The Communications Data Bill has seemed to me, until recent events gave it fresh impetus, to be largely self-defeating. For the record, I don't and never will accept blanket regulation of the shotgun approach over carefully thought out, surgically precise legislation which, most importantly of all, doesn't bite its own tail as so much of recent legislation does. Of course, it isn't the remit of the politicians to interpret it and make it work and, worst of all, to prevent such short-sighted, knee-jerk legislation placing itself in the untenable position of making a mockery of the previous week's short-sighted knee-jerk legislation. That, unfortunately, is the lot of the Judiciary, including men and women of far greater intellect than I who find themselves tearing their hair out over the incongruous and, frankly, risible conflicts which arise, time and time again.
There is a reason why Common Law, as opposed to statute law is so effective
That said, it would be at best, churlish of me to deny any regulation of proselytizing underpinned by incitement of racial / religious hatred, and I do not seek do so, thereby agreeing with your views, if, perhaps, only to an extent
But, to focus the thrust of my concern in the OP more clearly, and I apologise for not doing so initially, it is my view, based upon observation of successive administrations but of this one in particular, that the POTA (rather the CD Bill specifically mentioned in the link) will be further reinforced on the back, as it were, of recent events and act as an even greater excuse to hide shoddy behaviour behind legislation.
One example of past abuse, locally to me, that will serve to illustrate my point at a basic level, is the case of the woman who was told to remove her collection of porcelain pigs from her window-sill as they were offensive to Muslims. Eventually, she was prosecuted under the auspices of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, having not complied with the edict, following a similar case in Leicester, if I recall correctly, in which the offence was said to be made out under the terms of the racially aggravated Public Order offence of harassment, which, of course, failed owing to the clear and incontrovertible fact that there was no racial aggravation, ergo, no offence of harassment.
The local matter was quietly dropped as well, owing, in large part, to the multilateral condemnation of the case by the local community, Muslim, Christian and atheist alike.
My point is though, that the POTA is so wide ranging, imprecise, tenuous and insidious that such a prosecution would have had the legs to even be considered. Please also be assured that the case I used as an example is very far from being an isolated case and is also one of the least serious of documented abuses of the Act.