In a case that has sent ripples through Britain’s political and social landscape, Fayaz Khan, a 26-year-old Afghan migrant, was found guilty on October 10, 2025, of threatening to kill Nigel Farage, the high-profile leader of Reform UK, in a video posted on TikTok last year. The verdict, handed down at Southwark Crown Court in London, comes as the populist Reform UK party, helmed by Farage, leads in national polls and as debates over migration and online extremism reach fever pitch across the country.
The incident began in October 2024, when Khan, who had arrived in the UK on a small boat after previously living in Stockholm, Sweden, posted a video response to a YouTube upload by Farage. In his video, Farage had highlighted Khan’s journey and referenced “young males of fighting age coming into our country about whom we know very little.” According to BBC and other outlets, Khan’s reply was both direct and menacing: addressing the politician as “Englishman Nigel,” he declared, “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.”
Throughout the video, Khan mimicked gunfire sounds, made gun gestures with his hand, and pointed to a prominent AK-47 tattoo beneath his left eye—an image that would become a focal point in the prosecution’s case. Prosecutor Peter Ratliff described the video as “sinister and menacing,” telling jurors, “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.” Ratliff further asserted that Khan’s threat was “not some off-the-cuff comment” but a calculated and dangerous act.
Khan’s online presence was substantial. Under the TikTok username “madapasa,” he had amassed hundreds of thousands of views, often live-streaming his journey across the English Channel and posting videos characterized by similar bravado and gestures. According to The Telegraph, a screenshot shown to the court depicted a subsequent TikTok post by Khan, featuring the caption “I mean what I say” superimposed on an image of a GB News report about the threat against Farage. Jurors were also shown other videos in which Khan repeated the “pop, pop, pop” noises and gun gestures that had become his signature style.
Farage himself took the stand on October 9, 2025, and described the video as “pretty chilling.” Visibly unsettled, he told the court, “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 Reform UK leader, who represents Clacton in Essex, emphasized the seriousness of the threat, especially considering Khan’s apparent fascination with firearms and his tattooed declaration of allegiance to the AK-47.
Detective Constable Liam Taylor testified that Khan was arrested on October 31, 2024, after arriving in the UK. The court heard that Khan had refused to give evidence during the trial. However, in a police interview conducted on November 1, 2024, he insisted, “It was never my intention to kill him or anything. 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’s defense lawyer, Charles Royle, argued that his client’s actions were “remonstrating in his own idiosyncratic, moronic, comedic, eye-catching, attention-seeking way,” rather than delivering a genuine threat to kill.
Royle reminded jurors that the case was “not about your views on illegal immigration, nor about your views on face tattoos, Brexit or Reform,” but rather about the specific intent behind Khan’s video. He cautioned them not to interpret Khan’s silence in court as evidence of guilt, noting, “You shouldn’t hold any silence against him.” Nevertheless, the prosecution maintained that Khan was “a dangerous man with an interest in firearms,” and the jury ultimately agreed, returning a unanimous guilty verdict.
Khan’s journey to the UK—and his subsequent notoriety—was closely documented online. According to the BBC, he live-streamed his crossing of the Channel and chronicled his arrival, further amplifying his presence and the reach of his videos. This digital trail, combined with the explicit nature of the threat, left little room for ambiguity in the eyes of the court.
In addition to the threat against Farage, Khan had already pleaded guilty to entering the UK illegally. His sentencing for both convictions is scheduled for October 14, 2025, at Southwark Crown Court. Nicholas Coates of the Crown Prosecution Service commented, “Khan not only entered the UK illegally but made sinister threats against a Member of Parliament in plain view of thousands of followers. Elected politicians must be able to carry out their jobs free from the fear of harm or abuse, and we will make sure that those who seek to intimidate them face the full force of the law.” Coates added, “Having already charged Khan with coming to the UK illegally, we were determined to bring him to justice for his threats against Nigel Farage – and we hope today’s conviction sends a clear message.”
The case has ignited debate across the political spectrum. Supporters of Reform UK and other right-leaning groups have pointed to the incident as evidence of the dangers posed by unchecked migration and the need for stronger border controls. Many have argued that high-profile politicians face increasing risks from individuals radicalized online or emboldened by social media platforms. On the other hand, some voices in the public discourse have cautioned against conflating the actions of one individual with broader migrant communities, warning that such cases can fuel xenophobia or be weaponized for political gain. Centrist commentators have stressed the importance of balancing security with civil liberties and ensuring that justice is served based on evidence, not prejudice.
The trial also highlights the growing influence—and potential dangers—of social media in shaping public discourse and enabling threats to spread rapidly. The ability of individuals to reach large audiences with provocative content, coupled with the challenges of monitoring and responding to such threats, remains a pressing concern for law enforcement and policymakers alike.
As Britain awaits Khan’s sentencing, the case stands as a stark reminder of the intersection between online speech, migration, and political life in a deeply polarized era. For Farage and for many in public office, the verdict offers some reassurance that the justice system can respond decisively to threats, even as the underlying issues remain far from resolved.
