Worth making sure that this story is properly understood. A couple of nonecks called their baby Adolf, a couple of nonecks are heading off to jail. But they’re not going to jail because they called the baby Adolf, that’s not how Britain works. Some other countries do, they have lists of approved names and you’re not allowed to register anything off that list – presumably, eventually, flouting that leading to jail time.
But as we say, that’s not here:
[perfectpullquote align=”full” bordertop=”false” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””] A neo-Nazi couple who gave their baby the middle name “Adolf” in Hitler’s honour have been jailed. Adam Thomas, 22, and Claudia Patatas, 38, were among six people sentenced for being members of the banned terrorist group National Action. Thomas was jailed for six-and-a-half years and Patatas for five, after being convicted of membership of a proscribed organisation. [/perfectpullquote]If you just read the first line – as many do – then you’d think the jail is because Adolf. It ain’t.
Which is of course a great comfort for those who name their children Joseph or Vladimir after those other two great murderers of the 20th century.
The language we use matters - it provides clarity to our own thoughts and enables…
It is now generally acknowledged that the structure of the NHS needs to be overhauled…
In the film Apollo 13, a loss of oxygen causes the crew to start inadvertently…
There's an idea out there which seems intuitive but then so many ideas do seem…
When we think about the darkly opaque goals of modern central bankers as they relate…
As the papers recently filled with the distressing images of desperate souls looking to escape…
View Comments
Membership of a proscribed organisation? WTF? Did they actually DO anything bad? How often do people go to jail for this? What people?
Yes, they did plan terrorist acts. The BBC has had several long articles about them. They were as violent as they were stupid and incompetent.
Doesn't seem like it from the synopsis here - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-46592080
"These individuals were not simply racist fantasists; we now know they were a dangerous, well-structured organisation.
"Their aim was to spread neo-Nazi ideology by provoking a race war in the UK and they had spent years acquiring the skills to carry this out.
"They had researched how to make explosives, they had gathered weapons and they had a clear structure to radicalise others. Unchecked they would have inspired violence and spread hatred and fear across the West Midlands."
"researched how to make explosives" could include downloading a copy of The Anarchist Cookbook. I think I've a copy around here, somewhere ... hang on, there's someone at the door ...
The original question was "Did they actually DO anything bad?" and the answer seems to be 'no' as you've not provided any links that says otherwise.
Researching how to make explosives is a thought crime - the fact it's enough to get you a long stretch in prison is a indictment of how poor a lot of the newer laws in the UK are.
Did they carry out any terrorist activity? Did they even do anything outside of their own little group of friends?
Was it likely they would or is it more a case of a bunch of tossers playing at being white supremacists?
Doesn't seem like what? They were ludicrously incompetent, but undoubtedly _wanted_ to commit terrorist acts.
I want to be a multi-millionaire and dream about it all the time. Doesn't mean it'll happen however.
Bit like these retards - don't get me wrong, I'm all for jailing stupid people. Problem is it leaves very few out of jail.
These retards were planning actual terrorist attacks. They were going to be shit terrorist attacks because they were incompetent, but they were still terrorists.
Still waiting for the link that says they were planning actual terrorist attacks. The BBC articles don't have that level of detail.
Yes it does. It's there in black and white. It doesn't say _what_ the specifics were, but it says clearly that they were planning actual attacks.
No it doesn't. If you start from the link I posted (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-46592080) and follow all the links at the bottom, there are very few references to the words 'terror' and 'plan'.
What they do say is:
National Action was banned following the murder of Jo Cox for no other reason than they celebrated her death it seems. That might not be nice but it's thin grounds for being proscribed. Perhaps there was more but I suspect not - most likely the government crackdown on any right-wing groups meant they just added them to the list.
Most of the convictions (including the couple referenced in this article) were for being members of a proscribed organisation.
Only one (Jack Renshaw) was convicted for a murder plot against a local MP (Rosie Cooper) which was described as a terrorist plot. This is the only reference I can find to any terrorism.
Reading the background however, it seems he was pissed off the police had hauled him in for questioning about some anti-semitic speeches. So he'd hatched a crackpot plot to kidnap the MP, get the Detective Constable who'd questioned him to attend the scene, and then kill everyone.
Even the prosecution described this as a politically and racially motivated murder - note no talk of terrorism.
Other members of National Action were not convicted for this murder plot so we can assume there was insufficient evidence to conclude they were involved.
Rather puts a gaping hole in your argument unless you can provide a counter point that disputes the above.
And this is the actual reason they were proscribed:
National Action’s online propaganda material, disseminated via social media, frequently features extremely violent imagery and language. It condones and glorifies those who have used extreme violence for political or ideological ends. This includes tweets posted by the group
in 2016, in connection with the murder of Jo Cox (which the prosecutor described as a terrorist act), stating “Only 649 MPs to go” and a photo of Thomas Mair with the caption “don’t let this man’s sacrifice go in vain” and ”Jo Cox would have filled Yorkshire with more subhumans!”, as well as an image condoning and celebrating the terrorist attack on the Pulse nightclub in Orlando and another depicting a police officer’s throat being slit. The images can reasonably be taken as inferring that these acts should be emulated and therefore amount to the unlawful glorification of terrorism.
So, in short, they posted some unpleasant images and words. I think you'd find a significant number of people who would at least give lip service to a removal of the festering pool of chin-waggers and shysters in Westminster Palace so it's probably that they didn't like the support for the murder of Saint Jo.
They posted 'some unpleasant images and words' and then a) engaged in racist, terrorist murder, and b) directly incited violence. Neither of those requires the group to be banned for criminal charges to be brought, but frankly, at that point, we have enough evidence for the very limited additional restraint the law provides when the group is banned.
It's not like the 'ban' has any real meaning.
It says clearly that they wanted to foment a race war and had terrorist plans to try and bring that about. Or at least, the article I was referring to did - it occurs to me only now that you may have linked a different one, my apologies.
You should have a look at the one linked from the one you posted, titled 'National Action: The new parents and the neo-Nazi terror threat'.
"In 2015, Zack Davies, a 25-year-old member from Mold, North Wales, used a hammer and machete to attack a Sikh dentist in a Tesco store because of his skin colour.
"Davies shouted, "White power" during the assault, for which he was later convicted of attempted murder."
and
"The following year Jack Coulson, a then 17-year-old member from Bradford, West Yorkshire, was arrested by counter terrorism police after posting images of a homemade pipe-bomb on Snapchat, along with threats against Muslims.
"Coulson, who would be convicted of making explosives, had joined National Action months earlier"
and
"[Mikko Vehvilainen] a senior National Action member obsessed with ideas about the collapse of civilisation and racial war.
In a diary entry last year, beneath the heading "key points for leadership meeting", he referred to "later stages terrorism, civil disorder, destruction of infrastructure and power grid"."
The whole article's worth a read because it contrasts the freedom they were given to be utter c*nts as long as they were just saying stuff with the clampdown when they went further than just shouting slogans and ranting online.
Which is of course a great comfort for those who name their children Joseph or Vladimir after those other two great murderers of the 20th century.
Not to mention a 7th century child molester.
I've got to ask... is "Potato" a common surname?