Nadine Finch raises questions about the way the Met dealt with a peaceful protest on Palestine in London a week ago.

The chaotic nature of the policing of the peaceful static public assembly that took place in Whitehall on 18th January 2025 indicates the urgency of repealing and amending parts of the Public Order Act 1986. It also underlines that the Labour Government is prepared to continue its authoritarian and discriminatory attitude to dissent in office, as well as within the Labour Party itself.  

Climate change protesters and those who have been taking action against businesses connected with the arms trade, have already experienced the rough, and sometimes random, police response to their direct actions. But since 2003, public processions and assemblies against wars have generally been able to rely on governments having respect for the rights to protest and express an opinion, enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998.

Huge Stop the War and CND marches have taken place with both the organisers and the police understanding that events, that have been well planned with sufficient entry and exit routes and respect for those who are less mobile due to age and physical ability, will be both safe and human rights-compliant.

But the manner in which the public assembly was policed on 18th January indicated a radical departure from the policing by consent measures to be expected in a democracy that respects the diversity of the views of its citizens.

The narrative being spun by senior officers at the Met and repeated by the few media outlets that bothered to report events is that multiple arrests were required because activists broke through police lines in an attempt to leave the agreed public assembly area, cross Trafalgar Square and proceed to a synagogue close to the BBC in Portland Place.

But, just as in Gaza, the first-hand reports of citizen journalists and photographers exposed that those spinning this narrative have been economic with the truth, to say the least.

In retrospect, the actions of those taking political and operational decisions leading up to, and on the day of, the public assembly should have signalled that the safety of the wider community and the maintenance of their rights was not going to be respected by the police and those responsible for their management.  

As had been the case throughout a long series of marches triggered by events in Gaza, Stop the War and other organisers had negotiated with the Met police well in advance of 18th January, as required by law and common sense. It was the Met that reneged on a previous agreement on a route from the BBC building in Portland Place to Central London. They then publicised a route, that had not been agreed and which would have started from Russell Square.

Very late in the day, an agreement was reached for a public assembly in Whitehall. In reaching this agreement, the Met will have been well aware that, to arrive and exit from the assembly by underground, bus or foot, protesters would have to leave Whitehall and enter other areas of Central London. Yet instead of addressing this issue and establishing coherent and continuous lines of communication with the organisers and protestors during the assembly, the police seemed to exercise powers to impose conditions in a manner designed to confuse and provoke protestors.

At different times during the afternoon, police officers were forming lines across Whitehall at seemingly random times and locations. This had the effect of giving some protesters the feeling of being kettled and anxious for their own well-being.  This was particularly significant, as there were a number of elderly people and children in the crowd.   

It was also clear that the police were preparing for confrontation fairly early in the afternoon. A significant number of vans, containing Territorial Support Group officers, started to form up at the top of Whitehall and in side streets around Trafalgar Square and Charing Cross. Ambulances also appeared and parked. But it was local Met officers that remained the first line of contact between protesters and their routes of exit to the north of Whitehall and groups of protesters, such as Jewish Voice for Labour, and numerous other individuals were stopped from leaving by these officers.  

The Met had relied on Section 12 of the Public Order Act to ban a public procession and insist on a public assembly. They had done so on the basis that the Commissioner of Police had asserted that he reasonably believed that the planned procession/march may result in serious disruption to the life of part of the Jewish community, who may wish to attend the Central Synagogue, close to Portland Place that Saturday. The evidence that such a disturbance may occur was negligible. But a previous Tory Secretary of State for the Home Department had used a regulation to redefine “serious disruption” as “more than a minor disturbance”, even though this redefinition had already been debated and rejected by Parliament. This was designed to significantly reduce the evidential burden that fell on the police. The current Secretary of State for the Home Department is bringing an appeal to the Court of Appeal, which would maintain this redefinition.

It is unlikely that the Met’s reasoning was understood by many protesters as, in their view, the significance of the proposed starting point in Portland Place related to the widespread allegations of bias that have been brought against the BBC for its coverage of the war in Gaza.

