British Police Allegedly Arrest Jewish Man Because His Star of David ‘Antagonized’ Protesters
“How do we get back to the point where police are protecting us [Jews] properly rather than targeting us?”
If there were any doubt that the United Kingdom has chosen a side in the Israel–Palestinian conflict, the arrest of a Jewish attorney wearing a Star of David necklace while observing a pro-Palestinian demonstration in London has erased it.
The unfathomable arrest occurred nearly two months ago, but is only coming to light now. The Telegraph, a London media outlet, recently obtained police interview footage that “shows a detective accusing the Jewish man of openly wearing a Star of David that could cause ‘offense.'” According to the report, police alleged the symbol had “antagonized” pro-Palestine protesters.
🚨 WATCH: Police interview footage obtained by The Telegraph shows a detective accusing the Jewish man of openly wearing a Star of David that could cause “offence”.
Click here ⬇️https://t.co/KDuj6I69IG pic.twitter.com/VBoLpokEcL
— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) October 18, 2025
The man, who wishes to remain anonymous for safety reasons, was released after posting bail and is currently awaiting the results of a police investigation. He shared his story with The Telegraph.
The man, who is in his 40s, was arrested at 7 p.m. on Aug 29 at a pro-Palestine protest outside the Israeli embassy in Kensington in central London. The lawyer insists he was acting as an independent legal observer, monitoring the event for unlawful behaviour by the protesters and to scrutinize the actions of police.
But officers instead accused him of antagonizing the crowd and being part of a counter-protest.
He was handcuffed behind his back, bundled into the back of a “meat wagon” and then held for questioning at Hammersmith police station, before finally being released at 4.30am the next morning.
He finds the police’s claim that displaying the Star of David antagonizes people “outrageous.” He said, “When it was first raised in the police interview, it rang alarm bells for me immediately. Police crossed the line.”
They [the police] are trying to criminalise the wearing of a Star of David. They said I was antagonising and agitating pro-Palestine protesters with my Star of David. In an environment of anti-Semitism, I will not be cowed by this. I will carry on wearing it.
This is one of the clearest examples of two-tier policing you will ever see. Police are arguing that wearing a Star of David is antagonising to protesters while we have seen all manner of anti-Semitic slogans on placards and shouted at Jews that have gone unpunished.
Predictably, the Metropolitan Police denied the arrest was motivated by the man’s display of the Star of David. They claimed he was arrested for “allegedly ‘repeatedly breaching’ an order to keep opposing protest groups apart.”
Following The Telegraph’s request for a comment, the police claimed:
[H]e got “very close” to the pro-Palestine protesters on multiple occasions, and alleged his actions went “beyond observing to provoking,” leading them to designate him as “actively participating as a protester,” therefore binding him to conditions of the Public Order Act.
The Telegraph notes the man was detained “for a suspected breach of Section 14 of the Public Order Act. The Act allows police to impose certain conditions on protests to prevent violence or serious disruption. The man was arrested for straying outside of an area cordoned off for a counter-protest to the rally.”
This man, along with two other Jewish men, founded the group Society of Independent Legal Observers (SILO) this year, “to monitor the growing wave of pro-Palestinian protests.”
Gill Levy, a member of SILO and a former Metropolitan Police sergeant who spent two decades on the force, attended the August demonstration as a legal observer. He told The Telegraph he was “appalled” by what he saw. He said:
It is really shocking. I cannot see how this was proportionate or justified. It makes me distraught.
How do we get back to the point where police are protecting us [Jews] properly rather than targeting us? When I was an officer I was always thinking about the reputation of the police, and how I could ensure what I was doing did not expose the organisation to risk. This arrest beggars belief. I am part of this Jewish tribe, but I am also part of the police tribe, and for them to have let me down like this is heart-breaking.
It’s just like our existence as Jews is now heretical. It’s as if Jews should not be able to take part in civil society.
I cannot think of another identity that would cause a police officer to make an arrest. How can the symbol of Judaism have caused such antagonism that police got involved? And surely the problem is with the person who is antagonised, not with the person wearing the Star of David?
Below is The Telegraph’s detailed description of the man’s interview in police custody on the night of his arrest:
In footage of the interview, the man is first questioned by police at 1am in an interview room one at Hammersmith Police station. A detective constable explains he is normally attached to the robbery unit, but has been called in to “deal with any excess prisoners that come in as a result of the protests.” In the interview, the officer was unclear under which sub-section of the Act the lawyer was being arrested.
The arrested man then gave a lengthy, pre-prepared statement explaining his actions on the evening he was detained.
The detective then paused the interview for half an hour to allow him time to digest the “very detailed account” before asking questions of his own. The interview resumed at 1.50am with the detective constable asking the Jewish suspect about his “political beliefs,” adding: “If people go to the police with a feeling you are antagonising them, shouldn’t police act on that information?”
He questioned why the suspect was not wearing “anything that overtly identifies you as a legal observer” and accused him of “approaching the pro-Palestine protesters” with his camera “quite close to them.”
