P.S You can call me Nick if it really makes you happy.

He just isn’t.

He can protest to his heart’s content. Almost anywhere, anytime.

Just not in an area where he has been given an exclusion order because others are protesting there who have made all the necessary arrangements to ensure safety and who have specifically requested he stays away. If the police decide his presence could result in a risk to public order then excluding him is a duty.

He lives under the same laws as the rest of us. We abide by them. He doesn’t think he has to.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Kindly explain how and why Yaxley-Lennon was being denied a right to protest. He was denied the opportunity to cause disruption. He could either have protested somewhere else or in that area at another time. He chose to break an order and got arrested as a consequence.

That you seem to have decided that another poster must be a ringer just because they express opinions contrary to your own has no bearing on me expressing mine. If you ever wandered into the real world from time to time you would know that most opinions are contrary to yours. There are a lot of "Nicks" out there.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

I'm not Nick, I just don't wish to engage in your childish game, so I ignore it.

As for what I think about Tommy and his disingenuous support of Israel. I really couldn't give a monkey's about the bloke and think that he is nothing more than the naughty kid at school who used to find ways to get in trouble and then play the victim. Except he's a grown up who really should know better.

'Kindly explain how and why Yaxley-Lennon was being denied a right to protest. He was denied the opportunity to cause disruption.'

As a comedy line, I'd say that was quite amusing.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Not really a lie, more a misstatement. He is being denied the right to protest as a matter of fact. However, zoning back to look at the broader picture, question the why.

You seem to think it is because there is fear of upsetting those of colour or religion or whose lefty views accord with the "elite" who make the decisions.

Or because there is likely to be a more serious backlash from the one side than the other.

There may be elements of either. However, an alternative theory is more resource based. Put yourself in the position of Plod. Scaled down through decades of real funding reduction, there is only so much their little pot will cover.

Thus, there are a few hundred from the right who have been told they cannot protest in a certain place but who do so in direct contravention. An easy decision for the police has been made by those protestors. Only a hundred or so coppers needed and arrests that can be fully justified.

As for the others, largely peaceful, pro ceasefire protests albeit ones containing a nasty cohort of Islamist, pro terrorist, antisemites etc. However, they go where they have been allowed and they mainly behave themselves. More importantly, if not permitted there will likely be non-permitted protests, outside public protection and conditions, and there are hundreds of thousands of them.

It's a no-brainer. Any administrator with the resources the police have would do the same.