CK 🏍️⚪️

@Swfc_Owls Leeds here, no way I’d have wanted that. Wednesday are big club with history. We’ve been there ourselves, dumped down to League 1 due to awful owners, it ain’t nice!

Leeds, Derby, sheff Utd fans all having a party when Sheffield Wednesday die, how did that work out haha we’re on our way back, #swfc #lufc #sufc

@WWELUFC MOT!

Hi 👋 it’s me! I usually don’t post myself on here because I think I am ugly but hi regardless.

@KernowDamo @grahamwettone Hence why the commanders letter was perfect. It made no reference to politics, just David/Zacks stupidity, which we should note, he then apologised for. David/Zack has the right to free speech, as does the commander.

Not a chance Police Regulations 2003 Schedule 1 paragraph 1 states that: A member of a police force must abstain from activity likely to interfere with the impartial discharge of duties or likely to give the public the impression that it may do so. It then says they must “not take any active part in politics.” Rowley’s letter falls foul of Schedule 1 because it publicly names and rebukes a party leader during an election period, creating at minimum the public impression of political partiality.

Awaiting apologies from all those who criticised the Commissioner & alleged he was "interfering' in politics. Not a fan of Mr Polanski but fair play & respect him for now apologising for this.

Far too nice today to pass up the chance, work can wait until Sunday.

@dartsocheagain @lauralu13 @Benleo I wonder what it is about the Jewish victims that would make her ignore them and focus on the terrorists well-being instead….. 🤔

@lauralu13 @Benleo He didn’t let go of the weapon You actually care about the attacker more than the victims Classic

Good, I’m glad Rowley and the Met did this Polanski runs like a man who’s never played sport or had physical confrontation in his life To lambast coppers for kicking an Islamist armed with a knife, who’d just stabbed people, shows how deeply unserious and inexperienced he is

@Be_like_yankee @jaseo224 Likely less harmful is abit of an understatement. PHE say Vaping is around 95% less harmful than smoking. gov.uk/government/new…

It’s true that vaping has been around for longer than a lot of people realize — modern e-cigs started appearing in the mid-2000s, and many smokers switched because they were trying to get away from combustible cigarettes. Public health groups in places like the Royal College of Physicians and Public Health England have said vaping is likely less harmful than smoking traditional cigarettes.

I wonder just how bad the vape induced lung cancer is gonna be in the future

@BarrieCrampton This is one of the things that makes EV a no go for me. I don’t want to get stuck on PCP roundabout paying for something I’ll never own. HP is stupidly expensive so I need to buy outright, an EV would leave me wayyyyyy to far out of pocket when it’s due a change.

EVs are £4000 Cheaper than the equivalent PHEV, but yet cost £4000 to Lease, its a Col- undrum isnt it? EVs are cheap now but their Residual Value is catastrophic, PHEVS not so much!

@rocknroller912 @Bbmorg I have, it hurts. The first thing you trey to do is throw your arms up to protect you head and face, it’s instinct, a survival reflex. If I had happened to have something in my hand, I would have either needed to drop it or would have been very easy to remove it……

@Bbmorg Have you ever been kicked in the head while lying on the ground. You should try it and see how it feels.

If it was Ieft to Owen to confront this man more would have died, including possibly him.

@kmx1974 @cjsnowdon I didn’t realise you’re Captain Hindsight. Did kicking him in the head distract him enough to retrieve the knife? Possibly. Would have not kicking him meant he could then stab the Officers or other people? Possibly. Which has a higher probability of being effective?

@cjsnowdon Then if failed on those terms. So, given, kicking him repeatedly in the head didn't "make him drop the knife", what purpose does kicking an already incapacitated man in the head serve?

I’m not an expert but I think the answer is “to make him drop the knife”.

@k1482 @macmillan_andy @JamesEFoster @Lord_Talbot64 @StarmertheFraud @ZackPolanski If that person is a threat to innocent lives, it’s 100% appropriate. Don’t want to get kicked in the head, don’t go all stabby on innocent people/Police and give up your weapon when told to. Easy.

@macmillan_andy @JamesEFoster @Lord_Talbot64 @StarmertheFraud @ZackPolanski So you believe repeatedly kicking a man on the ground in the head is appropriate?

