The streets of London are supposed to reflect our values, or at least a shared sense of basic decency. Yet, right now, thousands of people are walking past advertisements and symbols that celebrate a man responsible for the deaths of 30,000 of his own citizens. It’s an insult to the victims. It’s a stain on the city. Most importantly, it’s a choice that we don't have to accept.
We often talk about "neutrality" in public spaces. We pretend that high-traffic areas like the Tube or the West End are just blank canvases for whoever has the biggest checkbook. That’s a lie. When you give a platform to a tyrant, you aren't being neutral. You’re being complicit. You’re telling the diaspora communities living in London that their trauma doesn't matter as much as ad revenue.
The math of a massacre
Let’s be incredibly clear about who we’re talking about. We aren't discussing a "controversial figure" or a leader with a "complicated legacy." We’re talking about a documented mass murderer. When 30,000 people are killed by their own government, it isn't a statistic. It’s a generational wipeout.
Think about the scale. 30,000 people. That’s roughly the capacity of a Premier League stadium. Imagine every single person in that stadium being executed. That is the "man" whose face is currently being plastered on walls for Londoners to see.
The victims weren't just numbers. They were students. They were mothers. They were activists who dared to think that maybe, just maybe, they deserved a say in how they were governed. To display the face of their killer in a city that prides itself on being a global hub for human rights is beyond hypocritical. It's cruel.
Why London is the wrong place for this propaganda
London is unique. It’s a sanctuary city. People flee to this gray, rainy capital specifically because they want to escape the reach of the very man whose face is now staring at them from a billboard.
Imagine you’ve spent years rebuilding your life after your family was destroyed by a regime. You finally feel safe. Then, on your morning commute to work, you see a massive, high-definition image of the person who ordered those hits. It’s a trigger. It’s a reminder that even thousands of miles away, the regime’s influence and money can still buy space in your new home.
The argument that "it's just an ad" or "it's just a political campaign" falls flat. We have standards for what can be shown on television. We have standards for what can be printed in newspapers. Why do our public squares have such a low bar?
The myth of the business case
Usually, when people defend these displays, they point to the money. They say the city needs the revenue. They say that Transport for London (TfL) or private advertising firms shouldn't be the arbiters of political truth.
That’s a weak excuse.
London already bans plenty of things from its advertising spaces. You can't put up ads that promote "unhealthy body images" anymore. You can't advertise junk food to kids on the bus. We’ve decided, as a society, that protecting the mental health of teenagers and the physical health of children is worth more than the ad spend from Burger King.
So, why is a mass murderer a more acceptable sight than a cheeseburger?
If we can curate our public spaces to protect people from sugar, we can certainly curate them to protect people from state-sponsored terror. It isn't about censorship. It’s about the basic curation of a public environment. You wouldn't put a statue of a serial killer in a playground. Don't put the face of a genocidal dictator on a bus stop.
What Londoners are actually saying
If you talk to the people on the ground—the ones actually seeing these images—the anger is real. This isn't just "online activism." It's a fundamental rejection of the idea that our city is for sale to the highest-bidding autocrat.
I’ve spoken with community leaders who describe the visceral reaction their members have to these displays. It’s a feeling of betrayal. They pay their taxes. They contribute to the culture of this city. In return, they expect their local government not to host a PR campaign for the people who burned their villages or executed their friends.
It’s also about the message we send to the rest of the world. London is a brand. That brand is supposedly built on the rule of law and democratic values. When we allow these images to stay up, we’re telling every other dictator on the planet that London is open for business, no questions asked. We’re saying that your crimes don't matter as long as your wire transfer clears.
Taking back the streets
The good news is that we don't have to just sit there and take it. Public pressure works. We’ve seen it happen before with ads for gambling, payday loans, and harmful weight-loss products.
The first step is moving past the idea that we’re being "intolerant" by demanding these images be taken down. There is no obligation to tolerate the presence of a killer in our visual landscape.
We need to hold the bodies responsible for these spaces—like TfL and the Mayor’s office—to a higher standard. They shouldn't be hiding behind "commercial neutrality." They should be forced to explain why a man who killed 30,000 people meets their "community standards."
If you see these ads, report them. Write to your local MP. Make it clear that this isn't just about politics. It’s about the psychological safety of our neighbors and the soul of our city.
Stop looking away. If you find the image offensive, say so. Loudly. The only reason these displays stay up is because the people in charge think we’re too busy or too tired to care. Prove them wrong. Use the official complaints procedures for the Advertising Standards Authority. Reach out to your borough councilors. The streets belong to the people who walk them, not the tyrants who try to buy them.
