The Metropolitan Police just blinked. After a brief, stuttering pause following a High Court ruling that momentarily scrambled the legal calculus for protest policing, the Met has signaled a return to "business as usual" regarding Palestine Action. They are resuming arrests while the government appeals a decision that challenged the proportionality of their tactics.
The mainstream press is framing this as a "restoration of order" or a "legal tug-of-war." They are wrong. This isn't about law and order. It is about a policing institution that has forgotten how to manage dissent without reaching for handcuffs as a first resort. Resuming these arrests isn't a show of strength; it is a confession of intellectual and strategic bankruptcy.
The Myth of Proportionality
For years, the Met has leaned on the concept of "proportionality" like a crutch. The idea is simple: the police must balance the rights of the protester against the rights of the public and the targeted business. In the case of Palestine Action—a group notorious for smashing windows, dousing buildings in red paint, and occupying factories—the "lazy consensus" suggests that property damage equals an automatic green light for aggressive intervention.
But the High Court recently threw a wrench in that engine. By questioning whether certain arrests were truly proportionate under the Human Rights Act, the court forced the police to actually think. For a few weeks, the Met sat on its hands. Now, they are rushing back to the old playbook because thinking is harder than arresting.
I have seen this cycle play out in high-stakes corporate security and public sector oversight for two decades. When an organization stops innovating, it reverts to its most coercive tools. The Met isn't arresting these activists because it’s the only way to protect Elbit Systems or other defense contractors. They are doing it because they have no other metric for success.
Property vs. Precedent
Let’s dismantle the biggest fallacy in the room: the belief that property damage is a binary "off switch" for the right to protest.
In the eyes of the law, not all broken glass is created equal. The "Ziegler" ruling and subsequent interpretations have suggested that even disruptive, damaging protests can be "lawful" if they are part of a targeted, meaningful expression of speech. The Met hates this. It creates a "gray zone" where officers have to exercise judgment rather than just following a flowchart.
By resuming arrests while the government’s appeal is still pending, the Met is trying to create "facts on the ground." They are betting that by the time the legal dust settles, the momentum of the protest movement will have been broken by the sheer friction of the legal system.
It’s a cynical move. It uses the bail system as a form of "extra-judicial" punishment. You aren't just arrested; you are banned from entire postcodes, forbidden from meeting associates, and buried in paperwork—all before a jury even looks at your case.
The Failure of Deterrence
If the goal of these arrests is to stop Palestine Action, the Met is failing. Spectacularly.
Look at the data from the last three years. Every high-profile arrest, every dawn raid, and every heavy-handed "kettling" operation has served as a recruitment tool. These activists aren't deterred by a night in a cell at Wandsworth. They view it as a badge of honor.
When you treat a political movement as a mere criminal enterprise, you lose the ability to negotiate or de-escalate. You turn a PR problem for a defense firm into a civil liberties crusade for the public. The Met is effectively acting as the marketing department for the very group they are trying to suppress.
Imagine a scenario where the police spent half as much energy on community mediation as they do on coordinating "snatch squads." We wouldn't be in this deadlock. But mediation doesn't look good on a press release. Arrest counts do.
The High Cost of the "Safe" Choice
There is a massive downside to this "arrest first, ask questions during the appeal" strategy that no one is talking about: the collapse of police credibility with the wider public.
When the Met resumes arrests based on a law that is currently being contested in the highest courts, they look like political actors, not neutral enforcers. They look like they are taking orders from the Home Office to "clean up the streets" regardless of the legal nuances.
This isn't just my opinion. Lord Justice Edis and other senior judicial figures have repeatedly warned that the police cannot use their powers to "short-circuit" the rights of citizens. By jumping the gun before the appeal is heard, the Met is essentially saying they don't care what the court eventually decides. They want the result now.
Stop Asking if it’s Legal and Start Asking if it’s Smart
The media keeps asking: "Can they do this?"
The answer is yes, they can technically find a pretext for an arrest. The better question—the one the "insiders" are ignoring—is: "Is this making the city safer?"
The answer is a resounding no.
Every officer tied up guarding an empty factory or processing a non-violent activist is an officer not responding to a burglary or a knife crime. The Met is hemorrhaging resources to fight a symbolic war. They are chasing "direct action" ghosts while the foundation of public safety rots.
The Corporate Shield
We also need to address the uncomfortable truth that the Met is acting as a taxpayer-funded security firm for private corporations.
When Palestine Action targets a site, the company’s first call isn't to their private security contractor; it’s to the taxpayer-funded police. By resuming these aggressive arrest patterns, the government is effectively subsidizing the security costs of the global arms trade.
If these companies are as vital to national security as the government claims, they should be able to secure their own perimeters without requiring a permanent police presence that bypasses standard legal scrutiny.
The Strategy of Attrition
The Met's current path is a strategy of attrition. They want to bankrupt the activists through legal fees and exhaust them through constant detention.
But attrition works both ways.
The Met is also bankrupting its own moral authority. They are exhausting the patience of a public that is increasingly weary of seeing the police used as a political blunt instrument.
I’ve spent years in the rooms where these decisions are made. The logic is always the same: "We have to show we’re doing something." It is the most dangerous phrase in management. "Doing something" usually means doing the easiest, loudest, most destructive thing possible.
The resumption of these arrests is the ultimate "doing something" move. It’s loud. It’s visible. And it’s completely hollow.
The Wrong Metric
The Met is measuring success by the number of bodies in vans. They should be measuring it by the number of incidents that never happen because they managed the tension effectively.
Instead of a "surge" in arrests, we need a surge in legal clarity. Until the government’s appeal is finalized, every arrest made under these contested grounds is a potential lawsuit waiting to happen. The Met is racking up a future bill for the taxpayer in wrongful arrest settlements just so they can look "tough" in March 2026.
It is a classic case of short-term optics over long-term stability. It is the hallmark of an institution that has lost its way.
Don't be fooled by the headlines about "clamping down" on radicalism. This is a desperate attempt to regain control of a narrative that has already shifted. The law is evolving, the public is watching, and the Met is still trying to use a 19th-century hammer to fix a 21st-century ideological conflict.
Take the handcuffs off the legal process and let the courts decide before you fill the cells. Anything less is just state-sponsored theater.
Stop cheering for the "crackdown" and start questioning the bill.
