It is perhaps fair to accuse Farage of double standards, in reporting Polanski while defending Connolly. But one should also accuse the media and police of rampant double standards. Connolly was jailed for 31 months (despite the “for all I care”, which makes the remark little more than sounding off, especially when followed by suggesting the same for politicians) whereas I am willing to bet that the person who wore that t-shirt will not be jailed.
Nastiness and threats of violence are excused as sounding off if done by those with opinions acceptable within the “BBC Bubble”, but treated as utterly unacceptable and even criminal if done by those with opinions that the “BBC Bubble” dislike.
We should have clear guidelines as to what is legal and acceptable, and they should then be applied even-handedly.
You could, and should have in my view, mentioned Rayner and Lammy calling Tories "scum" and "actual Nazis". The febrile atmosphere in politics as been brewing for some time and Reform is not the only party that need to reflect.
I believe Reform politicians are genuinely scared and with some justification. Perhaps they are trying to send a signal to discourage others encouraging, directly or indirectly, violence against politicians.
I disagree with you over Connolly. She was not expressing positive views at all. Do you not understand the significance of "for all I care"? If an exasperated mother says to her recalcitrant son "don't study for your exams then, for all I care" you think she is advocating he should not study? It's an emotional expression of exasperation, of giving up on the matter. Connolly's use of 'for all I care" negates your imputed interpretation.
Connolly was badly advised to plead guilty and came before a judge keen to make an inappropriate example of her. The pragmatics of the English language was wilfully disregarded
I enjoyed reading your comment and have to say; your use of the word 'febrile' is absolutely the most perfect adjective for the times we find ourselves in.
Everyone seems to be forgetting the magnified power of threats made over the internet, which can be seen by thousands of people, in inciting mass reaction.
Also the injunction, not heard sufficiently often, NOT to repost anything without first reading / looking at it properly--as mistakes are so easily made.
If Polanski's defence is true, that he didn't notice the guillotine-on-teeshirt image on one of 20 photos he forwarded en masse to Green party followers, the implicit suggestion is that otherwise he would not have sent the photo(s).
This would be in line with explicit, longstanding Green policy of non-violent direct action (NVDA): Greens are very much opposed to violence in any form. So Green recipients of this image might have been very surprised to notice it, and inclined to discount it as a mistake.
I speak as a longterm Green party member myself who does not like Polanski.
It reminds me of the accusation against Corbyn that he knowingly endorsed anti-Semitism when he referred approvingly to some street art depicting a group of bankers with hooked noses. It is obvious to anyone who does look at it, that this is an anti-Semitic visual trope associated with the conspiracy theory that world banking is controlled by the Rothschilds and other Jews.
But Corbyn's defence was that he had never seen this specific wall painting, he just approved of street art generally--but that he had made a mistake, he should have gone to look at it first. He spoke as a lifelong campaigner against racism.
Farage speaks as a man who recently endorsed "pure, cold rage" as a reaction in everyone who witnessed, via the media, a bad police mistake in treating the dying stabbed victim, a young white man, of a Sikh as being the Sikh's attacker, as falsely claimed by his murderer.
This police mistake also fitted the Reform narrative of "two tier policing" that disfavoured white people, but with the opposite meaning to the truth: of racism in British policing which discriminates heavily against dark skinned people.
It also appeared that Farage was trying to emulate the even more racist and violent Rupert Lowe of Restore GB, favoured by Elon Musk and currently drawing away the more extreme members of Reform UK. So Farage, as Reform leader and a lifelong racist himself, had every incentive to incite race riots by endorsing "pure, cold rage"--and race riots duly followed.
Lucy Connolly was jailed for incitement of violence because her online posts, seen by thousands of people, encouraged rioters to burn asylum seekers alive in hotels--where gangs of race rioters then attempted to set fires.
There was apparently a direct connection between Connolly's posts and the events that followed, to justify her prosecution and imprisonment for incitement of violence.
It seems to me important that posting deeply nasty stuff, which appears to go beyond stupidity and carelessness, should be treated seriously in a febrile atmosphere, but with due regard to the context and history of the poster's stated policies and previous behaviour.
Farage as instigator of Brexit and leader of Reform UK is widely loathed (or adored) for his racist and far right views. With the recent murder of the very unpopular Ann Widdecombe as a Reform UK spokesperson, no doubt Farage does fear violence against himself--something worse than a thrown milkshake. Death by guillotine is pretty suggestive.
