Don't miss the very interesting historical perspective in the middle of the article: > Arming the force would, say opponents, undermine the principle of polici

Don't miss the very interesting historical perspective in the middle of the article: > Arming the force would, say opponents, undermine the principle of policing by consent - the notion that the force owes its primary duty to the public, rather than to the state, as in other countries. > This owes much to the historical foundations of British criminal justice, says Peter Waddington, professor of social policy at the University of Wolverhampton. > "A great deal of what we take as normal about policing was set out in the early 19th Century," he says. > "When Robert Peel formed the Metropolitan Police there was a very strong fear of the military - the masses feared the new force would be oppressive." > A force that did not routinely carry firearms - and wore blue rather than red, which was associated with the infantry - was part of this effort to distinguish the early "Peelers" from the Army, Waddington says. That's widely different from the Robocop mentality at play in the States (from what I can tell from the article).