Nigel Farage has called for Zack Polanski to be arrested after the Green Party leader shared a photograph of a man wearing a T-shirt “planning his decapitation” days after Ann Widdecombe was murdered. The Mail has the story.
Polanski, 43, shared the image of the unknown bearded man, wearing sunglasses, a rainbow-striped hat and making the ‘peace’ symbol, to his 713,000 followers on Instagram earlier today.
The man’s black top showed a guillotine with the slogan: “We’re only making plans for Nigel.”
It is thought the shirt references a 1979 song title by English rock band XTC, but the addition of a guillotine suggests a darker statement.
Farage tonight called for the Green leader to be arrested.
The Daily Mail understands Reform UK is in the process of reporting Polanski to police, while Alex Wilson, Reform UK leader on the London Assembly, will be raising a complaint to the Greater London Assembly.
Just hours after it appeared, Polanski removed the post, with a Green party spokesman stating he does not “support” this “dangerous message”.
However, the original post is tonight being shared widely on social media.
Farage, 62, retweeted the image on X, writing: “This is what Zack Polanski has just posted on his Instagram.
“If I was to post anything as inciteful then I would expect to be arrested, and so should Polanski.”
Reform Shadow Home Secretary Zia Yusuf told the Daily Mail the post was “staggering” given that it appeared just days after the brutal killing of Reform UK spokesman Ann Widdecombe in her own home.
He said: “Zack Polanski has posted to his 713k Instagram followers a photo of a man in a T-shirt depicting the beheading of Nigel Farage.
“To do this just two weeks after our friend Ann was murdered is staggering. This is incitement to murder.
“It should be treated as such by the police.”
Lord Walney, the government’s former adviser on political violence, called the post “sickening”.
He told the Daily Mail: “There must be serious consequences for Zack Polanski after he shared material implying the assassination of another politician.
“This would be sickening and unacceptable at any time but it is even more serious in the present environment in which a senior Reform member has been brutally killed.
“The Green Party must be barred from participating alongside mainstream parties if it fails to take action against its leader.”
A Green Party spokesman said the post had now been deleted and had appeared as part of a social media “collaboration”.
Why only half? if you consider left-wing as favouring collectivist policies, then…
stewart
|
Email me alerts for this discussion
Please login to comment
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
23 Comments
Newest
OldestMost Voted
Hound of Heaven
1 month ago
The BBC’s report refers to threatening behaviour included in the Public Order Act. That seems to be the correct approach.
EppingBlogger
1 month ago
The DS site is a little better today. It does not record my up and down ticks.
When I open the App it does not remember me. I get two paragraphs into an article only to be told to pay a subscription or login. After logging in I have to find and read the article again.
This can go on for some time.
why does Toby keep changing the site only to make it worse. Are the support people paid on a time and materials basis, perchance.
ParityCheck
1 month ago
People like “T-Shirt” man and Polanski belong to a morally vacuous and disturbingly large element of society who have never been taught that boundaries exist in behaviour and speech, or that our rights and freedoms to speak and act should be tempered by responsibilities towards the society in which we live. What we now have is at least 3 generations who have been brought up to believe that they are entitled to do as they feel “right”, that material pleasure is the only worthwhile pursuit and that personal fulfilment is the highest goal to which we can aspire; “self-actualisation” or whatever bulls**t term they like to use to describe their narcissistic indulgence. Now this fulfilment is manifesting within this group more and more as acts of violence towards those they deem to be obstructing the unfolding of their Dreamed-of Utopia. Farage, and others who have been victims of this barely constrained mob have a right to expect our Law Enforcement to crack down on incitement to violence and murder. The baying mob is getting louder, and it’s not coming from the “Far Right” element of society either. Starmer and his buddy Hermer were happy to “crack down” on their subjective… Read more »
Richard
1 month ago
Of Lucy Connelly went to jail for her inciting comment, I assume Polanski will be doing similar bird?
To incite is a transitive verb which requires the direct object to be those being provoked to action. This is absent from this statement of intent.
Michael Staples
1 month ago
But surely different laws apply to the left in calling for murder or for acid to be thrown in someone’s face.
Hound of Heaven
1 month ago
It’s not incitement, it’s a declaration of intent. Couldn’t be clearer.
transmissionofflame
1 month ago
People here and elsewhere often call for the utilisation of lampposts and rope to solve our political problems, sometimes with reference to specific figures we don’t like. How is that different?
How is that different? ‘Polanski’, real name Egbert Oswaldtwistle (or whatever), is the leader of a political party that was at one point polling at over 20%. Presumably this is his idea of leading by example.
The principle is the same – if you normalise calling for nasty outcomes for public figures then it increases the likelihood of some nutter doing it. That’s the argument I have seen.
That’s it. Normalise “jokes” about killing a person/persons because of their political or other beliefs or who they are until the act itself becomes a “joke” or even a duty.
It worked very well in 1930s Germany against the Jews.
transmissionofflame
1 month ago
Disappointing that the leader of Reform and associates don’t appear to believe in freedom of speech and is just another person wanting to ban things they don’t agree with. You beat him at the ballot box you f***ing dummy, not in court. Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake.
I think his reaction is likely more influenced by the recent murder of Ann Widdecombe. He was never allowed security, was he, despite all the death threats and harassment he received, and what happened to Ann by some hard Left mentalist brought it home that that could potentially happen to any of them. These crazies don’t need much in the way of encouragement. The way Geert Wilders is forced to live is proof of that, as well as the many threats and literal attacks experienced by AfD members.
