His testimony is hearsay but relevant information for a defence to use - and use it they would. A pattern of provocation and a history of threatening behaviour from previous walkers in the area would be admissible and relevant.

So, here’s some different questions for you. Do you think it would be acceptable for a birder to carry a blood stained lead pipe around, not use it but police public use of footpaths by implication only. Could be a plumber with a nose bleed. Could be a psychopath. Who knows?

Do you think it would be acceptable for groups of white folks to stand around throwing black folks off golf courses for not wearing the right type of shoes… and doing so in a way that suggests the person might have an accident if they aren’t careful. If not, why not… those clubs do have rules on shoes.

I don’t know about you but I prefer matters to be sorted by a) the law and b) dispassionately by a jury. I don’t think the public should be encouraged to police each other and by extension I don’t think trial by social media is a good way to go. But hey, you’re welcome to bring back public policing because in this instance you identify with the put-upon Black birder….. I think it’ll be a pyrrhic victory and disproportionately harm minority groups, but that’s the difference between our positions on most things.