What Happens When You Stand With Israel on a British Campus?

1,460 pages of records covering my political activity, social media and other aspects of my private life raised difficult questions about privacy, free expression and the treatment of a pro-Israel student on a British campus.

The Subject Access Request at my University

The first four Harry Potter books combined. That is how many pages of ‘records’ my university holds about me: 1,463 pages. The sheer scale of documentation should shake up every student across Britain. As I spent hours skimming and scanning through every piece, I became rather worried about the Russian-State-like monitoring of me.

Who am I? Just an ordinary student, studying Politics, International Relations, and Law – so very current, controversial, if you like. I’m a student who dares to be right-wing and a supporter of the world’s only Jewish State. As I worked my way through the cringe messages between high-ranking members of staff, meddling with the future of a student as if it’s some sort of joke, I became increasingly aware that this wasn’t monitoring of my social media for legitimate purposes; it was tracking my location in Jewish areas, taking note of my views and ‘thoughts’, and get this – a referral to Counter-Terrorism under the PREVENT scheme. So, I must ask the question: how did a student’s political life become subject to this much institutional documentation? Throughout this piece, I will take you through exactly what the ‘records’ show and what remains unexplained.

Golders Green – my presence in a predominantly Jewish area of London:

“Brodie was indeed at Golders Green on Thursday – he has posted images of himself on X”. Two Jewish Men stabbed in North London – “waiting for BM [Brodie Mitchell] to link this to his experience?” Those are just two of the messages between members of the University’s Wellbeing team and Surrey Police. Two Jews had been stabbed in the area where I was going to visit at lunch, and so I stood, not scared, but in solidarity with London’s Jewish Community – what is the issue? Is it extreme to want to stand strong in the face of an Islamist terror attack against a minority group? As I listened to figures like Reform UK’s Richard Tice, Laila Cunningham, Conservative MP Chris Philp, and members of the Jewish Community, my eyes watered. But I’m extreme for supporting them, right? 

The message about my whereabouts was sent from the team responsible for protecting me at Royal Holloway to Surrey Police – but why? Was I considered a walking red safety hazard for saying controversial things online? Well, why was my presence being noted and communicated in this context? 2 Jews were stabbed, fighting for their lives, and University staff were gossiping about … me!? But it doesn’t stop there – this wasn’t the only record where my politics had attracted institutional attention from Royal Holloway University. 

The Digital Trail: My Posts, My Friends’ Socials And My Name: 

‘You’re a terrorist who needs that Charlie Kirk treatment’. ‘Raise [your] neck, keep it nice and warm and moist, ready to be Charlie Kirked’. ‘I’ll see you soon. Watch where you step, Brodie’. ‘You’re getting Charlie Kirked, boy’. ‘I’m gonna murder this racist prick’. ‘Faggot Jew Bag’. Messages and comments have filled my requests inbox, social media, and university group chats along with slit-throat stickers, antisemitic and homophobic content. Some of which were accompanied by Islamic sayings. One individual in the Royal Holloway Founders Group chat sent the threats from an Eid service in a mosque. All along, I’ve wondered whether the University has been taking me seriously. Then I discovered they’d in fact been more focused on my social media activity and the personal life of my close friends. 

‘BM has taken to TikTok to share a post’. ‘Can I ask you to please turn on Signal live real-time reporting for our Brodie Mitchell search term?’ The University had been talking about a live monitoring agency that produces immediate results for the search term, ‘Brodie Mitchell’. This is next-level obsession. Disclosed in the documents shared with me was a monitoring plan. The External Communications Team had or may still have live reporting set up for Brodie Mitchell mentions through their ‘monitoring provider’. 

It didn’t stop at live reporting of my name. I quickly became aware that some of my closest friends on campus, often seen associated with me, were having their personal social media accounts monitored by the Royal Holloway Wellbeing team that operates under the Instagram User: Rh_wellbeing. Occasions included just before midnight, 23:57, a certain individual from the Wellbeing team, was watching the ‘stories’ of one of my friends’ Instagram – including a repost of the article written by Jewish News. 

Other instances included searching for and viewing the stories of other students associated with me, some Jewish, others not. When the institutional stalking focused on me, I understood that some senior management at Rhul have issues. But when I became aware that the attention was also shifting to my friends, it felt way more intrusive. I felt uncomfortable with the fact that some of my friends now felt uneasy that they were indeed also subject to institutional targeting, simply for being associated with me. Many can distinguish between social media monitoring of students and the interference with my personal life that felt like stalking. 

Political Opinions and Assessments Of My Thoughts: 

PREVENT is a Government-level Programme to stop people being drawn into terrorism, essentially designed to stop terror attacks and to strengthen national security. Referrals of University students in 2026 have increased by nearly 46% compared to 2 years ago. There have even been instances of students’ essays being reported to PREVENT. A tool designed to protect us from terror and extremism is instead being exploited by university staff, non-academics, who don’t like our politics. This should concern left-wing, right-wing, zionist, anti-zionist students. Our wellbeing teams risk jeopardising our futures by putting Prevent referrals on our records – yet to many of these people, we’re just numbers. 

