Police drop investigation into Polanski's guillotine image repost

The Metropolitan Police closed its investigation into Green Party leader Zack Polanski on Wednesday, determining that his reposting of an image featuring a guillotine and the phrase "we're only making plans for Nigel" did not cross the threshold into criminal conduct. The decision came after Reform UK had reported Polanski to authorities on Monday, triggering a review that would ultimately conclude the image's circulation—across roughly 130 accounts—was unlikely to constitute an offence.

Polanski had shared the photograph as part of a collaboration with a photographer's Instagram account documenting an event. He described the post as an inadvertent error, one image within a series of twenty he had agreed to amplify. The slogan on the T-shirt referenced a song lyric, and the shirt itself was marketed as satire. When pressed on the matter, Polanski refused to apologize to Farage, arguing that doing so would only validate claims of incitement and reignite the controversy he sought to contain. "I think it's important that I draw a line and don't play his game," he told BBC Newsnight, while reaffirming his commitment to condemning political violence.

The Met's reasoning hinged partly on proportionality. Investigating Polanski alone while ignoring the 130 other accounts that had shared the same image would constitute unequal treatment based on public profile—a standard the force said it could not apply. Given the unlikelihood that the image itself met the legal bar for criminal conduct, pursuing such an extensive investigation would waste resources better deployed elsewhere. The force acknowledged public concern, particularly given rising threats against elected officials, but maintained that where genuine threats could be identified, action would follow.

Avon and Somerset Police, to whom the Met referred the matter of the T-shirt's wearer, reached a similar conclusion. They noted that no complaints had been filed by attendees at the event, found no evidence the wearer intended to threaten anyone or incite others to do so, and considered the satirical context material to their assessment. The force reiterated its commitment to protecting politicians from genuine danger while declining to treat this particular image as crossing that line.

Nigel Farage, Reform UK's leader, had argued that Polanski's position and social media reach made the repost categorically different from an ordinary citizen's post. He suggested that political figures with large followings bear heightened responsibility and should face consequences for such imagery. Farage noted he had received no private apology and framed the matter as one of accountability: when people post racist or inciteful content online, they typically face investigation and charges, and that standard should apply uniformly. Polanski's refusal to apologize, Farage implied, compounded the original error.

The Green Party's response was swift and dismissive. A spokesperson called it obvious from the start that no crime had occurred and accused Reform UK of weaponizing the incident for political advantage. The party characterized the entire episode as a distraction from substantive governance.

Reform UK's statement after the Met's decision invoked the phrase "two-tier Britain," suggesting that Polanski had been granted immunity unavailable to ordinary citizens. A spokesman claimed that while everyday people faced police visits for online jokes, a prominent political figure had escaped accountability for what Reform framed as incitement to murder. The contrast, they argued, revealed systemic unfairness in how the law was applied.

The Met's final statement attempted to thread a needle: acknowledging legitimate public concern about threats to politicians while explaining why this particular case did not warrant prosecution. The force said it took the safety of those in public life seriously and would act decisively where evidence of actual threats emerged. But sharing an image, even one depicting a guillotine, did not automatically meet that threshold. The decision leaves unresolved the broader question of where the line between political speech and incitement should be drawn—and whether that line shifts depending on who is doing the speaking.