That would be my grievance, and what I would suggest this is actually about, not her praying. 'We don't want you disturbing that which we condone, for whatever reason or because it suits our narrative'.

I do take umbrage at that, especially where there are probably plenty of other similar things/instances which suit the narrative so they're more hesitant about it as opposed to just nicking someone straight away.

I have no idea nor do I see the relevance of this.

If the establishment desperately wanted to protect Jews or persecute Muslims/a particular Muslim however, and caught a Muslim who was already on their radar atop a prayer mate within close vicinity to a Synagogue, I'd pretty much guarantee they'd arrest them.

Again, I'd use the analogy of someone with a restraining order against them loitering 1m outside of that distance, near whomever the order was enacted for, perhaps this time solving a Rubiks Cube.

They wouldn't be arrested for the Rubiks cube, but for their physical presence and perceived intention, given the context and albeit technically outside of that zone.

Standing where she was, in an area covered by an exclusion order.

You can protest about abortion. You can pray silently. You can campaign to ban the issuing of exclusion orders.

What you cannot do is break orders legally obtained and in force.

You must have an aversion to the truth the number of times you spin the same misinformation.

Nobody said she was banned from the area. She was arrested for being in an area where behaviour deemed to be intimidatory by the police was observed. Something she admitted freely. She said she silently praying. If she said she was reminiscing about the last time Palace beat Brighton she probably would not have been, unless they recognised her and didn’t believe her. Mind you with the cameras that’s unlikely. She wanted to be arrested. The police didn’t want to arrest her. They have more important things to do.

I would not be surprised if they tried another publicity stunt and sued the police. What a farce.

This is the point isn't it. She would not have been arrested for reminiscing about Palace, but she was for silently praying.

She was arrested because she is a well known anti abortionist campaigner who openly admits to trying to talk to users of abortion services and “praying” for them. Her standing there, being videoed, in a place which users have been told is safe, would be seen by them and considered intimidating.

It doesn’t matter if she thought her actions were benign. It doesn’t matter that she sincerely believes abortion to be wrong, or that she has been sent by “God” to do his work. All that matters is that she obeys the law. Exclusion orders are not issued lightly. There would have very good reasons, presumably because of a history of users feeling intimidated by the past actions of others. What those actions were, whether sincere, thought innocent or helpful by those behind them,is immaterial. It’s how the users felt as they went about acquiring something that is completely legal.

Should she, or her backers, find a loophole in the law which convinces magistrates to acquit, then the terms of the exclusion orders will need to be revised to make sure that their intentions are not stymied because of stunts orchestrated by American activists.