Who, What, Where, When
- Name of defendant: Fayaz Khan, 26, originally from Afghanistan. (Financial Times)
- Nationality / Status: Afghan national; living in Sweden since about 2019. He is a migrant / asylum-seeker. (Financial Times)
- Where the trial is held: Southwark Crown Court, London. (Reuters)
- Time period of the alleged video(s): The threatening video was published in mid-October 2024, specifically around October 14, following a YouTube video by Nigel Farage on October 12. Khan is alleged to have made the video between about 12-15 October. (The Standard)
- How he arrived: He travelled via small boat to the UK; he live-streamed parts of his journey. He was arrested on 31 October 2024 after entering the UK. (The Standard)
What Exactly Was Said / Done (Prosecution’s Case)
According to the prosecution, the sequence is something like this:
- Nigel Farage posted a video on 12 October 2024 titled something like “the journey of an illegal migrant”, which included clips from Khan’s own videos. (The Standard)
- On about 14 October, Khan published a video in response, on TikTok. In this video, alleged statements included:
- “Englishman, Nigel, don’t talk shit about me. You not know me.” (The Standard)
- “I come to England because I want to marry with your sister.” (The Standard)
- “Don’t talk about me more. Delete the video.” (The Standard)
- “I’m coming to England. I’m going to pop, pop, pop.” (The Standard)
- In that same video, he allegedly made gun gestures with his hands (mimicking shooting), pointed to an AK-47 tattoo on his face, and head-butted the camera at one point. These non-verbal elements are argued by the prosecution to reinforce the threat. (The Standard)
- After the video’s publication, Mr Farage saw it, found it “pretty chilling,” and testified in court that he was “genuinely, genuinely worried,” especially given Khan’s tattoos and the aggressive gestures. (Reuters)
What Khan’s Defence / Mitigations Are
Khan denies that he intended to threaten or kill Farage. Key parts of his defence include:
- He claims “pop, pop, pop” is part of his online persona/character — something he says he uses in many videos, not specifically meant as a literal threat. (The Standard)
- He argues that the video was not made with the intention of threatening; that he was “high,” smoked cannabis, and not fully aware of how it might be perceived. (The Standard)
- He claims he did not know Nigel Farage personally; that the reference was not meant literally. (The Standard)
Legal Issues / Charges
The key charge is:
- Making a threat to kill (towards Nigel Farage) under UK legislation. The prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Khan intended for Farage to believe the threat would be carried out. (Reuters)
Other related legal claims/tests include:
- Whether the video constitutes a “public communication network” offence (i.e. whether posting the video online is aggravated, or causes fear, annoyance, etc.) (The Independent)
- Whether the non-verbal cues (gun gestures, tattoo, headbutting camera) reinforce the threatening nature. (The Standard)
What Was Decided / Outcomes So Far
As of the latest reports:
- Khan pleaded not guilty to making a threat to kill Farage. (Upday News)
- Khan opted not to give evidence in his own defence during the trial. (Express & Star)
- It appears that a verdict was reached: he was found guilty of threatening to kill Nigel Farage. (The Sun)
- At sentencing time, details in some sources suggest a sentence of five months in prison plus an order to deport him. (Though note: one source had earlier said six months; subscriptions/unverified sources differ). (The Times)
Questions / Points of Contention
There are several areas where the case hinges critically on interpretation and legal thresholds:
- Intent: Did Khan intend that Farage believe he would carry out the threat? Or was it performative / rhetorical / exaggerated persona?
- Context / Persona: The defence argues Khan has a public persona of “pop, pop, pop” sounds etc., in many videos. If that’s true, does that reduce the seriousness or the perceived threat? Could listeners/viewers reasonably believe it was real?
- Tattoo & Gestures: Are tattoos of firearms and gun-gestures sufficient to make a threat credible, in context? Does pointing to a tattoo matter legally?
- Effect on the Victim: Farage’s testimony that he felt “genuinely worried” is relevant — if someone in his position testifies fear, that strengthens the prosecution.
- Freedom of Speech vs Threats: Where do you draw the line between aggressive or offensive speech and an unlawful threat to kill? UK law requires intent or that the recipient reasonably believes the threat could be carried out.
Broader Significance
- This case has drawn attention because it ties into the politics of migration, social media, and how social media personas are used.
- Nigel Farage is a high-profile public figure; threats against public figures often raise questions about security, free expression, political rhetoric.
- It shows how online speech (especially on platforms like TikTok) is increasingly subject to legal scrutiny when the speech seems threatening or potentially inciting violence.
- It also raises issues about cross-border lives of migrants/asylum seekers, their previous histories in other countries (e.g. in Sweden), and what that means for how they can be dealt with legally in the UK (e.g. deportation, security).
