Calum MacPhee's letter of complaint to Glasgow police is self-explanatory:

Dear sir,
I am a hobby photographer who takes photographs around Glasgow of all manner of things; people, architecture, cityscapes, street scenes, or anything else that catches my attention.
About 14.00hrs on Wednesday 12 November, I was standing in West Regent Street near to Holland Street, just outside Police Headquarters. With my back to your building, I took three photographs of the colourful Ibis Hotel opposite and carried on my way. A voice behind me called out, "Excuse me, sir" and I turned to see a police officer beckon me. I walked back to see what he wanted and he demanded, in an officious manner, to know what I was doing and why.
I explained that I was photographing the appealing colours of the hotel but this did not satisfy him and he demanded to know what I did for a living, where I worked, and my name. I declined to discuss my employment status with him, pointing out that it was irrelevant to the situation. He became aggressive in his manner of questioning and continued to insist that I disclose my name and employment details. When I asked him if I was obliged to disclose my name and whether I was committing an offence by refusing, he replied that I was. When I challenged that, he cited, as authority for this claim, "the Common Laws of Scotland".

Note: this is completely bogus. The officer had no idea what he was talking about and I had to list his powers under section 13 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) 1995 for him.

I felt fearful for my safety and was alarmed by his behaviour. I was worried he might make up some pretext to arrest me or seize my camera. Despite this, I enquired whether I was under arrest, being detained as a suspect, or was a witness to a crime or offence and he conceded that I was none of these things. I told him that I would readily cooperate with the police in any way that the law obliged me to but that he had no reason to require my name or other details.
This clearly angered him and he barked at me, "Right, stand over there!", pointing to a recessed part of the building which would take me out of general public view. I refused. He told me to stand against the wall and I asked him if I was now under arrest or being detained. He said, "No" so I again refused, explaining that while I was not under arrest I would not submit to his directions.I was astonished, and felt most threatened, when the officer now said to me, "Right mate, we can either do this the easy way or the hard way."
He summoned a nearby colleague (in civilian clothing but whom he addressed as 'inspector') to whom I explained my actions and my reasons for not answering the questions put to me.

[What I actually said to this inspector was, "This sergeant is demanding I identify myself under some bogus "Common Laws of Scotland" power which I know does not exist other than in his head. I'm a hobby photographer taking various shots around the city, none of which includes any sensitive buildings. My actions are entirely lawful and this sergeant has no justification in demanding my details. I'm happy to co-operate with the police when they act within the law and within their remit. Street photography is not a police matter.]

To my relief, he concluded the proceedings by remarking that it was too cold to stand around all day arguing about it and I was allowed to go on my way.
At no time was I anything other than civil, reasoned, calm, and polite. I did nothing, save have the temerity to question the justification for the demands made of me, to warrant such threatening behaviour. This man bore the three stripes of a sergeant so it concerns me that less experienced constables on his shift, who will look to him for guidance, may regard his behaviour as the correct approach.
Had I placed a member of the public in a state of fear and alarm as your sergeant did with me, I would risk prosecution for a breach of the peace. I use my cameras on a daily basis, never leaving home without one. I do not want to face this type of questioning and harrassment from police officers who mistakenly view my innocent pastime as some sort of threat and I seek your assurance that your officers will be reminded of the rights of citizens to photograph freely in public.
I am a strong supporter of the police and understand the demands and pressures placed upon them however this officer is not an asset to the service and, if he is not given some guidance on dealing with the public, can only damage its reputation.

That's about it.

He didn't ask to see my camera or the photos I'd taken but it was clearly the act of photographing the hotel which caught his attention. Nor did he mention the old chestnut of 'terrorism' although he did refer to "these heightened times" and therefore his need to know what I was photographing.

After he failed to get any support from his senior colleague, I walked on a few yards, switched lenses and took some more shots.

I didn't quite have the balls to get one of the policeman with steam whistling from his ears!

Since my complaint I've had a visit from the police, with a full acknowledgement that the cop was completely in the wrong, and an apology for what happened. No defence of his actions was offered.

It was hinted that I might now drop the complaint but I asked for the weekend to consider it.

Instead, I have agreed with the police that the complaint remains formally recorded but that I am prepared to accept the apology and the admission that the cop involved was entirely in the wrong. With that in mind, I've told them that I won't ask them to take any further action.

Calum MacPhee