O/T Which jab have you had?

[KerrAvon]

Good points on distinction between serious and non serious terminology, fair enough.

What this boils down to, if I'm understanding the bill correctly, is that Patel or any future home secretary now has the power to outlaw any suggested protest that she feels may cause "serious annoyance" to the local community?

Are you in favour of that?

What planned protest, even a well organised peaceful one, that involves closing down streets and rerouting traffic, will not cause serious annoyance to the local community? We are Londoners, city people are city people, and that is part and parcel of what we accept as city living, it is where large scale protests are organised.

Is it a problem of trust: do we trust that this or future home secretaries will still permit the vast majority of planned protests such as BLM and counter BLMs last year and historically the poll tax and Iraq protests, or will these new powers be used to shut them down? Do you think that the home secretary should have these powers and will use them with goodwill, allowing mass protest to still go ahead?

Straw manning again, I didn't say I was against the bill and am open to how police can be empowered to shut down extremist agitators. But do we lose more than we gain with the bill in it's current form and current 'annoying' wording? And under this bill, would old Grist be allowed to join a mass protest against the cancellation of Brexit?

Out of interest, which parts of the bill do you not approve of?

I've repeatedly pointed out that it is a senior police officer who makes 'reasonable belief' decisions and you say that you have read the bill. Despite that, you repeatedly refer to the Home Secretrary... No you are not 'understanding the bill correctly' and may wish to read it again.

So your argument is that rerouting traffic etc., causes serious annoyance to the local community and in the next breath say that people in London are used to it? Whilst the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, you are getting very close to that.

You have exposed a further deficiency in your reading of the bill, I think. 'Annoyance' only appears within the proposed statutory offence of public nuisance and not the protest provisions. As I have explained, public nuisance is already a common law offence, which means that its definition has been determined by judges over the last few centuries. In proposing to make it a statutory offence, the government is merely giving it a fixed definition that gives more certainty about what it involves. They are also simply giving effect to the recommendations of the Law Commision (an indepenedent body), which reported on the subject in 2015:

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...public-decency

I know that it is a matter of trust. That has been clear from the outset given your repeated references to the Home Secretary and your mistaken belief that the bill gives her powers to ban marches. If the people of this country had decided that Johnson was the less palatable of the two PMs that were on offer in 2019 and it was a Labour government that was bringing this bill forward to 'protect immigrant communties from harassment and London colleges from being disrupted from teaching critical race theory by the EDL', or similar, you would be cooing away about how wonderful it was that the government were protecting communities.

I won't respond to your straw manning point as it is based upon your incorrect reading of the bill and consequential belief that the word 'annoyance' appears in the protest provsions.

I think that bringing in an offence of damaging public monuments is populist nonsense and an uneccessary complication of the law. the Criminal Damage Act 1971 covers that behaviour.

[the_idiotb_stardson]

The lefties dont half make me laugh.

Throughout the last 18 months there has been a constant refrain of 'tories are crooks' ' Boris is liar' ' 'you cannot trust this tory govt'
' all Johnson interested in his profit' ' the tories are ripping us off' 'f*ck of Boris' etc


Boris then announces that the vaccine is safe and all the lefties go ' ok mate, no problem'.

[gm_gm]

The lefties dont half make me laugh.

Throughout the last 18 months there has been a constant refrain of 'tories are crooks' ' Boris is liar' ' 'you cannot trust this tory govt'
' all Johnson interested in his profit' ' the tories are ripping us off' 'f*ck of Boris' etc


Boris then announces that the vaccine is safe and all the lefties go ' ok mate, no problem'.

Same with Thatcher and right to buy IBS

[great_fire]

The lefties dont half make me laugh.

Throughout the last 18 months there has been a constant refrain of 'tories are crooks' ' Boris is liar' ' 'you cannot trust this tory govt'
' all Johnson interested in his profit' ' the tories are ripping us off' 'f*ck of Boris' etc


Boris then announces that the vaccine is safe and all the lefties go ' ok mate, no problem'.

Not to mention the Brexiteers who've spent 4 years calling the BBC liars and now believe they've as honest as the day is long.