Whatever one makes of Zack Polanski's retweet, Sir Mark Rowley's letter to @ZackPolanski is a needless and reckless political intervention during a highly competitive local election period and distraction during a time of considerable agitation, fear and upset. I have submitted a complaint to the Independent Office for Police Conduct. I encourage everyone who is concerned about Sir Rowley's conduct to do the same. I will post a template letter separately. You can make your complaints at: policeconduct.gov.uk/complaints/sub… MY COMPLAINT I am writing to complain about the letter from Met Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley to Zack Polanski, the Green Party leader. The letter was posted to X at 5:35PM on the 30th of April 2026. I do not repeat the text of the letter here. This letter constitutes a serious intervention by the Police Commissioner in a manner that will raise concerns about the political impartiality of the Met Police. I believe it violates the Met Police's requirement to act in a politically impartial manner. The letter was directed to a party-political leader in response to retweet that the leader was entitled to make, even if it was ill-informed or ill-conceived. It was made a week prior to major local elections taking place in London, in which the Green Party is actively campaigning. Mr. Polanski is a prominent figure in this campaign. The Commissioner must know that during election periods it is anticipated that civil servants and other public officials will observe customary ‘purdah’ principles. There was no reason for the letter to be made public. Mr. Polanski is part of the London Assembly, which regularly liaises with the Metropolitan Police on operational matters. The Commissioner’s concerns could have been raised constructively in private first. But it appears no effort was made to do so. Instead, the Met Police addressed an open public letter and then posted it on X without any consultation or discussion with the Green Party or Mr. Polanski. It did so when a private letter would have sufficed. If Sir Rowley had done so, it may have created an opportunity for the Metropolitan Police and Mr. Polanski to address these operational matters calmly, soberly and collaboratively, and to do so in ways that built public confidence in the Met Police. But to make it public during a time of considerable political turmoil was needlessly inflammatory and counter-productive. There is already significant public concern about this intervention. The proof of this is the response on X. On simple inspection, I identified a large number of posts expressing serious alarm at the tone and content of this letter, and widespread comment that this raises material concerns about police impartiality. Many commentators fear that the Met Police has intervened in this way because of Mr. Polanski's political views. Many have noted that the Commissioner has not made such interventions in the past, even where prominent politicians have made comments about police conduct or perceptions of ‘two tier’ policing (or made comments that might inflame political situations and give rise to violent disorder, including towards the police). I note that Sir Rowley appeared on Sky News on the morning of the 1st of May. He was asked whether his letter constituted an unfair political intervention. He has defended himself in robust terms. But the very fact that this question is being raised indicates that the Commissioner has created an impression he must rebut. He was also interviewed on Times Radio on the same morning. The interviewer plainly stated that Sir Rowley ‘intervened in politics.’ Sir Rowley thereafter sought to defend his intervention. But this plainly shows the political nature of Sir Rowley’s intervention is now a matter of significant public debate. It is appalling that in a moment where the country requires time to reflect, commune and heal in the wake of a terrorist attack, the Commissioner has created needless political scandal, spectacle and controversy that distracts from these concerns. The letter was sarcastic and condescending in tone. It made pointed and immature comments about 'armchair critics' that brings the Met Police into disrepute. This is an inane and dangerous formulation, and it does the Met Police significant discredit. Most people are 'armchair critics.' Most citizens do not serve, nor have they served, in law enforcement. This sort of language demeans legitimate civilian concerns. Can an ordinary citizen now feel confident to raise issues about police conduct without being criticised for being an 'armchair critic?' Or will citizens now fear being humiliated in public for a presumed lack of expertise? The letter is additionally inflammatory because of its tone-deaf and distasteful comments about Mr. Polanski in relation to the Jewish community. The letter refers frequently to the legitimate fears of the Jewish community and attacks Mr. Polanski's comments as insensitive to this community. It strongly implies that Mr. Polanski has failed to take these community concerns into account. But Mr. Polanski is Jewish. He is currently the only Jewish leader of a political party in this country. The text, as read, strongly implies that Mr. Polanski, in the Commissioner's view, falls outside of the Jewish community or is insensitive to its concerns. It certainly does not acknowledge his ethnicity or acknowledge that Mr. Polanski is part of the Jewish community that the Commissioner invokes. It does not even contemplate that Mr. Polanski might also feel the same fear that the Commissioner correctly notes is being felt by the Jewish community. Making comments about Mr. Polanski and the Jewish community would be entirely legitimate comment for a newspaper columnist or a user on X or an ordinary member of the public. I expect it will be robustly litigated in the court of public opinion and in the media. But is not the sort of comment that should be made by the Commissioner during a period of heightened inter-community tension. In the wake of a significant antisemitic terrorist attack emotions are running extremely high. The Met Police and the Commissioner must no doubt be alive to how community cohesion is threatened in these sorts of circumstances. Any intervention that the Commissioner makes must seek to calm fears and provide assurances of safety. But the Commissioner's letter has done the opposite. It is seriously inflammatory and will likely cause political controversy. It is reckless, undignified and provocative. The Commissioner should withdraw his letter and find a way to constructively resolve a needlessly controversial situation of his own making.

@JonathanWiltsh7 @BethRigby @SkyNews @ZackPolanski @TheGreenParty Itcould escalate the situation, you’re dealing with terrorists. They generally aren’t the smartest bunch and will grab any reason to carry out their acts. Use of Force is simply Reasonable Force. A terrorist stabbed people and refused to give ip his weapon, the bar is high.

