
The rise of British Nazis
Last Wednesday, three British neo-Nazis were convicted of planning to carry out a terrorist attack at mosques or synagogues as part of a 'race war' – yet more evidence of a growing UK terror threat from far right extremists. If you missed the story, it may have been because you were distracted by rising temperatures in the country's ongoing and increasingly feretic debate on migration. The verdicts came two days after prime minister Keir Starmer warned of Britain becoming 'an island of strangers' if our immigration system was not reformed.
Home Office data shows a steady increase since 2020 of UK prisoners in serving sentences for right wing terrorism offences. In the last 12 months, Tobias Gleed received five-and-a-half years for possessing and distributing terrorist material, while Gabriel Budasz got an extended sentence of 12 years' imprisonment for extreme right wing material. Colin McNeil, who operated two websites that spread far-right propaganda and encouraged terrorism which featured documents, images and videos glorifying Hitler, the Nazis and Neo-Nazis, got seven years. His sites were cited as inspiration for Payton Gendron, who went on to murder 10 people in a mass shooting at a grocery shop in Buffalo in 2022.
Suggested Reading London's visionaries and fascists
Andy Owen
The three individuals now waiting to receive substantial jail terms when they are sentenced in July – Brogan Stewart, Marco Pitzettu, and Christopher Ringrose – were part of an online group that 'idolised the Nazi regime'. They were convicted of planning an act of terrorism, as well as multiple terrorism and firearms offences (Ringrose was also charged with manufacturing a component for a 3D-printed firearm). The trio used a Telegram group called Einsatz 14, on which they discussed executing Rishi Sunak and torturing imams.
The number 14 is used by white supremacists as a reference to the so-called '14 Words': 'We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.' This slogan was coined by David Lane, a member of a US white supremacist called The Order, who were responsible for the 1984 assassination of Jewish radio host Alan Berg in Denver, Colorado. Lane died in prison in 2007, but remains an important ideologue of contemporary white supremacy.
Einsatz can be translated as 'mission' or 'commitment'; it is possible that the British group – none of whom exhibited notably high intelligence or deep historical knowledge at trial – used this German word and a significant right wing symbolic number without realising there was a real Einsatz 14.
The Einsatzgruppen were paramilitary Nazi death squads used to conduct mass murder in Poland, before being employed in the Soviet Union and elsewhere in eastern Europe. Einsatzgruppe H was a special task force created as part of the deport the German suppression of the Slovak National Uprising.
Einsatzkommando 14 or 'Einsatz 14', was one of its units which committed the two of the largest massacres in the history of Slovakia, at Kremnička and Nemecká, killing almost 2000 people connected to the uprising as well as Jews and Romani, including children. Despite attempts by far right parties in Slovenia to recast the uprising as a communist effort to suppress a nationalistic government, Einsatzkommando 14, were a murderous occupying force upholding a puppet regime and an active participant in genocide, who tried to hide their war crimes through the burning of corpses in lime kilns.
Even decades after their unspeakable crimes, it is hard to understand the attraction that vile murderers like these have for extremists who like to believe they are in some way defending Britain. Arguably our finest hour was when Churchill refused to make peace with a seemingly unstoppable Germany, whose blitzkrieg across western Europe had taken it to within 33 miles of silver sea from the English coast. It is bizarrely ironic that so-called British patriots idolise the enemy who their own country was engaged with at this precarious point.
As Britain stood defiantly alone, between 1940 and 1941, the government monitored the morale of the people and emphasised that the decision to fight on was one of principle, not just expediency. Britain was not only refusing subservience to a foreign power but was specifically refusing Nazi control. The government highlighted the national traits that made Britons the opposite of Nazis. It is sometimes easier to define yourself in opposition to what you are not.
Britain fought to protect the ideal of national self-determination for all nations (as it does in support of Ukraine now). It fought as a democracy to protect democratic and communitarian values not just of our own country but for all Europe. Instead of sympathising with Hitler's ideas on racial purity, Britain fought as an asylum for oppressed racial minorities fleeing Europe across the channel by any means they could, and as a defender of equal civil rights for all citizens.