[ragingpup]

I've repeatedly pointed out that it is a senior police officer who makes 'reasonable belief' decisions and you say that you have read the bill. Despite that, you repeatedly refer to the Home Secretrary... No you are not 'understanding the bill correctly' and may wish to read it again.

So your argument is that rerouting traffic etc., causes serious annoyance to the local community and in the next breath say that people in London are used to it? Whilst the two aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, you are getting very close to that.

You have exposed a further deficiency in your reading of the bill, I think. 'Annoyance' only appears within the proposed statutory offence of public nuisance and not the protest provisions. As I have explained, public nuisance is already a common law offence, which means that its definition has been determined by judges over the last few centuries. In proposing to make it a statutory offence, the government is merely giving it a fixed definition that gives more certainty about what it involves. They are also simply giving effect to the recommendations of the Law Commision (an indepenedent body), which reported on the subject in 2015:

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...public-decency

I know that it is a matter of trust. That has been clear from the outset given your repeated references to the Home Secretary and your mistaken belief that the bill gives her powers to ban marches. If the people of this country had decided that Johnson was the less palatable of the two PMs that were on offer in 2019 and it was a Labour government that was bringing this bill forward to 'protect immigrant communties from harassment and London colleges from being disrupted from teaching critical race theory by the EDL', or similar, you would be cooing away about how wonderful it was that the government were protecting communities.

I won't respond to your straw manning point as it is based upon your incorrect reading of the bill and consequential belief that the word 'annoyance' appears in the protest provsions.

I think that bringing in an offence of damaging public monuments is populist nonsense and an uneccessary complication of the law. the Criminal Damage Act 1971 covers that behaviour.

I keep referring to the new powers given to the home secretary deliberately to emphasise that this bill would give her (and others after) the power to define "serious disruption" through secondary legislation, and without scrutiny. Effectively this gives her (and others) the power to decide whether individual protests can go ahead.

Do you find it impossible to have a discussion without recourse to childish personal remarks? Who the **** teaches critical race theory except in the culture wars you and your government seem to cherish? (I can lower myself too!) You seem to imply that I would approve these powers if coming from a leftist government, but the whole point of me framing the question as whether Grist could protest if Brexit was cancelled was to emphasise that we should protect our freedom to protest for whatever cause as frequently the faith we put in elected politicians can let us down.

[KerrAvon]

I keep referring to the new powers given to the home secretary deliberately to emphasise that this bill would give her (and others after) the power to define "serious disruption" through secondary legislation, and without scrutiny. Effectively this gives her (and others) the power to decide whether individual protests can go ahead.

Do you find it impossible to have a discussion without recourse to childish personal remarks? Who the **** teaches critical race theory except in the culture wars you and your government seem to cherish? (I can lower myself too!) You seem to imply that I would approve these powers if coming from a leftist government, but the whole point of me framing the question as whether Grist could protest if Brexit was cancelled was to emphasise that we should protect our freedom to protest for whatever cause as frequently the faith we put in elected politicians can let us down.

So you are now conceding that the Home Secretary does not make 'reasonable belief' decisions and that when referring to her having the power to do so your were wrong? Progress!

Are you also conceding that your reference to 'annoyance' in the context of the protest provions was also completely incorrect?

Yes, the bill does give the Home Secretary then power to make regulations upon the meaning of 'serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public assembly' and 'serious disruption to the life of the community'. Whilst I am not convinced that will ever be necessary, it doesn't permit the making of different regulations for every proposed demonstration, which is what you appear to believe. Furthermore, regulations cannot be inconsistent with the terms of the parent legislation, have to be reasonable and rational and have to be consistent with Human Rights legislation.

I'm sorry that I have upset you with my EDL protest analogy. I was using it to illustrate a point just as you were with your comments about Grist and Brexit. I will withdraw it and simply note that you repeatedly failed to adddress how you would respond to a protest that caused serious disruption to the activities of your place of work.

I didn't 'imply' that you would approve of these powers coming from a Leftist government, I was pretty explict about the point.

[ragingpup]

So you are now conceding that the Home Secretary does not make 'reasonable belief' decisions and that when referring to her having the power to do so your were wrong? Progress!

Are you also conceding that your reference to 'annoyance' in the context of the protest provions was also completely incorrect?

