http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3979477.stm

Hmm...what thinkest thou? Myself, I have to say they really annoy me. If I visit London and try to look around the sights the last thing I want is him blaring in my ear right in the middle of a great tourist attraction. If he wants to protest, he can do it down the road...

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Well over here..your right to protest stops when it infringes on other peoples rights. Im not familiar enough with Englands way of doing things...but it sounds like they are following the proper methodology at any rate.....they state current law was not sufficient to handle the current mess...so...they are working on new laws. Sounds like a sensible way to go about things....unless there is some reason to believe this would be an illegal move by the government to supress individual freedoms.....Ummm I guess I am saying....Geee...I don't know :D
</font>

Just an attempt to silence him because he embarasses Blair in front of the tourists. I've passed him by on a number of occasions and haven't heard any noise.

The problem with the idea that protests shouldn't upset people, get in people's way, or generally cause a disturbance is that it kind of removes the whole point of them. How many people are you going to persuade if they can't hear you? Why on earth would you protest about Blair going to war far away from Blair himself? The simple fact of the matter is that if the guys got the right to protest then it has to mean something, and if it has to mean something then he has to be able to actually make the protest count. If the protest has to be held away from the action and to not bother anyone then the right to protest isn't worth the name - it'll just be a token gesture. Theres no point in having that right if you can't exercise it.