BRISTOL SCHOOL BANS JEWISH MP: HOW ACTIVISTS VETOED 19,004 VOTERS.
A landslide election victory. An 11,167-vote margin. One school visit. And the voters don't get a say anymore.
KEY FACTS:
Date: 5 September 2025
MP: Damien Egan (Labour, Bristol North East)
School: Bristol Brunel Academy
Election Result: 19,004 votes, 11,167 majority
Reason: Pro-Palestine activists objected. School capitulated.
Outcome: Visit “postponed.” Still waiting.
Here’s What Happened.
So last July, 19,004 people in Bristol North East voted for Damien Egan. Undeniable fact. Happened. Matter of public record.
This wasn’t some squeaker where he barely scraped through. The man won by over eleven thousand votes. That’s a landslide. You getting that? Eleven thousand, one hundred and sixty-seven votes. Not close.
Fast forward to September. Egan does what MPs do - schedules a routine visit to Bristol Brunel Academy. Standard constituency work. Meet some students, talk about how democracy functions, answer questions. Nothing controversial. Fair enough?
Except Palestine Solidarity Bristol decided they didn’t like that.
And the school? They cancelled.
Notice what just happened there. The voters said yes. The activists said no. And somehow the activists won.
Makes sense to you? Because it doesn’t to me.
Welcome to Bristol democracy, where your ballot is advisory and activists hold veto power.
Three Questions Worth Asking.
Before we go further, keep these three questions in your head. They’ll tell you everything you need to know:
Is it practical? Can democracy actually function when activist groups can ban elected MPs from schools just by threatening to protest?
Is it logical? The voters knew Egan was Jewish. They knew about his Labour Friends of Israel role. They elected him anyway with a massive majority. So what exactly changed between July and September?
What’s the likely outcome? Once you establish that small activist minorities can veto elected representatives’ access to public institutions, where does this actually stop?
Hold onto those. We’re coming back to them.
What Actually Went Down.
Watch how this unfolds.
Egan schedules his school visit. Routine stuff - MPs do this constantly. You know the drill.
Palestine Solidarity Bristol mobilises opposition. National Education Union staff “raise concerns.”
The school postpones. Their official reason? Planned protest near school grounds, potential “clash with end of school day,” need to keep everyone “feeling safe.”
Communities Secretary Steve Reed wasn’t having it: “I have a colleague who is Jewish, who has been banned from visiting a school in his own constituency, in case his presence inflames the teachers. That is an absolute outrage.”
Palestine Solidarity Bristol celebrated on social media. Their post made it clear: Politicians who “openly support Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza are not welcome in our schools.”
The school says they’ll reschedule.
Still waiting.
You see what’s happening here?
Let’s Talk About The Numbers.
Pay attention to this arithmetic because it matters.
Egan won his seat by 11,167 votes. That’s not a close race. That’s crushing the competition.
Palestine Solidarity Bristol? They’re a small activist group. Few thousand people at most.
So Egan’s victory margin alone is bigger than their entire organisation. You following me here?
But somehow - and this is the bit that should make your brain hurt - their veto overrules those 19,004 voters.
Let me say that again so it lands properly: A handful of activists with a Facebook page just overruled nineteen thousand individual voting decisions.
How does that work exactly?
The voters knew his background. They knew his positions on Israel and Palestine. They knew he was Vice Chair of Labour Friends of Israel. They gave him a crushing electoral mandate anyway.
A campaign group with a tiny fraction of those numbers said “we don’t accept that result.”
And they won.
Think about what that actually means for how democracy works now. You with me so far?
The Logic They’re Selling You.
Here’s Palestine Solidarity Bristol’s equation, and watch how this works:
“Friend of Israel” = Supports Netanyahu = Supports Gaza operations = Supports genocide.
Notice that? Four completely separate positions collapsed into one convenient package. You know what I mean? It’s like saying you like dogs therefore you love every single dog that’s ever lived and you personally approve every decision every dog has ever made.
Let’s unpack this, shall we?
You can support Israel’s right to exist without loving Netanyahu. You can think Israel deserves security without endorsing every military operation. You can be pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian statehood simultaneously.
Novel concept, I know. Shocking stuff.