Yes, the bill does give the Home Secretary then power to make regulations upon the meaning of 'serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public assembly' and 'serious disruption to the life of the community'. Whilst I am not convinced that will ever be necessary, it doesn't permit the making of different regulations for every proposed demonstration, which is what you appear to believe. Furthermore, regulations cannot be inconsistent with the terms of the parent legislation, have to be reasonable and rational and have to be consistent with Human Rights legislation.

I'm sorry that I have upset you with my EDL protest analogy. I was using it to illustrate a point just as you were with your comments about Grist and Brexit. I will withdraw it and simply note that you repeatedly failed to adddress how you would respond to a protest that caused serious disruption to the activities of your place of work.

I didn't 'imply' that you would approve of these powers coming from a Leftist government, I was pretty explict about the point.

Kerr you deal with extensive legislation for a living, I'm a former drama student trying to make sense of quite an extensive piece of legislationa and how it might impact on us all. I'm quite happy that I might make mistakes with how I have perceived different parts of the bill or misunderstood terminology applying in different cases. I'm a complete layman, you are not. Therefore, what do you think it makes you look like when you repeatedly try to draw attention to where people misread and claim it as a win? My brother in law, a barrister, is exactly like that in debates too, and even his own family think he's an arse.

Ok, so you trust the Home Secretary not to abuse these powers. No I don't believe that she is thinking of rewriting regs "for every proposed demonstration", but don't trust her or any future home secretary not to abuse this power and don't think such a power should exist. It's my fandamental problem with this bill, aside from the fact that police leaders can deny a protest because they think there will be "serious noise" and can arrest a protester because an arresting officer determined that "a person over there was seriously annoyed".

I guess as probably the most establishment figure on here (yes lets keep doing that thing then), and being pretty much opposed to anything that challenges the centre-right status quo, you would have faith in Patel and trust the government not to abuse these powers. You would see them as reasonable. But pretty much every country had acts of protests from climate activists that were 'disrupive', 'annoying', 'noisy' and I don't read of other countries making fundamental populist law changes pushing through such draconian powers.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on how trustworthy we feel our political leaders are and can be.

[KerrAvon]

Kerr you deal with extensive legislation for a living, I'm a former drama student trying to make sense of quite an extensive piece of legislationa and how it might impact on us all. I'm quite happy that I might make mistakes with how I have perceived different parts of the bill or misunderstood terminology applying in different cases. I'm a complete layman, you are not. Therefore, what do you think it makes you look like when you repeatedly try to draw attention to where people misread and claim it as a win? My brother in law, a barrister, is exactly like that in debates too, and even his own family think he's an arse.

Ok, so you trust the Home Secretary not to abuse these powers. No I don't believe that she is thinking of rewriting regs "for every proposed demonstration", but don't trust her or any future home secretary not to abuse this power and don't think such a power should exist. It's my fandamental problem with this bill, aside from the fact that police leaders can deny a protest because they think there will be "serious noise" and can arrest a protester because an arresting officer determined that "a person over there was seriously annoyed".

I guess as probably the most establishment figure on here (yes lets keep doing that thing then), and being pretty much opposed to anything that challenges the centre-right status quo, you would have faith in Patel and trust the government not to abuse these powers. You would see them as reasonable. But pretty much every country had acts of protests from climate activists that were 'disrupive', 'annoying', 'noisy' and I don't read of other countries making fundamental populist law changes pushing through such draconian powers.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on how trustworthy we feel our political leaders are and can be.

So what are you saying, raging? That you would prefer that these threads be based upon your flawed understanding of the proposed legislation (probably based upon tweets from your poltical heroes) rather then what it actually says? Fair enough, but I disagree and if that makes me an arse in your eyes then I am cool with that.

The proposed legislation isn't extensive. I haven't bothered with a word count, but I would estimate the relevant clauses to run to about 3-400 words.

So if you don't think the Home Secretary isn't going to be re-writing the regulations for every proposed demonstration, how do you say that she has "the power to decide whether individual protests can go ahead" as you claimed earlier. It clearly can't.

I'm not going to reproduce the actual wording of the proposed legislation again, becasue it appears to serve no purpose with you other than to casue upset, but nothing within them pemits a 'police leader' or anyone else to 'deny a protest because they think there will be "serious noise".

