Cambridge bans pro-Palestine students from disrupting graduations
On Friday, the university won a four-month court order blocking pro-Palestine demonstrations from certain areas of its campus until the end of July.
It is seeking to prevent a repeat of the pro-Gaza protests that disrupted the graduations of more than 1,600 students last year.
Last month, the institution was handed a temporary injunction to protect one weekend's graduation ceremonies but saw an application for a five-year order rejected.
The new order will run until the last scheduled graduation ceremony for this academic year, which is due to take place on July 26. Twelve ceremonies will be held during that time.
The injunction period will also cover the university's end-of-year exams, which take place in May and June.
The Telegraph understands that Cambridge may return to the High Court at a later date to apply for a further injunction.
In his ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Soole said that there was a 'compelling need' for the legal action because of the 'strong probability' that activists are planning further disruption across Cambridge.
'I am satisfied that there is a compelling need for the granting of an injunction,' the judge said.
In documents submitted to court last week, Cambridge claimed that protesters were blocking the university from using its own land 'without any lawful right to do so'.
'They are doing so not just at great cost and disruption to the university, its staff, graduating students and their guests, but also at risk to themselves,' the documents read.
Last month, The Telegraph revealed that the institution submitted court evidence claiming pro-Palestine protesters stole commercial secrets during a 15-day occupation of a key admin building belonging to the university.
During the occupation of Greenwich House in November and December last year, members of the Cambridge for Palestine protest group raided locked filing cabinets holding highly confidential documents belonging to the university.
Myriam Stacey KC, representing the university, insisted the latest injunction application was not intended to stifle pro-Gaza protests but to prevent disruption on campus.
'It is the activity we are seeking to stop, not the viewpoint. It is legally irrelevant who is doing this. It is what they are doing that we object to,' she said.
The court case, which began on Wednesday, saw Liberty and the European Legal Support Center, two rights groups, intervene to represent pro-Gaza protesters at Cambridge.
Liberty has described the university's application as an attempt to 'silence students and academics'.
Ruth Ehrlich, the group's head of policy and campaigns, said Friday's ruling 'sets a dangerous precedent which will severely restrict protest rights on campus'.
An open letter accusing the university's court action of 'an assault on freedom of expression' was signed by over 200 staff and 580 students.
Cambridge for Palestine, which describes itself as a student-led activist group, also accused the university of 'attempting to destroy one of the strongest student movements for Palestine' ahead of the High Court hearing.
A Cambridge University spokesman said: 'We took this action to protect the right of students to graduate and to prevent access to buildings that contain sensitive, confidential information. This was never about preventing lawful protest.
'The injunction safeguards a very small part of the university estate from an occupation that would prevent graduations from going ahead. It also protects the right for our staff to work.
'Protests occur regularly at the university, including a rally held immediately outside Great St Mary's church during the last graduation ceremony while an injunction covering the Senate House, a few yards away, was in place.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Off-duty officers in Pride event told not to wear items linking them to police
Off-duty Northumbria Police officers who choose to take part in a Pride event this weekend have been told they must not wear clothing linking them to the force. The decision by Northumbria Police comes after a court ruled that the force acted unlawfully by allowing its officers to take part in a Pride event last year. High Court judge Mr Justice Linden said his ruling on Wednesday related only to the 2024 event and that it was up to the force to decide how it approaches Saturday's parade. Northumbria Police has now confirmed uniformed officers will not be permitted to take part and said any of those who are off-duty and do participate must not visibly identify themselves as being officers or members of the force