Below is a summary I just looked up.
Changing sentencing rules so that serious criminals spend more time in jail before they can be conditionally released
Judges will be allowed to consider jailing child murderers for their entire lives
Maximum sentences for low-level assaults against emergency service workers doubled to two years
On terrorism, the bill creates powers to more closely monitor offenders released from prison
Community sentences for less serious crime to address underlying problems in offenders' lives
Changes to sexual offences law to tackle abusive adults in positions of trust, such as sports coaches and religious figures
Change of powers to protest.
Police chiefs will be able to put more conditions on static protests.
They will be able to:
Impose a start and finish time
Set noise limits
Apply these rules to a demonstration by just one person.
Nothing really worries me as you presumed.
Some of that is obviously fine, but if you read the bill itself you'll quickly realise that it gives the police powers to use at their own discretion (and we know how they're all so good at that) to decide themselves
if a protest - which could just be a single person - should be deemed a 'public nuisance'.
Not only that, but it'll become a crime
for protests not to follow restrictions which they don't know about, even if they haven't been notified by a police officer
The ambiguity of the language and the possible interpretations thereof are what worries me.
I can see I won't convince you, but I believe the protests are justified.