Polanski says guillotine re-post was mistake but refuses to apologise

The controversy erupted on Monday evening when Polanski shared the image on Instagram. He later explained that the photo was the fifth in a series of 20 from a party, which he had re-posted after accepting a request to collaborate with the Instagram account of a photographer present at the event. Polanski maintains that his sharing of the image was entirely inadvertent, a genuine oversight in the midst of a larger collection of celebratory photos.

Reform UK, however, wasted no time in condemning the post. Zia Yusuf, the party’s home affairs spokesperson, described the image as showing a "photo of man calling for the beheading of Nigel Farage," and warned that it could constitute an "incitement to murder." The gravity of this accusation underscores the severe interpretation placed on the image by Farage’s party, suggesting a direct threat to the Reform UK leader’s safety and well-being.

Nigel Farage himself quickly amplified the controversy, posting a screenshot of Polanski’s shared image on X (formerly Twitter). He stated, "If I was to post anything as inciteful then I would expect to be arrested, and so should Polanski." Farage’s direct challenge implied a double standard in how political figures are held accountable for their online content, positioning himself as a potential victim of political hypocrisy. The Green Party leader was subsequently reported to the Metropolitan Police over the photo, which he swiftly deleted once its content was brought to his attention. Despite the police report, Polanski told the BBC that he had not been contacted by officers regarding the complaint.

Speaking to BBC Newsnight, Polanski offered his initial explanation for his refusal to apologise. He asserted that he would not apologise for an "inadvertent mistake," arguing that Farage had subsequently amplified the incident in a "fundamentally dishonest way." When pressed for the first time by the BBC interviewer to apologise directly to Farage, Polanski clarified his position: "Well, if I’d done it deliberately I’d be apologising but because this was a mistake I think the important thing is that I point out this was a mistake, that I also make sure that I condemn political violence, and also crucially I make a commitment to be better on social media." His statement aimed to differentiate between a deliberate act of malice and an accidental oversight, while also reiterating his condemnation of any form of political violence.

The BBC interviewer, undeterred, asked for a second time whether he would apologise. Polanski again refused, elaborating on his claim that Farage had deliberately cropped the image in his social media post. Polanski argued that this selective presentation was "fundamentally dishonest" and served only to magnify the perceived problem, misrepresenting the context of his original share. He further highlighted the personal impact of the escalating rhetoric, revealing that he had received a death threat earlier on Tuesday. "The ramping up of the language to say ‘this is incitement to murder me’ feels like that’s also putting me in a dangerous spot," Polanski added, suggesting that Farage’s aggressive framing of the incident was contributing to a hostile environment for himself.

Given a third opportunity to offer an apology, Polanski remained resolute, doubling down on his refusal. He articulated a strategic rationale for his stance, stating, "You know as well as I do that as soon as I do that Nigel Farage would run all over social media saying he was correct about incitement to murder and this would all ramp up again." Polanski framed his refusal as a deliberate choice not to "play his game," aiming to draw a line and prevent Farage from exploiting an apology for further political gain. He reiterated the importance of ensuring Farage’s safety and condemning political violence, but also firmly characterized the entire episode as a "political attack."

In a final, conditional statement, Polanski suggested that an apology from him would require reciprocity from Farage. "If Nigel Farage wants to apologise for all the times that he’s put other people in danger then I will be happy to make an apology," Polanski added, subtly alluding to past controversies or criticisms directed at Farage’s own rhetoric and its potential impact on others. This counter-demand sought to broaden the scope of accountability, placing the onus back on his accuser.

Elaborating on his original oversight, the Green leader explained that he had not read the slogan on the t-shirt when he initially accepted the Instagram collaboration. His attention, he claimed, was focused elsewhere: "what I was seeing was people partying." He recounted only noticing that the man was wearing a rainbow hat as he quickly flicked through the series of images. "It feels quite surreal to be having this conversation," he admitted, conveying a sense of disbelief at the intense scrutiny generated by what he perceived as a minor, unintentional error. Polanski maintained that police involvement would be unwarranted, stating, "I think it would be odd for the police to speak to me about that because I think it’s quite obvious I’ve not done anything wrong other than make an inadvertent mistake."

The Metropolitan Police confirmed receipt of the complaint on Monday but provided no further update on their investigation, indicating that inquiries, if any, were ongoing. Beyond the police, Reform UK escalated their actions on Tuesday by formally asking the monitoring officer from the Greater London Authority (GLA), where Polanski serves as an elected member, to investigate whether he had breached the code of conduct for elected officials. Keith Prince, a Reform London Assembly Member, expressed strong skepticism regarding Polanski’s defense, stating, "To say that he was unaware of what he was promoting is frankly risible." This move signifies a multi-pronged approach by Reform UK to pressure Polanski, extending the dispute beyond social media into formal institutional channels.

A Reform UK source, speaking to BBC Newsnight, further intensified the criticism, declaring: "It’s truly astonishing and quite frankly sickening that Zack Polanski won’t apologise for inciting murder." The source continued, "He admits it was wrong. He admits it’s dangerous, but he still refuses to apologise. Mr Polanski is not fit to lead a national political party." This scathing assessment underscores Reform UK’s determination to paint Polanski as unfit for leadership, using his refusal to apologise as a key point of contention.

The broader political establishment has also weighed in on the responsibility of public figures in the digital age. Work and Pensions Secretary Pat McFadden, when asked about the row on Tuesday, emphasized the "duty on all politicians to be careful about what they post." He contextualized this duty by referencing the heightened awareness of political violence and the tragic death of former MP Sir David Amess, who was murdered in 2021. This call for caution highlights the serious implications that seemingly minor online interactions can have, particularly in an environment where political rhetoric can easily escalate and contribute to real-world threats. The incident involving Polanski and Farage, therefore, transcends a simple social media gaffe, touching upon crucial debates about political civility, accountability, and the safety of public figures in contemporary Britain. The dispute remains unresolved, with Polanski steadfast in his refusal to apologize and Reform UK equally firm in its condemnation and demands for accountability.