It's being widely reported (even by GB"News") that Daniel Thomas (aka "Danny Tommo", real imagination there in producing a pseudonym) is being investigated by the police after he got in a small boat (presumably not the one his supporters bought for him which he managed to sink before leaving harbour), interfered with Coastguard operations and then slashed an inflatable boat with a knife while RNLI volunteers were onboard having finished removing the asylum seekers who had been on board for over 30 hours. As he already has a conviction for knife crime (when he held a knife to someone because he thought they'd nabbed £10k of drugs off him, only to find he'd broken into the wrong house) and is currently on bail for charges relating to illegally entering the Port of Dover and abusive behaviour it's probably not the wisest thing to live stream himself wielding a knife and endangering the life of a volunteer rescue worker.
Thomas is the founder of Patriot Platform, the organisation behind recent protests along the south coast of England by a self-styled army in black uniforms and balaclavas, including shutting down emergency services and threatening RNLI volunteers.
It is to be hoped that this most odious individual is soon locked away safely in prison. Surely, his alleged attack on the dinghy is nothing less than attempted murder?
It is to be hoped that this most odious individual is soon locked away safely in prison. Surely, his alleged attack on the dinghy is nothing less than attempted murder?
Reprehensible as it is it's a lot less. Attempted murder has a very high bar - intention to kill. Not just to cause serious harm. Not just being indifferent or even hopeful towards the possibility that death will result. Doing something knowing it could kill isn't enough.
It is to be hoped that this most odious individual is soon locked away safely in prison. Surely, his alleged attack on the dinghy is nothing less than attempted murder?
Reprehensible as it is it's a lot less. Attempted murder has a very high bar - intention to kill. Not just to cause serious harm. Not just being indifferent or even hopeful towards the possibility that death will result. Doing something knowing it could kill isn't enough.
Interfering with the rescue of individuals in distress has a reasonably heavy penalty should the police wish to pursue that route.
Just a note that the BBC coverage of the sequence of events was particular poor and as of last night they didn’t mention Tommos actions, describing him only as a ‘a long-term campaigner against migrants’
Is this within the 12-mile limit of Territorial Waters? If not, can it count as a crime under British law?
Someone who can understand law documents might be able to make more sense of this very recent item on the UK government’s website. It could end up being known as “Tommo’s Law”.
I'd never seen that before, so thanks. But it does seem to cover this kind of offence (among others), from the moment the boats leave the beaches of France, Belgium or the Netherlands.
It is to be hoped that this most odious individual is soon locked away safely in prison. Surely, his alleged attack on the dinghy is nothing less than attempted murder?
Reprehensible as it is it's a lot less. Attempted murder has a very high bar - intention to kill. Not just to cause serious harm. Not just being indifferent or even hopeful towards the possibility that death will result. Doing something knowing it could kill isn't enough.
Is this within the 12-mile limit of Territorial Waters? If not, can it count as a crime under British law?
Someone who can understand law documents might be able to make more sense of this very recent item on the UK government’s website. It could end up being known as “Tommo’s Law”.
I think it's intended to provide an option for prosecution of those involved in organising dangerous crossings (eg: if someone is given charge of steering the boat or otherwise more than just a passenger), the very act of somehow facilitating the crossing being something that endangers others. It could, I suppose, also be used against a passenger who acts in a many that endangers other passengers (eg: someone who literally rocks the boat). I doubt anyone expected someone in another boat to deliberately act in a manner that would endanger someone undertaking that crossing, but a brief glance suggests that it could be taken that way.
Though in this case it doesn't seem to apply, because the RNLI volunteer who was put at risk was not on a journey that started in France, Belgium or the Netherlands.
I hope we won't ever see Tommo and his thugs actually attacking a boat full of refugees.
There is a certain irony in the thought that, in attempting to save 'our' women and children, they could end up murdering 'other' women and children.
Still, they're Christians - good people, great people, as Trump might say - who proclaim 'Christ is King!', so presumably they think* they're doing God's work...
Is this within the 12-mile limit of Territorial Waters? If not, can it count as a crime under British law?
Someone who can understand law documents might be able to make more sense of this very recent item on the UK government’s website. It could end up being known as “Tommo’s Law”.
