Officers need to know they will be supported when they act decisively
In the aftermath of a knife attack on two Jewish men in Golders Green, the Metropolitan Police found itself defending not only its officers' actions but the very nature of street-level policing — where decisions made in seconds are later weighed in the slower, safer light of public scrutiny. Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley's defence of his officers was also a defence of a principle: that those who act under genuine threat deserve political support, not reflexive condemnation. The episode, declared a terrorist incident, became a mirror held up to the tension between accountability and operational reality — a tension that no body-camera footage can fully resolve.
- Two Jewish men were stabbed in Golders Green by a suspect with a history of violence, and officers without firearms had to subdue him using a Taser and physical force — within minutes of arrival.
- Video of officers kicking the suspect in the head circulated online, and Green Party leader Zack Polanski amplified criticism describing the scene as excessive force against an already-incapacitated man.
- Commissioner Rowley pushed back sharply, releasing body-camera footage and writing that officers feared an explosive device, faced ongoing resistance, and acted with extraordinary courage under duress.
- Politicians across party lines condemned Polanski's intervention as premature and decontextualised, with even his own deputy distancing herself from the framing.
- The suspect, Essa Suleiman, remains in custody on attempted murder charges, and the Met's declaration of a terrorist incident has only deepened the stakes of the debate around how force is judged after the fact.
On a Wednesday morning in Golders Green, two Jewish men were stabbed. Officers arrived within minutes, confronted the knife-wielding suspect without firearms, Tasered him, and physically subdued him when he continued to resist. The suspect, Essa Suleiman, 45, was taken into custody. Two men were injured but alive.
When video of the arrest circulated online — showing officers kicking the suspect in the head — Green Party leader Zack Polanski shared a post characterising it as officers repeatedly and violently kicking a mentally ill man already incapacitated by a Taser. The implication was clear: excessive force.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley responded with a letter rejecting that framing entirely. The officers, he wrote, were unarmed, feared the suspect might be carrying an explosive device, and faced a man who — even after being Tasered — refused to show his hands and remained violent. Body-camera footage released by the Met showed audible commands and evident resistance. Rowley's argument was that this was not restraint abandoned, but restraint exercised under extreme duress.
The political reaction was swift and largely unified against Polanski. Former Labour MP Dame Louise Ellman called it gross misjudgement. A Liberal Democrat MP described the reposting as utterly disgraceful. Even within the Green Party, the deputy leader praised the emergency services and a spokesperson acknowledged Polanski had not seen the full picture.
Rowley's letter reached beyond the immediate incident. He warned that officers who fear political backlash will hesitate, and that hesitation — when a man is holding a knife and has already stabbed two people — costs lives. The subtext was a plea: support officers who act decisively, or accept the consequences of those who do not.
Suleiman, believed to have been involved in a separate incident the day before, was held on suspicion of attempting to murder Shloime Rand, 34, and Moshe Shine, 76. The Met declared the attack a terrorist incident. What remained open was the question Polanski had raised, however clumsily — not what happened, but what it meant, and who holds the authority to say.
On a Wednesday morning in Golders Green, two Jewish men were stabbed. The police arrived within minutes. Officers without firearms confronted a man wielding a knife, Tasered him, and in the struggle to disarm him, kicked him repeatedly in the head. The incident was over. Two men were injured but alive. The suspect, Essa Suleiman, 45, was in custody. By the standards of street policing, it was the kind of messy, violent encounter that happens and then recedes.
But the video circulated online, and what people saw—officers kicking a man in the head—looked brutal. Zack Polanski, leader of the Green Party, shared a post describing the scene as officers "repeatedly and violently kicking a mentally ill man in the head when he was already incapacitated by Taser." The characterization was sharp, the implication clear: excessive force.
Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, responded with a letter expressing disappointment. He did not accept the framing. The officers, he wrote, were "nothing short of extraordinary." They had arrived on scene in minutes. The suspect, even after being Tasered, had refused to show his hands, remained violent, and continued to pose a clear threat. The Met released body-camera footage showing officers shouting commands—"get down on the ground," then "drop the knife"—before and after the Taser deployment. In the footage, the suspect's resistance is audible and evident. Rowley's argument was straightforward: this was not a case of officers acting without restraint. This was officers acting under duress, with incomplete information, trying to prevent further harm.
