Why British Security Project Removed Tommy, Dom and Jumbo
The British Security Project has removed three members, known within the group as BSP Tommy, BSP Dom and BSP Jumbo, after internal concerns over volunteer recruitment, public statements, an alleged AI-generated image, and leaked group chat messages.
The group said the removals followed separate internal issues affecting trust, safeguarding and the integrity of private communications. The British Security Project, known as BSP, said the decisions were made to protect official channels, volunteers and community-facing work during events.
This report sets out the organisation’s stated reasons for the removals. The issues involve internal allegations and disciplinary decisions by BSP. They should not be read as findings by a court or any public authority.
BSP says the removals followed separate internal concerns
BSP said the three removals were not treated as a single incident. Each case involved different conduct and different risks to the organisation.
The group said the concerns were linked by one issue: loss of trust inside a volunteer network.
According to BSP, the removals centred on:
Member | BSP’s stated concern | Area affected |
BSP Tommy | Redirecting new volunteers away from official BSP channels and making public statements despite instructions not to do so | Recruitment and representation |
BSP Dom | Allegedly creating and sharing an AI-generated image of a female volunteer to raise suspicion against her | Safeguarding and internal trust |
BSP Jumbo | Leaking messages between BSP and Patriot Platform Hertfordshire group chats | Private communications |
BSP described its core purpose as public safeguarding and humanitarian aid during events. The organisation said any conduct that interferes with volunteer onboarding, compromises private chats, or targets another volunteer damages that work.
The group also warned other private groups operating on behalf of the British public to take care with membership, message security and internal trust.
BSP Tommy was removed over volunteer onboarding and public statements
BSP said Tommy had been given a regional manager role. In that position, he was expected to make first contact with new volunteers and bring them into the relevant BSP regional group chats.
The group said that did not happen as intended.
According to BSP, Tommy allegedly directed new volunteers into a separate group chat called “Tommy’s Boys” before those volunteers reached official BSP channels. BSP said this meant new recruits were being moved away from the organisation’s formal structure at the first point of contact.
For a volunteer group, that kind of split can create immediate problems. New members may not receive the same guidance, safeguarding rules, event instructions or contact points as the wider team. It can also make it hard for senior organisers to know who has joined, who has been briefed and who has access to operational information.
BSP said this was a serious breach of the task Tommy had been given.
The organisation also said Tommy had been instructed not to make public statements or give interviews on behalf of BSP. According to BSP, he failed to follow that instruction more than once.
That second concern matters because public representation can affect a group’s legal, reputational and operational position. In a volunteer organisation, one person speaking publicly can be mistaken for the official voice of the whole group. BSP said it had already made clear that Tommy did not have permission to do so.
After his removal, BSP said Tommy started a separate organisation called BSUK, British Security United Kingdom.
BSP said it believes this may have been Tommy’s intention from the beginning. The organisation linked that belief to its claim that he failed to complete the role he had been assigned, which was to bring volunteers into official BSP regional channels for public safeguarding and humanitarian work.
At this stage, BSP’s position is an internal organisational view. The creation of a separate group is not, by itself, proof of prior intent. BSP’s removal decision, as stated by the organisation, was based on its concerns about volunteer routing, unauthorised representation and confidence in Tommy’s role.
Why volunteer onboarding became a central issue
The Tommy case shows why onboarding is not just an admin task for groups that operate at public events.
When a volunteer joins a group involved in safeguarding or humanitarian aid, they need to know:
who has authority to brief them
which channels are official
what conduct is expected
what they can and cannot say publicly
how to report concerns
how event decisions are made
If the first contact point diverts them elsewhere, the organisation loses oversight. It may also expose new volunteers to unapproved instructions or unclear leadership.
BSP said Tommy’s role was to bring new people into regional BSP chats. The group said the alleged use of “Tommy’s Boys” cut across that process.
The issue was not just the existence of another chat. Many groups use local or informal chats for convenience. The concern, according to BSP, was that new volunteers were allegedly taken away from the official route before they reached the correct BSP channels.
That distinction is important. A side chat that supports an existing structure is different from a side chat that replaces it.
BSP Dom was removed after an alleged AI-generated image of a volunteer
BSP said Dom was one of the volunteers who was not arrested alongside other members during a period involving terrorism-related allegations. The article does not make any claim about the outcome of those allegations, and no guilt should be inferred from the fact of an arrest or investigation.
