Property rights were revoked when space could be used for military purposes. Protest rights were revoked presumably to maintain a consistent workforce while the government created compulsory civil services. Oswald Mosley was jailed and his followers interned - these are the more specific examples I had in mind. I was hoping to explore if the success of the Battle of Britain would vindicate contemporary governments curbing civil rights on the basis of potential threats to their people.
I don't think the two are connected.
The internment of Moseley and revoking of rights to protest was to stop any dissent - there was much concern about fifth columnists at the time, the authorities did not want these ideas taking hold.
The laws that allowed the government to requisition (or force compulsory purchase) property (be it land, buildings or ships etc) was purely a case of having to - they needed everything they could get their hands on for the war effort, likewise with conscription and organising of reserved occupations.
The Government didn't need a victory in the Battle of Britain to vindicate these moves, it was necessary for the war effort anyway, win or lose.