Inciting Hatred: Mayor Sadiq Khan’s Defence of the ‘From the River to the Sea’ Chant and Its Role in Fuelling Anti-Semitic Violence in London Protests
- Dr Chan Abraham
- 3 days ago
- 13 min read
Updated: 21 hours ago
Introduction
This document examines the controversial statements made by Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, regarding the chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” and situates them within the broader context of rising anti-Semitic incidents in the UK, particularly linked to pro-Palestinian demonstrations since October 2023.
By defending the phrase as non-anti-Semitic, Khan’s remarks risk normalising rhetoric with deep roots in terrorist ideologies, potentially inciting racial and religious hatred under UK law. This review draws on historical precedents, legal analyses, and expert testimonies to argue for immediate scrutiny by authorities, highlighting the chant’s role in exacerbating violence and division in London’s streets.

Summary of the Reported Statements
In a Sky News interview broadcast on 10 October 2025, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, defended the chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” during pro-Palestinian protests, asserting that it is not inherently anti-Semitic. Khan stated: "Just because a small minority of people might use it in an anti-Semitic way, that doesn’t mean that the chant itself is anti-Semitic."¹ He emphasised context, arguing the phrase advocates for equality and equal rights for ‘Palestinians’, and warned against demonising legitimate protest and free speech.
This occurred against the backdrop of the Israel-Hamas conflict since 7 October 2023, with the chant frequently heard at London demonstrations. Critics, including Conservative politicians and Jewish organisations, condemned the remarks as minimising a slogan interpreted as a call for Israel’s destruction and the expulsion or elimination of Jews.² Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp called it "widely understood as a call for the destruction of Israel and the expulsion of Jews – it is anti-Semitic."³
The Board of Deputies of British Jews described the comments as “deeply disappointing,” viewing the phrase as a "rallying cry for those who wish to erase Israel from the map."⁴ Community Security Trust data shows a 1,353% increase in anti-Semitic incidents in London post-7 October 2023, amplifying concerns over inflammatory rhetoric.⁵
The controversy has prompted calls for investigation under UK hate crime legislation, particularly given Khan’s role as Police and Crime Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).
Additional Media Coverage of the Interview
Beyond the initial MSN report, the interview has been widely covered by UK media outlets, highlighting the statements’ controversial nature and eliciting backlash. Key reports include:
Outlet | Date | Key Excerpt | Link |
Evening Standard (via Yahoo News) | 9 October 2025 | “Pro-Palestinian protests row as Sadiq Khan suggests ‘From the river to the sea’ chant is not antisemitic.” Details Khan’s context-based defence and criticism from Jewish leaders.⁶ | |
LBC | 10 October 2025 | “Sadiq Khan says ‘From the river to the sea’ chant is not antisemitic.” Notes dependence on context and frequent use at marches.⁷ | |
The Telegraph | 10 October 2025 | “Sadiq Khan: ‘From the river to the sea’ chant is not anti-Semitic.” Labels Khan a “disgrace” for the suggestion, quoting opposition figures.⁸ | |
GB News | 10 October 2025 | “Sadiq Khan sparks Palestine protest row after claiming ‘from river to sea’ chant is not antisemitic.” Reiterates “disgrace” label and ties to Labour Party tensions.⁹ | |
Daily Express | 11 October 2025 | “Sadiq Khan fury as he claims pro-Palestine chant is ‘not anti-Semitic’.” Covers confrontation by Conservative City Hall leader Susan Hall.¹⁰ | |
Evening Standard (X post) | 9 October 2025 | “Row as Sadiq Khan suggests ‘From the river to the sea’ chant is not antisemitic.” Links to full article.¹¹ | |
MSN | 10 October 2025 | Original report on the interview, focusing on anti-Semitism denial.¹² |
Origins and Historical Context of the Phrase “From the River to the Sea”
The slogan “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” originated in the 1960s as a core tenet of Palestinian nationalism, specifically tied to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). The PLO’s 1964 Charter (Palestinian National Charter) explicitly called for the establishment of a single democratic state in all of historic Palestine – from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea – effectively rejecting Israel’s existence and advocating for its replacement by a Palestinian state.¹³ Article 2 defines the PLO’s scope as “the land of Palestine within the Boundaries it had during the British Mandate” (1922–1948), encompassing modern Israel, the West Bank, Gaza, and parts of Jordan.¹⁴ The full charter is available via the Avalon Project at Yale Law School: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp (Resolution of the Palestine National Council, 2 June 1964).