As a student fascinated by security, counter-terror, home-grown extremism – I was absolutely astonished to see amongst the 1,463 pages a National Prevent referral form. The individual at the top of this so-called Wellbeing team had explained, ‘Mr Mitchell was known for being politically active on campus, linked to his pro-Israel views which fall within his freedom of speech’. When asked about ideology, e.g. Islamist or Extreme Right Wing, they explain, ‘Mr Mitchell has been vocal using his freedom of speech to share views on the Israel/Palestine conflict. He has actively shared that he holds Zionist & pro-Israel views. [His] latest comments suggest more extreme right-wing views and thoughts which may further be assessed as suspected hate speech.’

So, this referral was not just about being right-wing, speaking out against the Muslim brotherhood, being a Zionist, and standing with the Jewish people; it was about my thoughts. How on earth does one assess thoughts? Is my university reporting my alleged thoughts to the Police? As someone who has posted publicly in support of Muslim figures like Amjad Taha and colleagues from Abu Dhabi, or Israeli-Arab Muslim friends from places like Akko in Israel, I would say my thoughts are far from dangerous, and instead lean more into the spaces of peace and an end to war.

As for my ‘latest comments’, what does hate speech refer to? The Head of Wellbeing who submitted this referral, a week after Rhul settled with me in Mediation, following my claim in the High Court, fixated on posts about Islamist terror and extremism. But the post that caused the most uproar was the one in which I explained my death threats and how almost every instance of hate, bullying, and harassment on campus is unfortunately from the Muslim community, including calling for the Pakistani Muslim student who leaked my address to more than 200 students to be sent back home as he’s on a student visa. Someone causing alarm and distress to a British student is not conducive to the public good, and doesn’t deserve an education here, in my own controversial opinion. Apparently this is ‘them vs us’ ideology according to staff at Rhul. 

What I’d be interested in knowing is whether their concerns focused on my specific public statements or whether the focus shifted towards an assessment of my alleged thoughts and assumptions as to my broader political outlook. How can our places of education be reporting assumptions about what we think? The most important thing to note about all of this: Prevent referrals are not a finding of extremism but instead an outcome of an assessment by a public body – ie our universities. 

What Happened When Prevent Assessed The Referral? 

Following the University’s concerns about my politics, and my alleged “thoughts”, Prevent’s own assessment reached a very different conclusion. Rather telling, if you ask me. In correspondence shared under the SAR, Prevent sets out: “There is no evidence to suggest that the subject is developing an extremist mind-set in the promotion or advancement of an ideology based on violence, hatred, or intolerance”. Further, after they shut down each of the university’s concerns, Prevent adds “[This] doesn’t meet the Counter Terrorism criteria for adoption. The case will now be closed to Prevent”. How embarrassing that Royal Holloway essentially wasted time, resources, and taxpayers’ money to target a student they disagree with. 

If one compares the language of the reportee from the Wellbeing team to that of officials at Prevent, it appears that staff at Royal Holloway don’t quite understand much about National security and extremism. So, if the assessment found no evidence of an extremist mindset, what is it that justified the university’s concerns? More importantly, what safeguards exist to stop political disagreement from being treated as a safeguarding concern? 

This is not an isolated case. This is not a question about one student, one referral. It raises concerns as to the power our University holds over students’ lives. 

When Universities Cross The Line: 

I ask readers of this piece not to focus on me and my politics, but to look broader than our politics. This should concern students from across the political spectrum. In an age where students are self-censoring, cases like this will make them think again about sharing their views in public – whether that’s on immigration or the Middle East. Universities are a place for debate, an arena for conversations about controversial topics. Instead, the reality in Britain in 2026 is rather bleak. 

It’s only right that universities act on credible evidence of threats or radicalisation – they have legitimate safeguarding responsibilities. But there is a clear distinction.

Safeguarding is not a licence to jump to assumptions about students’ beliefs and ideology; it is not right to monitor their personal lives, or the lives of their friends. They should not be escalating controversial speech to counter-terror routes. 

These senior members of staff seem to joke about students, while promoting their message of ‘Mental Health Matters’ – but at the end of the day, we are not numbers. They are meddling with the futures of students. Real people. Their actions have consequences. Whether it’s reputational damage, anxiety, a loss of trust in the university and its wellbeing teams, or the chills around free speech and legitimate political expression, their silly virtue-signalling is messing with real people. 

I believe we should all be asking: who scrutinises the people making these decisions? Are they essentially marking their own homework? Dealing with their own complaints? 

Every Student Should Be Concerned: 

My case is not whether readers agree with my views. I’m not asking that everyone agrees with me as a Zionist, or my views on Islamism, or my support for right-wing politics- Reform UK and the Conservatives. This principle must apply equally to us all  – whether we agree or disagree, left-wing, right-wing, pro-Israel, pro-Palestinian, or even those who are politically disengaged. There must be transparency about students being referred to Prevent. It’s wrong, in my opinion, that my university requested the Police not to contact me directly, simply because the University was aware of how this may further their poor public reputation in the headlines. I believe that monitoring of any sort must be proportionate, and anyone carrying out such activities needs to be held accountable. There must be routes in which students can challenge such decisions and figures at the top of the university. 

If British Counter-Terrorism Programmes are actively being enforced by University admin staff in an attempt to bully students with different political opinions, then this is not just my problem. This is a threat to the freedoms of every student. This amounts to a threat against all of our freedom to think, to speak, and to disagree. I call on every single student to challenge this. National Security should not be a game to those who disagree with our politics.