Three British neo-Nazis convicted of planning attack as part of 'race war'
Three British neo-Nazis convicted of planning attack as part of 'race war'
LONDON - Three British right-wing extremists were convicted on Wednesday of planning to carry out a terrorist attack at mosques or synagogues as part of a "race war", British police said.
Brogan Stewart and Marco Pitzettu, both 25, and Christopher Ringrose, 34, were preparing an act of terrorism when they were arrested in February 2024, prosecutors said at the start of their trial in March.
The trio were also each charged with two counts of collecting information which may be useful to someone preparing an act of terrorism, while Ringrose was charged with manufacturing a component for a 3D-printed FGC9 firearm.
They pleaded not guilty but jurors at Sheffield Crown Court convicted them of all charges on Wednesday. They will be sentenced on July 17.
"Stewart, Pitzettu, and Ringrose have today been rightfully convicted of multiple terrorism offences," Detective Chief Superintendent James Dunkerley, Head of Counter Terrorism Policing North East, said in a statement.
"They were a group that espoused vile racist views and advocated for violence, all to support their extreme right-wing mindset.
"Some of their defence in court was that it was all fantasy or just part of harmless chat, however all three took real world steps to plan and prepare for carrying out an attack on innocent citizens."
Prosecutor Jonathan Sandiford had told jurors that the three defendants expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler and perpetrators of notorious terrorist attacks, as well as hatred for non-white people, especially Muslims and immigrants.
"It was their belief that there must soon come a time when there would be a race war between the white and other races," Sandiford said.
Among hundreds of messages sent by the trio, including in a Telegram group called "Einsatz 14", the defendants discussed executing then prime minister Rishi Sunak and torturing imams. REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Clean up of graffiti, damage begins in Los Angeles as anti-ICE protests continue
A worker removes graffiti from a sign, as protests against immigration sweeps continue in Los Angeles. PHOTO: REUTERS Clean up of graffiti, damage begins in Los Angeles as anti-ICE protests continue LOS ANGELES - Even as protests against raids by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement stretched into a fourth day on June 9 in Los Angeles, city workers began a clean up of graffiti and other weekend damage across the city. Maintenance workers could be seen removing anti-ICE graffiti spray painted on City Hall as other workers covered up messages in the city's Arts District. Burned out shells of Waymo autonomous vehicles remained on the city street where they had been engulfed in flames a day earlier. Spray painted messages with expletives aimed at ICE and anti-police, and pro-migrant statements could be seen across downtown Los Angeles, including at the Roybal Federal Building where protesters continued to gather on the afternoon of June 9. The clean up efforts come after protesters clashed with the Los Angeles Police Department, other law enforcement personnel and ICE agents amid ongoing immigration sweeps in Southern California. The protests reached a boiling point on June 8 as multiple vehicles, including a California Highway Patrol cruiser, were set on fire. Police fired tear gas into the crowds. Los Angeles television station KTLA reported several businesses in the downtown area, including a cell phone retailer and a clothing store, were looted and vandalised overnight and in the early morning hours. Los Angeles Public Library said it would close its branches in downtown, Chinatown and Little Tokyo due to the protests. "We're closing to ensure the safety of patrons and staff in DTLA," the library said on June 9 in a post on X. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Russia's new drone strikes hit Kyiv, maternity ward in Odesa, Ukraine says
KYIV - Russia launched another large drone attack on Ukraine, striking Kyiv and damaging a maternity ward in the southern port of Odesa, regional officials said early on Tuesday. The overnight attacks follow Russia's biggest drone strike on Ukraine on Monday - part of intensified operations that Moscow said were retaliatory measures for Kyiv's recent brazen attacks inside Russia. Medics were called to four districts of Kyiv a couple hours after midnight on Tuesday, including the historic Podil neighbourhood, Mayor Vitali Klitschko said on the Telegram messaging app. The military said the strikes were still ongoing and urged people to seek bomb shelters. The full scale of the attack was not immediately clear. "Enemy drones are simultaneously attacking several districts of the city," Timur Tkachenko, head of Kyiv's military administration said on the Telegram messaging app. "There is damage to residential buildings and fires. Rescuers are working at the sites." Reuters' witnesses heard a series of loud explosions throughout the city. In the southern port of Odesa, a "massive" drone attack targeted an emergency medical building and a maternity ward, as well as residential buildings, Oleh Kiper, governor of the broader Odesa region said on Telegram. Regarding the maternity hospital there were no casualties and patients and staff were evacuated, Kiper said. He posted photos of broken windows in what looked like a medical facility and of damages to facades of several buildings. Both sides deny targeting civilians in the war that Russia launched against Ukraine more than three years ago. But thousands of civilians have been killed in the conflict, the chief majority of them Ukrainian. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Explainer: Does US law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests?
