Total number of Palestine Action support arrests rises to 522
Hundreds attended the demonstration in Parliament Square on Saturday, organised by Defend Our Juries, with the force warning it would arrest anyone expressing support for Palestine Action.
The Met confirmed on Sunday that 522 people were held for displaying an item in support of a proscribed organisation, out of 532 total arrests made during the policing operation.
One arrest took place at the form up of the Palestine Coalition march in Russell Square, with the remaining 521 arrests at the protest in Parliament Square.
Charity Amnesty International previously described the number of arrests under UK terrorism law as 'deeply concerning'.
There were a further 10 arrests – six for assaults on officers, two for breaching Public Order Act conditions and one arrest for obstructing a constable in the execution of their duty and a racially aggravated public order offence respectively, the force said.
Detained protesters were taken to prisoner processing points in the Westminster area, and those whose details could be confirmed were bailed, with conditions not to attend any further protest in support of Palestine Action, Scotland Yard said on Saturday.
Those whose details were refused, or could not be verified, were taken to custody suites across London.
Some 320 people were dealt with at prisoner processing points while 212 were transported to custody, with 18 people remaining in the latter as of 1pm on Sunday, the force said.
On Saturday the crowd sat silently on the grass inside Parliament Square after writing 'I oppose genocide, I support Palestine Action' on white placards.
Police took several hours to individually remove the protesters, some sitting and some lying flat on the grass, from the square into waiting vans.
Onlookers applauded the protesters and shouted 'shame on you' at the police making arrests.
Scotland Yard said it was aware of photos and footage posted online suggesting that some of those who were bailed had returned to Parliament Square.
Arrest update: We have finished compiling the full arrest figures for yesterday's operation.
The details can be found at the link below.https://t.co/qFyLLTmELl
— Metropolitan Police (@metpoliceuk) August 10, 2025
'We are as confident as we can be that none of those who returned to Parliament Square rejoined the protesters who were holding placards,' the force said.
The Met's Counter Terrorism Command will work to secure charges against those arrested 'over the coming days and weeks', the force added.
Earlier this week, the first three people to be charged with supporting Palestine Action in England and Wales were named.
Jeremy Shippam, 71, Judit Murray, 71, and Fiona Maclean, 53, have all been charged with displaying an article in a public place, arousing reasonable suspicion that they are a supporter of a proscribed organisation after their attendance at a previous demonstration on July 5.
A further 26 case files relating to arrests at that same protest are due to be submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service imminently, the Met said.
Hundreds of people have been arrested in a wave of Defend Our Juries protests across the UK since the ban against Palestine Action was implemented by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper last month.
Membership of, or support for, Palestine Action is a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison under the Terrorism Act 2000.
Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori said the Parliament Square demonstration would 'go down in our country's history as a momentous act of collective defiance of an unprecedented attack on our fundamental freedoms'.
She also criticised the policing methods used on Saturday, claiming that the fact most of those arrested at the protest were 'given street bail and allowed to go home' proved the current ban was 'unenforceable'.
In a statement, Ms Ammori said: 'This is humiliating for the Home Secretary, who will now have to justify this 'two-tier' policing of arresting some people as 'terrorists' for holding a sign, but not others who held the exact same sign.
'It's clear that more and more ordinary people appalled by this anti-democratic, authoritarian ban will defy it en masse and it is simply not possible to arrest them all.'
Ms Cooper thanked police in London and across the country on Saturday for their work to ensure peaceful protests, and officers' 'continued dedication in responding to support for a proscribed organisation'.
She said: 'The right to protest is one we protect fiercely but this is very different from displaying support for this one specific and narrow, proscribed organisation.
