YOUR SAY: Should Polanski Get the Same Treatment as Connolly?
A Your Say question lit up X's timeline this week!
Green Party leader Zack Polanski found himself at the centre of a fierce free-speech storm after an Instagram post featuring a man in a T-shirt that showed a guillotine and the slogan “We’re only making plans for Nigel.”
The phrase, a twisted reference to the old XTC song, was widely interpreted as a threat aimed at Reform UK leader Nigel Farage.
Reform UK immediately reported Polanski to the police, accusing him of inciting murder. Farage himself said a political leader with a large following “cannot put out… that image… without some consequences.”Polanski’s response was clear and consistent.
In a BBC Newsnight interview, he called it an “inadvertent mistake.” He had been tagged in a collaborative post containing around 20 images from a Green Party fundraising event. He accepted the collaboration without scrolling through every picture carefully.
As soon as he realised what was there, he removed it. He condemned political violence, admitted he needed to be more careful on social media, and insisted: “I’ve not done anything wrong other than making an inadvertent mistake.”
He refused to apologise directly to Farage, arguing that because the post was accidental rather than deliberate, an apology was not required.
On 29 July the Metropolitan Police confirmed they would take no further action. Officers concluded it was “unlikely that the sharing of the image online would constitute a criminal offence.”That outcome has only sharpened the question many people are now asking.
The Lucy Connolly comparison
Lucy Connolly, a Northampton childminder, was jailed after posting a tweet in the wake of the Southport murders calling for “mass deportations” and saying “set fire to all the fucking hotels full of the bastards for all I care.” She later deleted the post and apologised, but still pleaded guilty to inciting racial hatred and received a significant prison sentence.
Reform UK has repeatedly held up her case as evidence of heavy-handed policing of speech and has even hosted her as a guest. Critics of Reform now point to the Polanski episode and ask why the same party that defended Connolly is demanding arrest for a rival party leader over a different online post.
Supporters of equal treatment argue the principle is simple: if the law is to be applied, it must be applied consistently, regardless of the politics of the person posting. Others say the two cases are not the same — one involved a direct call to violence against groups of people, the other a poorly checked collaborative photo that was quickly taken down.
Where the debate stands
The episode has reopened the wider argument about two-tier justice and free speech in Britain. Some see the police decision on Polanski as proof that the threshold for prosecution is higher than many feared. Others see it as further evidence that the rules still depend on who is speaking and who is being spoken about.
Whatever side you take, the core question remains the one we asked at the start:
Should Zack Polanski have been arrested and given the same treatment as Lucy Connolly?
The police have already answered with “no further action.” The court of public opinion is still out.
What do you think? Tell us in the poll below if you didnt have a chance to take part
Should Zack Polanski get arrested and the same treatment as Lucy Connolly?
0%Yes, he should be charged
0%No, he shouldn't be charged