Rowley added context that had not been widely circulated: the officers were unarmed. They feared the suspect might be carrying an explosive device. Against that backdrop, the decision to use a Taser and then physically subdue a man still holding a knife was not a choice made in calm deliberation. It was a choice made in seconds, in the presence of genuine danger.
The political response was swift and largely unified against Polanski. Dame Louise Ellman, joint chair of the Board of Deputies and a former Labour MP, told the BBC that Polanski had shown "gross misjudgement." Luke Taylor, a Liberal Democrat MP, called the reposting "utterly disgraceful." Even within the Green Party, there was distance. Deputy leader Rachel Millward said the emergency services were brave and well-trained and had done a brilliant job. A party spokesperson acknowledged that Polanski had not seen the full picture and that the situation had been "very difficult" for authorities.
Rowley's letter touched on something deeper than the immediate incident. He noted that apprehending violent criminals is "a full contact and messy task which may appear shocking to observers with little experience of policing in the real world." He argued that officers needed to know they would be supported when they acted decisively to protect the public. The subtext was clear: if officers second-guess themselves in the moment because they fear political backlash, people die. If politicians amplify criticism without context, officers hesitate. And hesitation, in a situation where a man is holding a knife and has already stabbed two people, costs lives.
Suleiman remained in custody on suspicion of attempting to murder Shloime Rand, 34, and Moshe Shine, 76. The Met had declared the attack a terrorist incident. Suleiman had a history of serious violence and mental health issues. He was believed to have been involved in a separate incident in south-east London the day before. The attack was not random. The response, by that measure, was proportionate to the threat.
What remained unresolved was the question Polanski's post had raised, even if clumsily: at what point does necessary force become excessive? Rowley's answer was that the officers had not crossed that line. The video suggested otherwise to some viewers. The disagreement was not really about what happened—the facts were established—but about what it meant, and who got to say.
Notable Quotes
Those officers are nothing short of extraordinary. They were on the scene within a few minutes, and their actions undoubtedly prevented further injury and saved lives.— Sir Mark Rowley, Metropolitan Police Commissioner
Apprehending violent and dangerous criminals is a full contact and messy task which may appear shocking to observers with little experience of policing in the real world.— Sir Mark Rowley
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why did Polanski's post matter enough for the Met Commissioner to write a letter?
Because a senior politician with a platform amplified a characterization of police conduct that was incomplete and, from the Met's perspective, false. When that happens, it shapes public perception of what officers did, and it can affect how officers are willing to act in future situations.
But the video did show officers kicking a man in the head. That's not a mischaracterization of what people saw.
No, it's an accurate description of what happened. The disagreement is about context—whether the man was still a threat, whether the Taser had truly incapacitated him, whether the officers had other options. The Met says he was violent, refusing commands, still holding a knife. Polanski's post didn't include any of that.
Rowley said the officers were unarmed and feared an explosive device. How much does that change things?
It changes everything, actually. If you're unarmed and you believe someone might have a bomb, you're not in a position to negotiate or wait. You have to act, and you have to act decisively. That's the gap between watching a video and being there.
Why did other politicians pile on Polanski so quickly?
Because the attack was on Jewish men, in a Jewish neighborhood, and it was declared terrorism. In that context, a Green Party leader appearing to criticize the police response looked like he was taking the wrong side. It looked like he was defending the attacker, even if that wasn't his intent.
What's the real tension here?
It's between accountability and support. Police need to be scrutinized—that's how you prevent abuse. But they also need to know that when they make split-second decisions under genuine threat, they'll be backed up. If every difficult arrest becomes a political controversy, officers become paralyzed. And paralyzed officers can't protect anyone.
Did Polanski have a point about mental health?
Possibly. The suspect did have a history of mental health issues. But that doesn't change what happened in those moments on the street. A mentally ill person with a knife is still a person with a knife.