The very notion of fascism on these shores seemed to have been vanquish forever. Oswald Mosley's British Union of Fascists had had their moment in the 1930s, when they claimed a membership of 50,000, held showy rallies and won the support of the Daily Mail's owner, Lord Rothermere. But Mosley was interned soon after the start of the war and even when released, his apologies for Hitler made him a marginal figure.
By the time of Enoch Powell's notorious 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968, however, right wing politicians had begun to appeal to the spirit of 1940 in anti-immigrant campaigns. In the aftermath of Starmer's 'island of strangers' speech he was accused of using a near-echo of words used by Powell. Powell spoke of Britons who 'found themselves made strangers in their own country'. The main focus of his speech was the introduction of the Race Relations Act which he strongly objected to. The Act prohibited discrimination on the grounds of race in certain areas of British life, particularly housing.
An uncomfortable and less reported fact is that three days after the speech, as the bill was being debated, 1,000 dockers marched on Westminster in support of Powell. Other mass demonstrations of working-class support, much of it from trade unionists followed. A Gallup poll showed that 74% of those asked agreed with his speech.
Powell claimed his speech was 'going to go up 'fizz' like a rocket; but whereas all rockets fall to the earth, this one is going to stay up'. At a time of social and economic upheaval his words had an impact, stirring up an emotional response in many who had genuine grievances with how their society was changing.
The National Front (NF) had been founded the year before in 1967. It reached the height of its electoral support during the mid-1970s, when it was briefly England's fourth-largest party in terms of vote share, peaking at the 1979 general election with 191,719 votes. It suffered a steep decline throughout the 1980s and 1990s, and saw a faction separate to form the British National Party (BNP), who were initially more focused on marches and rallies, creating the Combat 18 paramilitary—a coded reference to Hitler—to protect its events.
Both the NF and the BNP experienced a small increase in popularity at the polls in the 2000s after the massive spike in immigration caused by the Labour government's decision to open the UK's labour market up to the ten new states that joined the EU in 2004. At the time, the UK needed immigration to support a booming economy and believed other member states would adopt similar policies (only Ireland and Sweden did).
The increase in popularity was temporary as membership and vote share for both soon declined dramatically, with the BNP further splitting into groups including Britain First and National Action, and the English Defence League (EDL) replaced it as the foremost far right group. One of the main reasons for the drop in popularity was the rise of new, more socially palatable, anti-immigration parties.
The increased immigration of the 2000s provided an opportunity for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) – previously a single-issue Eurosceptic party – to fuse the separate issues of EU membership and immigration. In 2006, Nigel Farage assumed leadership and the party adopted a wider policy platform capitalising on concerns about rising immigration, suggesting the results of government policy were instead results of EU membership.
With UKIP gaining ground, David Cameron's government believed adopting a hardline anti-immigration stance would boost Conservative votes. By 2012, the then home secretary Theresa May believed that the way to cut numbers coming to the UK 'was to create here in Britain a really hostile environment for illegal migration'.
The 'hostile environment' strategy came to encapsulate a broader attitude towards migrants in the UK, culminating with the Windrush scandal, when people, particularly those who had immigrated from Caribbean countries in response to UK's call for migrants, were wrongly detained, denied legal rights, threatened with deportation, and in at least 83 cases wrongly deported by the Home Office.
The Conservatives seemingly learnt nothing from Windrush. In 2022, then home secretary, Suella Braverman used language commonly used by the far right when she spoke of, 'stopping the invasion on our southern coast.' In 1940 the Dunkirk evacuation was planned from Dover Castle, which then played a key role defending Britain from the Nazis. In 2019, the Neo-Nazis in Britain First started beach patrols in Kent and in 2020, blocked the port of Dover. Later, they launched their own patrol boat, promising to stand firm 'against the unprecedented invasion by economic migrants'.
The hostile environment strategy did not prevent significant breakthroughs for UKIP at the 2013 local elections, 2014 European parliamentary elections, and 2015 general election. After the 2016 Brexit referendum, Farage stepped down as leader, later joining the Brexit Party and then Reform. The constant shifting to the right on immigration by the Conservatives did not save them and has legitimised language that would have previously been a sacking offensive (as it was for Powell).