According to BSP, while some members were in custody, the group’s chats had been compromised and needed to be restabilised. BSP said a new female volunteer made an effort to help restore order in the group chats during that period.
BSP said Dom saw that volunteer as a threat.
The organisation alleges that Dom created an AI-generated image of the female volunteer wearing a burqa with a Palestine flag attached. BSP said the image was then shared with other volunteers in an attempt to raise suspicion against her.
BSP said the matter was investigated by its CSO over a number of weeks to identify who made the image. The organisation said Dom was removed as a result.
This allegation raises several issues beyond ordinary internal disagreement.
An AI-generated image can be used to mislead, shame or isolate a person. When it involves religious dress or political symbols, it can also inflame suspicion inside a group and put the target under unfair pressure.
BSP said the image was created and circulated to damage trust in a volunteer who was trying to stabilise the organisation’s internal chats. If accurate, that would strike at both safeguarding and group cohesion.
The organisation’s position is that this was not acceptable behaviour for any volunteer, particularly during a sensitive period when communication channels were already under strain.
The deepfake allegation raised safeguarding concerns
Deepfake and AI-generated images are now easy to make and hard to contain once shared. Even when people later learn that an image is false, the damage can remain.
For volunteer groups, the danger is not limited to public embarrassment. A manipulated image can affect:
a person’s safety
their reputation inside the group
trust between volunteers
decision-making during events
willingness to report concerns
BSP said the alleged image of the female volunteer was designed to create suspicion. The group’s concern was not only that an image existed, but that it was allegedly created and shared in a way that targeted someone during a difficult period for the organisation.
The use of a burqa and a Palestine flag in the alleged image also matters because it appears to have relied on religion and politics to provoke a reaction. BSP’s account suggests the image was not random. It was allegedly meant to make other volunteers question the woman’s loyalties or intentions.
A volunteer organisation cannot function safely if members use false images to undermine one another. Even internal disputes need boundaries. BSP said this case crossed those boundaries.
BSP Jumbo was removed over leaked group chat messages
BSP said Jumbo was removed for leaking group chat messages between BSP and Patriot Platform Hertfordshire chats.
According to BSP, messages were being shared in both directions between the two spaces. The organisation said it has not identified how many other groups may have been affected.
The issue, according to BSP, is not limited to embarrassment or gossip. Private group chats often contain planning details, names, disagreements, event concerns and safeguarding discussions. Even when the content is not secret in a formal sense, members may have shared information on the understanding that it would stay inside a trusted group.
BSP said Jumbo’s removal was a response to that breach of trust.
The group also issued a wider warning to private groups operating on behalf of the British public. It urged them to be aware of the risk of leaks and to act carefully within their own organisations.
That warning applies beyond this single case. Any private group that uses online chats for event planning or community work needs clear rules on access and forwarding. If members move messages between groups without permission, organisers lose control of context and confidentiality. Additional Conduct Concern Raised by BSP :
BSP also stated that during a conversation involving the organisation’s CSO and a female volunteer, comments were made which, in BSP’s view, appeared to discuss the hypothetical possibility of kidnapping women who were understood to be close to the CSO. BSP has not verified the seriousness, intent, or context of those remarks, and no allegation of criminal behaviour is being made.
The organisation’s position is that such comments, even hypothetically, fall outside acceptable conduct within its volunteer framework and contributed to its loss of confidence in Jumbo’s role.
Message leaks can damage more than privacy
Leaked messages often cause harm because they strip away context.
A short comment from a group chat might look very different when removed from the full discussion. A safety concern might be mistaken for a plan. A private disagreement might be used to create public conflict. A volunteer’s name might be exposed to people outside the group.
BSP’s concern is that message leaks can weaken operational safety and create distrust between groups that may be working near the same public issues.
The organisation did not say it knows the full scale of Jumbo’s alleged leaking. It said it had not identified how many other groups may have been infiltrated or affected.
That uncertainty is part of the risk. Once messages leave a private chat, they can be copied, forwarded, saved or reposted. The original group may never know where they went.
For groups doing sensitive community-facing work, basic message control is not optional. It is part of safeguarding.