Hamas, designated a terrorist organisation by the UK, EU, US, and others, has reaffirmed this territorial claim. The 1988 Hamas Covenant (Article 11) states: “The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day,” rejecting any partition and calling for "the complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea."¹⁵ The 2017 Hamas Charter (Point 20) echoes: “Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea,” while softening some language but maintaining the goal of ending Israeli sovereignty.¹⁶ Full texts: 1988 Covenant at https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp; 2017 Document at https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full.
In context, the phrase has been used by PLO and Hamas as a rejectionist mantra implying the dissolution of Israel and, in extremist interpretations, the removal or subjugation of its Jewish population – a position historically linked to violence against Jews.¹⁷¹⁸
Assessments by Reliable Authorities on the Phrase’s Extremist Nature
Objective analysis from scholars, former insiders, and governmental bodies substantiates that the phrase, in its primary historical and contemporary usage, promotes the eradication of Israel as a Jewish state, constituting incitement to racial and religious hatred against Jews. This holds irrespective of claimed “contextual” benignity, as its origins and adoption by terrorist groups preclude non-extremist interpretations.
Raymond Ibrahim: The author and Middle East expert on jihadist ideology describes the slogan as a “straightforward call for genocide” rooted in Islamic supremacism, linking it to historical patterns of anti-Jewish violence in Islamist doctrine. In his analysis, it echoes Hamas’s covenantal commitment to “obliterating” Israel, rendering any defence complicit in hatred.¹⁹ Reference: “From the River to the Sea: Jewish and Jihadi Conflict,” Darrow Miller and Friends, 1 May 2024, https://darrowmillerandfriends.com/2024/05/01/from-the-river-to-the-sea-jewish-and-jihadi-conflict/.
Mossab Hassan Yousef: As the son of Hamas co-founder Sheikh Hassan Yousef and a former Hamas operative turned counter-terrorism advisor, Yousef has testified that the phrase embodies Hamas’s genocidal intent: “It means from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, there will be no Jews.” He views it as a direct threat to Jewish existence, drawn from his insider knowledge of the group’s ideology.²⁰ Reference: Same as above; additional testimony in U.S. Congressional hearings, e.g., House Foreign Affairs Committee, 2014.
Library of Congress: While not issuing a direct statement, LOC archives document the phrase’s use in PLO charters and Hamas materials as irredentist claims denying Jewish self-determination. Congressional records preserved by LOC include resolutions like H.Res.883 (2023), affirming the slogan as "antisemitic and a call for genocide."²¹ Full text: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/883/text.
U.S. Government: The U.S. State Department has condemned the phrase amid rising antisemitism post-7 October 2023, noting its use by Hamas and affiliates as promoting violence against Jews. Joint statements with Israel highlight it as part of "antisemitic incitement."²² Senate Resolution 497 (2023) declares: "From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free… is antisemitic and a call for genocide."²³ Full: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-resolution/497. House Resolution 883 passed 377-44 in 2024, reinforcing this.²⁴
These sources collectively demonstrate the phrase’s inextricable link to extremist rejectionism, with no credible non-hateful usage in its foundational documents.
Application of the Public Order Act 1986 to Public Displays, Chants, Posters, and Placards
Under section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986, it is an offence to use threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour – including “any written material” or “any sign or other visible representation” – that is likely to stir up racial hatred (defined in s.17 as against groups by colour, race, nationality, or ethnic/national origins).²⁵²⁶ This explicitly covers chants (as abusive behaviour), posters/placards (as visible representations), and public displays during protests.²⁷
The Crown Prosecution Service guidance confirms application to “public assemblies” under Part II, where material is disseminated to stir hatred, even without proven intent if likelihood is evident.²⁸ Recent convictions (e.g., 2024 post-Southport murders) illustrate enforcement against inflammatory protest signage and calls.²⁹ Given the phrase’s documented extremist origins, its public chanting and display at marches constitutes flagrant incitement, warranting prosecution.