I think it's intended to provide an option for prosecution of those involved in organising dangerous crossings (eg: if someone is given charge of steering the boat or otherwise more than just a passenger), the very act of somehow facilitating the crossing being something that endangers others.
There's older legislation that may be relevant is a bit more specific in its intent:
Though in this case it doesn't seem to apply, because the RNLI volunteer who was put at risk was not on a journey that started in France, Belgium or the Netherlands.
In addition to what has already been mentioned, if Thomas did what he did outside territorial waters, as he was mounting an attack from one boat against another, it is piracy on the high seas, which is an offence under the law of nations and can be tried in any state. It was one of the last crimes to carry the death penalty in the UK.
If he was inside UK territorial waters, unless done with lawful excuse, what the film shows him doing is clearly criminal damage under s 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. If he intended thereby to endanger the life of another or was reckless as to whether the life of another would be endangered, that would be an offence under s 1(2) of the same Act. The penalty in either case is up to 10 years.
I hope the prosecutors have the guts to push their options as far as they will go. Any sort of political demonstration at sea, in whatever cause, is potentially very dangerous indeed. Sticking a knife into an inflatable is indefensible. The only even plausible excuse I can think of would be self defence if one were attacked, which was clearly the opposite of what was happening here.
There's a crowdfunder launched for Tommo's legal fees and to support his family. So, he'll do alright, even if he spends a bit of time behind bars the bank balance will be healthily in his favour.
There's a crowdfunder launched for Tommo's legal fees and to support his family. So, he'll do alright, even if he spends a bit of time behind bars the bank balance will be healthily in his favour.
Unless it disappears the same place Wee Tommy Ten Names' cash (allegedly) does.
Yes, well there's always that risk when Yaxley-Lennon arranges fundraising. Someone needs to pay for a comfy immigrant lifestyle (it's not as though the state of any nation is going to pick up the tab, put him in a nice hotel with good food and access to the pool, because no government supports migrants beyond basic necessity). Yaxley-Lennon will probably need a crowdfunder to pay his legal costs anyway.
There's a crowdfunder launched for Tommo's legal fees and to support his family. So, he'll do alright, even if he spends a bit of time behind bars the bank balance will be healthily in his favour.
Not in his favour. Legal costs and family support, but not for Tommy or his campaign. They will have to be financed as now, by those who regard Restore Britain as woolly snowflakes.
An open door is one thing. Not preaching a lot of sermons about who my neighbour is, hospitality towards foreigners and there being no Jew or Greek but total equality in Christ does invite some questioning.
And appointing someone who doesn't seem to have a scooby about any of that as churchwarden invites rather more.
And appointing someone who doesn't seem to have a scooby about any of that as churchwarden invites rather more.
It's normally an elected position, isn't it ? Albeit in lots of cases churches have trouble finding candidates so anyone can nominate themselves, get a couple of friends to support their nomination and get nodded through.
And appointing someone who doesn't seem to have a scooby about any of that as churchwarden invites rather more.
It's normally an elected position, isn't it ? Albeit in lots of cases churches have trouble finding candidates so anyone can nominate themselves, get a couple of friends to support their nomination and get nodded through.
You're right. Raises questions of a different but equally worrying kind.
Is this within the 12-mile limit of Territorial Waters? If not, can it count as a crime under British law?
Someone who can understand law documents might be able to make more sense of this very recent item on the UK government’s website. It could end up being known as “Tommo’s Law”.
No. The guidance document states that this offence applies to an offender who is making a “journey by water from France, Belgium or the Netherlands”.
Is this within the 12-mile limit of Territorial Waters? If not, can it count as a crime under British law?
Someone who can understand law documents might be able to make more sense of this very recent item on the UK government’s website. It could end up being known as “Tommo’s Law”.
No. The guidance document states that this offence applies to an offender who is making a “journey by water from France, Belgium or the Netherlands”.
And who has already committed an attempted unauthorised entry offence.
It's very much aimed at prosecuting migrants as far as I can see, like that lad who got sent down the other week.
I wish the media (and others) would stop using Thomas's vanity name - he must enjoy that. Surely it's better to use the same name used by the police to charge him?
Is anyone up for MWing St Lawrence Church in Morden?