I loathe Farage myself, so do not willingly defend him. But I also know about Green policy on NVDA: Farage's fears of violence are ungrounded from the point of view of the motive of Polanski as originator of an out of character re-post, and the intended audience of Greens.
But it very usefully plays into Farage's victim narrative, as a further distraction from his troubles with huge gifts from a cryptobillionaire and a farcical byelection in Clacton.
There is an online image currently doing the rounds of a person dressed as a guillotine, addressed to TERFS and SWERFS--alongside DECAPITATE TERFS, KILL TERFS and many other such violent messages threatening rape etc, from Trans Pride in London last weekend. All from men, addressed to women who believe that sex is real.
This level of public threat, with violent images attached, makes the job of an understaffed police force virtually impossible in cautioning offenders.
One argument might be simply that political satire in violent cartoon form has moved online and onto the streets. But for some women in particular it makes being online or on the streets frightening places to be. JKRowling has said she could paper her walls with death threats. It doesn't mean some deranged trans-identified male isn't out to kill her.
Great article Helen. Your final paragraph really nails it. The "but" for me though is the issue of "proportionality". What if the loss of this proportionality has already gone too far? Are there still enough people left in the body politic and wider society who still possess this? What if our national culture has, in fact, already lost this (for a whole variety of reasons)?
Then we’re screwed. But I see little point in spending much time dwelling on ‘What if we’re all doomed and can’t fix this.” That just encourages giving up. We’ve been in worse situations before. A century ago, both communist and fascist parties were building in support in Britain. We just have to keep going.
See your point, Helen but the police, judiary and Labour politicians have clearly been very one sided in their pronouncements and prosecutions. Trans supporters in particular and Antifa have frequently threatened violence on line and in person upon people publicly disagreeing with gender ideology- with nothing done by the powers that be - including, now, a new 'charity' called Bash Back.
I don't think a guillotine with 'We're making plans for Nigel' is very funny, in view of the murder of Ann Widdecombe and of Charlie Kirk in USA; and I think there are good grounds to suggest that it constitutes incitement to harm.
We in UK need a USA type Brandeis test whereby free speech is sacrosanct except when it is clear excitement or threats of bodily harm. I do not, myself, believe in 'hate speech' or blasphemy by the back door. Threats of and incitement to inflict bodily harm should be taken seriously and policed, subject to trial and prosecution.
I'm not sure whether Farage is right or wrong here; but he has a very good case, which the police need to take seriously.
Just to be clear (as an American): what Farage is claiming would not be considered a "good case" under American First Amendment law: it would be laughed out of court. Retweeting a picture of someone wearing a t-shirt with a guillotine and a politician's name (or even wearing the t-shirt oneself, absent other evidence of intent to commit violence) would not rise to the standard of a true threat or incitement under American law (much as the current President might wish it would). See https://www.fire.org/research-learn/how-and-why-true-threats-are-unprotected-speech for a succinct summary of the law.
The current case of former FBI director James Comey, who is alleged to have made a similar "threat" against President Trump, will be instructive here (https://edition.cnn.com/2026/07/27/politics/james-comey-trump-threat): my assumption is that it will be thrown out, either by a grand jury or by the judge, before it comes to trial. He certainly will not be convicted.
Since Counterweight abandoned its members and did no follow-up after 2020, Birmingham effectively has no police. Even Max Caller fled because the Muslims just used CRT to attack children or engage in entryism. The Managing Director is also hiding. How can the country expect this sort of thing to carry on? We're clearly in a civil war, it's just that only the Muslims are organized with weapons in a civic sense while everyone with eyes flees to Scotland. The police won't stop me from being stabbed to death in the street because we've been invaded.
I (of course!) agree with all of this. People might also be interested in Scott Alexander's recent more theoretical challenge to the claims that things like Mr. Polanski did are somehow tantamount to inciting violence (he calls it "stochastic terrorism"). https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/against-stochastic-terrorism
I agree, it's all become very childish and this is, I believe, a result of the victimhood culture that arose out of the SJW\"Woke" activism. Political commentators also compound this, due to their reach and influence. James O'Brien, for example, is prone to being quite disingenuous and frequently references Lucy Conolly, incrementally cranking the emotional hyperbole through initially referring to her calling for hotels full of migrants to be set on fire, then progressing to her calling for a pogrom (the left love a 1930's nazi analogy) and then finally landing at "calling for people to be burned in their beds".
