This article is pretty extraordinary and it's tiresome to have to do this, but this is important. So here goes. cc @HCH_Hill. https://twitter.com/ConHome/status/1276757258450407425

1. To suggest Peel's principles justify the use of militaristic police methods is ahistorical ignorance. He explicitly set up the Metropolitan Police as a *civilian* force with non-military uniforms and customs, and emphasised that constables were "the public", not soldiers.

2. Defining the police mission as "prevention" rather than "enforcement" was deliberate - and is *the* key insight of the philosophy: the only sustainable way to reduce crime is to increase trust in the fair operation of the law, not by exerting violence. i.e. policing by consent

3. The CNC and MODP are not normal police constabularies. They are established under separate legislation to Home Office forces, not accountable to local people, and are specialist armed police services. To apply that model to public order is antithetical to Peel's model.

4. The British model, which resists routine arming of officers, use of water cannon etc to quell disorder, and instead builds trust in the community, has stood up well. The European and US models of controlling riots through excessive force tends to escalatr and extend violence.

5. None of this is to say that the police should not use their existing powers to arrest those breaking the law and ensure they are brought to justice on behalf of the public quickly. It's essential that they do. But they don't need hostile new units or imported methods to do it.