AIBU to question Zack Polanski’s credibility and political suitability?

[Bertiebiscuit]

Everything about "zack Polanski" is fake - he was born David Paulden. He was never a "spokesman" for the Red Cross. He scammed women with fake hypnotism, He is a actor with a completely invented persona, he's no politician, he's a snake oil salesman. How can anyone vote for him?

I don't know who broke it but anyway, it was reported in the Guardian and Polanski has not denied it, he has apologised for lying.

Yes the apology was the report from Guardian

Shell have also announced soaring billion pound profits since the conflict in the Gulf.

But hey, let’s uncover the latest scandal. ZP once used a plastic bag?

@Lemonthyme I partly agree with your post and agree that neither ZP or NF give a crap about anybody but their own fame.

But - the story about Farage and the £5M gift is being reported again by mainstream UK media such as the BBC despite the story first breaking in early 2024 and being widely discussed then.

Polanski only became leader of the Green party since 2025 and there has been an increase in antisemitism amongst Green candidates with him at the helm. It is natural in my opinion that the media would scrutinise him closely before the local elections, in a way that they have previously done with other political leaders both on the Right as well as on the Left.

Did it? I didn't see any coverage of the £5 million story before recently. Can you share?

What are you talking about, a plastic bag?

Why not stick with the actual facts about what he lied about - lying about being a spokesman for the Red Cross, lying about the perpetrator of the Golders Green attacks being handcuffed at a point when he was not handcuffed but rather holding a knife, lying about being able to increase women's breasts via hypnosis.

@Lemonthyme I also agree with about 80% of your post there.

He was given alot of scrutiny before and after Brexit because he was one of the main people campaigning for it. I am no fan of Farage or the BBC (I don't have a license as don't want to contribute to misinformation) but they can't win with some people - if he wasn't on programmes you'd say he's avoiding scrutiny and if he is on you say he's being given a platform.

Whether you like it or not Polanski (and Farage and Kemi) appeal to people in a way that Starmer doesn't as comes across as a robotic weirdo irrespective of his terrible policies. I'm glad Polanski is now facing more scrutiny as he is terrible too and seems to be losing votes because of it.

None of those appeal to me - I’m not into show offs speaking bullshit - but yes I accept plenty are taken in by them - someone being serious and mannered isn’t robotic - but yes he’s a very typical serious lawyer - if people prefer flamboyant bullshitters, well that’s on them - Polanski was rejected by Lib Dem’s as a liability as was handsy with young male interns and he will be torn to shreds if he gets a whiff of power both by media and all the purity politics corbynista types they’ve attracted -

I apologise for my mistake, it appears the story about the £5 million gift did not become known until Farage spoke about it during an interview with the Telegraph in April 2026. It is subsequently attracting a lot of media attention ahead of the local elections:

Nigel Farage has revealed he was the victim of a firebombing attack at his home, as he admitted he would never be able to take his personal safety for granted.

The Reform UK leader told The Telegraph that the lit incendiary device was pushed through his letterbox early last year, saying “there are huge dangers in this job”.

Police investigated the attack, but no suspects have been identified so far.
In a rare discussion of his security arrangements, Mr Farage said he had received a seven-figure personal gift to pay for his security from Christopher Harborne, the Thailand-based British billionaire who has donated more than £12m to Reform.

The gift, understood to be in the region of £5m, was made in early 2024 before Mr Farage re-entered politics at that year’s general election, meaning it was not declared as it did not count as a political donation. Money that is a gift is not taxed.

“This money was given to me so that I would be safe and secure for the rest of my life,” he said. “I have tried and failed in the past to get security funded by the Home Office and I don’t think the state will ever help me. I’m very much on my own and will be for the rest of my life, and I have to face up to that grim reality. Christopher is an ardent supporter who is deeply concerned for my safety.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/04/29/nigel-farage-my-home-was-firebombed/

....and it's not a campaign by the "right wing press".

Absolutely correct. I've found it very strange that posters believe that because some of us think that ZP is a dangerous grifter who shouldn't be in charge of a political party at all, we therefore support that other dangerous populist, Farage. This is patently untrue of those of us who can see through both of them as being the two sides of the same coin.

