Decorous Demonstrating?

Demonstrating is an agreed 'right' in any functional democracy. There has, however, recently been much agonising about such activities. Psychologist, Stephen Reicher points out that demonstrating crowds are best dealt with if "you start from the presumption that they are peaceful rather than violent" (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/feb/25/protests-crowds-police-mps-violence). Reicher notes that most individuals, even in large crowds (from Soccer supporters to 'Black Lives Matter'), are generally peaceful. There are even cases, where most of the actual violence has been generated by the police. That's not to say, of course, that all protests are peaceful. There are cases, where certain groups automatically jump straight to intimidatory behaviour. However, labelling large crowds as 'the mob', simply because you disagree with them, can be inappropriate and is generally unhelpful. It's also especially unhelpful for politicians to severely limit the right to public protest, when it suits their interest, whilst essentially condoning what would clearly be law-breaking under other circumstances. People soon recognise double standards. Whilst I am on about it, I don't think that politicians should be exposed to demonstrations outside their homes or surgeries. This is, apparently, now the policy of the 'Just Stop Oil' campaign. Even if your cause is just, it's wholly inappropriate to pressurise individuals, their family and friends in such settings. It also gives a 'green light' to others (including some very nasty individuals) to act in a similar manner. Another case of double standards? Demonstrating, it seems to me, is best done near the places, where government or the offending body sits. Decorous demonstrators seem more likely to deliver democracy.