Fayaz Khan, a 26-year-old Afghan migrant who arrived in the United Kingdom by small boat, was found guilty on October 10, 2025, of making a threat to kill Reform UK leader Nigel Farage in a TikTok video. The verdict, delivered by a jury at Southwark Crown Court after nearly 12 hours of deliberation, brings to a head a case that has stirred debate over immigration, online extremism, and the boundaries of free expression in the digital age.
Khan’s conviction centers on a TikTok video he posted last October. In the video, he directly addressed Farage, stating, “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.” According to BBC and The Guardian, while uttering the phrase “pop, pop, pop,” Khan made gun gestures with his hand, headbutted the camera, and pointed to an AK-47 tattoo on his face—a detail that prosecutors argued was meant to underscore the seriousness of his threat.
Khan, who used the TikTok username “madapasa,” had amassed hundreds of thousands of views with his videos chronicling his journey from Afghanistan to the UK, including livestreams of his small boat crossing the English Channel from France. Prosecutor Peter Ratliff told the court that Khan’s online presence was substantial, and that his videos frequently featured similar “pop, pop, pop” noises and gun gestures. “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 said, as reported by Sky News and The Guardian.
The incident that triggered Khan’s video was a YouTube post by Nigel Farage, uploaded on October 12, 2024, titled “the journey of an illegal migrant.” In the video, Farage highlighted Khan’s journey and referenced “young males of fighting age coming into our country about whom we know very little.” Two days later, Khan posted his now-infamous TikTok response. The exchange, according to BBC and Reuters, quickly escalated from political commentary to what the prosecution described as a “sinister and menacing” threat.
Farage, who testified in court on October 7, 2025, described the video as “pretty chilling.” He told jurors, “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, noting that while abuse is part of public life for politicians, this incident crossed a line. “Abuse is part of public life, (but) that’s not something that I’m used to seeing,” Farage said, according to Reuters.
Khan did not take the stand during his trial, but in a police interview following his arrest on October 31, 2024, he insisted that the video was not a genuine threat. “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 told police, as quoted by The Guardian and Sky News. He maintained that his online persona was performative and attention-seeking, not intended to incite real fear or violence.
Jurors were also shown a screenshot of 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 alleged threat. Prosecutor Ratliff argued that this further demonstrated Khan’s intent, saying the threat was “not some off-the-cuff comment” but rather a calculated and dangerous act. “He was a dangerous man with an interest in firearms,” Ratliff asserted.
Khan’s defense lawyer, Charles Royle, sought to downplay the seriousness of the video, arguing that his client was “remonstrating in his own idiosyncratic, moronic, comedic, eye-catching, attention-seeking way” rather than making a credible threat to kill. Royle reminded jurors that the trial was “not about your views on illegal immigration, nor about your views on face tattoos, Brexit or Reform.” He also cautioned against interpreting Khan’s silence in court as evidence of guilt, emphasizing that the right not to testify is a cornerstone of the British legal system.
The jury ultimately found Khan guilty by a majority of 10 to 2, reflecting the difficulty of the case and the weight of the evidence presented. The deliberations lasted almost 12 hours, according to The Guardian and Sky News. Khan was also convicted of an additional charge of entering Britain illegally, to which he had previously pleaded guilty.
In the days leading up to the verdict, the trial attracted significant media attention, in part because of the high-profile nature of the individuals involved and the broader context of the UK’s ongoing debate over immigration and asylum policy. Farage’s public persona as a staunch critic of illegal immigration and his leadership of the Reform UK party, which has surged in opinion polls, made the case a lightning rod for political commentary across the spectrum. Some commentators argued that the case highlighted legitimate concerns about online threats and the need for robust security for public figures. Others cautioned against conflating the actions of one individual with the broader migrant population, warning that such incidents could be exploited to stoke xenophobia or advance political agendas.
For many observers, the case also raised questions about the role of social media in amplifying threats and blurring the lines between performance and criminality. Khan’s defense—that his online persona was exaggerated and not to be taken seriously—echoes debates seen in other high-profile cases involving influencers and viral content. Yet as the prosecution and the court made clear, the impact of such videos can be very real, especially when directed at individuals already in the public eye.
Khan is scheduled to be sentenced on October 14, 2025, for the threat to kill conviction and for entering the UK illegally. The outcome of his sentencing will likely be watched closely, both by those concerned about the safety of public figures and by advocates for fair treatment of migrants and refugees within the justice system.
The case of Fayaz Khan and Nigel Farage stands as a stark reminder of how quickly rhetoric can escalate, especially in the age of social media, and how the courts are being called upon to draw lines between performance, protest, and genuine menace.