'Palestine Action was proscribed based on strong security advice following serious attacks the group has committed, involving violence, significant injuries and extensive criminal damage.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
STV News
31 minutes ago
- STV News
BBC reportedly calls in police to investigate fresh Strictly allegations
The BBC has asked the police to investigate fresh allegations involving hit show Strictly Come Dancing, after claims two of its stars used cocaine, reports have said. According to the Sun On Sunday, the BBC has alerted the Metropolitan Police to new allegations about the show – but the details have not been specified. A BBC spokesperson said on Saturday the corporation does not comment on police investigations. 'We have clear protocols and policies in place for dealing with any serious complaint raised with us,' the statement added. 'We would always encourage people to speak to us if they have concerns. It would not be appropriate for us to comment further.' Earlier this month, reports in The Sun alleged two Strictly cast members' drug use was discussed on the BBC dancing show, and said that the corporation had appointed law firm Pinsent Masons to lead the investigation. The scandal-hit show was also the subject of a review in 2024, when the BBC looked into allegations of bullying and harassment against former professional dancer Giovanni Pernice, made by his former dance partner Amanda Abbington. The corporation upheld some, but not all, of the complaints made – and introduced a series of new measures aimed at improving welfare. This included the introduction of a chaperone who is present 'at all times' during training room rehearsals. EastEnders star James Borthwick was also suspended from the BBC after a video emerged of the actor using a disabled slur on the set of the dance programme. The cocaine use allegations were reportedly made in a legal submission by law firm Russells in March on behalf of former contestant Wynne Evans, who was dropped by the BBC after apologising for using 'inappropriate language' during the launch of the Strictly tour. It is understood that the BBC often appoints external law firms to help it lead investigations. The BBC spokesperson previously said: 'We have clear protocols and policies in place for dealing with any serious complaint raised with us. 'We would always encourage people to speak to us if they have concerns. It would not be appropriate for us to comment further.' The Metropolitan Police has been contacted for comment. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Home secretary defends Palestine Action arrests: ‘More than a regular protest group'
Home Secretary Yvette Cooper has defended the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, stating it is more than a regular protest group. Ms Cooper argued that Palestine Action has engaged in an escalating campaign of violent criminality, distinct from lawful protest. She cited counterterrorism intelligence indicating the group met the criteria for proscription under the 2000 Terrorism Act, with disturbing information about future attacks. The Metropolitan Police reported over 700 arrests since Palestine Action was banned on 5 July, with 60 more people to be prosecuted for supporting the group. The first three charges in England and Wales under the Terrorism Act relating to Palestine Action have been confirmed, with more prosecutions anticipated.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Starmer has carried through one of the worst legacies of Tony Blair: ‘lawyer brain'
The recent spectacle of the Metropolitan police rounding up 500 peaceful protestors, half of them pensioners, for supporting a 'terrorist organisation' whose terrorist activities include spraying some paint on an empty plane does have one saving grace: it makes it clear what the Labour Party thinks about the public's right to dissent. Keir Starmer has been fond of juridical high-handedness for as long as he has been the Prime Minister: following the riots in Southport last year, he supported the police's round-up of over thirty people for their indiscretions on X, arguing that such posts were 'not free speech', and promising that online instigators would feel 'the full force of the law'. Now, the same treatment is being visited on middle-class, middle-aged liberals. Interestingly, though, rather than making any moral arguments in favour of the proscription, Labour partisans have decided that the best tactic is to keep repeating the statutes that enact it. Dan Jarvis argues that 'the UK's definition of terrorism was established in law a quarter of a century ago, and it has stood the test of time and extensive scrutiny since'; Lord Hanson of Flint spent most of a recent Lords debate repeating the line 'the terms of the proscription are clear' (as if, say, the Nuremberg Laws weren't pretty clear too). The fact that anyone in the Labour Party finds this kind of thing even remotely satisfying, or even coherent, suggests that the party is in the throes of a very specific pathology: 'lawyer brain'. In its broadest form, 'lawyer brain' is the belief that legislation alone can solve all human problems, and that the law is the law, whether it is ethically sound or not. Anything can be justified, provided it meets arbitrary legal standards of legality. Elderly protestors can be arrested if they meet definitions of 'terrorism'. Online posters can be rounded up if they meet definitions of 'incitement'. It certainly seems to capture something about Keir Starmer – a former lawyer whose former nickname, according to a leaked 2022 Labour memo, was 'Mr. Rules.' In this respect, Starmer is part of a long case-history of 'lawyer brain' in the UK Labour Party. Perhaps the worst offenders came from the Blair government, whose seasoned lawyer-politicians – Tony Blair, Lord Irvine, Jack Straw – passed a frenzied set of statutes and constitutional reforms without much in the way of democratic consensus. Urban crime was to be tackled by the invention of new, quasi-criminal categories like the 'ASBO'; broken families were to be fixed with 'parenting orders'; political violence was to be tackled by an enormous raft of new anti-terror legislation, that conveniently rolled back all those bothersome rights to privacy and fair treatment under the law that prior statutes had codified. Much of this new legislation was nonsensical with loopholes; it caused the day to day running of the country to be beset by legal challenge, and left a lot of citizens – peaceful protestors, for example – with far fewer rights than they had before. In Blair's New Labour, 'lawyer brain' took root for one reason above all else: it was the perfect instrument for justifying the actions of a party which technically had a large mandate, but which was, in real terms, haemorrhaging public support. 'Lawyer brain' was a kind of magic: given that whatever was lawful was, by definition, right, all an incumbent party had to do was write new legislation, invent new legal categories, and it could be justified in any pursuit – abolishing the office of Lord Chancellor, invading Iraq. It's no wonder Starmer – who possesses what must be one of the greatest discrepancies between parliamentary majority and public popularity in British history – is so susceptible to it. But government by diktat also has its drawbacks. As convincing as the arguments of 'lawyer brain' are to other lawyers, they remain unimpressive to the public. In Blair's case, the final straw came with Lord Goldsmith's mealy-mouthed declaration of the legality of the invasion of Iraq. In Starmer's, it seems to be working through accretion. Almost every well-touted 'communication failure' of Starmer's can be explained by the same, mad legalism: the man won't talk about gilt markets, or pension funds; he has to keep talking about the OBR and its arcane rules. He seems incapable of assessing the morality of what's going on in migrant hotels, or Gaza; he can only about international law, as though he were still back in the halls of Matrix Chambers. No wonder he has slumped to remarkable depths in the polls, and is facing considerable dissent from within his own party. He is on the verge of discovering what most of us knew already: that lawyers might be pretty good at getting their way, but they're not exactly well-liked.
