The Metropolitan Police announced Tuesday they will not prosecute Green Party leader Zack Polanski for an Instagram post featuring a guillotine image [1].
The decision highlights the ongoing tension between political expression and legal definitions of incitement in the United Kingdom. The case centered on a T-shirt image accompanied by the caption, “We’re only making plans for Nigel,” referencing Reform UK leader Nigel Farage [1], [2].
Reform UK had previously reported the post to authorities. A spokesperson for the party said the image is an incitement to murder and should be investigated [3]. The party said the imagery crossed the line from political satire into a direct threat of violence [3].
However, investigators determined that the post did not meet the threshold for criminal charges. A Metropolitan Police spokesperson said it is unlikely that the sharing of the image online would constitute a criminal offence [1].
Polanski addressed the controversy on Wednesday. He said the post was an inadvertent mistake but said he will not apologise to Nigel Farage [4].
The incident occurred amid a period of heightened political rhetoric in London. While Reform UK pushed for legal accountability, the police decision suggests a high bar for proving criminal intent in the context of social media posts targeting public figures [1], [3].
““It is unlikely that the sharing of the image online would constitute a criminal offence.””
This outcome reinforces the legal distinction between offensive political speech and actionable criminal threats. By declining to prosecute, the Metropolitan Police have signaled that provocative imagery used in a political context—even when targeting a high-profile opponent—does not automatically constitute incitement to violence under current UK law.