Data provided by advocacy group Hope not Hate has tracked a rise in anti-migrant demonstrations over the last few years, most notoriously in the aftermath of the 2024 Southport murders. These riots saw the continuation of a trend of attacking asylum centres, which can be traced back through Britain First's attacks in 2020 on an hotel housing asylum seekers in Bromsgrove, weeks after Farage filmed in the town, as part of his tour of alleged refugee shelters across the country.
Farrage now claims to be the real opposition party to Starmer's Labour. Multiple candidates that Reform put forward for local elections in May posted hate, pushed far-right conspiracies and praised extremists, including posts promoting the conspiracy theory that Muslims are seeking to 'supplant the native population' in the UK. In recent days, Farage has been condemned after claiming some asylum seekers coming to the UK on small boats could be 'Iranian terrorists' and again referred to an 'invasion' of immigrants.
The rocket Powell fired is still up. Immigration matters to people as much now as it did at Powell's time. The pros and cons need to be evaluated and debated, but we need to do so with responsible language and a historical appreciation of where certain ideologies can end up.
The perceived endorsement of anti-immigrant sentiment by politicians – now including the prime minister – has real-world impact. It emboldens those such as Stewart, Pitzettu, and Ringrose instead of setting them up as those we can all define ourselves in opposition to.
We should never forget our own history of such opposition to Nazism, an ideology that ends up with bodies in ovens. Our ancestors from throughout the Commonwealth gave their lives so it would remain a stranger to these islands. It is an ideology that is anti-British.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Metro
an hour ago
- Metro
Woman sexually assaulted on a plane denied compensation because of loophole
A woman who was sexually assaulted on a flight to the UK can't be compensated due to a legal loophole. Kelly – who is using a fake name for anonymity – was attacked on a Qatar Airways flight from Doha, Qatar, to Gatwick in September last year. Momade Jussab, 66, of Feltham, was sitting next to her and put his hands down her trousers. He was arrested at Gatwick and jailed in May. Kelly, who was 24 at the time of the attack, has been denied a payout under the Criminal Injuries Compensation (CIC) scheme. Officials said that because the incident happened on a plane not registered in Britain, Kelly cannot make a claim. Her lawyers have written to the justice secretary, Shabana Mahmood, urging her to close what they believe is a gap in the law. Kelly, a Londoner in her 20s, told the BBC that Jussab pulled a second blanket over them both as she slept. She said: 'His hands were down my trousers and I said to him, 'What are you doing?' I said, 'Stop'. He said, 'No, please'. 'And I had to force his hand out of my trousers and that just made me get up straight away. I left my phone, I left my bag, I left my passport, I left everything. I left my shoes and ran into the toilet, left the door open [and] told the flight attendant.' Kelly said she should be entitled to compensation as the incident was investigated and prosecuted by the British authorities. 'I haven't been out in almost a year – to events or summer parties with my friends. I can't do that. I'm too scared,' she added. 'I don't want to be touched or looked at. So it's never leaving me. It's literally there every single day before I sleep, I'm thinking about what happened.' The CIC scheme provides compensation for people 'physically or mentally injured because of a violent crime in England, Scotland or Wales', according to its website. Kelly applied for the payout in April, only to receive a letter from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, which processes applications, denying the claim as it did not happen in a 'relevant place'. Such a 'place' is defined by section 92 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which concerns 'British-controlled aircraft'. As the incident happened on a Qatari-registered plane, officials told Kelly, she was ineligible for compensation. Leigh Day says that the law was updated in 1966 to allow crimes that occur on UK-bound foreign aircraft to be prosecuted in British courts. Yet a near-identical loophole in the compensation scheme has not been closed. Solicitor Claire Powell said: 'Our client suffered a horrific sexual attack on a UK-bound flight. 'She was refused compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation scheme simply because it was a foreign flight and the rules have not been amended in line with the updates to the Civil Aviation Act. 