That wasn't what I said - I said that he did not have to, not that it was necessarily considerate that he did not.
If you are acting suspiciously and a police officer asks you to identify yourself and you refuse then its an arrestable offence simple as. Note *i didnt say chargeable* (for those that will jump down my throat for that) The difference is palpable, i'll get to that later. Its different steps that help police do their job.
Or alternatively a member of the public got their nose out of joint for having their picture taken without their permission, who knows?
Exactly - its just speculation. What is not speculation is that the police received a report on suspicious behaviour and they are duty bound to investigate. In this instance it is just a photographer going about his business (and look at the fuss kicked up) if it turned out to be something much more insidious involving serious criminal activity and physical harm/injuries caused to members of the public and the police had not intervened/investigated or asked the person what they were doing and who they were etc there would be have been absolute uproar lambasting the police for not acting.
All the police did was investigate - that is their job.
Tit-for-tat is refusing to identify yourself to someone who has not done the same. Arresting someone for that isn't tit-for-tat, it's just being an arse because you can be.
Afaik the police that arrived suitably identified themselves so why does the photographer continue to withhold identity? Ok fair enough if initially he was "accosted" by the council workers who didnt identify themselves so he saw fit not to identify himself. But when police turn up why belabour his point? He then only divulged the information when "arrested" but like ive said it should never have gone that far. I blame the photographer for this.
Also, being arrested doesn't mean you will be charged. One of the police officers on here can clarify this but i'd be willing to bet there are
many many occasions where people are arrested and not charged. This is not a mistake or heavy-handedness by officers. (although imo it is often interpreted as such and people start wailing about rights being trodden on) If police have suspicion or enough evidence to warrant further investigation then arresting someone gives them more powers to pursue the inquiry further. e.g. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 may be used if it is deemed necessary to find out the person's name and address (among other things)
The extent of Police Powers to arrest
- anyone who has committed an offence, or is suspected thereof;
- anyone who is about to commit an offence, or is suspected thereof;
- anyone who is in the act of committing an offence, or is suspected thereof.
^^^ So of course innocent people can be arrested. How does one ascertain that someone is innocent? not by magic but by pursuing the investigation further and "arresting" the suspect allows them to do that.
Now its sad that the nowadays police have to resort to "arresting" to legally oblige people to part with the most
simple of information - but this is how society has become these days.
Has absolutely nothing to do with the police officer being an "arse" or whatever (in some instances it might but not in this instance we are talking about). They are just trying to do their job to protect the public.
Oh, those wooly liberals with their objections to people being arrested when they've broken no laws, they make me sick!
Like i said being arrested does not mean you have broken the law. Is that not up to whatever court the case comes to to decide?
For me the entire case has nothing to do with "how rights are being trodden upon" - for perhaps sun and news of the world readers maybe....
