Afghan Man Guilty of Threatening Nigel Farage in TikTok Video

Published: 11 October 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

An Afghan man who arrived in the UK on a small boat has been found guilty of making a threatening video aimed at Nigel Farage, the leader of Reform UK. Fayaz Khan, 26, was convicted after a jury at Southwark Crown Court found that his TikTok video, posted in October last year, constituted a credible threat to the politician’s life. The verdict was reached by a majority of ten jurors to two, following almost twelve hours of deliberation.

The court heard that Khan had developed a “very large presence online,” with his TikTok videos attracting hundreds of thousands of views. Prosecutor Peter Ratliff explained that, in the months leading up to the threat, Khan’s content had focused largely on his attempts to reach the UK by small boat. Having lived in Stockholm, Sweden, since 2019, Khan had documented aspects of his journey, posting videos that highlighted his experiences as a migrant.

On 12 October 2024, Farage uploaded a YouTube video titled “The Journey of an Illegal Migrant,” in which he referred to Khan and commented on “young males of fighting age coming into our country about whom we know very little.” According to the prosecution, Khan responded on 14 October with a TikTok video in which he addressed Farage directly. In the video, he appeared to say: “Englishman Nigel, don’t talk shit about me. You not know me. I come to England because I want to marry with your sister. You not know me. Don’t talk about me more. Delete the video. I’m coming to England. I’m going to pop, pop, pop.”

Ratliff told the jury that Khan’s words were accompanied by threatening gestures. He headbutted the camera, made hand motions mimicking gunfire, and pointed to an AK-47 tattoo on his face, seemingly to emphasise the seriousness of his statements. Farage, who testified at the trial, described the video as “pretty chilling.” He said: “Given his proximity to guns and love of guns, I was genuinely worried. He says he’s coming to England and he’s going to shoot me.”

The court also viewed screenshots of a subsequent TikTok post by Khan, featuring the caption “I mean what I say,” overlaying an image of a GB News report about the threat. Additional videos shown to the jury revealed that Khan frequently used “pop, pop, pop” noises and hand gestures resembling those in the threatening clip directed at Farage.

Evidence presented during the trial also detailed Khan’s journey across the English Channel. He livestreamed parts of his voyage from France and was arrested on 31 October after arriving in the UK on a small boat. During a police interview, Khan maintained that he had never intended to carry out the threat. He told officers that the “pop, pop, pop” sounds were a recurring feature of his online persona, stating: “This is my character, this is how I act in my videos. In every video I make those sounds, I say ‘pop, pop, pop.’”

Khan did not give evidence during the trial. However, the prosecution argued that the threat should be taken seriously. In his closing speech, Ratliff described the video as “not some off-the-cuff comment” but “sinister and menacing.” He highlighted Khan’s tattoos of AK-47 rifles on his face and arm, saying: “If you’ve got an AK-47 tattooed on your arm and your face, it’s because you love AK-47s and you want the world to know that. He is a dangerous man with an interest in firearms.”

The defence, represented by Charles Royle, argued that Khan’s video was intended as a form of attention-seeking performance rather than a genuine threat. Royle described Khan’s actions as “remonstrating in his own idiosyncratic, moronic, comedic, eye-catching, attention-seeking way.” He urged jurors to consider Khan’s character and online persona as context, suggesting that his exaggerated gestures and dramatic statements were part of his self-styled online identity rather than a plan to harm anyone.

The case has drawn attention to the growing concern over online threats against public figures and the role of social media in amplifying potentially dangerous content. Experts have noted that platforms like TikTok, which allow users to reach global audiences with short-form videos, can provide individuals with a large and rapid reach, sometimes escalating online disputes into real-world risks. Khan’s significant following on TikTok meant that his videos were widely circulated, increasing the perceived seriousness of the threat.

Legal analysts have emphasised that the context and perceived intent behind online content are key factors in determining whether a threat constitutes a criminal offence. In this case, the prosecution successfully argued that Khan’s combination of verbal threats, gestures, and references to firearms created a credible fear for the safety of Farage, meeting the threshold for criminal liability. The jury’s conviction reflects the courts’ commitment to protecting public figures from credible threats, whether delivered in person or online.

During the trial, jurors were also encouraged to consider the cumulative nature of Khan’s online behaviour. Multiple videos depicting “pop, pop, pop” gestures, livestreaming of his journey, and posts directly referencing Farage contributed to the assessment of intent and danger. While Khan claimed that these behaviours were part of his performative style, the consistent pattern of references to firearms and violent gestures played a significant role in the jury’s verdict.

The sentencing phase of the case is expected to consider several factors, including Khan’s age, his migration status, and the fact that he arrived in the UK via a small boat. Courts typically weigh both the seriousness of the offence and the potential for rehabilitation when determining appropriate sentences for online threats. Given the national prominence of the victim and the menacing nature of the threat, the prosecution is likely to seek a custodial sentence that reflects the gravity of the offence.

The case also highlights wider issues concerning online radicalisation and the monitoring of social media platforms. Law enforcement agencies have increasingly focused on identifying potentially harmful content and intervening before threats can escalate into real-world violence. Khan’s videos demonstrate how social media activity, even if framed as performance or parody, can cross into criminal conduct when it targets specific individuals and incorporates violent imagery or gestures.

Public reactions to the case have been mixed. While some commentators emphasise the need to protect politicians and public figures from online threats, others have raised concerns about freedom of expression and the difficulty of interpreting satirical or performative content online. Nevertheless, the court’s verdict underscores that threats perceived as credible, particularly when reinforced by gestures, tattoos, and context, are treated seriously under UK law.

Fayaz Khan’s conviction serves as a reminder of the responsibility that accompanies a large social media presence. Videos that might seem like dramatic performance to some viewers can have severe legal consequences if they involve threats or intimidation. The case illustrates how courts balance the right to free expression with the need to protect individuals from genuine threats to safety.

In conclusion, Fayaz Khan, 26, has been found guilty of making a threatening TikTok video aimed at Nigel Farage. The evidence presented during the trial—including multiple videos, livestreamed content, and references to firearms—led the jury to conclude that the threat was credible and menacing. While Khan denied any intent to carry out harm and argued that his online persona explained his behaviour, the court determined that the combination of verbal, visual, and symbolic cues demonstrated a real danger to the victim. The case highlights both the legal consequences of online threats and the growing responsibility of social media users to avoid content that could be interpreted as violent or threatening.