It is perhaps fair to accuse Farage of double standards, in reporting Polanski while defending Connolly. But one should also accuse the media and police of rampant double standards. Connolly was jailed for 31 months (despite the “for all I care”, which makes the remark little more than sounding off, especially when followed by suggesting the same for politicians) whereas I am willing to bet that the person who wore that t-shirt will not be jailed.
Nastiness and threats of violence are excused as sounding off if done by those with opinions acceptable within the “BBC Bubble”, but treated as utterly unacceptable and even criminal if done by those with opinions that the “BBC Bubble” dislike.
We should have clear guidelines as to what is legal and acceptable, and they should then be applied even-handedly.
You could, and should have in my view, mentioned Rayner and Lammy calling Tories "scum" and "actual Nazis". The febrile atmosphere in politics as been brewing for some time and Reform is not the only party that need to reflect.
I believe Reform politicians are genuinely scared and with some justification. Perhaps they are trying to send a signal to discourage others encouraging, directly or indirectly, violence against politicians.
I disagree with you over Connolly. She was not expressing positive views at all. Do you not understand the significance of "for all I care"? If an exasperated mother says to her recalcitrant son "don't study for your exams then, for all I care" you think she is advocating he should not study? It's an emotional expression of exasperation, of giving up on the matter. Connolly's use of 'for all I care" negates your imputed interpretation.
Connolly was badly advised to plead guilty and came before a judge keen to make an inappropriate example of her. The pragmatics of the English language was wilfully disregarded
I enjoyed reading your comment and have to say; your use of the word 'febrile' is absolutely the most perfect adjective for the times we find ourselves in.
Everyone seems to be forgetting the magnified power of threats made over the internet, which can be seen by thousands of people, in inciting mass reaction.
Also the injunction, not heard sufficiently often, NOT to repost anything without first reading / looking at it properly--as mistakes are so easily made.
If Polanski's defence is true, that he didn't notice the guillotine-on-teeshirt image on one of 20 photos he forwarded en masse to Green party followers, the implicit suggestion is that otherwise he would not have sent the photo(s).
This would be in line with explicit, longstanding Green policy of non-violent direct action (NVDA): Greens are very much opposed to violence in any form. So Green recipients of this image might have been very surprised to notice it, and inclined to discount it as a mistake.
I speak as a longterm Green party member myself who does not like Polanski.
It reminds me of the accusation against Corbyn that he knowingly endorsed anti-Semitism when he referred approvingly to some street art depicting a group of bankers with hooked noses. It is obvious to anyone who does look at it, that this is an anti-Semitic visual trope associated with the conspiracy theory that world banking is controlled by the Rothschilds and other Jews.
But Corbyn's defence was that he had never seen this specific wall painting, he just approved of street art generally--but that he had made a mistake, he should have gone to look at it first. He spoke as a lifelong campaigner against racism.
Farage speaks as a man who recently endorsed "pure, cold rage" as a reaction in everyone who witnessed, via the media, a bad police mistake in treating the dying stabbed victim, a young white man, of a Sikh as being the Sikh's attacker, as falsely claimed by his murderer.
This police mistake also fitted the Reform narrative of "two tier policing" that disfavoured white people, but with the opposite meaning to the truth: of racism in British policing which discriminates heavily against dark skinned people.
It also appeared that Farage was trying to emulate the even more racist and violent Rupert Lowe of Restore GB, favoured by Elon Musk and currently drawing away the more extreme members of Reform UK. So Farage, as Reform leader and a lifelong racist himself, had every incentive to incite race riots by endorsing "pure, cold rage"--and race riots duly followed.
Lucy Connolly was jailed for incitement of violence because her online posts, seen by thousands of people, encouraged rioters to burn asylum seekers alive in hotels--where gangs of race rioters then attempted to set fires.
There was apparently a direct connection between Connolly's posts and the events that followed, to justify her prosecution and imprisonment for incitement of violence.
It seems to me important that posting deeply nasty stuff, which appears to go beyond stupidity and carelessness, should be treated seriously in a febrile atmosphere, but with due regard to the context and history of the poster's stated policies and previous behaviour.
Farage as instigator of Brexit and leader of Reform UK is widely loathed (or adored) for his racist and far right views. With the recent murder of the very unpopular Ann Widdecombe as a Reform UK spokesperson, no doubt Farage does fear violence against himself--something worse than a thrown milkshake. Death by guillotine is pretty suggestive.
