With respect, I really don't care whether the IO was candid about this incident or not. Turner was apparently "approached by two men, who refused to identify themselves, but demanded that he show them some ID". AFAIK, you have to give your personal particulars to a police officer, if he has reasonable grounds to ask for them, but you are not required to produce identification in this country, and you are certainly not required to give to to unidentified strangers! He was then arrested, searched in public, handcuffed and unlawfully detained. This isn't even remotely funny, it's frightening.
The IO "apologised for the delay explaining that "special branch" had claimed that the burden of proof required to lawfully arrest under terrorist legislation was somewhat less than it is under other legislation, and that they believed Mr Turners arrest to have been lawful. For that reason, Kent Police had sought the advice of legal counsel".
This was nothing more than an expensive ex post facto attempt to justify this unlawful arrest once the media got involved by citing SB, the anti-terrorism laws and consulting counsel because an ignorant police officer exercised very poor professional judgement in dealing with a man who was taking photographs, quite lawfully, in a public place. The WPC didn't even mention the anti-terrorism laws, or explain why he was being arrested, other than telling him that she felt "intimidated" by his size, which strongly suggests that she is unfit to be a police officer.
My main concern is this arbitrary misuse of authority, and the sense that the police can effectively do as they please, and rely on the wide powers conferred by the anti-terrorism laws if necessary. It's dangerous, unhealthy and will cost the police their traditional, and deserved, respect from the public.