Then, having asked the arrested man if he was “stoking the fire with these pro-Palestine protesters,” the detective asked the accused: “What necklace are you wearing?”
The suspect showed him his Star of David – which was bought for him by his girlfriend while on holiday in Ibiza – before his lawyer interrupted, telling the detective: “I am concerned about this question about the Star of David.”
The officer asked: “Why are you concerned?” before the interview was halted so the lawyer and his client could discuss the line of questioning.
At 2.13am the questioning resumed. The defence lawyer told the detective he was “concerned about you raising my client’s religion and wearing a sign in relation to that which I don’t think is appropriate”.
Then the lawyer asked the detective if he knew “what IJAN stands for” in reference to the anti-Israel group that had organised the protest. The International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network (IJAN) describes itself as part of the worldwide movement “against Zionist militarism and repression.”
The group had begun its protests in the wake of the Oct 7 Hamas attack with regular Friday night protests outside the Israeli ambassador’s home in Swiss Cottage, which is also home to a large number of Jews. These were later moved to outside the Israeli embassy in Kensington.
The detective explained to the accused that he had “had to familiarise myself with it [IJAN] because I wasn’t at the start of the interview but correct me if I’m wrong. It’s the International Jewish Solidarity Network.”
They then corrected him, before adding: “In any event the pro-Palestinian protest was organised by a Jewish organisation…. And the Magen David [Hebrew for Star of David] is a sign of being Jewish. So I’m not sure what your point is – bearing in mind the protest was organised by a Jewish organisation.”
The detective constable insisted “my line of questioning first and foremost is not to offend”, adding: “It’s not to discriminate. I want to have that on record. I am not asking that question to cause you any offence. However, if we had proceeded with my line of questioning, the officers have noted in their statements that they believed because the Star of David was out and present to people… they felt that was antagonising the situation further.”
The lawyer replied: “With respect, that is appalling and shows a complete… ignorance on behalf of those officers because if they were familiar with the fact IJAN were organising the protest then they would recognise that how could a Magen David cause offence?”
He went on: “Notwithstanding the fact we shouldn’t be in a situation where people can’t walk around wearing a sign of their religion.”
At that point, the detective reiterated that he did not believe “any officer had acted with a view to causing offence”, adding: “I don’t know what you are referring to, a mogga dovid.”
The lawyer explained that also meant Star of David to which the officer replied: “Sorry I haven’t heard that,” adding: “We are not talking about [the accused] walking about with a Star of David chain on his neck in an open forum in public generally.”
“We are talking about a very niche environment where tensions are high, where two sides are coming together, have adverse opinions, have adverse views.”
“We are not talking about [the accused’s] human rights in terms of what he is wearing in a public forum.”
“We are talking about a hostile environment where pro-Palestinian protesters are obviously objecting to what is happening in Israel and Gaza. That’s what I want to say on that… I don’t want this to become a political debate in an interview.”
The lawyer for the arrested man replied: “I don’t for one minute concede the argument that he shouldn’t be entitled to wear his Star of David wherever he wants as a sign of his religion. And as I said to you before there isn’t a point here because IJAN is a Jewish organisation and the Star of David relates to Judaism as opposed to any political views.”
By this point it was 2.20am and the defence solicitor raised concerns that the line of questioning risked becoming “oppressive.”
The detective followed up: “As to my last point I have made to you… the officers have written in their statements about the presence of your necklace. Do you see how that could be an antagonistic emblem or sign, however you want to phrase it, to people in that environment?”
The interview eventually ended at 2.25am and he was set free from the police station at Hammersmith at 4.30am. The Jewish lawyer is still on police bail and the case against him remains under investigation.”
A Met Police spokesman said: “The claim that this man was arrested for wearing a star of David necklace is not true. He was arrested for allegedly repeatedly breaching Public Order Act conditions that were in place to keep opposing protest groups apart.”
“The conditions required protesters from the pro-Israel group, Stop the Hate, to remain in one area while protesters from the pro-Palestinian group, IJAN, were required to remain in a separate area.”
“Over the course of an hour, the man is alleged to have continuously approached the area allocated to IJAN, getting very close to protesters to film them and in doing so provoking a reaction. Officers had to intervene on at least four occasions to ask the man to return to the Stop the Hate area.”
“When he failed to do so after multiple warnings, he was arrested.”
While we’ll have to wait to see where this goes, I seriously doubt a London policeman would ask a Muslim if wearing a burka or a kufi could be an antagonistic emblem or sign in the wrong environment.
This incident underscores the unmistakable and troubling shift taking place in the U.K. today. Government leaders and clearly the police are willing to marginalize Jews and patriots due to their fear of offending the country’s growing Muslim population.
If they don’t wake up soon, the U.K. may one day be governed by Sharia law.
JD Vance: “UK will be the first Islamist country with nuclear weapons.” pic.twitter.com/OeW5cZZJdy
— Dr. Maalouf (@realMaalouf) April 12, 2025
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Errr the first Islamist country with nuclear weapons is Pakistan JD.
