|
I wondered if it might. I think the 'too tall' angle is misleading, actually. He was arrested because he took a photo of a police officer and she felt it was "obstructive", at least that's what she said as she arrested him.
But later she said she'd arrested him because she'd felt intimidated. So which is it?
And what do either of those things have to do with Section 44?
I think he just pissed her off and she thought she'd put the frighteners on him.
Also, they searched his feet/shoes, which is illegal in the street AIUI.
And the only reason he declined to give details in the first place was because the dog-turd inspectors couldn't tell him under what authority they were asking.
I mean, FFS:
"Can I have your name please?"
"On what grounds are you asking me?"
"I don't know."
Correct answer should have been, "Well sir, I'm empowered by the police to ask people for their details when their dog shits on the pavement or they drop some litter, and I thought I'd extend my remit somewhat, of my own accord, to someone taking photos."
Utterly ludicrous behaviour.
--
|
