When did this bit of Orwellian crap occur? I thought 'right to remain silent' was unassailable. This f. country is definitely now a Police state and they wonder why so many young people challenge their oppression under ASBO.

That's the final straw of any respect I had left for British law. This is overtly a tool for fascists - being able to stop people in the street and ask their name address and date of birth is the first step towards 'show me your papers' when the ID card is forced on us.

Q. Can a person simply walk away and say 'unless you are arresting me then I'm going about my business, stop obstructing me'

No they can't just stop someone in the street and demand name and address at the moment, the POA "power" to demand name and address is of someone who has been arrested or is accused of an offence, that they can demand name and address so they can send a court summons. I'm not a lawyer but I think it's dubious whether this would hold up in this case even if he hadn't given name and address - he would have to be accused of some other offence for them to use the power - presumably they claimed he was being charged with aggravated trespass or something. When introduced this was the one exception to the right to silence (this had been further eroded since, by for instance the "failure to inform" provision of "terrorism" laws, and announcing in court if someone was noncooperative under the Criminal Justice Act). If the law specifies "name and address" and does not say further details then I would expect a quick drop of charges/acquittal and subsequent case for wrongful arrest and malicious prosecution.

There's a more sinister version of this power which popped up in the NECTU handbook found at climate camp, which says that under a recent anti-social behaviour law they can demand name and address if they "suspect" someone has been or might be involved in "anti-social behaviour" (not necessarily illegal behaviour as such) - they might have been using this at Climate Camp to demand details on arrival.

So technically someone could still say "I'm not giving details" and walk away... police could then in principle arrest them "for not giving details under suspicion of anti-social behaviour" and it would be up to a court to decide whether they had such "suspicion" in good faith or not. Which of course would be rather touch-and-go

There was also talk of bringing in unlimited "stop and question" powers last year, which seem to have vanished - probably because police decided they could use what they already have in this way.

Incidentally, Washington DC has recently brought in police checkpoints on the roads where people (drivers only, not pedestrians) have to prove their identity (ID card) and a "valid reason" to be in the area (visiting friends or passing through are not "valid reasons") - these are introduced for a short period, supposedly "to curb crime", in African-American areas - basically it's the Palestine model of oppression being introduced a step at a time.