More Than 50 Palestine Action Supporters Arrested Outside Labour Conference

Merseyside Police arrested more than 50 people voicing support for Palestine Action outside the UK Labour Party conference in Liverpool on September 28. Al Jazeera Officers told those detained they were held under the Terrorism Act.

More than 250 protesters had sat outside the conference centre holding banners supporting Palestine Action before police began making arrests. The protest was organised by Defend Our Juries. The tactic was static and legible. Sit down. Hold the banner. Wait for police action.

Palestine Action was proscribed as a terrorist organisation by the Labour government in July 2025 under the Terrorism Act. Since proscription, more than 3,600 people have been arrested for expressing support for the group. Supporters detained in these protests have often held signs reading "I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action."

Separately in Liverpool, activists confronted Ed Miliband inside a restaurant and demanded he lift the ban on Palestine Action. Kerry Moscogiuri, chief executive of Amnesty International UK, described the Liverpool arrests as "a truly shameful attack on freedom of speech."

The broader context here is enforcement logic meeting protest logic. Proscription under terrorism legislation criminalises expressions of support, not only membership or material assistance. That creates a low threshold for arrest when protesters display banners or placards naming the group. Police do not need to establish violent intent at the point of detention. The law is blunt. Protesters appear to understand that bluntness and are using it.

Looking at what this means for Labour, the party is now policing the perimeter of its own conference under powers introduced by its own government. The location was deliberate. A conference concentrates ministers, delegates, media and police in one secured zone, which guarantees visibility for any detention operation. For specialists in protest policing and counterterrorism powers, the questions to weigh are durability and cost. Sustained, synchronised arrests of largely nonviolent demonstrators test custody capacity, prosecutorial discretion and public legitimacy. They also test whether proscription deters association or routinises confrontation. In my view, the Liverpool detentions suggest the latter dynamic is consolidating, with each arrest cycle producing further mobilisation rather than closure.