Nothing within the proposed legislation would enable a police officer to arrest, because "a person over there was seriously annoyed", other than in your fantasy interpretation.

The fact is that the proposed legislation extends and clarifies police powers in relation to demonstrations to protect communities from:

1. Intimidation or harassment of persons of reasonable firmness with the characteristics of persons likely to be in the vicinity; or
2. It may cause such persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress;
or
3. Serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession, or
4. Serious disruption to the life of the community

Personally, I don't think that the effects numbered 1 to 4 are desirable. Again, if that makes me 'the most establishment figure on here' then I will wear that title with pride and my thanks to you. I think that people who have been affected in the ways set out in points 1 to 4 might have a different title for you - one that has its origin in Anglo-Saxon English.

So let's cut to the chase. If the EDL organised a static protest outside your college due to a, perhaps unwarranted, fear about what you were teaching and had a sound sytem that allowed them to disrupt teaching activites, would you be fine with that and entirely happy if the police said 'sorry sir we have no powers to impose conditions over seriously disruptive noise'? It's a simple question that lends itself to a yes or no answer.

[ragingpup]

So what are you saying, raging? That you would prefer that these threads be based upon your flawed understanding of the proposed legislation (probably based upon tweets from your poltical heroes) rather then what it actually says? Fair enough, but I disagree and if that makes me an arse in your eyes then I am cool with that.

The proposed legislation isn't extensive. I haven't bothered with a word count, but I would estimate the relevant clauses to run to about 3-400 words.

So if you don't think the Home Secretary isn't going to be re-writing the regulations for every proposed demonstration, how do you say that she has "the power to decide whether individual protests can go ahead" as you claimed earlier. It clearly can't.

I'm not going to reproduce the actual wording of the proposed legislation again, becasue it appears to serve no purpose with you other than to casue upset, but nothing within them pemits a 'police leader' or anyone else to 'deny a protest because they think there will be "serious noise".

Nothing within the proposed legislation would enable a police officer to arrest, because "a person over there was seriously annoyed", other than in your fantasy interpretation.

The fact is that the proposed legislation extends and clarifies police powers in relation to demonstrations to protect communities from:

1. Intimidation or harassment of persons of reasonable firmness with the characteristics of persons likely to be in the vicinity; or
2. It may cause such persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress;
or
3. Serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried on in the vicinity of a public procession, or
4. Serious disruption to the life of the community

Personally, I don't think that the effects numbered 1 to 4 are desirable. Again, if that makes me 'the most establishment figure on here' then I will wear that title with pride and my thanks to you. I think that people who have been affected in the ways set out in points 1 to 4 might have a different title for you - one that has its origin in Anglo-Saxon English.

So let's cut to the chase. If the EDL organised a static protest outside your college due to a, perhaps unwarranted, fear about what you were teaching and had a sound sytem that allowed them to disrupt teaching activites, would you be fine with that and entirely happy if the police said 'sorry sir we have no powers to impose conditions over seriously disruptive noise'? It's a simple question that lends itself to a yes or no answer.

You said: "how do you say that she has "the power to decide whether individual protests can go ahead" as you claimed earlier. It clearly can't."

"The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”. These regulation-making powers will clarify ambiguous cases where, if they arise, it would not be clear whether the threshold for the use of such powers have been reached. This will enable the police to make use of their powers with the confidence that they are doing so legally." https://www.gov.uk/government/public...wers-factsheet

1) Yet you are arguing that she cannot? How so?

You then say: "I'm not going to reproduce the actual wording of the proposed legislation again...but nothing within them pemits a 'police leader' or anyone else to 'deny a protest because they think there will be "serious noise".

"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation." https://www.gov.uk/government/public...wers-factsheet

2) So if no one will deny a protest there will be serious noise, why is the proposed legislation worded in this way? What is it's purpose?

