At least 1,195 people were brutally killed in the Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel three years ago.

Ahead of marches set to take place in London, Metropolitan Police Deputy Assistant Commissioner James Harmam said the force could not ban the marches altogether.

“We cannot ban protests and can only ask the Home Secretary to do so if the risk of serious disorder is so high that it can’t be managed by conditions.

“That high bar is not met here,” he insisted.

Despite this, the Met had sought out student organisers to urge them to hold their event on an alternative date.

“We, the Met, have attempted to find and contact the student organisers to ask them to very carefully consider the impact their event will have, and to ask them to hold this event on a different day,” he said.

GMP and Police Scotland did not make a similar attempt to have demonstrators reschedule their plans.

In Manchester, GB News understands the force deemed an intervention too significant a step, given the smaller scale of expected protests.

A gathering is planned for Albert Square, central Manchester, at 6pm this evening.

Police Scotland confirmed it was aware of planned protest activity in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen but said only that “appropriate resources” would be deployed.

“We are aware of planned protest activity due to take place in Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen on Wednesday, 7 October, 2026,” the force told GB News.

“We will have appropriate resources in place to ensure the safety of those in attendance and mitigate disruption to the wider community.”

Pro-Palestinian demonstrations are planned in Edinburgh and Glasgow today, marking the third anniversary of the October 7 attacks on Israel.

Campaigners are due to protest outside Barclays on Princes Street in Edinburgh and at an Armed Forces Careers Office in Glasgow, while a Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign meeting is scheduled for this evening in Edinburgh.

Jewish community organisations have condemned the decision to stage protests on this particular date, describing the timing as a deliberate provocation against a community in mourning.

A spokesman for Campaign Against Antisemitism told The Telegraph: “Because we have focused our scrutiny on the Met, other forces are apparently doing nothing at all, because policing these days only seems to happen when there’s a public outcry.

“These marches are nothing to do with Palestine and everything to do with Israel: the Jews cannot even be left to mourn their dead in peace.”

Police Forces Refused to Stop Pro-Palestinian Activists Holding Massacre Marches

The debate over pro-Palestinian demonstrations in Britain has intensified after police forces reportedly refused to stop marches described by critics as “massacre marches”. The controversy has reignited difficult questions about freedom of expression, public order, the boundaries of political protest and the responsibilities of the police when demonstrations involve language that many people consider deeply offensive.

The dispute comes amid continuing tensions surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict, with demonstrations across Britain drawing large crowds and prompting strong reactions from supporters and opponents. For some campaigners, the marches represent a legitimate demand for Palestinian rights, a ceasefire and accountability for civilian deaths. For critics, particular slogans and chants risk celebrating violence, intimidating Jewish communities or blurring the distinction between political criticism and support for attacks on civilians.

The decision not to prohibit a demonstration, however, does not necessarily mean police agree with its message. British policing operates within a legal framework that protects peaceful assembly and freedom of expression while allowing restrictions in specific circumstances where the law’s requirements are met.

That distinction has become central to the latest controversy.

Why the Marches Have Sparked Anger

Pro-Palestinian demonstrations have become a prominent feature of Britain’s political landscape since the escalation of the Israel-Gaza conflict in October 2023. Marchers have called for an end to military operations, greater humanitarian access, the release of hostages and a political settlement that protects Palestinian rights.

Many participants regard these demonstrations as peaceful acts of solidarity. They argue that public protest is essential when people believe governments are failing to respond adequately to civilian suffering.

Yet some demonstrations have also generated controversy over chants, placards and slogans used by a minority of participants. Critics argue that language celebrating violence, glorifying attacks on civilians or targeting Jewish people cannot simply be dismissed as ordinary political expression.

The phrase “massacre marches” is itself a politically charged description rather than a neutral legal category. Its use reflects the strength of opposition to particular demonstrations, but it does not establish that every participant supported violence or that a march was unlawful.

Understanding the controversy therefore requires examining the specific words used, the context in which they were expressed and the conduct of individuals involved, rather than treating all pro-Palestinian protesters as a single group.