And it’s a race between France and UK as to which might become the second although clearly at this point UK is in the lead.
Listen to his remarks in full then comment again. He referenced Pakistan and was making a point about England
British police now acting as Nazi brownshirts and SS and gestapo officials. Their grandparents would be so proud of them.
Rue Brittania.
It is a wholly conquered country.
Rue Brittania
Brittania is enslaved
Never, Never will Britains be saved
God curse the King for allowing this to happen.
This started decades ago under the Queen. Unfortunately, the British monarchy is largely ceremonial and holds little power to change things. They’re careful to avoid stepping into hot-button issues because they don’t want to risk getting thrown out of their own castles.
Neither the King nor the Queen before him had anything to do with it. The UK is a democracy, and its policy is set exclusively by the elected government. The monarch is required to act on the advice of his ministers, and only on that advice. You might as well blame Canada’s governor-general for Trudeau’s or Carney’s policies.
Well, at least we know the UK government is not made up of Nazis.
Nazis MAKE Jews wear the star. The UK makes them NOT wear the star.
Remember when we used to have countries where you could wear a star or not, as you chose? I think it was before all those old, dead white men died, and left them in the hands of all those progressive, relevant, tattooed new-blood #resisters.
In the US, you can state “I’m invoking my right to remain silent and my right to have an attorney” and shut up. That’s just fine and the courts will hold the police to it. In England, you can say the same thing, and it means nothing. Your silence can and will be used against you in court. They’ll give you a lawyer when they darned well feel like it, if at all. (However, it’s still better to be arrested in England than in Japan.)
Better still DO NOT TRAVEL to England, Japan, or any other hostile country. The USA is big enough. Even here we must be aware of certain “not wise to visit” areas and cities.
I agree with this 100%. Sadly, despite the conception that “our side” is winning, there are more and more places every year that I can no longer travel. I used to be able to visit Colorado, now it’s safer not to. I’m completely cut off from the Pacific Ocean. Minnesota has fallen, and a solid Iron Curtain surrounds the north and east and half the south borders of Pennsylvania.
Police said he left the counter-protest area four times, and the article doesn’t dispute this. It sounds like he is at fault, and the article and reader comments are wrong.
It seems to me you are skipping a relevant question; Was he an active counter protester or an observer merely recording the actions of the protesters? The police seem to be upset, to the point of chiding him, about his failure to wear something overtly identifying him as a ‘legal observer’. Finally the trigger for police action was suggested by the lead detective to be wearing a small symbol of his religion in proximity to the protesters which the detective described as ‘noted in the officer’s reports as antagonistic’.
In sum this guy walked up and recorded the protesters while wearing a small religious symbol which the cops viewed as an ‘antagonistic’ act.
If you have a need to not be recorded protesting stay the fuck at home and shut the fuck up about whatever god damned issue you feel the need to protest.
If it is freedom of speech to go into a public area to protest for you it is freedom of speech to record that protest.
I am sick to death of this
“MY FREE SPEECH MEANS I GET TO SPEAK AND YOU HAVE TO ALL LIKE IT AND THE ONLY REACTION MUST BE POSITIVE AND IF IT IS RECORDED IT CAN ONLY BE RECORDED BY PEOPLE OF MY CHOICE”
No fuck you that isn’t free speech.
I hated when the left did it and I hate when the right does it.
You are free to vote for leftwing wokies in reaction to getting called out by someone on the right I don’t care if I am driving you into the hands of Democrats you have a right to protest you do not have the right to be unrecorded in public, and neither do you have a right not to see something you consider offensive.
Remember the neo-Nazis winning at the supreme court for if they could walk through a neighborhood full of Holocaust survivors in Swasticas?
Again I am sick to death of people forgetting America’s founding principles, what free speech actually means, what the constitution means and basic common sense.
It’s actually quite clever: If you belong to a group prone to emotionalism and irrationality–and the attendant “acting out”–then others are required to act so as not to “provoke” you.
The more rational and controlled among us–those of us who, for example, do not punch faces when someone shouts “Allahu akbar,” even though such shouting can actually be intimidating and, well, “offensive”–are thus ever at a disadvantage.
“It’s actually quite clever: If you belong to a group prone to emotionalism and irrationality–and the attendant “acting out”–then others are required to act so as not to “provoke” you.”
Sounds like tranny’s and AWFL wine drinking blue haired cat ladies.
One of the reasons we fought the Revolutionary War. First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It’s all a nightmare in the making.
I still cannot believe that these countries have allowed the march of islamists to overtake their governments, freedoms, culture to this extent. Mind boggling!
And they are aiming for us here in the US.
People are willfully blind and deceived.
I think it’s quite clever to counter the lies of people who dub themselves with names of the form “Jews for Opposing Jews” by arguing, “We’re all Jews here — how can Jews be offended by other Jews’ Jewish symbols?”
We need more of this.
Not for nothing is England called the “perfidious albion.”