You say "Nothing within the proposed legislation would enable a police officer to arrest, because "a person over there was seriously annoyed", other than in your fantasy interpretation"

People found guilty of this new offence, which includes causing “serious annoyance” or “serious inconvenience” – or even just causing the risk that said annoyance and inconvenience will take place – are liable to be imprisoned for up to ten years if convicted on indictment or 12 months if convicted summarily. https://www.ier.org.uk/news/whats-wr...d-courts-bill/

3. Yes, I phrased the idea of a police officer arresting someone because someone over there was seriously annoyed for comic value. But seriously, if you feel that nothing in the proposed legislation will lead to arrest for causing serious annoyance, why is it worded thus? If you have an offence defined as "causing serious annoyance" (sic, I'm a layman remember) surely a person will be able to commit the offence of "causing serious annoyance" - when you say "Nothing within the proposed legislation would enable a police officer to arrest, because "a person over there was seriously annoyed" are you simply missing the comic spin I put on it, or are you seriously saying that no-one will be able to be arrested for the crime of "serious annoyance"?

You keep harping on about the protests outside a college. If we had introduced a policy of teaching something that a group of people felt was damaging then I would defend their right to draw public attention to it. For example the recent protests outside schools by parents who were concerned about a PSH curriculum conveying information on gay couples. I didn't agree with the protestors but they have a right to express their point and draw public attention to their argument. In my view it is their right. The fact that you are using this quite absurd and infinitely unlikely scenario to back up your argument kind of gives away your desperation. The fact is that protests that cause such serious inconvenience, noise and nuisance are relatively rare and affect very few of us. Who on this site has been a victim of such protests for example? And even if it has, we have to weigh up if these proposals are a proportional response and if we are giving up more than we should. I go back to the original point about the 'Brexit is Cancelled' protest that no doubt would have brought some on this MB out onto the streets. It is about defending their right to protest with impact, as well as those of left and right wing groups.

[KerrAvon]

You said: "how do you say that she has "the power to decide whether individual protests can go ahead" as you claimed earlier. It clearly can't."

"The Home Secretary will have the power, through secondary legislation, to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”. These regulation-making powers will clarify ambiguous cases where, if they arise, it would not be clear whether the threshold for the use of such powers have been reached. This will enable the police to make use of their powers with the confidence that they are doing so legally." https://www.gov.uk/government/public...wers-factsheet

1) Yet you are arguing that she cannot? How so?

You then say: "I'm not going to reproduce the actual wording of the proposed legislation again...but nothing within them pemits a 'police leader' or anyone else to 'deny a protest because they think there will be "serious noise".

"This measure will broaden the range of circumstances in which the police can impose conditions on protests, including a single person protest, to include where noise causes a significant impact on those in the vicinity or serious disruption to the running of an organisation." https://www.gov.uk/government/public...wers-factsheet

2) So if no one will deny a protest there will be serious noise, why is the proposed legislation worded in this way? What is it's purpose?

You say "Nothing within the proposed legislation would enable a police officer to arrest, because "a person over there was seriously annoyed", other than in your fantasy interpretation"

People found guilty of this new offence, which includes causing “serious annoyance” or “serious inconvenience” – or even just causing the risk that said annoyance and inconvenience will take place – are liable to be imprisoned for up to ten years if convicted on indictment or 12 months if convicted summarily. https://www.ier.org.uk/news/whats-wr...d-courts-bill/

3. Yes, I phrased the idea of a police officer arresting someone because someone over there was seriously annoyed for comic value. But seriously, if you feel that nothing in the proposed legislation will lead to arrest for causing serious annoyance, why is it worded thus? If you have an offence defined as "causing serious annoyance" (sic, I'm a layman remember) surely a person will be able to commit the offence of "causing serious annoyance" - when you say "Nothing within the proposed legislation would enable a police officer to arrest, because "a person over there was seriously annoyed" are you simply missing the comic spin I put on it, or are you seriously saying that no-one will be able to be arrested for the crime of "serious annoyance"?

You keep harping on about the protests outside a college. If we had introduced a policy of teaching something that a group of people felt was damaging then I would defend their right to draw public attention to it. For example the recent protests outside schools by parents who were concerned about a PSH curriculum conveying information on gay couples. I didn't agree with the protestors but they have a right to express their point and draw public attention to their argument. In my view it is their right. The fact that you are using this quite absurd and infinitely unlikely scenario to back up your argument kind of gives away your desperation. The fact is that protests that cause such serious inconvenience, noise and nuisance are relatively rare and affect very few of us. Who on this site has been a victim of such protests for example? And even if it has, we have to weigh up if these proposals are a proportional response and if we are giving up more than we should. I go back to the original point about the 'Brexit is Cancelled' protest that no doubt would have brought some on this MB out onto the streets. It is about defending their right to protest with impact, as well as those of left and right wing groups.