BSP links the removals to public safeguarding and humanitarian aid
BSP said the disputed conduct mattered because it cut across the group’s stated purpose. The organisation describes that purpose as public safeguarding and humanitarian aid during events.
Those activities depend on discipline, trust and clear lines of communication.
If new volunteers never reach official channels, organisers cannot brief them properly. If members speak publicly without permission, the group can be misrepresented. If false images are created to target volunteers, people may stop reporting safety concerns. If private messages are leaked, members may stop sharing information needed to keep events safe.
BSP’s stated position is that each removal was linked to protecting the group’s ability to function.
It is also clear from the organisation’s statement that the removals came during a strained period. BSP referred to arrests, compromised chats and attempts to restabilise internal communications. Those events appear to have made trust and message control even more important to the group.
The organisation has not publicly set out a detailed disciplinary process in the information provided. It has said that the Dom matter was investigated over several weeks by its CSO. For the other two removals, BSP has described the conduct it says led to its decisions.
The group says official channels must remain the route for volunteers
One message runs through the organisation’s account: volunteers should be brought into official BSP channels, not side routes controlled by individual members.
That point applies most clearly to the Tommy case, but it also relates to the others. Official channels allow a group to set rules, verify members, manage conduct and keep records. Informal networks can be useful, but they can also create confusion about who speaks for the organisation.
BSP said Tommy’s role was to make first contact with volunteers and bring them into regional group chats. The allegation that volunteers were instead being directed into a separate chat goes to the heart of that responsibility.
For any group with regional teams, clear onboarding also protects volunteers. New members need to know whether they are receiving official instructions or the personal view of one member. They need to know how to leave, how to report concerns and who is accountable for decisions.
BSP’s account suggests it wants to reassert that authority after a period of internal disruption.
The removals also highlight the risk of unauthorised public statements
BSP said Tommy had been told not to make public statements or give interviews on its behalf, but did so repeatedly.
That is a common pressure point in groups that attract public attention. Members may speak to explain themselves, defend the group, criticise others or build their own profile. Yet public comments can carry consequences for everyone.
An unauthorised statement can:
create confusion about the group’s position
expose internal issues before they are checked
conflict with legal advice
put volunteers at risk
damage relations with venues, police, councils or event organisers
BSP said it had instructed Tommy not to speak publicly on its behalf. Its position is that he did not follow that instruction.
The later creation of BSUK, British Security United Kingdom, will likely be watched by people who have followed the dispute. BSP has said it believes Tommy may have intended to start his own organisation from the beginning. That remains BSP’s stated view, not an independent finding.
What is clear from BSP’s account is that the organisation sees unauthorised representation as a serious issue.
BSP warns other private groups to review their own controls
The Jumbo case led BSP to issue a wider warning. The group said private groups operating on behalf of the British public should be aware of leaks and act carefully within themselves.
That warning may be relevant to any informal or semi-formal group using messaging apps to organise activity at public events.
Basic controls can reduce risk. They do not remove it completely.
Groups commonly review:
who has access to each chat
who can add new members
whether members are verified before joining
what topics are suitable for group chats
how screenshots and forwarded messages are handled
who keeps records of decisions
how complaints are raised
when a member should be removed from a chat
BSP has not said what new measures it will introduce after these removals. Its public account suggests that recruitment pathways, public statements, AI-generated content and message security are all under scrutiny.
What happens next for BSP
BSP’s next step is likely to be restoring confidence inside its volunteer network.
The organisation has already made clear that it wants volunteers to use official channels. It has also said that conduct involving false images, unauthorised public statements and leaked private messages will not be accepted.
Several questions remain unanswered publicly.
BSP has not said whether it will publish a fuller code of conduct, whether any further removals are expected, or whether it has referred any matters outside the organisation. It has also not said how many volunteers were affected by the alleged side chat or message leaks.
The group’s warning to other private organisations suggests it sees the issue as wider than its own internal dispute. In particular, it has raised concern about people entering private groups and passing information between them.
For BSP, the immediate test will be whether it can rebuild a clear chain of communication. Volunteers will need to know which channels are official, who can speak publicly, what behaviour leads to removal and how allegations are investigated.
The removals of Tommy, Dom and Jumbo show how quickly internal trust can break down when communication systems are unclear or misused. BSP’s message is that safeguarding work depends not only on what happens at public events, but also on how a group manages conduct behind the scenes.
Comments