The thought crossed my mind. Before I found out where Mr Thomas went to church, I thought it would be local to me, as he lives in the same county as me. Heading to Mordor requires a bit more planning.
Is anyone up for MWing St Lawrence Church in Morden?
The thought crossed my mind. Before I found out where Mr Thomas went to church, I thought it would be local to me, as he lives in the same county as me. Heading to Mordor requires a bit more planning.
There are some YouTube videos of services at St L's, which may give some idea of the place:
Is anyone up for MWing St Lawrence Church in Morden?
The thought crossed my mind. Before I found out where Mr Thomas went to church, I thought it would be local to me, as he lives in the same county as me. Heading to Mordor requires a bit more planning.
And appointing someone who doesn't seem to have a scooby about any of that as churchwarden invites rather more.
It's normally an elected position, isn't it ? Albeit in lots of cases churches have trouble finding candidates so anyone can nominate themselves, get a couple of friends to support their nomination and get nodded through.
Not quite that easy - nominee and his supporters have to be on the Electoral Roll of the church for the previous six months.
And appointing someone who doesn't seem to have a scooby about any of that as churchwarden invites rather more.
It's normally an elected position, isn't it ? Albeit in lots of cases churches have trouble finding candidates so anyone can nominate themselves, get a couple of friends to support their nomination and get nodded through.
Not quite that easy - nominee and his supporters have to be on the Electoral Roll of the church for the previous six months.
That's only if they don't live in the parish, isn't it?
The rule is that anyone entitled to attend the meeting of parishioners can nominate a candidate for church warden. The legislation provides that
Persons on the Parish Electoral Roll and those resident in the parish listed on the Local Government Electoral Register are entitled to attend a meeting of the parishioners.
So in fact a person can be nominated for church warden by people who simply live in the parish - even if they never attend church - provided they are on the Electoral Register.
A person nominated for election must
have been baptised and—
(a) be on the church electoral roll of the parish;
(b) be an actual communicant;*
(c) be twenty–one years of age or upwards; and
(d) not be disqualified under section 2 or 3 below [basically disqualified from being a trustee, or under Safeguarding legislation, or having served six consecutive terms (unless a previous meeting of parishioners has disapplied the six terms rule)]
*i.e. has received Communion according to the use of the Church of England or a Church in communion with it at least three times during the 12 months preceding the date of eligibility.
I wonder what Daniel Thomas’s situation is, as he declared himself to be of no fixed abode. I would expect that played a part in not granting bail, despite what is said by his supporters.
It's not directly connected, but the government's reaction to events in NI have a very similar vibe (apart from the fact that the minister in charge is also one of the stupidest people in parliament).
It is to be hoped that this most odious individual is soon locked away safely in prison. Surely, his alleged attack on the dinghy is nothing less than attempted murder?
Reprehensible as it is it's a lot less. Attempted murder has a very high bar - intention to kill. Not just to cause serious harm. Not just being indifferent or even hopeful towards the possibility that death will result. Doing something knowing it could kill isn't enough.
An intent to cause GBH is sufficient for a murder conviction (if the victim dies), but not for an attempted murder conviction (if the victim survives).
I suppose Mr Thomas could have been charged with unlawfully endangering the safe navigation of a ship under the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990. Life imprisonment is available.
It's not directly connected, but the government's reaction to events in NI have a very similar vibe (apart from the fact that the minister in charge is also one of the stupidest people in parliament).
Comments
Thomas is the founder of Patriot Platform, the organisation behind recent protests along the south coast of England by a self-styled army in black uniforms and balaclavas, including shutting down emergency services and threatening RNLI volunteers.
Here's the Guardian's report on this appalling incident:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/sep/22/far-right-activist-daniel-thomas-slashes-dinghy-with-blade-while-rescue-worker-onboard
The police are on the case, so hopefully the piece of shit known as 'Danny Tommo' will soon be arrested.
Reprehensible as it is it's a lot less. Attempted murder has a very high bar - intention to kill. Not just to cause serious harm. Not just being indifferent or even hopeful towards the possibility that death will result. Doing something knowing it could kill isn't enough.
Interfering with the rescue of individuals in distress has a reasonably heavy penalty should the police wish to pursue that route.
