This comparison still misses the crucial legal distinction. The five Fairford suspects have not been charged. Police cannot simply remand uncharged people in prison while they investigate. Once continued pre-charge detention is no longer justified, they must be released — here on stringent conditional police bail while the investigation continues. There’s also now reporting, based on unnamed military sources, claiming the barrels were for siphoned fuel and that no explosives were found. That is not yet confirmed by Counter Terrorism Policing, which says it is still investigating multiple possibilities, including possible foreign-state involvement. So we don't yet know whether this was a terror plot, reconnaissance/dry run, attempted theft or something else. Danny Tommo is in a different legal position: he has been charged and brought before a court, which can then refuse bail and remand him. Comparing “terror suspects released” with “criminal damage suspect jailed” ignores the key distinction: pre-charge police bail vs post-charge court remand.

That seriously overstates what the PM actually said. Burnham was directly asked whether Thomas was racist. He did NOT simply declare “Thomas is a racist”. He said it was “hard to conclude” he was anything other than someone with racist views, then immediately qualified that by saying he hadn’t read everything Thomas had said and that he doesn’t “just throw labels on people”. More importantly, none of that determines the criminal case. Thomas has pleaded not guilty to criminal damage and failing to disclose his phone PIN. The jury will be directed by the judge to decide those charges on the admissible evidence before them and not on whether they agree with Thomas’s politics or consider his wider views racist. That distinction also matters when people start throwing around claims of contempt or a “mistrial”. An adverse or controversial comment about a defendant does not automatically make a fair trial impossible. The court can direct jurors to disregard outside commentary and decide the case solely on the evidence and the law. Burnham expressed a qualified opinion about Thomas’s publicly expressed views. He did not say Thomas committed the alleged criminal damage, did not say he was guilty of either charge and did not tell a future jury how those charges should be decided. Those are very different things.

There are some important legal and factual points missing here. “Who owns the dinghy?” We don't currently know from the publicly available information, but conventional ownership is not necessarily the decisive question for criminal damage. Under s.10(2) Criminal Damage Act 1971, property can “belong” to someone who has custody or control, a proprietary right or interest, or a charge over it. So the prosecution does not necessarily have to establish who owns this dinghy. Only who has custody, control or interest in the dinghy is what the prosecution need to rely on will be the relevant evidence. There's another relevant point. A vessel suspected of involvement in organised people-smuggling could potentially have investigative or evidential value, including the vessel, engine, equipment, identifying information or forensic material. Damaging it before the appropriate authorities have recovered or examined it could potentially hinder their ability to recover it intact and obtain whatever evidential value it may contain. That doesn't establish what evidential value this particular dinghy had. But Daniel Thomas is a private individual, not an authorised law-enforcement, Border Force or maritime official, and wasn't in a position to determine that it had none. The migrants having left doesn't automatically make the vessel ownerless, free for anybody to destroy or devoid of potential investigative value. “Who reported it?” An interesting factual question, but an owner personally making a complaint isn't necessarily required before police can investigate suspected criminal damage. Whether the prosecution can prove the offence, and whether any lawful excuse applies, are matters for the court. Thomas has pleaded not guilty. “Where are all the arrests and prosecutions of people smugglers?” This is perhaps the biggest misconception in the post. They are happening REGULARLY. They just don't necessarily receive anything like the publicity that Channel crossings or high-profile cases do. The NCA reported around 300 arrests linked to people smuggling in the year to April 2026, 59 convictions for organised immigration crime offences following NCA investigations, and around 100 investigations into the highest-threat organised immigration crime groups or individuals ongoing. Recent examples include: • 15 September 2026: five members of an organised Vietnamese people-smuggling network jailed for almost 40 years combined. • September 2026: Chan Atak jailed after piloting a dinghy carrying 165 people. The NCA said he joined 16 other pilots sentenced in just three months. • July 2026: Duc Quang Ta sentenced to 8 years for his role in an international people-smuggling gang; other members received 7½ and 5½ years. • By 31 July 2026: the CPS reported 10 people sentenced under the new offence concerning conduct endangering others during small-boat crossings. • August 2026: a fifth man charged with facilitating illegal immigration following an NCA investigation into a boat landing in Essex. Those allegations remain unproven. So when someone asks: “Where are the arrests? Where are the prosecutions?” The answer isn't “there aren't any.” The answer is that hundreds of arrests, dozens of convictions and substantial prison sentences don't necessarily generate the headlines, clicks or social-media engagement that a high-profile activist being arrested does. The NCA and CPS publish many of these cases. They simply receive far less public attention. This isn't: Daniel Thomas OR the people smugglers. They're separate matters. Thomas has pleaded not guilty and the prosecution must prove its case. But his prosecution doesn't establish that the Government owns the dinghy, and it certainly doesn't demonstrate that the authorities have stopped pursuing the organised networks behind Channel crossings. Those arrests and prosecutions are happening. Not seeing them repeatedly in your social-media feed doesn't mean they aren't.