Exactly this, although @ThatCyanCathad a good metaphor for your last sentence! 😂

I guess it's an attempt at vote winning. "Vote for us or else you must love these other arseholes."

I don't think it fools most people, though. It's not like it's the 90s and you've only got enough pocket money to buy Blur or Oasis.

That's why it's being investigated now. And fairly.

If it was genuinely for security, then why not declare it? I'm sad to be so suspicious but him dropping this into a conversation with a victim slant makes me think they were aware it was about to be made public and were trying to get ahead of the story.

Under the rules he needed to declare it:

House of Commons - The Code of Conduct together with The Guide to the Rules relating to the Conduct of Members - House of Commons - The Code of Conduct

"The House requires new Members, within one month of their election, to register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election."

Farage appears to be arguing this both ways. That he was attacked because of his work, in a way he didn't make public at the time, (despite making a very big deal about milkshakes) but that he didn't need to declare it because he wasn't an MP, even though you do need to declare anything from 12 months before you became an MP. Also hard to suggest it's unlinked to politics when the donor was someone who has separately donated to Reform.

It's BS. From an utter grifter.

ZP and NF aren't quite as bad as each other but not far off. But NF has repeatedly failed to turn up to actually be a politician both as an MEP and now MP and found multiple side hustles for money. I think that's absolutely right to face scrutiny. Don't you?

It's unlikely he's going to face anything worse than having to make an apology (seeing as our rules are so weak) but for someone who is looking for more power in public office, it seems a strange thing for people to be finding ways to excuse it. It speaks, I believe, to his character.

Indeed!

Yes exactly. I would have thought those who favour more moderate politics would dislike both Reform and the Greens.

"Blur!' "No, Oasis!" 🤣
Yes, it's not just possible, but probable that those who think ZP is dangerous and exploiting racism for power can actually think the same of Farage.

He’s an absolute joke and a charlatan, shame on the Greens for ever choosing him. But the Greens are a joke party and a one-trick pony anyway. They have never had one remotely credible leader apart from possibly Caroline Lucas and she still wasn’t any great shakes.

Only wishy-washy middle class luvvies vote Green, anyone with a bit of common sense knows they are in no position to ever run the country.

It depends what you mean by moderate. Alot of (most) people would think the extremists are the politicians who have wrecked the country in the last 25 years and want to go back to the sensible 90s when we had a moderate immigration policy, much lower taxes, no mad net zero policies that no one else in the world follows, and low debt as a country.

I miss the days when the Lib Dems were the go to sensible lot that actually get shit done in local politics. They're still around and actually have some people in there who are prepared to work hard rather than just produce sound bites.

It's a shame the media barely give Davey any coverage unless he's picked up his latest inflatable kayak from Lidl. He must be so annoyed about the changes to Lidl plus.

Most politicians are terrible, but what I find particularly troubling about Polanski is this:

1. He focuses a great deal on things he doesn't understand. For example: economics. He's a failed actor / waiter / hypnotist and telling people he's going to give them free money is clearly appealing but the reality is that a lot of people already get a lot of free money.

1. He strikes me as an opportunist rather than someone of integrity or ideas. So he flitted from the lib dems to the Greens, then he went from heavily campaigning to have the Greens adopt the IHRA definition of antisemitism in 2020 to supporting antisemitism by 2026. He just goes where he thinks he'll be popular.

1. He's clearly a dishonest man. What kind of idiot tells women he can make their tits grow by hypnotising them.

1. Attitude to women: don't get me started

He's a very worrying character, as are others in the Greens. It's a shame to say it but they've become popular by embracing hostility to Jews.

Only wishy-washy middle class luvvies vote Green, anyone with a bit of common sense knows they are in no position to ever run the country.

I think that was true in the past but the party has now changed beyond recognition and new members tend to be of the far left (ex Corbynista) variety who have abandoned Your Party.

Stick to the facts? You’ve just lied about which paper ‘uncovered the story’!