> I gave you another example from last year, but it was in an edit so you might have missed it.

It doesn't really matter though, the point was it hasn't been a national issue in over a decade, and that remains the case.

> Protest marches occur regularly in the UK as well, so that's evidence it's fine there?

The point was people were being arrested in the UK simply for holding up signs. You tried to equate free speech zones with that, but as I said it's an entirely unrelated matter, a desperate whataboutism sprung from defensiveness.

> Sure, the last time they were used in the exact same way was probably under Bush Jnr,

So, over a decade ago like I said.

> but they're still used where protest is considered inconvenient (like the ICE protests in the article I linked above).

There are giant protests all over the country. Free speech zones don't make the news because they are not an issue. No one is being impeded.

> Not with those exact words, but it was heavily implied with your repetition of emphasis on the guy being arrested (or not) for holding a piece of paper.

Not at all, you inferred it. I've been consistently clear that I think the UK is going down a bad path but in a very different way from the US, I never said worse.

> I have agreed with that, several times. I haven't defended the actions of the UK once. When you directly asked me if it was a problem, I said yes it's awful.

Honestly, only once that I'm aware of, and I had to drag it out of you. All your posts are pushing back, which gives the impression you want to defend the problems being mentioned.

> OK, I'm done with this conversation, at some point dang will be along to put an end to it anyway I imagine, as it's fruitless.

I shan't expect a reply then. Cheers. Hopefully we can have a more productive discussion on a different topic in the future.