In the wake of a deadly terror attack on a Manchester synagogue and mounting tensions across the United Kingdom, the government has announced sweeping new measures to restrict pro-Palestine protests. The move, revealed on October 7, 2025, by Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, comes amid a heated national debate over the balance between public safety and the fundamental right to protest.
Under the proposed changes, police will be empowered to consider the cumulative impact of repeated demonstrations when deciding whether to allow them, reroute their paths, or even cancel them outright. Organisers who breach these new conditions could face up to six months in prison or a fine of up to £2,500, while participants may also be fined as much as £2,500. These powers will be introduced as an amendment to the Crime and Policing Bill, which has been under consideration in the House of Lords since March.
The announcement follows a turbulent week marked by the October 2 terror attack at Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester, which left two people dead and sent shockwaves through the Jewish community. Just days later, Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy was heckled at a vigil for the victims, underscoring the raw emotions and divisions now gripping the country. According to The Independent, hundreds were arrested at a Palestine Action demonstration in London mere hours before Mahmood’s statement, highlighting the scale and persistence of the protests.
Mahmood acknowledged the deep frustration and fear within the Jewish community, stating to the BBC, “The right to protest is a fundamental freedom in our country. However, this freedom must be balanced with the freedom of their neighbours to live their lives without fear. Large, repeated protests can leave sections of our country, particularly religious communities, feeling unsafe, intimidated and scared to leave their homes. This has been evident in relation to the considerable fear within the Jewish community, which has been expressed to me on many occasions in these recent difficult days.”
Jewish leaders, including Board of Deputies president Phil Rosenberg, gave the move a cautious welcome. Rosenberg noted at a commemoration of the October 7 Hamas attacks that some pro-Palestine marchers had been “almost gloating” over the Manchester attacks, intensifying the sense of vulnerability among British Jews. Dave Rich, director of policy at the Community Security Trust, told BBC Radio 4, “I think it’s phenomenally tone deaf, to say the least, for so many people who claim to care about human rights and care about freedoms, to be taking police resources away from protecting the rights and freedoms of Jewish people to live their lives and go to synagogue in safety, all to support a proscribed terrorist organisation, which is not the same thing as supporting the Palestinians.”
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer, writing in The Jewish Chronicle and The Jewish News, implored would-be protesters to “recognise and respect the grief of British Jews this week. This is a moment of mourning. It is not a time to stoke tension and cause further pain.” Starmer also described planned pro-Palestine university protests as “un-British,” arguing that such actions demonstrate a lack of respect for others.
Despite these appeals, organisers pressed on with demonstrations in Manchester and London. On October 7, a protest in Trafalgar Square supporting Palestine Action saw six people arrested after unfurling a banner on Westminster Bridge, according to the Metropolitan Police. Officers began making further arrests at the Defend Our Juries protest, detaining individuals displaying placards in support of the banned group. Police resources were stretched as extra officers were deployed to synagogues and Jewish buildings across the country for added protection.
The government’s stance, however, has not gone unchallenged. Civil liberties campaigners and many members of the public have voiced alarm at what they see as an erosion of democratic rights. Silkie Carlo, of Big Brother Watch, told The Daily Mail, “It is alarming that Starmer’s government is seeking to put even more restrictions on our cherished right to protest. For the government to mount this new attack on protest at a time when many thousands of people on the Right and Left of politics are exercising their freedom to assemble appears like a cynical attempt to suppress dissent.”
Public commentary published in The Independent was equally forceful. One reader wrote, “Peaceful protest is a fundamental right. I totally oppose the police or government being given the right to ban demonstrations. Such powers would inevitably be abused and have no place in a democratic society.” Others warned that “draconian legislation” would have banned historic movements such as the Chartists or Suffragettes, while another noted, “Expanding police powers to stop peaceful protest is wholly undemocratic, unlawful, and I would wager, with comfortable confidence, that it will kick-start a far greater public backlash on the streets than anticipated.”
Some commentators stressed that the majority of protesters are targeting the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza, not Jewish communities, and argued that conflating opposition to Israel with antisemitism is both misleading and dangerous. “Dealing with pro-Palestine protests is separate from the issue of rising antisemitism, but the government’s attempt to conflate the two is troubling,” one contributor observed. Another added, “Communities in Britain, including the Jewish community, do not support genocide. Until things change, people have a right to protest.”
Calls for designated protest zones have also surfaced, with some suggesting that setting aside specific areas for demonstrations could balance the right to protest with the need for public order. Yet others believe such measures would merely sideline dissent and diminish the visibility of protest movements.
The legal foundation for the new powers remains contentious. Previous attempts by former Home Secretary Suella Braverman in 2023 to allow police to consider the cumulative impact of protests were struck down as unlawful by the High Court, a decision upheld by the Court of Appeal in May 2025. Now, ministers hope that revised wording and a different legislative approach will withstand judicial scrutiny, but civil liberties groups are already preparing for potential legal challenges.
Within Parliament, opinions are divided. Lord Walney, the government’s former independent adviser on political violence, welcomed the move but urged ministers to go further, advocating for easier police bans on repeated marches. Tory Cabinet minister Chris Philp echoed this sentiment, stating on BBC Breakfast, “I think it’s extremely insensitive, grossly insensitive to the Jewish community in Manchester, but across the whole United Kingdom, who are still grieving following the appalling murder that we saw on Thursday morning.”
On the ground, law enforcement faces a delicate balancing act. Senior police officers will now be tasked with applying their judgment to assess not just the size and frequency of protests, but also their impact on particular communities and locations. The Metropolitan Police, for instance, have argued that the resources required to police these events may detract from their ability to protect vulnerable sites, particularly synagogues, during periods of heightened risk.
As the Crime and Policing Bill continues its journey through the House of Lords, the coming weeks will test not only the resilience of Britain’s democratic traditions but also the government’s ability to navigate the line between security and civil liberty. With passions running high on all sides, this debate is far from over, and its outcome may well shape the future of protest in the UK for years to come.
