Key Points
- Pro-Palestinian activist group Global Health for Palestine distributed leaflets targeting staff and visitors at the Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead, North London.
- The activists strongly condemned the government-commissioned review on antisemitism within the National Health Service (NHS), which was authored by independent antisemitism adviser Lord John Mann.
- Photographs of the pamphlet shared by The Telegraph show activists labeling recommended antisemitism training as “pro-Israel indoctrination.”
- The literature described the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism as “discredited and hopelessly flawed.”
- Activists called Lord Mann’s review “racist” following reports that its author stated “antisemitism is the worst of the racisms.”
- The pamphlet claimed the review’s recommendations would ban staff from displaying any Palestinian colours, flags, or symbols—including badges, lanyards, scarves, phone covers, and screensavers—and prohibit criticisms of Israel, Zionism, “apartheid,” or “the genocide.”
Hampstead (North London News) November 9, 2026 — Campaigners from the pro-Palestinian activist group Global Health for Palestine have distributed promotional literature at the Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead, London, fiercely criticising an official government review into antisemitism across the National Health Service (NHS).
As reported by The Telegraph, photographs of the pamphlets distributed inside and around the NHS trust premises reveal that activists branded the proposed staff training measures outlined in the review by Lord John Mann as “pro-Israel indoctrination.” The literature directly targeted the recommendations made by Lord Mann, the UK government’s independent adviser on antisemitism, who was tasked with investigating anti-Jewish hatred and general racism across the healthcare sector.
According to the reporting by The Telegraph, the group’s pamphlet launched a series of specific allegations against the scope and definitions referenced in the official review. Activists described the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism—which is widely utilised across public sector institutions in the United Kingdom—as “discredited and hopelessly flawed.”
Furthermore, the campaigners condemned the report as inherently biased, labelling Lord Mann’s review as “racist” after its author reportedly remarked that “antisemitism is the worst of the racisms.”
The printed literature warned healthcare professionals that the implementation of the review’s findings would lead to severe restrictions on personal and political expression within NHS facilities. The pamphlet asserted that, under the recommendations, NHS employees would be forbidden from displaying any Palestinian colours, flags, or symbols anywhere in the workplace. The literature specifically listed items such as “badges, jewelry, socks, lanyards, accessories, scarves, phone covers, [and] screensavers” as prohibited items under the proposed workplace policies.
Beyond symbolic items, the campaigners claimed that the review’s operational guidance would effectively silence political discourse among healthcare workers. The pamphlet alleged that all systemic criticism of Israel, references to Zionism, or characterisations of Israeli state actions as “apartheid” or “the genocide” would be strictly barred from NHS institutions.
Reframing their opposition around broader equality principles, the pamphlet called for an immediate halt to the government’s current direction of policy. “The NHS plan is racist and divisive,” the text of the pamphlet read, as documented by The Telegraph.
“Scrap it now and let us tackle the scourge of racism in the NHS in an equitable way which recognizes that all forms of racism are equally harmful.”
What Is The Background To Lord Mann’s Review Into Antisemitism In The NHS?
The review led by Lord John Mann was commissioned by Prime Minister Keir Starmer amid growing concerns over reports of anti-Jewish discrimination, workplace harassment, and antisemitic incidents involving healthcare staff and patients following the escalation of the Middle East conflict. The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) instituted the inquiry to evaluate how NHS trusts, management bodies, and professional regulators handle complaints of racism and anti-Jewish hatred.
During the course of the investigation, the review examined workplace culture, the visible display of political symbols by healthcare staff on duty, and the effectiveness of existing disciplinary frameworks. Central to the review’s mandate was establishing clear guidelines to ensure Jewish patients and healthcare workers feel safe, valued, and free from intimidation within hospital environments.
However, the application of anti-racism policies and the adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism have remained subjects of intense debate among various advocacy groups. Critics, including organizations such as Global Health for Palestine, argue that incorporating broad definitions of antisemitism risks conflating legitimate political advocacy and criticism of the state of Israel with racial or religious hatred. Conversely, proponents of the review maintain that robust, explicit protections are essential to eliminate discrimination and prevent hostile environments within public healthcare settings.
How Will This Particular Development Affect The Target Audience?
This development directly impacts NHS healthcare staff, hospital administrators, patient advocacy groups, and the broader public utilizing healthcare facilities in London and across the United Kingdom.
For healthcare professionals, the public distribution of these pamphlets highlights an escalating debate surrounding workplace neutral standards, personal political expression, and professional codes of conduct. If the recommendations of Lord Mann’s review are fully operationalised by NHS trusts, staff may face stricter dress codes and policy enforcement regarding lanyards, badges, and personal accessories displaying political or national symbols. Employees participating in political advocacy will need to navigate increasingly defined boundaries between professional duties and private expression within clinical environments.
For hospital management and trust administrators, the activist campaign presents an operational and policy challenge. Trust leadership must balance upholding statutory equality obligations and protecting staff and patients from harassment against managing freedom of speech and maintaining neutral, non-intimidating clinical spaces.
For patients—particularly Jewish and Palestinian individuals, as well as minority groups—the ongoing friction around healthcare equality frameworks influences public confidence in the health service. While supporters of the review seek to guarantee a secure, neutral environment free from political friction or prejudice, dissenting activist groups contend that current policy directions create division among staff. The resolution of this debate will shape how workplace inclusivity, neutral clinical practice, and anti-discrimination policies are enforced across the NHS nationwide.
