I don't think that's fair. The author states in very specific terms, referencing both the document and various definitions, that there is no reasonable way in which Schedule 7 could have been legally used for this purpose.
At a more general level, your point is valid, but on this specific discussion, less so.
The British government has been abusing the Terrorism Act since it received Royal Assent, and critics have pointed out from the time it was introduced that it was susceptible to abuse.
I think my favorite abuse was the use of anti-terrorism law by the UK to seize assets of Icelandic banks in the country during that country's banking collapse.
My comment (which I think I repeated here among other places) was, "maybe they are afraid of a second Viking age."
>there is no reasonable way in which Schedule 7 could have been legally used for this purpose.
And yet it was used, for neither "reasonable" nor "legally" have any objective meaning. Both are convenient fictions to allow otherwise objectionable acts to gain the imprimatur of legitimacy.
At a more general level, your point is valid, but on this specific discussion, less so.