The proposed demonstration would take place on a day when Jewish Londoners and supporters of Israel are preparing to remember those killed and abducted. No agreement by the organizers to move the event was established in the reporting reviewed.
A March Planned for a Day of Mourning
Police said a group calling itself the University of London Coalition was expected to begin marching at midday from King’s College London toward University College London. The force said attempts to find and engage with the responsible organizers had proved difficult.
Deputy Assistant Commissioner James Harman asked both organizers and prospective participants to consider the distress the timing could cause. Police acknowledged that October 7 would be a day of mourning and reflection for many Londoners, with vigils also being planned.
The appeal concerned the proposed date and its impact. It was not an announcement that participation in any pro Palestinian demonstration would, by itself, constitute a criminal offense.
Universities Were Asked to Help
The Met said it had written to the universities concerned, urging them to help protect Jewish students and staff from intimidation, harassment or exclusion. Reporting identified King’s College London, UCL, the London School of Economics and SOAS.
The police statement acknowledged freedom of expression, peaceful protest and academic debate while emphasizing that Jewish members of university communities must be able to participate fully and safely in campus life.
Those commitments address different responsibilities rather than establishing that a specific student or institution has already broken the law. The reviewed material did not include a substantive organizer response to the appeal.
A Request to Reschedule Is Not a Ban
Harman explained that police do not simply grant or refuse permission for marches. He said the force could impose conditions under public order law and, in narrowly defined circumstances, seek a ban from the home secretary.
The Met did not announce that it had met the threshold for that exceptional step. It said that if the march proceeded, conditions concerning its route and timing would be imposed and publicized.
That leaves a clear distinction between asking organizers to change plans and legally prohibiting an event. The reviewed statement supported the first description, not a claim that the march had been banned or officially endorsed.
What Remains to Be Decided
The next substantive developments would be a change of date by organizers or the publication of final policing conditions. No completed march, associated arrests or disorder should be inferred from preparations for an event still in the future.
Police said breaches of applicable conditions and criminal conduct could lead to enforcement. They also emphasized action against hate crime, while recognizing the right to lawful protest.
For Jewish students preparing to mark the anniversary, the issue is whether commemoration and university life can proceed without intimidation. The force has stated its intended approach; the final arrangements and organizers’ response remained unresolved in the reviewed reporting.