I certainly would not be amused and I totally understand why he wants security. I just don’t think arresting people for stupid t-shirts solves anything. But yes I do not walk in his shoes.
I don’t “know” any more than you do, but I doubt any normal person takes it seriously. As for someone harming Farage, how would you know it was the t-shirt wot done it?
Freedom of speech is a Common Law Passive Right. Under Common Law one cannot enjoy his Rights at the expense of another.’. A’s Right to swing his fist stops where B’s nose starts.
Therefore it may be actionable in law if someone exercises their freedom of speech and it is intended and/or likely to incite others to hatred or violence, thereby impinging on another’s Right not to be harmed.
That doesn’t contradict the principle of free speech – it has been the Common Law since God was in short trousers.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
The BBC’s report refers to threatening behaviour included in the Public Order Act. That seems to be the correct approach.
The DS site is a little better today. It does not record my up and down ticks.
When I open the App it does not remember me. I get two paragraphs into an article only to be told to pay a subscription or login. After logging in I have to find and read the article again.
This can go on for some time.
why does Toby keep changing the site only to make it worse. Are the support people paid on a time and materials basis, perchance.
People like “T-Shirt” man and Polanski belong to a morally vacuous and disturbingly large element of society who have never been taught that boundaries exist in behaviour and speech, or that our rights and freedoms to speak and act should be tempered by responsibilities towards the society in which we live. What we now have is at least 3 generations who have been brought up to believe that they are entitled to do as they feel “right”, that material pleasure is the only worthwhile pursuit and that personal fulfilment is the highest goal to which we can aspire; “self-actualisation” or whatever bulls**t term they like to use to describe their narcissistic indulgence. Now this fulfilment is manifesting within this group more and more as acts of violence towards those they deem to be obstructing the unfolding of their Dreamed-of Utopia. Farage, and others who have been victims of this barely constrained mob have a right to expect our Law Enforcement to crack down on incitement to violence and murder. The baying mob is getting louder, and it’s not coming from the “Far Right” element of society either. Starmer and his buddy Hermer were happy to “crack down” on their subjective… Read more »
Of Lucy Connelly went to jail for her inciting comment, I assume Polanski will be doing similar bird?
To incite is a transitive verb which requires the direct object to be those being provoked to action. This is absent from this statement of intent.
But surely different laws apply to the left in calling for murder or for acid to be thrown in someone’s face.
It’s not incitement, it’s a declaration of intent. Couldn’t be clearer.
People here and elsewhere often call for the utilisation of lampposts and rope to solve our political problems, sometimes with reference to specific figures we don’t like. How is that different?
How is that different? ‘Polanski’, real name Egbert Oswaldtwistle (or whatever), is the leader of a political party that was at one point polling at over 20%. Presumably this is his idea of leading by example.
The principle is the same – if you normalise calling for nasty outcomes for public figures then it increases the likelihood of some nutter doing it. That’s the argument I have seen.
I don’t
I have probably done it, others definitely have. Should I/they be arrested?
Stochastic terrorism. The idea is simply to make assassination more likely.
That’s it. Normalise “jokes” about killing a person/persons because of their political or other beliefs or who they are until the act itself becomes a “joke” or even a duty.
It worked very well in 1930s Germany against the Jews.
Disappointing that the leader of Reform and associates don’t appear to believe in freedom of speech and is just another person wanting to ban things they don’t agree with. You beat him at the ballot box you f***ing dummy, not in court. Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake.
I think his reaction is likely more influenced by the recent murder of Ann Widdecombe. He was never allowed security, was he, despite all the death threats and harassment he received, and what happened to Ann by some hard Left mentalist brought it home that that could potentially happen to any of them. These crazies don’t need much in the way of encouragement. The way Geert Wilders is forced to live is proof of that, as well as the many threats and literal attacks experienced by AfD members.
https://brusselssignal.eu/2025/08/more-afd-politicians-subject-of-violent-attacks-in-germany-than-all-other-parties/
I certainly would not be amused and I totally understand why he wants security. I just don’t think arresting people for stupid t-shirts solves anything. But yes I do not walk in his shoes.
This is not just misrepresentation and name-calling. This is incitement to murder, and that’s a criminal offence.
It’s clearly meant to be a joke
Clearly? Are you sure? How do you know?
The tests are: was it meant to incite; is it reasonable to believe it could incite; did it incite?
I suppose if somebody manages to cut Mr Farage’s throat that last point will be cleared up.
I don’t “know” any more than you do, but I doubt any normal person takes it seriously. As for someone harming Farage, how would you know it was the t-shirt wot done it?
You don’t understand – I’ll explain.
Freedom of speech is a Common Law Passive Right. Under Common Law one cannot enjoy his Rights at the expense of another.’. A’s Right to swing his fist stops where B’s nose starts.
Therefore it may be actionable in law if someone exercises their freedom of speech and it is intended and/or likely to incite others to hatred or violence, thereby impinging on another’s Right not to be harmed.
That doesn’t contradict the principle of free speech – it has been the Common Law since God was in short trousers.
“You don’t understand – I’ll explain.”
I understand perfectly – I just have a different view. Condescending, much?
“intended and/or likely to incite others to hatred or violence”
Who decides? In the US they use “imminent lawless action”
Origin: Set by the U.S. Supreme Court case Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), replacing older tests like “clear and present danger”.
Intent: The speaker must specifically intend to cause a violation of the law.
Imminence: The illegal action must be bound to happen right away, not at some distant future time.
Likelihood: The speech must have a high probability of actually producing the unlawful act.
That seems to work for them. A joke t-shirt is unlikely to qualify.