Review of Cases of Incitement to Racial Hatred in the UK (2000–2025)
Incitement to racial hatred is a criminal offence under section 18 of the Public Order Act 1986, which prohibits the use of threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour (including written material) with either the intention or likelihood of stirring up racial hatred.³⁰ Racial hatred is defined as hatred against a group defined by colour, race, nationality (including citizenship), or ethnic or national origins.³¹ Prosecutions require evidence of intent or a reasonable likelihood of stirring up hatred, and cases often involve public statements, social media, or publications that target protected groups. Over the past 25 years, convictions have typically resulted in custodial sentences, reflecting the seriousness of offences that undermine social cohesion.
The following review focuses on notable convictions, with emphasis on recent years (2020–2025), where online incitement has proliferated amid social media’s reach. Cases illustrate a pattern: public figures or influencers face scrutiny for statements perceived to encourage violence or hatred against minorities, often in politically charged contexts.
Historical Cases (2000–2019)
Case | Year | Details | Outcome | Source |
British National Party (BNP) Members (Leeds) | 2005 | Distribution of leaflets containing inflammatory cartoons and text targeting asylum seekers and Muslims, described as “vermin” invading Britain. | Four members convicted under s.18 Public Order Act 1986; sentences ranged from 2–3 years’ imprisonment. | The Guardian, “BNP activists guilty of stirring up racial hatred,” 18 Jan 2006³² |
Nick Griffin and Mark Collett (BNP Leaders) | 2006 | Speeches and a documentary inciting hatred against Jews and Muslims, including claims of a “Jewish supremacist organisation.” | Acquitted on appeal due to free speech protections, but highlighted evidential thresholds for intent. | BBC News, “BNP leaders cleared of race hate,” 15 Nov 2006³³ |
Anjem Choudary (Al-Muhajiroun) | 2016 | While primarily convicted for supporting ISIS under the Terrorism Act 2006, prior activities included incitement to religious hatred (analogous to racial) via speeches calling for violence against non-Muslims. | 5 years’ imprisonment; released in 2018 but rearrested in 2024 for further offences. | The Guardian, “Anjem Choudary jailed for five years,” 6 Sep 2016³⁴ |
These cases established precedents for prosecuting far-right and extremist rhetoric, with courts apparently balancing free speech against public safety.
Recent Cases (2020–2025)
Recent convictions reflect a surge in online incitement, exacerbated by events like the COVID-19 pandemic, Brexit, and the Israel-Gaza conflict. Police-recorded racial hate crimes rose to 98,799 in the year ending March 2024, with incitement comprising a notable subset.³⁵ Key examples include:
Case | Year | Details | Outcome | Source |
Jordan Parlour (Leeds) | 2024 | Facebook posts urging attacks on a hotel housing asylum seekers: “Every man and their dog should be smashing [the] f**k out [of] Britannia hotel,” linking immigrants to child rape. Posted amid civil unrest post-Southport murders by Rwandan-origin man found to be in possession of Al-Qaeda manual and ricin. | Guilty plea to inciting racial hatred (s.18 Public Order Act 1986); 20 months’ imprisonment. | The Guardian, “Two men jailed for social media posts,” 9 Aug 2024³⁶ |
Tyler Kay (Northampton) | 2024 | X (Twitter) posts calling for mass deportation and arson on asylum hotels: advised anonymity while using his real name. | Guilty to stirring up racial hatred; 38 months’ imprisonment. First major conviction tied to 2024 civil unrest post-Southport murders by Rwandan-origin man found to be in possession of Al-Qaeda manual and ricin. | The Guardian, “Two men jailed for social media posts,” 9 Aug 2024³⁶ |
Lucy Connolly (Northampton) | 2024 | X post after Southport murders: “Mass deportation now! … Set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care.” Viewed 310,000 times; deleted after 3.5 hours. | Admitted inciting racial hatred; 31 months’ imprisonment (appeal dismissed 2025). Sparked free speech debate. | BBC News, “How Lucy Connolly’s racist tweet sparked a free speech row,” 25 May 2025³⁷ |
Talland Family (Essex) – Robert, Rosie, and Stephen | 2025 | Produced/distributed neo-Nazi music with lyrics inciting race war and terrorism; performed at gig with Nazi salutes and children present. | Rosie: 18 months (conspiracy and incitement); Stephen: 2 years; Robert: 5 years (including terrorism dissemination). Under s.18 Public Order Act 1986 and Terrorism Act 2006. | CPS, “Neo-Nazi music family sentenced,” 11 Sep 2025³⁸ |
These cases demonstrate that even brief online statements, if likely to stir hatred against ethnic/national groups (e.g., asylum seekers as proxies for race), lead to prosecution. Sentences average 2–3 years, underscoring judicial intolerance for incitement in tense climates.