Egan is Vice Chair of Labour Friends of Israel - an organisation that advocates for two-state solutions, negotiated peace, and Palestinian statehood alongside Israeli security. Read that carefully. That’s not “supporting genocide.” That’s supporting the compromise position most Western governments hold.
But here’s the thing - and this is where it gets interesting - if they acknowledge that distinction, if they admit you can be pro-Israel without being pro-every-single-thing-Netanyahu-does, they lose their justification for banning him.
Can’t have that.
So instead they run with: “He’s friends with Israel, therefore he endorses everything Israel does, therefore he supports genocide, therefore we must protect children from his toxic presence.”
That’s not political analysis. That’s playground logic dressed up in moral language. Sound familiar?
Consider this: They claim he “openly supports Israel’s genocidal assault on Gaza.”
Alright. Which assault specifically? Which actions? Which timeframe? Which government decisions are we talking about here?
Ask for specifics and watch the certainty dissolve like sugar in rain.
But here’s the thing about certainty - it mobilises protests. Nuance doesn’t get people out waving banners. Makes sense, right?
Strip away all the moral language and observe what’s actually happening: This isn’t about safety. This is about control. Who gets to decide which elected representatives can access public institutions? The voters who delivered crushing mandates? Or the activists who don’t like someone’s foreign policy positions?
That the democracy you voted for? Because I don’t remember that on the ballot.
And that’s the bit mainstream coverage won’t state clearly:
A Jewish politician with a landslide electoral mandate got excluded from a state school by activists claiming safety concerns, while teaching unions provided institutional cover and school administrators capitulated rather than defend basic democratic principles.
See what just happened there? Activists vetoed voters. That’s the story.
Quick Thought Experiment.
Let’s flip this around for a second and see how the moral clarity shifts.
Imagine right-wing activists successfully prevented a Muslim MP from visiting a school. The MP won their seat by a landslide - over eleven thousand vote margin, decisive victory.
But these activists disagree with his positions on Kashmir. They say his presence would “inflame” teaching staff. Teachers are planning to wear protest symbols if he shows up.
School cancels the visit.
Now, what would we call that?
We’d call it religious discrimination. Immediately. Correctly. Without hesitation.
But when it’s a Jewish MP and the activists are waving Palestinian flags? Suddenly we need delicate conversations about “safeguarding” and “community concerns.”
Interesting how moral clarity shifts depending on who’s being excluded, isn’t it? Funny how that works.
You seeing this pattern or is it just me?
The Teacher Situation.
Let’s think about what’s actually being claimed here.
Teachers at this school are saying: “This MP’s foreign policy positions are so offensive to us that we cannot be in the same building with him. His presence is inflammatory. We need protection from his views.”
Notice what’s driving this decision. Not facts. Not outcomes. Feelings. The teachers FEEL offended. The activists FEEL righteous. The school FEEL they’re being responsible.
None of that has anything to do with whether this actually protects children or serves democracy. It’s all about how it feels. That’s emotional satisfaction trumping measurable outcomes. You seeing that?
Right. So the MP they’re refusing to meet just won an election by over eleven thousand votes. The voters - you know, the people these teachers supposedly serve - thought he was perfectly suitable to represent them in Parliament.
But teachers, whose job involves teaching about democracy, think he’s unsuitable to walk through their school doors?
Tell me that’s not backwards.
Notice what’s happening here. These are professionals whose job description literally includes teaching students how to handle disagreement, modelling tolerance of different viewpoints, and demonstrating how democracy functions in practice.
And they’re having an institutional meltdown over a mainstream Labour MP who holds the exact same Israel/Palestine position as the Labour government he represents.
So when these teachers stand in front of students and talk about respecting different perspectives, engaging constructively with people you disagree with, being thoughtful democratic citizens...
What’s the actual lesson being taught here? You following the logic?
“Respect the democratic process - unless you disagree with the result, in which case veto it and call it safeguarding”?
That’s outstanding citizenship education right there. Really preparing young people for how democracy works. Am I wrong?
The Bristol Pattern and What’s Really Happening.
As I’ve documented in previous Bristol accountability work, this isn’t an isolated incident. It’s a pattern. Watch how this repeats.
