Once again a Met police commissioner finds himself in the middle of police and politics. So what’s going to happen now?

In the Venn diagram of policing and politics, it is often the Met Police Commissioner who is caught in the middle.

And so Sir Mark Rowley is again pushed and pulled between the public order decisions its officers make on the ground and the extensive public and political investigation that follows.

In the case of the controversial interaction between Gideon Falter of the Campaign Against Antisemitism and an officer who oversaw the pro-Palestinian march in London last Saturday, the best vantage point we have is the footage filmed by a Sky News camera crew during the demonstration.

Political latest: PM ‘shocked’ by Met Police’s ‘openly Jewish’ exchange

The images show A lengthy and ill-tempered discussionwith the officer accusing Mr Falter of purposefully leaving the sidewalk and walking against the flow of protesters on the road.

“You want to try to resist… I can already see what your mentality is,” the officer says at one point.

Mr Falter disagrees, saying he is simply trying to cross the road and “get out of here”.

The officer responds that if that is the case, he would be happy to escort him and his group around the march safely.

However, Mr Falter asks: “Why can’t I just walk where I want to walk?”, before adding: “The Metropolitan Police say these marches are completely safe for Jews… you’re telling me… I must be guided by you.”

This is really the most important point.

The officer has clearly decided that the best way to reduce the risk of public disorder and keep everyone safe is for Mr Falter and his group to detour around the march.

Other parts of the Sky News footage show why this calculation was likely made.

Some pro-Palestinian protesters are clearly heard aggressively shouting “baby killer” and “scum” at the group.

Against this backdrop, it is clearly uncomfortable that those who are victims of abuse are also being asked to make concessions.

But this also responds to the wider concerns within the British Jewish community that led to this security in synagogues is increased and Jews publicly concealing symbols of their religion.

None of this was helped by the police officer in question’s use of the term “openly Jewish” and the subsequent flat-footed, half-apology in which the Met seemed to suggest that someone’s religion – in itself – might be a provocation.

Despite all this, the force would undoubtedly still point to its operational priority on the ground to maintain peace and minimize potential civil unrest.

So where does this go next?

To answer this, we need to pick apart the somewhat blurred lines of responsibility flowing up from the Met, overseen by both the Labor Mayor of London and the Conservative Home Secretary.

Cabinet ministers say this is now Sadiq Khan’s responsibility.

That’s an unsurprising political move given that London’s mayoral election is just over a week away, but is somewhat undermined by the fact that the police minister has already said he will bring in the commissioner in the coming days.

However, the view inside City Hall clearly matters, especially since it was the mayor who controversially kicked out the last commissioner.

But all indications are that this will not happen again as we are told Mr Khan still has confidence in the Met boss.

In that context, it is difficult to imagine the government unilaterally trying to change the leadership.

More likely is a revival of the wider political debate over the bandwidth that should be allowed for pro-Palestinian protests, given the impact they are having on Britain’s Jewish community.

What this rests on is the friction that arises when the right to protest clashes with the right to express one’s religion – and crucially, how the police arbitrate between competing and sometimes contradictory freedoms.