-
Case Study: Fayaz Khan – Threats Against Nigel Farage
Key Players & Context
- Defendant / Accused: Fayaz Khan, also known online as “Madapasa”, a 26-year-old Afghan national. (Financial Times)
- Alleged victim: Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK. (The Independent)
- Jurisdiction: Southwark Crown Court, London..case heard in October 2025. (Financial Times)
Timeline of Events
Date Event October 12, 2024 Nigel Farage published a video on YouTube titled “The journey of an illegal migrant” in which he used content from social media posts (including those by Khan), referencing “young males of fighting age” coming into the UK. (Financial Times) October 14-15, 2024 Khan responds via a TikTok video. In that video, he is alleged to have said: “Englishman Nigel, don’t talk shit about me. You not know me. I come to England because I want to marry with your sister. … Don’t talk about me more. Delete the video. I’m coming to England. I’m going to pop, pop, pop.” Accompanied by gun-like hand gestures, and pointing to a tattoo of an AK-47 on his face. (The Independent) October 31, 2024 Khan arrives in the UK by small boat and is arrested soon after. (Financial Times) November 1, 2024 Police interview: Khan claims things like he did not say “if you don’t delete the video, I’m going to shoot you”, that “pop, pop, pop” is part of his regular social media persona, that he was “high” or under the influence of cannabis, etc. (The Standard) Court Proceedings in 2025 He was initially charged, pleaded not guilty to making threats to kill, also charged with sending a grossly offensive TikTok video. Trial held around October 2025. Defence argued that the video was attention-seeking, part of persona, not genuine threat. Prosecution argued otherwise. (The Standard) October 7-10, 2025 In court, Nigel Farage testifies he was “genuinely worried” by Khan’s video. Jury hears evidence. Closing speeches given. Jury retires to consider verdicts. (Financial Times) October 10, 2025 Khan is found guilty of making a threat to kill Nigel Farage. (The Times)
Prosecution’s Case and Evidence
The prosecution’s arguments and evidence include:
- Words Used in the Video
- Phrases such as “I’m coming to England. I’m going to pop, pop, pop.” (The Independent)
- Asking Farage to delete his video, telling him “don’t talk shit about me.” (The Independent)
- Nonverbal Cues
- Gun-like hand gestures when saying “pop, pop, pop.” (The Independent)
- Pointing to a tattoo of an AK-47 rifle on his face to underline seriousness. (Financial Times)
- Head-butting the camera during the video. (The Independent)
- Online Persona and Reach
- Khan had a significant social media presence (TikTok “Madapasa”), many followers. (Financial Times)
- Earlier posts by him where he made “pop, pop, pop” noises etc. Defence acknowledges these were part of his style. (GB News)
- Effect on Farage
- Farage’s testimony: he said the video was “pretty chilling”, and given the imagery and gestures, he was genuinely afraid Khan might come to England to shoot him. (Financial Times)
- Delivery / Intention
- Prosecution asserts that Khan intended the threat to reach Farage (via public video) and believed that Farage would believe it could be carried out. (The Independent)
Defence’s Arguments / Mitigations
From what has been reported:
- Khan denies making a threat to kill. He says “pop, pop, pop” is part of his online persona, not a genuine threat. (BBC Feeds)
- He claims he did not intend to threaten, he was possibly under the influence of cannabis when making the video. (The Standard)
- He also suggested he did not know Nigel Farage personally. (Financial Times)
- Defence called the video “idiosyncratic, attention-seeking, moronic, comedic, eye-catching” rather than a serious threat. (Express & Star)
- Khan chose not to give evidence in his defence. (The Standard)
Legal Issues & Questions Jury Had to Decide
- Whether the video and gestures amounted to making a threat to kill under UK law. That is, whether Khan intended that Farage would believe the threat could be carried out. (The Independent)
- Whether Farage reasonably believed there was a real threat. The standard includes how a person in the victim’s position would perceive it. (The Independent)
- Whether the nonverbal aspects (gestures, tattoos, tone) augmented the threat. (The Independent)
- How much “character / persona / online style” can mitigate perceived intent. Whether prior similar videos or behaviour could suggest “this is just how he is” rather than a serious threat. (GB News)
Verdict & Outcome
- Khan was found guilty of making a threat to kill Nigel Farage. (The Times)
- Sentencing was to be determined. (As of reports I found, I did not see a fully confirmed published sentence in reliable outlets yet at the time of the articles I surveyed.) (The Times)
Implications & Broader Issues
This case brings up a number of broader legal, social, and policy-issues:
- Social Media and Threats
- How public online posts are used both as evidence and as means of threat.
- The intersection of “persona” or performance and genuine legal accountability.
- Public Figures’ Security
- When threats are made against politicians, especially using violent imagery or symbols (e.g. gun gestures, tattoos), public safety and security concerns increase.
- Immigration / Asylum Context
- Khan’s status (Afghan national, previously in Sweden, journey via small boat) adds political sensitivity. It intersects with debates over migration, integration, extremism, criminality.
- Legal Precedent
- This case could help clarify how courts interpret nonverbal cues, tattoos, gestures, online persona when assessing threats.
- The standard of whether someone “reasonably believes” a threat is credible matters.
- Free Speech vs Offence
- Balancing what might be offensive, provocative or inflammatory speech versus what is a prosecutable threat. The defence’s argument about character/persona is relevant here.