'It is a gap that needs closing urgently and we trust the Justice Secretary will agree, particularly in light of this Government's commitment to addressing violence against women and girls.' Jussab was jailed for six and a half years as part of an extended sentence in May for one count of sexual assault by penetration and two counts of sexual assault. In-flight sexual assault incidents have been rising for years – in the US, the FBI investigated 27 sexual misconduct cases aboard aircraft in 2018. More Trending By 2022, that number had more than tripled to 90 cases. A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: 'Our thoughts remain with this victim, and we remain resolute in our mission to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. 'The rules that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority follows, and the values of payments for injuries, are set by Parliament. 'Other routes are available for victims to receive support.' Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@ For more stories like this, check our news page. MORE: EasyJet pilot suspended after walking 'drunk and naked' around five star hotel MORE: Airspace closure that grounded over 120 flights caused by 'software collapse' MORE: London airspace closure: Your rights if your flight is delayed or cancelled


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
High court asylum hotels ruling leaves Cooper scrambling for alternatives
Yvette Cooper, thanks to Tuesday's high court ruling, is facing potentially explosive decisions over where to house asylum seekers if courts rule that they must leave hotels. The Home Office, usually under Conservative ministers, has been struggling for five years to find an alternative to hotels so they can house a growing number of asylum seekers reaching these shores. Labour has said that it expects to empty the 200-odd hotels housing asylum seekers by 2029. Ministers may be forced to rip up that plan and move at a rapid pace because of the ruling's implications. If councils take to the high court to complain about the use of a hotel for housing asylum seekers – and many will be under immense political pressure from the public to do so – it could force officials to find alternative housing for thousands of people. Legal sources believe that there will be similar grounds to launch applications for interim injunctions from a number of councils. This case has centred on an alleged breach of planning laws by owners of the Bell hotel, who it was claimed did not get permission to switch use from a hotel to hostel-style accommodation. Other hotel owners are thought to be in similar positions to Somani Hotels Limited, which originally housed families in the Bell, but faced a legal challenge after the asylum seekers were switched to single men. Ominously for the government, the Reform UK deputy leader, Richard Tice, said his party would look at pursuing similar cases regarding hotels within the 10 council areas it controls, which include both North and West Northamptonshire councils, Doncaster, and Kent and Staffordshire county councils. And the high court rulings can require a rapid response. Epping's application for an interim was launched on 12 August. By 4pm on 12 September, all asylum seekers will have to be removed from The Bell hotel. There may yet be a lifeline for the government. They could convince the court of appeal to overturn the decision. The fact that the Home Office was not allowed to intervene in a case which was directly related to the home secretary's duties to house asylum seekers could well be seized upon by government lawyers. If they fail to overturn the decision, they will face the same dilemma as successive Tory home secretaries going back to Priti Patel, who promised and failed to find alternatives to hotels to house asylum seekers. The number of asylum hotels soared to 400 under successive Tory home secretaries because of a shortage of housing, a growing backlog in asylum applications, and a failure to establish large accommodation sites in buildings such as disused military barracks. Since coming to power, Labour has increased the speed at which applications are processed, by using more 'dispersal accommodation' such as flats and housing in the community. Questions will no doubt be asked inside the department as to why it took the Home Office until Monday to try to intervene in the case. If it had done so last week, when the case came to court, it would have stood a better chance of preventing the injunction. The political implications of the ruling will continue to unsettle Cooper and No 10. Yet again, the government has been caught flat-footed on an immigration-related issue, as it struggles with soaring numbers of small boats crossing the Channel. Anti-asylum seeker protesters will see this as a victory in response to their demonstrations across the country this summer. Reform UK and its leader, Nigel Farage, currently leading in most polls, will be buoyed by the prospect of further embarrassment for the government.


Evening Standard
an hour ago
- Evening Standard
Thousands object to Tesla bid to supply energy to UK homes
'British people are rightly against Musk being anywhere near our electricity supply and that's why we are encouraging more people to make their views known before Friday by using our online tool to write to Ofgem and say they oppose this power grab – it only takes two minutes.'