On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:30:58 +0000, Arthur Figgis
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008 17:46:21 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 17:25:56 on
Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Peter Masson remarked:
However, the Public Order Act creates the offence of 'in a public place
using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour whereby a
breach of the peace was likely to be occasioned' and someone taking
photographs of children so that their parents took exception could well
fall foul of this.
Which of those activities would be, just the "threatening", or some of
the others?

And why isn't a parent's reaction equally threatening and/or abusive?
That would be up to the police officer or magistrate who had to deal with
the situation.
It doesn't seem to me that taking a photo will often be "threatening"
within the meaning of this law. Whereas expressing a desire to thump the
photographer, is.

AFAIR where anticipation of a simple breach of the peace is concerned
(without resorting to the POA) then any party taking part is liable to
arrest if necessary to prevent the anticipated breach.

So could someone be nicked for being openly insert minority of choice
in a place where national front types happened to be able to see them?
Perhaps wearing a skullcap or turban in the same park as a Combat 18
picnic, or something.

I think that might be at least a theoretical "yes" as IMU the person
being arrested does not have to be behaving criminally (in the usual
sense) if it is dealt with as a Common Law (England and Wales) breach
of the peace which is either occurring or anticipated but the
behaviour falls short of the Public Order Acts standard for
prosecution. At worst they are probably going to get a binding over
order without IIRC a criminal record if they aren't just released
later after being removed from the vicinity.