California sued the Trump administration on June 9 to end the 'unlawful' deployment of troops in Los Angeles County. PHOTO: REUTERS Explainer: Does US law allow Trump to send troops to quell protests? President Donald Trump deployed National Guard troops to California after days of protests by hundreds of demonstrators against immigration raids, saying the protests interfered with federal law enforcement and framing them as a possible 'form of rebellion' against the authority of the US government. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth on June 9 mobilised 700 active duty Marines as part of the government's response to the protests. California sued the Trump administration on June 9 to end the 'unlawful' deployment of troops in Los Angeles County and return the state National Guard to California Governor Gavin Newsom's command. What laws did Trump cite to justify the deployment? Mr Trump cited Title 10 of the US Code, a federal law that outlines the role of the US Armed Forces, in his June 7 order to call members of the California National Guard into federal service. A provision of Title 10 - Section 12406 - allows the president to deploy National Guard units into federal service if the US is invaded, there is a 'rebellion or danger of rebellion' or the president is 'unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States'. What are national guard troops allowed to do under the law cited in Trump's order? An 1878 law, the Posse Comitatus Act, generally forbids the US military, including the National Guard, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. Section 12406 does not override that prohibition, but it allows troops to protect federal agents who are carrying out law enforcement activity and to protect federal property. For example, National Guard troops cannot arrest protesters, but they could protect US Immigration and Customs Enforcement who are carrying out arrests. What does California's lawsuit say? California National Guard troops and police officers stand guard as people attend a rally against federal immigration sweeps in Los Angeles on June 9. PHOTO: REUTERS California's lawsuit said the deployment of troops in the state without the governor's consent violates federal law and the US Constitution's 10th Amendment, which protects states' rights. The state argues the deployment does not meet any of the requirements in Title 10 because there was no 'rebellion', no 'invasion' and no situation that prevented the enforcement of US laws in the state. Mr Trump also did not consult with Newsom before deploying the National Guard, violating Section 12406's requirement that orders to deploy the National Guard 'shall be issued through the governors of the States', according to the lawsuit. What is the lawsuit asking for? The lawsuit seeks a declaration from the court Mr Trump's order is unlawful and an injunction blocking it from being enforced. How might a court view the dispute? There is little precedent for such a dispute. Section 12406 has only ever been invoked once before to deploy the National Guard, when President Richard Nixon called upon it to deliver the mail during the 1970 Postal Service Strike, according to Bonta. Five legal experts from both left- and right-leaning advocacy organisations cast doubt on Mr Trump's use of Title 10 in response to the immigration protests and called it inflammatory and reckless, especially without Governor Newsom's support. The protests in California do not rise to the level of 'rebellion' and do not prevent the federal government from executing the laws of the United States, experts said. Legal experts were split on whether a court would back Governor Newsom's interpretation of the governor's role under Section 12406. Courts have traditionally given great weight to the word 'shall' in interpreting other laws, which supports Governor Newsom's position that governors must be involved in calling in the National Guard. But other experts said the law was written to reflect the norms of how National Guard troops are typically deployed, rather than giving a governor the option to not comply with a president's decision to deploy troops. What other laws could Trump invoke to direct the National Guard or other US military troops? Mr Trump could take a more far-reaching step by invoking the Insurrection Act of 1792, which would allow troops to directly participate in civilian law enforcement, for which there is little recent precedent. Senior White House officials, including Vice President J.D. Vance and senior White House aide Stephen Miller, have used the term 'insurrection' when discussing the protests, but the administration has stopped short of invoking the act thus far. It has been used by past presidents to deploy troops within the US in response to crises like the 1794 Whiskey Rebellion and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan in the immediate aftermath of the American Civil War. Protesters clash with law enforcement in the streets surrounding the federal building in Los Angeles on June 8. PHOTO: AFP The law was last invoked by President George H.W. Bush in 1992, when the governor of California requested military aid to suppress unrest in Los Angeles following the trial of Los Angeles police officers who beat black motorist Rodney King. But the last time a president deployed the National Guard in a state without a request from that state's governor was 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson sent troops to protect civil rights demonstrators in Montgomery, Alabama. What about the Marines? Mr Trump has more direct authority over the Marines than the National Guard, under Title 10 and in his constitutional role as commander in chief of the armed forces, legal experts said. But unless Mr Trump invokes the Insurrection Act, the Marines are subject to legal restrictions that prevent them from taking part in 'any search, seizure, arrest or other similar activity'. The Defence Department said on June 9 that the Marines were ready to support the National Guard's efforts to protect federal personnel and federal property in Los Angeles, emphasizing the relatively limited scope of their role at the moment. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