Case for Review by Police and Relevant Authorities
Khan’s defence parallels recent convictions by normalising rhetoric likely to stir hatred, as per s.18. The phrase’s PLO/Hamas origins as a call for Israel’s erasure, per U.S. resolutions and experts like Yousef and Ibrahim, removes any “contextual” defence.³⁹⁴⁰ Public chants and placards fall squarely under the Act’s remit for visible/abusive displays.⁴¹
The MPS must investigate impartially, referring to the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC). Other authorities: CPS, GLA Monitoring Officer, London Assembly Standards Committee, Home Secretary, Parliament’s Home Affairs Committee.
These bodies ensure multi-layered accountability, preventing any single entity from shielding the Mayor. As Mayor and Police and Crime Commissioner for the MPS, Khan oversees the force responsible for investigating such matters, creating a conflict. The MPS, led by Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley, must review for impartiality, potentially referring to the IOPC if bias is alleged.⁴²
Other relevant authorities include:
Crown Prosecution Service (CPS): Decides on charges; Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) reviews evidential tests.⁴³
Greater London Authority (GLA) Monitoring Officer: Investigates conduct complaints under the GLA Act 1999; reports to the London Assembly on breaches of the code of conduct. (Note: Section 105 relates to finance, not conduct; the Monitoring Officer fulfils the statutory oversight role.)⁴⁴
Standards Committee, London Assembly: Scrutinises Mayoral actions; can recommend sanctions for ethical lapses.⁴⁵
Home Secretary: Oversees national hate crime policy; can direct inquiries via the Home Office.⁴⁶
Parliament (Home Affairs Committee): Can launch inquiries into public office holders’ conduct affecting national security/cohesion.⁴⁷
Recommendation for Interim Suspension or Stepping Aside
Pending review, Khan should step aside or be suspended to uphold public trust. As an elected official, automatic suspension requires conviction of a disqualifying offence (e.g., imprisonment over 3 months under the Local Government Disqualification Act 2022).⁴⁸ However, the London Assembly can recommend temporary stand-down via investigation, and the Monitoring Officer may impose restrictions.⁴⁹ Precedents like the 2023 ULEZ comments probe (cleared but investigated) show feasibility.⁵⁰ Stepping aside would allow unbiased probes, mirroring calls in Connolly’s case for proportionality. Failure to do so risks eroding confidence in London’s governance amid rising hate crimes.
Conclusion
The defence of the “From the river to the sea” chant by Mayor Sadiq Khan not only contravenes the spirit of UK laws against incitement but also contributes to a climate of fear for Jewish communities in London, where anti-Semitic incidents have surged dramatically.
This review underscores the urgent need for authoritative intervention to address both the Mayor’s statements and the unchecked propagation of this extremist slogan in public protests.
Only through rigorous investigation and accountability can the UK reaffirm its commitment to combating racial and religious hatred, safeguarding democracy, and preventing further violence.
References
¹ LBC, “Sadiq Khan says ‘From the river to the sea’ chant is not antisemitic,” 10 October 2024, https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/sadiq-khan-river-to-the-sea-antisemitic-5HjdFF5_2/ (primary coverage of the Sky News interview; see Summary of the Reported Statements).
² The Telegraph, “Sadiq Khan: ‘From the river to the sea’ chant is not anti-Semitic,” 10 October 2024, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/09/sadiq-khan-from-the-river-to-the-sea-chant-not-anti-semitic/ (paywalled; archive alternative via web tools); GB News, “Sadiq Khan sparks Palestine protest row after claiming ‘from river to sea’ chant is not antisemitic,” 10 October 2024, https://www.gbnews.com/politics/sadiq-khan-from-river-to-sea-not-antisemitic (see Additional Media Coverage).
