer to, as recently as the 1990s. The notion and the principle is scarcely ‘out there’.
And some of the administration responsible continue to constitute the British government today. They wouldn’t hesitate to deploy troops to enforce the lockdown should it be required. Make no mistake. In your current condition, you would doubtless support this and (under the auspices of the BBC) continue to deny its martial status.
But Hovis? He’s in La La Land right? It could never happen.
‘You are sleeping. You do not want to believe. You are sleeping. You do not want to believe’.