Thank you for numbering your points as it will enable me to deal with them more quickly.

Point 1 - The proposed legisltion permits the Home Secretary to makes regulations to define and give examples of “serious disruption to the life of the community” and “serious disruption to the activities of an organisation which are carried out in the vicinity of the procession/assembly/one-person protest”. Personally, I doubt whether that will ever be necessary whilst ever people have access to a dictionary and common sense, but I note that you struggled with words like 'serious' earlier in the thread.

I would imagine that the provison is designed to allow any loopholes to be closed off before they can be exploted.

The regulations won't be made on a protest by protest basis, not least because they would have to be passed by each House of Parliament (see clause 54(4)). If they are not made on a protest by protest basis then by definition they do not give the Home Secretary the power to make 'reasonable belief' decsions or 'decide whether individual protests can go ahead' as you have claimed.

You are wrong. You are tilting at windmills. And if you think it is me who is wrong, why don't you put up a link to the clauses that you rely upon? You say that you have read the bill so you must have access to it.

2. There is no reference to 'serious noise' within the bill. There is a power to impose conditions up to and including the banning of a protest if there is a reasonable belief that the noise generated by persons taking part it may result in the intimidation or harassment of persons of reasonable firmness with the characteristics of persons likely to be in the vicinity, or it may cause such persons to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress.

It may just come down to personal values, but I personally don't like the idea of people being caused substantial intimdation or harassment or to suffer serious unease, alarm or distress and have no problems with conditions being imposed upon a protest to prevent it. If you are happy with people being affected in that manner then we disagree.

There is nothing within the legislation that criminalises making noise, 'serious' or otherwise. The offences within it relate to - as they have since 1986 - breaching the terms of a condition imposed upon a protest. So if an EDL protest outside a mosque had a condition imposed upon it 'not to use sound amplification equipment', but the organisers started to use one that 'goes up to 11', collars might be felt and equipment seized. And it really does come down to personal values in that I can't see anything very much wrong with that notion. It balances the EDL's right to protest with the right of people to use the mosque without substantial inteference.

3. I'm sorry to break it to you, but the 'Institute of Employment Rights' article that you have linked to is rubbish. The passage that you have quoted relates to the offence of publc nuisance. As I have explained,that is not a 'new' offence as the article claims, it is a common law offence. Whilst I haven't checked out its history, most common law offences can be traced back for several hundred years. In making it a statutory offence, the government is merely accepting the recomendation of the Law Commission (an independent body), as I have also previously explained.

Not only is the article rubbish, your interpretation of it is too. As I have explained, the offence is concerned with causing serious annoyance or serious inconvenience to the public, not an individual.

I can only recall one prosecution for public nuisance in the 30 years or so that I have been hanging around the criminal justice system. That was of a bloke who managed to close a motorway for several hours by threatening to jump from a bridge. He was protesting about a child custody decision that had gone against him in the Family Court. It's a personal value thing again in that you might celebrate that bloke's right to protest (and it may be that he got a raw deal in the Family Court - it can be tough when a court has to make a child custody choice), but I also care about the people who were seriously annoyed or inconvenienced - people who were tired and wanted to get home, people who wanted to get to their kid's sports day, people who were trying to get to a crucial job interview or catch a flight. Who knows, there might have been a tranpsplant organ delayed - how about that for inconvenience?

I think public nuisance should continue to be an offence.

There seems to be an answer to my 'yes no' EDL question in the torrent of words within your final paragraph. You are a college administrator, but would support the right of a group to protest in a manner that would disrupt the ability to teach within the college... That is just breathtaking. When you next think about why Labour can't win an election to save its life, forget the MSM and reflect on that for a moment.

Nobody is talking about taking away the right to protest. You will still be able to paint your face and cheer a septegenarian MP for giving a new variant of the same speech that he has been giving for the last 30 years or so about whatever cause is fashionable with the Left. As you point out, protests that cause such serious inconvenience, noise and nuisance are relatively rare and affect very few of us and because of that the new powers will be rarely used.