Guilty verdict in a chilling online threat against Nigel Farage
A 26-year-old Afghan national has been found guilty by jurors at Southwark Crown Court of threatening to kill Nigel Farage in a TikTok video. The conviction closes a case that drew intense attention to the online persona of the defendant, his history, and the potential implications of social media threats reaching political figures.
The defendant, Fayaz Khan, chose not to testify during the trial, which focused on whether his online posts between 12 and 15 October last year constituted a criminal threat against the Reform UK leader. The verdict was delivered after jurors deliberated for nearly 12 hours, underscoring the seriousness with which the court treated the evidence and the accompanying online presence behind the posts.
What the court was told about Khan
Prosecutors described Khan as a “dangerous man with an interest in firearms,” highlighting his notable online profile. He had amassed hundreds of thousands of views on TikTok, where he documented his attempts to reach the United Kingdom by small boat from France last autumn. The trial revealed that Khan has an AK-47 tattoo on his right cheek and arm, a detail prosecutors argued added a menacing undertone to his online content.
At the center of the case was a video posted in October 2023, shortly after Nigel Farage released a YouTube video about “the journey of an illegal migrant.” In Khan’s reply, prosecutors said he appeared to threaten Farage directly, saying, “Englishman Nigel, don’t talk shit about me. You not know me. I come to England because I want to marry 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.” The courtroom was shown gun gestures and head movements designed to emphasize the apparent threat, with the tattoo serving as a visual enhancement of the message.
How the case unfolded in court
Jurors also heard a subsequent TikTok post in which Khan appears to say “I mean what I say” over an image relating to a GB News report about the threat. After his arrest in October 2023, the defendant told police that the video lacked any real intent to threaten and that the sounds “pop, pop, pop” were a recurring feature of his videos, not a genuine plan to harm anyone. Prosecutor Peter Ratliff described the threat as “not some off-the-cuff comment” but a sinister and menacing act, citing the context and online persona as evidence of intent.
Defense counsel argued that Khan’s content was a form of idiosyncratic, attention-seeking entertainment, not a credible threat. Charles Royle stressed that the case was not about political views or immigration policy, but about whether a specific online venting session crossed the line into criminal intimidation. The decision to remain silent during testimony was noted by the defense as a strategic choice rather than an indicator of guilt or innocence.
Implications and reactions
Nigel Farage attended the trial, describing the video as “pretty chilling” and expressing concern over the proximity of the offender to firearms in the online environment. The verdict reinforces the message that threats against public figures are scrutinized closely when delivered through social media platforms. While online channels can amplify opinions and raise political debate, they can also cross legal boundaries when threats of violence are explicit or credible.
Following the verdict, questions remain about how social media companies monitor violent content and how law enforcement assesses intent in online posts. The case illustrates the evolving landscape where political rhetoric, digital personas, and real-world consequences intersect in modern criminal law.
Notes on the background
Khan had been living in Stockholm, Sweden, since 2019, and was recorded crossing the English Channel in a small boat before arriving in the United Kingdom. The jury’s decision marks a clear legal stance against violent threats delivered via platforms that many people use for entertainment as well as information.
