A heated debate over alleged “two-tier” policing has erupted online after a left-wing TikTok influencer escaped prosecution for a shocking “kill them all” post made in the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder. The decision by Kent Police not to press charges against Charlotte Hayes, a social media star with over 212,000 followers, has triggered widespread outrage and accusations of double standards—especially when compared to the swift, severe consequences faced by others for far less incendiary remarks.

A Viral Video and a Wave of Criticism

Charlotte Hayes posted the controversial video on TikTok shortly after Charlie Kirk, the prominent pro-Trump influencer, was fatally shot during a Turning Point USA event at Utah Valley University on September 10. In her video, Hayes accused Kirk’s followers of supporting “politics that is inherently violent to the population, to marginal people, to people who don’t have access to healthcare.” She dismissed calls for nonviolence, saying, “why is anyone condemning that?” before ending with the explosive line, “kill them all!”

The video quickly went viral, racking up millions of views before Hayes deleted it. Kent Police visited Hayes but, rather than arresting her, simply offered “words of advice” after determining that no offences had been committed. This decision has been fiercely criticized by politicians, authors, and thousands of social media users who argue that the law is not being applied equally.

High-Profile Outrage and Comparisons

Among those voicing outrage were Harry Potter author JK Rowling and shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick. Rowling questioned the wisdom of allowing a social media influencer to escape punishment after urging followers to kill people with differing political views. She compared Hayes’ treatment to that of Graham Linehan, the comedian arrested for an anti-trans tweet, and Lucy Connolly, who was jailed for inciting violence after the Southport murders.

Jenrick echoed these concerns, stating, “the law is not being applied equally.” Connolly, for example, was sentenced to 31 months in prison for calling on people to “set fire” to hotels housing asylum seekers—a statement many argue was less direct and inflammatory than Hayes’ “kill them all.”

Other cases fueling the debate include Dartford Labour councillor Ricky Jones, who was cleared of encouraging violent disorder despite calling for far-right activists’ throats to be cut in August last year.

Hayes Responds: Satire or Incitement?

Since the controversy broke, Hayes has said she regretted posting the video and claimed her words were misconstrued. She insisted the “kill them all” line was satirical, referencing the cult film Pink Flamingos’ quote “kill everyone now,” and argued it was not a general statement about anyone with right-wing beliefs. Hayes compared her statement to the left-wing slogan “eat the rich,” saying, “Nobody is [really] going to cannibalise the rich.”

Hayes has since faced a barrage of abuse online, with some anonymous accounts leaking her address and sharing photos of her young son. Police responded by providing her with a portable panic alarm and installing security measures at her home. She has also been evicted from her vintage clothing stall at the Petticoat Lane Emporium in Folkestone, Kent, after the business was targeted by angry protesters.

Turning Point USA and Free Speech Debate

Turning Point USA, the organization Kirk founded, condemned Hayes’ video and the police’s decision not to prosecute. Toby Young, director of the Free Speech Union, said the case was “an unpleasant bit of rhetoric” but argued police should never have become involved.

Kent Police Defend Their Decision

A spokesperson for Kent Police stated: “Kent Police received allegations regarding a social media video posted on Saturday, September 13, 2025. Investigators examined the content and concluded no offences were committed. The person who posted the video was visited by officers and received words of advice. They subsequently deleted the post.”

A Divided Public and Unanswered Questions

The controversy has ignited a firestorm online, with thousands demanding answers: Why one rule for some, and another for others? Is there a double standard in how police and courts handle political speech and incitement? For now, the row continues, with both sides accusing the other of hypocrisy—and with the public left to wonder where the line should be drawn between free speech and hate.

Charlie Kirk leaves behind his wife Erika Frantzve, their three-year-old daughter, and a 16-month-old son.

As the debate rages on, one thing is clear: the question of equal justice and the boundaries of political speech in the digital age is far from settled.