This is probably *the* false choice underpinning the misrepresentation of the Principles. What if, as in 2011, more active enforcement - or 'exerting violence' - is what the public expect of the fair operation of the law? https://twitter.com/Will_Tanner/status/1276805945083953159

Peel's principles have been in place since 1829. The new, softly-softly approach to riot policing is at best a couple of decades old. It is to suggest the Principles *don't* sit comfortably alongside tough policing which ignores their text and history. https://twitter.com/Will_Tanner/status/1276805944039661569?s=20

Note that Tanner is again trying to imply I'm calling for an armed force. Not so. I suggest combining their *organisational template* - separate, specialist, UK-wide jurisdiction - with the *operational template* of the existing Territorial Support Group. https://twitter.com/Will_Tanner/status/1276805946208071686?s=20

Finally, the idea that prevention is better than enforcement reflects that prevention is upstream of enforcement. It does not mean that if prevention fails, you should not enforce. As we are seeing now, failing to enforce undermines prevention. https://twitter.com/Will_Tanner/status/1276805945083953159?s=20

I'll finish by pointing out that one of our articles refers closely and often to what the Peelian Principles actually say, and it isn't Tanner's. https://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2020/06/the-peelian-principles-do-not-prohibit-much-tougher-public-order-policing-they-mandate-it.html