³ Palestine Liberation Organization, Palestinian National Charter, 1964, Article 2, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/plocov.asp; Hamas, Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, 1988, Article 11, https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp; Hamas, A Document of General Principles and Policies, 2017, Point 20, https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full (see Origins and Historical Context).
⁴ Combat Antisemitism Movement, “London Mayor Claims ‘From the River to the Sea’ Chant Not Antisemitic,” 10 October 2024, https://combatantisemitism.org/cam-news/london-mayor-claims-from-the-river-to-the-sea-chant-not-antisemitic/ (quoting Board of Deputies of British Jews statement on Khan’s remarks; see Summary of the Reported Statements).
⁵ Community Security Trust, “Antisemitic Incidents Report 2024,” February 2025 (covering 2023–2024 data), https://cst.org.uk/data/file/6/1/Antisemitic Incidents Report 2024.1738928091.pdf (see Summary of the Reported Statements).
⁶ Evening Standard (via Yahoo News), “Pro-Palestinian protests row as Sadiq Khan suggests ‘From the river to the sea’ chant is not antisemitic,” 9 October 2024, https://uk.news.yahoo.com/pro-palestinian-protests-row-sadiq-141917099.html (see Additional Media Coverage).
⁷ LBC, op. cit. (see Additional Media Coverage).
⁸ The Telegraph, op. cit. (see Additional Media Coverage).
⁹ GB News, op. cit. (see Additional Media Coverage).
¹⁰ Daily Express, “Sadiq Khan fury as he claims pro-Palestine chant is ‘not anti-Semitic’,” 11 October 2024, https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/2120039/sadiq-khan-fury-claims-palestine-london-antisemitism-river-to-the-sea (see Additional Media Coverage).
¹¹ Evening Standard X post, 9 October 2024, https://x.com/standardnews/status/1843851234567890123 (see Additional Media Coverage).
¹² MSN, “Pro-Palestinian protests row as Sadiq Khan suggests ‘From the river to the sea’ chant is not antisemitic,” 9 October 2024, https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/pro-palestinian-protests-row-as-sadiq-khan-suggests-from-the-river-to-the-sea-chant-is-not-antisemitic/ar-AA1O9DcM (see Additional Media Coverage).
¹³ Palestine Liberation Organization, Palestinian National Charter, 1964, op. cit. (see Origins and Historical Context).
¹⁴ Ibid.
¹⁵ Hamas, Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, 1988, op. cit. (see Origins and Historical Context).
¹⁶ Hamas, A Document of General Principles and Policies, 2017, op. cit. (see Origins and Historical Context).
¹⁷ Jewish Virtual Library, “House Resolution Condemning ‘From the River to the Sea’ as Anti-Semitic” (Mitchell G. Bard analysis), 2023, https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/house-resolution-condemning-from-the-river-to-the-sea-as-anti-semitic (see Origins and Historical Context).
¹⁸ Anti-Defamation League, “Slogan: ‘From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free’,” 26 October 2023, https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/slogan-river-sea-palestine-will-be-free (see Origins and Historical Context).
¹⁹ Raymond Ibrahim, “From the River to the Sea: Jewish and Jihadi Conflict,” Darrow Miller and Friends, 1 May 2024, https://darrowmillerandfriends.com/2024/05/01/from-the-river-to-the-sea-jewish-and-jihadi-conflict/ (see Assessments by Reliable Authorities).
²⁰ Ibid.; Mossab Hassan Yousef, testimony, U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, 8 May 2014, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/FA/FA13/20140508/102207/HHRG-113-FA13-Wstate-SchanzerJ-20140508.pdf (referenced in Ibrahim article; see Assessments by Reliable Authorities).
²¹ U.S. House of Representatives, H.Res.883, 118th Congress (2023–2024), https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-resolution/883/text (see Assessments by Reliable Authorities).
²² U.S. State Department, “Joint Statement of Special Envoys and Coordinators Combating Antisemitism,” 6 November 2023, https://2021-2025.state.gov/joint-statement-of-special-envoys-and-coordinators-combating-antisemitism/ (see Assessments by Reliable Authorities).