The Green-run council is currently selling 1,222 council homes. Selling council homes. During a housing crisis. With 22,000 households sitting on the waiting list.
See what’s happening across Bristol’s institutions?
Now here’s where it gets interesting. Notice what’s doing the heavy lifting in this story. One school capitulation. That single decision just taught every other school in Bristol the lesson: give in to activists, avoid problems. That’s your 20% creating 80% of the democratic erosion. One precedent, cascading effect across the entire system.
An elected representative with a landslide democratic mandate and full legal authority now has less institutional access than an unelected activist group armed with nothing but disruption threats and zero accountability.
Let’s be clear about whose interests are actually being served here:
The teaching union isn’t protecting students. It’s demonstrating power and expanding institutional leverage.
The school isn’t managing risk. It’s protecting its reputation and avoiding confrontation.
The activists aren’t safeguarding children. They’re establishing veto precedent for future use.
Everyone’s serving their own institutional interests while claiming to serve higher principles. That’s not dysfunction - that’s the system working exactly as designed for those inside it. You getting this?
The teaching union provides institutional leverage. School administration chooses the path of least resistance. Government minister objects publicly. Nothing changes.
Notice where power actually lives now. Not with voters. Not with democratic mandates.
Power resides with whoever can threaten disruption most effectively.
That make sense to you? That the system you thought you had?
How Institutions Actually Die.
You want to know how institutions actually die? Not through revolution. Not through dramatic collapse.
Through this. Exactly this. One quiet capitulation at a time.
At first glance, this looks like cowardice. Simple institutional weakness. Schools being spineless, teachers being oversensitive, administrators being risk-averse.
But notice the pattern: these “cowardly” decisions consistently produce the same outcome - activists gain power, democratic accountability weakens, institutional veto power expands.
When incompetence reliably benefits the same parties every single time, stop calling it incompetence. You following me?
Watch how everyone gets to maintain their self-image:
The school genuinely believes they “managed a difficult situation responsibly.”
The teachers genuinely believe they “stood up for justice.”
The activists genuinely believe they “protected children from a genocide supporter.”
Everyone gets to be the hero of their own story. Sound familiar? That’s how it always goes.
And here’s the really interesting bit: Watch how the process becomes the product.
The teaching union’s goal isn’t education anymore - it’s having veto power over MP visits.
The school’s goal isn’t learning - it’s avoiding complaints.
The activists’ goal isn’t protecting children - it’s controlling institutional access.
The process - institutional power - has replaced every stated objective. That’s how organisations end up serving themselves instead of their missions. Ring any bells?
And meanwhile - quietly, without ceremony, without anyone really noticing the moment it happens - the principle that elected representatives can access public institutions regardless of activist approval simply stops existing.
Bristol isn’t sliding toward dysfunction. Bristol has arrived, unpacked, and made itself comfortable.
You see where this is going?
Where This Goes.
Consider what happens next. The school will “reschedule” indefinitely. Or maybe the visit happens quietly months later and everyone gets to save face.
Palestine Solidarity Bristol claims victory. The pattern gets reinforced.
Other schools across Bristol observe the outcome: Capitulation works. Defending democratic principles creates problems. Yielding to pressure solves them. Ring any bells?
Other activist groups learn the lesson: Threaten disruption loudly enough, receive veto power over election results.
And MPs? They learn too. Your landslide victory is advisory. Activist approval is mandatory.
Watch how this unfolds across the system. Slowly, quietly, without anyone intentionally designing it this way, democratic accountability becomes optional.
Bristol continues congratulating itself on being progressive.
And democracy erodes. One veto at a time. Ever notice that?
Remember those three questions from the beginning?
Is it practical? No. Democracy cannot function when activists can veto elected representatives.
Is it logical? No. Nothing changed except activists decided to object.
What’s the likely outcome? This. Exactly what you’re watching happen right now.
Nineteen thousand and four voters elected Damien Egan by an eleven thousand vote landslide to represent Bristol North East.
A handful of activists banned him from visiting a school anyway.
And the school let them.
That’s how activists veto voters.
That’s the full story.
By John Langley (The Almighty Gob) - Independent blogger and satirical commentator specialising in Bristol Council accountability and UK institutional dysfunction analysis. Subscribe for accountability content that names the problem.