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.