A demonstration attended by thousands may include people with very different motivations, from humanitarian campaigners and students to political activists and individuals expressing more confrontational views. The actions of particular participants should not automatically be attributed to everyone present.

At the same time, police and political leaders face legitimate questions about how they respond when threatening or potentially criminal conduct occurs during a public gathering.

Why Police Forces Declined to Stop the Demonstrations

The controversy surrounding the October 7 anniversary marches highlighted the limits of police powers. According to reporting published on October 7, Police Scotland and Greater Manchester Police did not ask organisers to postpone planned demonstrations marking the third anniversary of the Hamas attacks on Israel. The Metropolitan Police also indicated that a complete ban would not be justified under the circumstances it had assessed. <Cite refs={[“turn837518search7”]}/>

The date added particular sensitivity to the debate. The Hamas-led attacks on October 7, 2023, killed around 1,200 people in Israel and resulted in 251 people being taken hostage. For many Jewish people, the anniversary is a time of mourning and remembrance. The prospect of demonstrations taking place on the same day prompted concern about whether public celebrations, inflammatory chants or provocative displays might deepen the distress of those remembering the victims.

Yet the legal question facing police was not simply whether the marches were offensive to some observers. It was whether the available evidence met the statutory threshold for restricting or prohibiting the events.

Under British public order law, police can impose conditions on demonstrations where the legal criteria are satisfied. These may include restrictions on routes, locations, timings and other aspects of an event. A complete prohibition on public processions is an exceptional measure, requiring additional legal steps. The government’s own guidance makes clear that police decisions must balance public safety with the right to peaceful protest. <Cite refs={[“turn837518search0″,”turn837518search1″,”turn837518search5”]}/>

This creates a distinction that can be frustrating for people who believe a march should not take place. A protest can be deeply offensive without automatically meeting the legal test for a ban. Equally, a demonstration being allowed to proceed does not give participants permission to commit criminal offences.

The police must make decisions based on evidence, the circumstances of the particular event and the powers available to them. If officials were able to prohibit demonstrations solely because their message was unpopular or caused offence, the same power could eventually be used against a wide range of political movements.

The Difference Between Political Speech and Criminal Conduct

One of the most contentious issues is the interpretation of slogans used at pro-Palestinian demonstrations.

Supporters of the marches argue that expressions of solidarity with Palestinians should not be treated as evidence of hostility towards Jewish people. They point to the distinction between criticising the Israeli government, opposing military action and endorsing violence against civilians.

Critics respond that certain chants or displays may cross a line when they glorify attacks, threaten Jewish people or encourage hatred. They argue that freedom of expression cannot be used as a shield for criminal intimidation or incitement.

Both the context and the precise language matter. A slogan cannot be assessed reliably without considering how it was used, whom it targeted and whether there was evidence of threatening or criminal intent where that is legally relevant.

This is why the response to demonstrations should not depend exclusively on broad political labels. Police must assess particular conduct rather than assume that everyone attending a pro-Palestinian march shares the same views.

The same principle should apply to every political movement. Demonstrators expressing support for Israel, Palestinian independence, immigration restrictions, climate action or any other cause should be subject to the same legal standards.

Where there is evidence of an offence, authorities should investigate it. Where a protest remains lawful, restrictions must be justified under the relevant legislation rather than imposed simply because its message is controversial.

Jewish Communities and the Question of Public Safety

For British Jewish communities, the wider controversy cannot be separated from concerns about antisemitism and personal safety.

The anniversary of the October 7 attacks is particularly painful for people who lost relatives, have friends who were killed or taken hostage, or fear that hostility towards Israel may spill over into discrimination against Jewish people in Britain.

Community leaders have repeatedly stressed the importance of distinguishing political disagreement from antisemitism. They have also called for the authorities to respond effectively to threats, intimidation and attacks on Jewish institutions.

The challenge for police is to protect communities without treating lawful political expression as inherently criminal. That means assessing the potential impact of demonstrations on people attending synagogues, visiting community centres or travelling through affected areas.