@Yorksfromhome @BethRigby @SkyNews @ZackPolanski @TheGreenParty Yes, the Met have the right to respond, but suggesting that Zack's comments could escalate the situation is wrong, and what's more, it's political. The Met could have simply responded by recalling the law around use of force.

Mark Rowley on @SkyNews re his open letter to @ZackPolanski. “I'm not getting involved in politics. I'm dealing with operations. I need my officers to have confidence to tackle the most difficult and dangerous individuals. Of course, there's always going to be sort of, sort of eccentricity and nonsense online. “But if an eminent person steps into operational policing and, sort of criticises officers in a way that can undermine their confidence to act, I need to support that…. He has stepped into operational policing with his criticism & inaccuracies & I need to put that straight”

@owenjonesjourno "Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face" - Tyson. If he had (Or was suspected in having) an IED, striking his head is the right move. Natural instinct is to protect your head and face when sustaining blows, you forget everything else and go into survival mode.

Hold on - what? If police officers think someone might be carrying explosives, protocol is to kick them in the head repeatedly like this? Is that actual police protocol? If so, how is it a wise police protocol? Can someone explain the reasoning?

@Farzue420 @Norma_FGoesAWOL @BethRigby @SkyNews @ZackPolanski Odd isn’t it? Noticing the same trend….. personally I don’t care if the terrorist was Muslim, Jewish, Christian, Atheist etc….. Stab two innocent people, try to stab Police Officers, don’t give up knife = whatever force is needed to disarm him and protect life up to lethal.

@JonathanWiltsh7 @BethRigby @SkyNews @ZackPolanski @TheGreenParty So David/Zack is allowed to ask questions but the Met aren’t allowed to respond? Is that how it should work? The line is drawn where the risk to life is gone. Terrorist had a knife and had stabbed two innocent people, he refused to give it up, risk was still there.

The key difference here is that @TheGreenParty have openly condemned the actions of the 2 candidates, whereas the Met are openly targeting Zack for his rightful questioning of police conduct. We've all seen the video. There has to be some accountability here. Yes, these officers acted in a difficult situation but where is the line drawn?

@TomDickson1 @BethRigby @SkyNews @ZackPolanski That’s a stretch. I’d David/Zack had simply condemned the terrorist attack and that was it, the Met Commander wouldn’t have needed to intervene. Of course David/Zack has the right to say what he wants….. As does the Met Commander.

@BethRigby @SkyNews @ZackPolanski So he thinks police operations are always above criticism and no politician should ever raise concerns the public may have?

@PC_Reed No jury in their right mind would ever convict. Text book reasonable force.

If I was a Policeman trying to stop a marauding terrorist stabbing innocents in the throat, I’d use WHATEVER force needed to neutralise him. Better to be judged after the event by 12 of my peers, than carried to church by 6 of my friends.

@CHOPPERalcock @riversorare @malonebarry @Evilgenius222 Another armchair expert….. So why don’t you tell us all how you deal with knife wielding terrorists? Just a hint, a chat over a cup of tea and hobnob will have you staring in your own funeral very, very quickly.

@riversorare @malonebarry @Evilgenius222 He's obviously still spasming from the taser. He couldn't let go if he tried. The coppers are a pair of clueless gakheads.

Sorry. Isn’t the Met legally prohibited from engaging in political activity? This letter to Zack Polanski, and the decision to publish it here, certainly doesn’t seem apolitical.

@IbzYoussef @owenjonesjourno We have free speech. Zack Polanski is perfectly entitled to show sympathetic leanings towards a terrorist who has just stabbed people in a religiously (antisemitic) motivated attack. The Met Commander is perfectly entitled to call him out on that, as is anyone else.

@owenjonesjourno Rowley's letter isn't coincidence. One week before polling day, Met publicly attacks a party leader challenging their conduct. That's not policing. That's election interference in uniform. Would he have written this if Zack was taking pro-Israeli lobby cash?

The Metropolitan Police denouncing a party leader a week before elections - over a retweet. This is outrageous. Forget what you think about the retweet. If you accept this sort of police interference in our democracy, you legitimise a deeply disturbing precedent.

@MCNnews Nope, I like my bikes to be worth at least a packet of Skittles when it comes time to move on.

Poll: Would you consider a Chinese motorcycle as your next bike?

@HobbyMatt89 @DW201_ If I ever stabbed two people then tried to stab a Police Officer, I’d consider a couple of kicks to my head and getting 20+ years inside as getting off lightly. Guy is a terrorist, he is lucky an ARV didn’t turn up first, they’d have quite rightly shot him.

@DW201_ Who said anything about stabbing? How about if the police think you look like someone else who's considered a "threat" and blow you away, or cave your fucking skull in.

Im really sick of seeing fellow brits cheering on police brutality without even comprehending that it could be them one day.