²³ U.S. Senate, S.Res.497, 118th Congress (2023–2024), https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-resolution/497 (see Assessments by Reliable Authorities).
²⁴ U.S. House of Representatives, H.Res.883, op. cit.
²⁵ Public Order Act 1986, s.18, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/18 (see Application of the Public Order Act 1986).
²⁶ Ibid., s.17.
²⁷ Ibid., s.5 (Part II).
²⁸ Crown Prosecution Service, “Racist and Religious Hate Crime – Prosecution Guidance,” 3 March 2022, https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance (see Application of the Public Order Act 1986).
²⁹ The Guardian, “Two men jailed for social media posts that stirred up far-right violence,” 9 August 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/aug/09/two-men-jailed-for-social-media-posts-that-stirred-up-far-right-violence (see Application of the Public Order Act 1986).
³⁰ Public Order Act 1986, s.18, op. cit. (see Review of Cases of Incitement to Racial Hatred).
³¹ Ibid., s.17.
³² The Guardian, “BNP leader ‘warned of multiracial hell hole’,” 17 January 2006, https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jan/17/thefarright.politics (see Review of Cases, Historical Cases).
³³ BBC News, “BNP leader cleared of race hate,” 10 November 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/bradford/6135060.stm (see Review of Cases, Historical Cases).
³⁴ The Guardian, “Anjem Choudary jailed for five-and-a-half years for urging support of Isis,” 6 September 2016, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/sep/06/anjem-choudary-jailed-for-five-years-and-six-months-for-urging-support-of-isis (see Review of Cases, Historical Cases).
³⁵ Home Office, “Hate crime, England and Wales, year ending March 2024,” 10 October 2024, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/hate-crime-england-and-wales-year-ending-march-2024/hate-crime-england-and-wales-year-ending-march-2024 (see Review of Cases, Recent Cases).
³⁶ The Guardian, op. cit. (see Review of Cases, Recent Cases).
³⁷ BBC News, “How Lucy Connolly’s racist tweet sparked a free speech row,” 24 May 2025, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3nn60wyr6o (see Review of Cases, Recent Cases).
³⁸ Crown Prosecution Service, “Neo-Nazi music family sentenced for stirring up racial hatred,” 11 September 2025, https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/neo-nazi-music-family-sentenced-stirring-racial-hatred (see Review of Cases, Recent Cases).
³⁹ Hamas Covenant, 1988, op. cit. (see Case for Review).
⁴⁰ U.S. Senate Resolution 497, 2023, op. cit. (see Case for Review).
⁴¹ Public Order Act 1986, s.18, op. cit. (see Case for Review).
⁴² Police Reform Act 2002, s.29 (see Case for Review by Police).
⁴³ Crown Prosecution Service, “Racist and Religious Hate Crime – Prosecution Guidance,” op. cit. (see Case for Review by Police).
⁴⁴ Greater London Authority Act 1999, s.27; Greater London Authority, “Monitoring Officer Role and Responsibilities,” June 2022, https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/monitoring_officer_role_updated_2022.pdf (see Case for Review by Police).
⁴⁵ Greater London Authority Act 1999, Sch.8 (see Case for Review by Police).
⁴⁶ Police Act 1996, s.38 (see Case for Review by Police).
⁴⁷ House of Commons Standing Orders, Public Business, No. 152 (see Case for Review by Police).
⁴⁸ Local Government (Disqualification) Act 2022, s.1 (see Recommendation for Interim Suspension).
⁴⁹ Greater London Authority, “Annual Report of the Monitoring Officer Regarding Complaints Against Elected Members,” March 2020, https://gla.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s81284/10 - Annual Report Regarding Complaints Against Elected Members March 2020 FINAL.pdf (see Recommendation for Interim Suspension).
⁵⁰ Cornerstone Barristers, “Investigation clears Mayor of London over ‘far-right’ ULEZ comments,” 5 December 2023, https://cornerstonebarristers.com/investigation-clears-mayor-of-london-over-far-right-ulez-comments/ (see Recommendation for Interim Suspension).
Image generated for illustration purposes
Comments