In reply to Richard Baynes:
> (In reply to off-duty)
> [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Yes it is, and it might pay you to think about why a repeated question, without an explanation, annoys people.
Absolutely. And it might be worth considering why you got annoyed and refused to answer a perfectly reasonable question, on it's first time of asking, with a genuine reason - to clarify the situation, on a totally different media - the internet.
For what little it's worth my posting was limited due to using a smartphone.
> You're right there, and I am wrong, but the problem is that as a member of the public, in a hurry, I am all too aware of the likely outcome If I was to say no thanks, officer, I don't want to talk to you.
>
> I haven't suggested it's a police state, merely that the reason given for stopping me was flimsy, and they were just having a tug at the expense of a member of the public's valuable time because they had nothing better to do.
>
A tug would involve a search. Having a very brief conversation could lead to anything - from the arrest of al-Qaeda's most wanted, to some info about some dodgy characters round the corner, to some directions, or even advice - "the last bus has gone" etc, to a chat about the weather or discussion about climbing, or even a " Thanks for your time, sorry about your toothache, can we run you round the corner?".
> I am certainly open to arguments about whether my mild irritation at their behaviour is justified. If there had been a breach of PACE I think I would have been more than mildly irritated.
And you would have had grounds for a complaint, but... Were you searched?