Five-year sentence over TikTok threat to Nigel Farage
A man who threatened to kill Nigel Farage on social media has been jailed for five years after a court deemed the online video a credible murder threat. Fayaz Khan, a 26-year-old migrant who arrived in the UK on a small boat, was found guilty of making a firearm‑type threat against the former UKIP and Reform UK leader in October 2024.
What happened in the courtroom
Southwark Crown Court heard that Khan made a gun gesture with his hand and pointed to an AK-47 tattoo on his face while naming Nigel Farage in a post on the social media platform TikTok. Prosecutors told the jury that the video was filmed on Khan’s “madapasa” account and that it contained explicit threats to kill the MP for Clacton. The judge, Mrs Justice Steyn, described the footage as a serious and “pretty chilling” threat.
False identity and alleged criminal past
During proceedings, it emerged that Khan gave investigators a false name, leading them to suspect he was actually a 31-year-old man named Fayaz Husseini. Prosecutors suggested the deception could be linked to a criminal record Khan had accumulated while living in Sweden. The court heard that the defendant had reasons to conceal his identity, including “enemies he did not want to find him.”
Context of the Channel crossing
Khan was among 65 migrants who arrived in the UK after crossing the English Channel in a small inflatable boat. The court heard that he documented the crossing on livestream video, which quickly gained a large online audience. The prosecution argued that the defendant’s actions extended beyond personal risk, as he appeared to be encouraging others to follow his example by sharing his journey with hundreds of thousands of viewers.
Reactions and implications
Nigel Farage described the threat as “pretty chilling” and welcomed the five-year sentence as a victory against violence. Outside the courthouse, Farage commented on the wider issue of individuals who publicly threaten political figures, asking rhetorically how many other “madapasas” might be in the country. The case has reignited debate about the safety of public figures and the impact of social media on radicalization and intimidation.
Why the threat mattered
While the threat was made on social media, prosecutors argued it was more than a bit of online bravado. They contended that the video constituted a targeted intent to kill a public figure using a firearm metaphor, and, in the eyes of the law, it crossed a line into criminal behavior. The judge echoed this view, emphasizing that threats involving weapons, even if symbolic, carry real-world consequences and should be treated with severity.
The legal takeaway
The sentence underscores the UK judiciary’s stance on online threats against public figures. It highlights the legal system’s willingness to pursue cases that originate on social media and to treat violent or firearm-related threats with gravity, regardless of whether the alleged offender had actual access to firearms. For policymakers and the public alike, the case serves as a reminder of the potential harms linked to posting threatening content online and the penalties that can follow.
Looking ahead
As discussions continue about migration, online safety, and the responsibilities of platform operators, this case may be cited in future debates about how social media exposure and real-world risk intersect. For Nigel Farage, the court’s decision provides a measure of reassurance, though it also raises questions about what more can be done to identify and deter individuals who post violent content that could inspire harm.
