But as a matter of policy, who is really the one being threatening here? The man bristling at the government collecting personal data or the police officer with backup and (presumably) violent means of arresting the man?
(I'm not saying that I agree with this, but it is the argument being used).
Officer, arrest them! They are intimidating me by their refusal to respect my human rights!
It's kind of a slippery slope once you start trying to carve the troublemakers out from the public. That action can even be said to be incitory by it's nature.
Perhaps the police should arrest themselves for being a walking intimidation tool for the majority?
Dirty business that. If you're not interfering in a clearly criminal act, you are just acting as an intimidation force. Unjustified weaponization of suspicion can be just as harmful to a Law Enforcement Organiztion's legitimacy as unjustified use of lethal force.
The criminals you avoid creating through mounting I'll will and despair from the inevitable taint of interacting with the legal system will be a net gain for society.
I'm not saying without Leo's there would be no criminals; rather that continual nuisance and intrusion of the Systems in law abiding citizen's lives only serves to push more of the population toward unrest.
I'd advocate showing nothing but contempt to a police officer who refuses to let me go about my business when I have committed no crimes.
Well I'm sure the UK has professionals who can help you with these feelings of anxiety and dread
But sure, intonation is a thing. "I beg your pardon" can be said in a threatening way.