Recent changes to Britain’s public order framework have also expanded the circumstances in which restrictions may be imposed near places of worship. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduced provisions concerning protests that may intimidate people and deter them from accessing religious premises for worship. It also requires police to consider the cumulative effect of repeated demonstrations when assessing serious disruption. <Cite refs={[“turn837518search2″,”turn837518search4”]}/>

These measures do not establish an automatic ban on demonstrations connected to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Instead, they provide additional tools for authorities to assess particular risks and circumstances.

For Jewish residents who feel threatened by demonstrations, the effectiveness of these powers will be judged by what happens on the ground: whether threats are addressed, whether access to religious premises is protected and whether the law is applied consistently.

For protesters, the same decisions will be judged by whether police respect their rights and avoid imposing unnecessary restrictions.

Should the Government Intervene?

The police response has renewed calls for ministers to take a stronger position on demonstrations that coincide with sensitive anniversaries or involve controversial political slogans.

Some critics believe the government should make it easier to postpone or restrict marches when there is a serious risk of intimidation or public disorder. Others warn that granting ministers broad powers to stop demonstrations could undermine the independence of policing and create a dangerous precedent for future governments.

There is a legitimate debate about whether the current legal framework strikes the right balance. However, changing the law would require careful consideration of how any new powers could be used in different circumstances.

A power introduced to restrict one controversial march could later be invoked against protests about government policy, international conflicts, workers’ rights or civil liberties. The question is therefore not only whether a particular demonstration is objectionable, but also what safeguards should govern the state’s ability to restrict public assembly.

Any new rules would need clear thresholds, independent scrutiny and proportionate enforcement. They should protect people from threats and serious disruption without giving political authorities an unrestricted ability to silence dissent.

Accountability Must Apply to Everyone

The controversy also raises questions about accountability after a demonstration has taken place.

If individuals use threatening language, incite violence or commit assault, the authorities should investigate the evidence and take appropriate action. If organisers breach lawful conditions imposed on an event, they should be held accountable under the relevant rules.

But accountability should not be confused with collective blame. The presence of a criminal suspect at a demonstration does not automatically make every participant responsible for that person’s actions. Nor does police permission for an event establish that every slogan or statement made during it was lawful.

Clear communication from police forces is important in these circumstances. Explaining why an event was permitted, what conditions were imposed and what enforcement action followed can help the public understand decisions that might otherwise appear inconsistent.

Where officers decline to ban a march, that decision should be explained in terms of the legal threshold and the evidence available. Where restrictions are imposed, authorities should similarly explain why they were necessary and proportionate.

Transparency cannot eliminate disagreement, but it can help distinguish an evidence-based operational decision from a political judgment about the message of a protest.

A Difficult Test for Britain’s Democracy

The refusal to stop the demonstrations has exposed a fundamental tension in British public life. A democratic society must protect the right to peaceful protest, including demonstrations whose messages many people find offensive. At the same time, it must protect communities from threats, intimidation and violence.

Neither responsibility can simply be ignored.

The term “massacre marches” conveys the anger felt by opponents of demonstrations held around the October 7 anniversary. But the description alone does not determine whether a specific march was unlawful. That assessment depends on the event’s circumstances, the conduct of participants and the legal powers available to the authorities.

Police forces must therefore make difficult decisions under intense public scrutiny. Allowing a protest to proceed may provoke criticism from people who believe its timing or message is intolerable. Restricting it may prompt accusations that the authorities are suppressing legitimate political expression.

The answer is not to abandon legal safeguards or to treat every demonstration as harmless. It is to apply the law consistently, act on credible evidence of criminal conduct and explain decisions openly.

Ultimately, the credibility of Britain’s approach will depend on whether the same standards are applied regardless of the cause being promoted. Jewish communities must be protected from antisemitism and intimidation. Palestinians and their supporters must retain the right to peaceful political expression. Those committing offences must face investigation, while those exercising lawful rights should not be punished simply for holding unpopular views.

That balance is demanding, particularly when international conflicts produce intense emotions at home. But it is precisely in such circumstances that consistent policing, clear legal standards and respect for democratic freedoms matter most.