But this framing of the narrative was important, as it supported the Government’s persistent characterisations of the protestors as antisemitic. It is noteworthy, that social media was subsequently alive with criticism of the manner in which events that afternoon were policed. But the only comment on X by the current Secretary of State for the Home Department was one that stated that “everyone should be able to worship in peace. Met Police have my support in ensuring that synagogues were not disrupted today.”  

She and her advisers, as users of X, cannot have failed to have seen the multitude of photographs and comments, which attested to lack of coherent policing that afternoon. Police lines were being drawn up and then withdrawn. Protesters were not being given the instructions on the varying conditions being imposed by the senior police officer at the event, as required under section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986. Many were not aware of any conditions. Others, both in Whitehall and later in Trafalgar Square, were just told by individual officers that they would be arrested if they did not move. Some of these were women in their 70s, who were given a countdown of seconds and minutes to comply with these directions.

Many other people and tourists were not told anything and were expected to have been keeping a close and regular watch on the Metropolitan social media site. This did not comply with the requirement to make those involved aware of conditions that were being imposed on them and the fact that to justify an arrest, breaches of conditions had to be intentional.  

It was also very unclear whether the regular police officers who had formed lines within and at the top of Whitehall were being informed of the intentions of the Territorial Support Groups officers, sitting in their vans and later arresting organisers and others in Trafalgar Square. There are plenty of photographs and videos of the former officers consenting to a delegation of MPs, actors and activists entering Trafalgar Square from the north end of Whitehall. The members of the delegation were clearly on the older side, including an 86 year old holocaust survivor. There were also two MPs and a number of well-known actors. They were all carrying flowers and it was made clear that when their progress across the square was stopped by officers, they would lay down their flowers and disperse.  

The officers also failed to stop or issue conditions or instructions to the protestors who were permitted by the same police officers to follow the delegation into Trafalgar Square. It may be that these officers had been told to let the delegation in so that they could be later accused to breaching previous conditions imposed on the organisers of the assembly. Or it may be it was just a further example of poor and incoherent policing. Either way, it put a large number of protestors and members of the public at risk of harm. It also led to a number of arrests of dubious legality.

Whatever criminal cases, and no doubt subsequent civil actions against the police reveal, the consensus and trust that had been built up over decades between thousands of activists and the Met Police has been put in doubt.  

Those with long memories will recall scenes from the Miners’ Strike, the Poll Tax demonstration and the policing of the Irish Community. The key question is whether events on Saturday mark a return to policing without consent, where officers are permitted to round up the usual suspects.

The manner in which the Vice Chair of the Stops the War Coalition was arrested, while responding to a request by a senior police officer for a discussion, and the subsequent charges brought against the Director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign suggest that they do. As does the presence of dedicated public order officers, in their distinctive baseball caps, at the location and point at which most arrests were made, but not earlier.

It is also still unclear which elected representatives were involved in events on Saturday. The Greater London Authority is not directly responsible for operational decisions made by the Met Police. But it does have a Police and Crime Committee, which examines the work of the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, which in turn oversees the Metropolitan Police. The Mayor has also very recently appointed a new salaried Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime. The Mayor himself is no stranger to issues of policing, as this was his primary area of work when he was previously a solicitor. Furthermore, although Trafalgar Square is owned by the King, it is managed by the Greater London Authority.

Yet it did not appear that the GLA had taken any part in the planning of the assembly in the days leading up to the event or that it had any officers, representatives or observers present on the day.

The Home Office does have responsibility for national aspects of the Met’s policing but again it has been silent about events to date. This leaves a political vacuum at a time when many of the Government’s new policies are highly contested. The Government would do well to remember that the manner in which so-called Poll Tax riots were policed led in part to the fall of an earlier Prime Minister. It is also arguable that the heavy-handed policing of the Miners’ Strike caused rifts in communities that have never been healed. London has a relatively young population and is home to a wide range of communities, many of whom share different views on events in Gaza to that espoused by the Government. Policing by consent may never have been more necessary.

Nadine Finch is a former barrister who specialised in human rights law and is the author of several books on family, immigration and comparative law. She writes in a personal capacity.

Photo: Banner on the static protest in Whitehall on Saturday 18th January – c/o Labour Hub.