I loathe Farage myself, so do not willingly defend him. But I also know about Green policy on NVDA: Farage's fears of violence are ungrounded from the point of view of the motive of Polanski as originator of an out of character re-post, and the intended audience of Greens.
But it very usefully plays into Farage's victim narrative, as a further distraction from his troubles with huge gifts from a cryptobillionaire and a farcical byelection in Clacton.
There is an online image currently doing the rounds of a person dressed as a guillotine, addressed to TERFS and SWERFS--alongside DECAPITATE TERFS, KILL TERFS and many other such violent messages threatening rape etc, from Trans Pride in London last weekend. All from men, addressed to women who believe that sex is real.
This level of public threat, with violent images attached, makes the job of an understaffed police force virtually impossible in cautioning offenders.
One argument might be simply that political satire in violent cartoon form has moved online and onto the streets. But for some women in particular it makes being online or on the streets frightening places to be. JKRowling has said she could paper her walls with death threats. It doesn't mean some deranged trans-identified male isn't out to kill her.
Great article Helen. Your final paragraph really nails it. The "but" for me though is the issue of "proportionality". What if the loss of this proportionality has already gone too far? Are there still enough people left in the body politic and wider society who still possess this? What if our national culture has, in fact, already lost this (for a whole variety of reasons)?
Then we’re screwed. But I see little point in spending much time dwelling on ‘What if we’re all doomed and can’t fix this.” That just encourages giving up. We’ve been in worse situations before. A century ago, both communist and fascist parties were building in support in Britain. We just have to keep going.
See your point, Helen but the police, judiary and Labour politicians have clearly been very one sided in their pronouncements and prosecutions. Trans supporters in particular and Antifa have frequently threatened violence on line and in person upon people publicly disagreeing with gender ideology- with nothing done by the powers that be - including, now, a new 'charity' called Bash Back.
I don't think a guillotine with 'We're making plans for Nigel' is very funny, in view of the murder of Ann Widdecombe and of Charlie Kirk in USA; and I think there are good grounds to suggest that it constitutes incitement to harm.
We in UK need a USA type Brandeis test whereby free speech is sacrosanct except when it is clear excitement or threats of bodily harm. I do not, myself, believe in 'hate speech' or blasphemy by the back door. Threats of and incitement to inflict bodily harm should be taken seriously and policed, subject to trial and prosecution.
I'm not sure whether Farage is right or wrong here; but he has a very good case, which the police need to take seriously.
Just to be clear (as an American): what Farage is claiming would not be considered a "good case" under American First Amendment law: it would be laughed out of court. Retweeting a picture of someone wearing a t-shirt with a guillotine and a politician's name (or even wearing the t-shirt oneself, absent other evidence of intent to commit violence) would not rise to the standard of a true threat or incitement under American law (much as the current President might wish it would). See https://www.fire.org/research-learn/how-and-why-true-threats-are-unprotected-speech for a succinct summary of the law.
The current case of former FBI director James Comey, who is alleged to have made a similar "threat" against President Trump, will be instructive here (https://edition.cnn.com/2026/07/27/politics/james-comey-trump-threat): my assumption is that it will be thrown out, either by a grand jury or by the judge, before it comes to trial. He certainly will not be convicted.
Since Counterweight abandoned its members and did no follow-up after 2020, Birmingham effectively has no police. Even Max Caller fled because the Muslims just used CRT to attack children or engage in entryism. The Managing Director is also hiding. How can the country expect this sort of thing to carry on? We're clearly in a civil war, it's just that only the Muslims are organized with weapons in a civic sense while everyone with eyes flees to Scotland. The police won't stop me from being stabbed to death in the street because we've been invaded.
I (of course!) agree with all of this. People might also be interested in Scott Alexander's recent more theoretical challenge to the claims that things like Mr. Polanski did are somehow tantamount to inciting violence (he calls it "stochastic terrorism"). https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/against-stochastic-terrorism
I agree, it's all become very childish and this is, I believe, a result of the victimhood culture that arose out of the SJW\"Woke" activism. Political commentators also compound this, due to their reach and influence. James O'Brien, for example, is prone to being quite disingenuous and frequently references Lucy Conolly, incrementally cranking the emotional hyperbole through initially referring to her calling for hotels full of migrants to be set on fire, then progressing to her calling for a pogrom (the left love a 1930's nazi analogy) and then finally landing at "calling for people to be burned in their beds".