Just a note that the BBC coverage of the sequence of events was particular poor and as of last night they didn’t mention Tommos actions, describing him only as a ‘a long-term campaigner against migrants’
Someone who can understand law documents might be able to make more sense of this very recent item on the UK government’s website. It could end up being known as “Tommo’s Law”.
Point taken - I posted in haste and anger...
IANAL!
Though in this case it doesn't seem to apply, because the RNLI volunteer who was put at risk was not on a journey that started in France, Belgium or the Netherlands.
There is a certain irony in the thought that, in attempting to save 'our' women and children, they could end up murdering 'other' women and children.
Still, they're Christians - good people, great people, as Trump might say - who proclaim 'Christ is King!', so presumably they think* they're doing God's work...
*I use the word loosely.
There's older legislation that may be relevant is a bit more specific in its intent:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/17
If he was inside UK territorial waters, unless done with lawful excuse, what the film shows him doing is clearly criminal damage under s 1(1) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. If he intended thereby to endanger the life of another or was reckless as to whether the life of another would be endangered, that would be an offence under s 1(2) of the same Act. The penalty in either case is up to 10 years.
I hope the prosecutors have the guts to push their options as far as they will go. Any sort of political demonstration at sea, in whatever cause, is potentially very dangerous indeed. Sticking a knife into an inflatable is indefensible. The only even plausible excuse I can think of would be self defence if one were attacked, which was clearly the opposite of what was happening here.
https://searchlightmagazine.com/2026/09/danny-tommo-arrested-for-criminal-damage-and-reckless-endangerment/
https://searchlightmagazine.com/2026/09/the-christian-church-with-an-open-door-for-the-far-right/
Meanwhile, here's todays Guardian report on 'Tommo'. He says he knew the arrest was coming - is he courting martyrdom, I wonder?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/sep/24/police-arrest-far-right-activist-daniel-thomas-after-dinghy-slashed-channel
Unless it disappears the same place Wee Tommy Ten Names' cash (allegedly) does.
Not in his favour. Legal costs and family support, but not for Tommy or his campaign. They will have to be financed as now, by those who regard Restore Britain as woolly snowflakes.
An open door is one thing. Not preaching a lot of sermons about who my neighbour is, hospitality towards foreigners and there being no Jew or Greek but total equality in Christ does invite some questioning.
And appointing someone who doesn't seem to have a scooby about any of that as churchwarden invites rather more.
It's normally an elected position, isn't it ? Albeit in lots of cases churches have trouble finding candidates so anyone can nominate themselves, get a couple of friends to support their nomination and get nodded through.
I wonder if any of the regular congregation are being put off by the presence of the 'patriots'?
You're right. Raises questions of a different but equally worrying kind.
Wow. The dog whistles are deafening. "But" and "the Bible" are absolutely loaded with signalling there.
Let me translate: "Even though we're part of the CofE we're proper Christians who really believe the bible unlike all those liberal heretics"
And who has already committed an attempted unauthorised entry offence.
It's very much aimed at prosecuting migrants as far as I can see, like that lad who got sent down the other week.
https://www.cps.gov.uk/national-news-wessex/news/announces-man-charged-criminal-damage-after-dinghy-slashed-sea
Caution - the case is definitely live now - as they say -
'It is vital that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information which could in anyway prejudice these proceedings'
Is that the headquarters of the new Englische Christen movement?
The thought crossed my mind. Before I found out where Mr Thomas went to church, I thought it would be local to me, as he lives in the same county as me. Heading to Mordor requires a bit more planning.
Most certainly not.
There are some YouTube videos of services at St L's, which may give some idea of the place:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53XmxkRuLbg
But it's on the Northern Line (via Bank)!
Not quite that easy - nominee and his supporters have to be on the Electoral Roll of the church for the previous six months.
That's only if they don't live in the parish, isn't it?
A person nominated for election must
*i.e. has received Communion according to the use of the Church of England or a Church in communion with it at least three times during the 12 months preceding the date of eligibility.
An intent to cause GBH is sufficient for a murder conviction (if the victim dies), but not for an attempted murder conviction (if the victim survives).
I suppose Mr Thomas could have been charged with unlawfully endangering the safe navigation of a ship under the Aviation and Maritime Security Act 1990. Life imprisonment is available.
Is this in reference to specific recent events?