through clothing, flags, or accessories. In an update on Friday, the force also said any participating off-duty officers must not 'express support for political aims (e.g. changes to law or policy) or opposition to other lawful views'. On-duty attendance 'is only permitted where it forms part of the official policing response', the force said. In a statement it said the approach was 'designed to maintain public confidence in our impartiality, while also respecting our employees' individual rights under the European Convention on Human Rights'. It added: 'This guidance is not about limiting personal expression, but about ensuring that when our people represent Northumbria Police, they do so in a way that is fair, balanced, and impartial to all communities.' Lindsey Smith, who describes herself as a 'gender critical' lesbian, took legal action against Northumbria Police over its decision to allow officers to participate in the Newcastle Pride in the City event last July, in which she also participated. Lawyers for Ms Smith told the High Court that the officers' involvement breached impartiality rules, and that the decision to allow them to take part was unlawful, although barristers for the force opposed the challenge, claiming the decision, made by Chief Constable Vanessa Jardine, was within her 'discretion'. In his judgment, Mr Justice Linden said Ms Smith is opposed to 'gender ideology', which she believes is 'wrong and dangerous' but has been 'embraced' by the organisers of the event, Northern Pride. While Ms Smith agreed that the event should be policed, she objected to officers 'associating themselves with the views of supporters of gender ideology and transgender activists by actively participating', the judge said. Last year's event saw uniformed officers march with some carrying flags which included Pride colours alongside police insignia, and others wearing uniforms with the word 'Police' in Pride colours. There was also a 'static display' staffed by uniformed officers, which displayed a Progressive Pride flag, which includes representation of transgender and non-binary people, people of marginalised ethnicities and those living with Aids, the judge said. A police van with the colours of the transgender Pride flag painted on its sides was also present, the court was told. Northumbria Police said it will have a community engagement display at Northern Pride this weekend, adding that it believed a complete withdrawal of police engagement from such events 'would be a retrograde step and damage trust and confidence amongst members of LGBTQ+ community'. The force added: 'We want to ensure everyone knows that we are absolutely here for them when they need us.' The LGB Alliance charity called on the rest of the UK's police forces to follow suit on the withdrawal of uniformed officers from such events and to put in place measures around the participation of off-duty officers. The charity's chief executive Kate Barker said: 'Since our founding, LGB Alliance has been working with police and crime commissioners to raise our supporters' concerns about partisan policing that favours gender activists over LGB people. 'We will continue this work until the UK's remaining 42 forces follow the lead of their colleagues in Northumbria, and stop endorsing a movement they do not understand.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Gazans protest soaring costs and worsening hunger crisis
STORY: ::Palestinians in Gaza protest soaring costs and a worsening hunger crisis amid the Israel-Hamas war ::July 18, 2025 ::Gaza City, Gaza "Find a solution. We're exhausted, we're tired. We spend days and weeks waking up and sleeping hungry. It's enough. All of them are hungry. All of them here are hungry and want to eat." "My family and I are displaced from Beit Hanoun. What wrong did I do? You go and get flour for free and sell it to us for 160, 120 shekels. Who gave you the right? It's not right that a kilogram of lentils, worth 1 shekel, is sold for 40. Our message to the merchants is clear. We are not against the resistance or anyone." On Monday, UNICEF said that more than 5,800 children were diagnosed with malnutrition in Gaza last month, including more than 1,000 children with severe, acute malnutrition. It said it was an increase for the fourth month in a row. On May 19, Israel lifted an 11-week aid blockade on Gaza, allowing limited U.N. deliveries to resume. However, UNRWA continues to be banned from bringing aid into the enclave. Israeli and Hamas negotiators have been taking part in the latest round of ceasefire talks in Doha since July 6, discussing a U.S.-backed proposal for a 60-day ceasefire.
Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Trump's Most Favorable Pollster Has Approval Rating Negative for First Time
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump has fallen into negative territory even in polling conducted by one of his most consistently favorable firms. A new survey from Big Data Poll, long seen as a bellwether for pro-Trump sentiment, shows the president with a slightly underwater approval rating for the first time, signaling potential erosion of support within his core base. Why It Matters The polling comes after Trump had seen an uptick in approval ratings in several polls following an earlier plunge to an all-time low for his second term after protests in Los Angeles and airstrikes in Iran. But new polls indicate Trump's approval rating is slipping. If the trend continues, Democrats could regain ground they lost last cycle, reshaping the 2026 midterms and the broader balance of power heading into 2028. President Donald Trump walks through the White House to the East Room on July 16, 2025. President Donald Trump walks through the White House to the East Room on July 16, 2025. Evan Vucci/AP What To Know The latest survey, conducted July 12 to 14, shows 48 percent of voters approve of Trump's performance, while 49 percent disapprove—a net rating of -1. It marks the first time Trump has registered underwater in the firm's polling since he reentered office. The downward trend marks a sharp contrast to earlier in the year. In May, Big Data Poll had Trump narrowly above water at +1 (48 percent approve, 47 percent disapprove). That figure was already a notable drop from January, shortly after Trump returned to office, when the pollster recorded one of his strongest ratings: 56 percent approval and 37 percent disapproval, a net positive of +19. Much of the decline appears to be driven by a decrease in support among independents. Just 37 percent of independents now approve of Trump's job performance, while 56.6 percent disapprove. Demographic shifts offer a more complex picture. Trump's approval among voters ages 30–49 remains relatively strong, and he has seen a bump in support from Americans with at least a four-year college degree, a group that has historically been skeptical of him. However, this progress is offset by a steep decline among younger voters aged 18–29, who have become increasingly disillusioned in recent months. Approval ratings among older voters have remained relatively stable: those aged 65–74 have largely remained unchanged since May, while voters aged 75 and older have shown a marginal improvement. Nonetheless, the deterioration suggests that frustrations with the administration's policy focus and messaging, especially after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, foreign policy decisions like the bombing of Iran, and the fallout over the Epstein files, are cutting into Trump's appeal beyond his core base. Meanwhile, broader public sentiment about the country's direction has also become more pessimistic. The gap between those who say the U.S. is on the right track and those who believe it's headed in the wrong direction widened slightly in July, returning to double digits after months of improvement. Just 39.4 percent now say the country is headed in the right direction, while 50.8 percent say it's on the wrong track and 9.8 percent remain undecided. The reversal is notable because this traditionally bleak indicator had been trending more positively under Trump's second term—until now. "Voters, specifically part of the president's partisan base and independents, believe the administration is focusing too much on issues that matter little to them, and dismissing issues that do," Big Data Poll Director Rich Baris said in a statement. "Fair or not, that's how they feel and those feelings will need to be appreciated and their concerns addressed if he hopes to recover." "The White House clearly lost the messaging war over the One Big Beautiful Bill and that's in no small part due to those achievements being overshadowed." It comes as polls have shown Trump's approval rating in decline, hitting an all-time low. That includes Newsweek's tracker, which shows Trump's net approval rating at an all-time low of -11 points, with 43 percent approving and 54 percent disapproving. Individual polls also showed Trump's ratings dropping. The most dramatic drop came from YouGov's poll, which saw Trump's approval rating fall from -5 in early July to -17 in the latest survey conducted from July 9 to 13 (39 percent approval, 56 percent disapproval). The Economist/YouGov poll, conducted over a similar period, also showed deterioration. Trump's net rating slipped to -14 (41–55), down from -11 earlier this month. Even Echelon Insights, which has at times offered more favorable numbers for the president, showed his position weakening, with approval falling from -4 to -8 (45–53). Ipsos/Reuters, meanwhile, showed Trump holding steady at -13 (41–54), unchanged from early June. Quinnipiac's poll remained relatively unchanged but still underwater, holding at -14 (40–54). CNN/SSRS, which has consistently been among Trump's worst-performing pollsters, reported a net -16 in its previous wave; the latest results, at -18 (42–58), suggest little movement. Similarly, the new poll from Quantus Insights showed no gain from the previous wave, holding steady at -2 (48–50), suggesting a ceiling may be forming even among Trump-leaning pollsters. One of the few bright spots came from Morning Consult, where Trump improved slightly from a -6 net rating to -3 (47–50). AP-NORC also showed marginal movement in Trump's favor, rising from -21 to -18 (40–58), though the president remains deeply unpopular in that survey.
