Ramos Leo
In a detailed statement, the Met Police clarified its rationale, explaining that while they recognised the public concern and the current climate of increasing threats towards politicians, the legal threshold for a criminal offence had not been met in Polanski’s case. They stressed that any investigation would need to consider the intent behind the action and the likelihood of it inciting actual violence, neither of which was deemed present to a criminal standard.
Adding a further layer of complexity to the case, the Met Police also revealed that while no action would be taken against Polanski, they had initially determined that a crime should be recorded in relation to the wearing of the T-shirt itself. This report was subsequently referred to Avon and Somerset Police, as the photograph had been taken in Bristol, which falls within their jurisdiction. However, shortly after the Met’s announcement, Avon and Somerset Police independently concluded their own assessment, stating definitively that "the threshold for a criminal offence has not been met" regarding the T-shirt wearer either.
Avon and Somerset Police elaborated on their decision, highlighting several critical factors. They gave "particular consideration… to the context around the image; its use of song lyrics, and the marketing of the T-shirt as a satirical piece." The slogan "we’re only making plans for Nigel" is a direct reference to the 1979 new wave song by XTC, often interpreted as dark humour or satire rather than a literal threat. Furthermore, the force confirmed that "no complaints were received from people at the event at which it was worn," suggesting a lack of immediate harm or alarm to attendees. Crucially, they found "no evidence the wearer of the T-shirt intended to threaten any individual, or encourage anyone else to do so," a key component for any incitement charge. Both forces underscored their unwavering commitment to the safety of elected politicians, asserting that they would continue to take decisive action wherever a genuine threat is identified.
The incident, which saw Reform UK report Polanski to the police on Monday, sparked a heated political debate, laying bare the tensions between free speech, political satire, and the boundaries of online conduct for public figures. Nigel Farage, honorary president of Reform UK, had been particularly vocal in his criticism, arguing that Polanski, as a prominent political leader with a substantial social media following, "cannot put out on his social media the image that he did, my name, the guillotine, without some consequences." Farage drew a comparison to how "ordinary people up and down the country get a knock at the door for making a joke online," suggesting a perceived double standard. He maintained that if individuals post "racist or inciteful" content, they are typically investigated and charged, implying Polanski should face similar scrutiny. Farage also expressed his disappointment at not receiving a private apology from Polanski, stating that while "we all get things wrong in life… what we do afterwards is we apologise."
Conversely, the Green Party spokesperson had vehemently defended Polanski from the outset, asserting it was "obvious from the start" that no crime had been committed. They accused Reform UK of "using this as a political football for their own cynical purposes" and attempting to create a "distraction" from other political issues. Polanski himself robustly refused to apologise to Farage for sharing the image. During an appearance on BBC Newsnight, he articulated his reasoning: "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 stressed the importance of drawing a line and not "play[ing] his game," while simultaneously affirming his condemnation of political violence and the need to ensure Farage’s safety. He framed the entire episode as a "political attack," underscoring the strategic nature of Reform UK’s complaint.
Polanski clarified that the re-post was an inadvertent error. He explained that he had accepted a request to collaborate with the Instagram account of a photographer at an event, and the image in question was just one within a series of approximately 20 photographs. "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," he told Newsnight. He pledged to "make sure that I condemn political violence, and also crucially I make a commitment to be better on social media," acknowledging the enhanced responsibility that comes with his public role and large online platform.
The incident highlights the growing complexities surrounding online content, political discourse, and law enforcement in an increasingly polarised environment. The Met Police’s decision to not treat individuals differently based on their public profile, and their consideration of the 130 accounts that had shared the post, underscored the difficulty of a "disproportionate" investigation. They reasoned that "given it is unlikely their actions would have ultimately constituted an offence, such an extensive investigation was deemed to be disproportionate and not a reasonable use of police resources."
The broader context of increasing threats and abuse directed at politicians in the UK, a concern explicitly acknowledged by the Met Police, adds a serious backdrop to this case. While public figures are expected to uphold higher standards of conduct, the legal system must navigate the fine line between offensive or ill-advised content and genuine incitement to violence. This case ultimately demonstrates that while the optics of certain posts can be alarming and generate significant public and political outcry, the stringent legal thresholds for criminal prosecution, particularly concerning incitement, require clear evidence of intent and a direct likelihood of harm that were not found to be present here by either police force.
George Anjay
Nana Banana
atisusanti
Roy Suryo
