Holocaust denier who fled to Scotland back on trial
The 56-year-old was arrested in November 2022 following a two-year search for his whereabouts led by France's Central Office for the Fight against Crimes against Humanity and Hate Crimes, which began after the memorial of Oradour-sur-Glane, where Nazi troops killed and destroyed an entire village in June of 1944, was vandalised by graffiti which read 'Reynouard is right'.
His arrest came after a domestic warrant issued by a French court regarding seven videos made between September 2019 and April 2020, including one where he allegedly described the Nazi atrocities as 'crude slanders' and another where he spoke of 'the Jewish problem'.
The alleged offences included 'public trivialisation of a war crime' and 'public challenge to the existence of crimes against humanity committed during the Second World War'.
Vincent Reynouard was arrested in Anstruther in November, 2022 (Image: Herald Scotland) Holocaust denial has been a criminal offence in France since 1990 and Reynouard has been convicted on previous occasions, including being handed prison sentences in November 2020 and January 2021.
His convictions date back as far as 1991 when he was sentenced for distributing leaflets denying the existence of the gas chambers among high school students.
Reynouard was handed over to French authorities in February last year after spending 15 months on remand at HMP Edinburgh.
Back in March this year, Reynouard was sentenced to 12 months in prison at the Judicial Court of Paris after being found guilty of denying war crimes, denying crimes against humanity and inciting racial hatred.
He was also ordered by the court to pay €10,000 in damages to associations including French organisation LICRA (The International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism) and the Jewish Observatory of France. The public prosecutor had originally requested an 18-month prison sentence and a €15,000 fine.
READ MORE:
Notorious Holocaust denier arrested in Scots fishing village
French Holocaust denier loses bid to appeal against extradition
Holocaust denier gives pro-Nazi lecture after extradition to France
According to AFP, a sentencing judge was due to determine how Reynouard will serve his prison sentence.
Responding to the sentencing at the time, a spokesperson for Campaign Against Antisemitism told The Herald: 'Vincent Reynouard is a despicable Holocaust-denier who has repeatedly been convicted by French courts.
"We are pleased that, following our previous success in having him deported from the UK to face justice in France, Mr Reynouard has been jailed. Now, he will be forced to face the consequences of his hatred behind bars—where he belongs.'
Now The Herald can reveal that Reynouard stood trial at the Judicial Court of Paris at the end of May charged with "contesting crimes against humanity".
The charges relate to allegations he made statements denying the occurrence of the Holocaust in a five-minute video clip promoting his latest book.
Vincent Reynouard's convictions date back as far as 1991 (Image: Getty) Reports in France say a verdict on the charges - for which French prosecutors are requesting a minimum sentence of eight months imprisonment and a €5,000 euro fine - will be returned on July 11.
In June last year, The Herald revealed that Reynouard hosted a pro-Nazi lecture in the southern French city of Perpignan just weeks after his extradition from Scotland.
The lecture was broadcast online by French neo-Nazi website Jeune Nation - named after the most prominent French neo-fascist movement of the 1950s - and appeared in full on YouTube before being removed for violating the video sharing platform's terms of service.
Screengrabs from the lecture, posted on extremist online platform Gab, showed Reynouard reading from a lectern in front of a flag for fascist pan-European alliance APF.
Billed as 'a fascinating presentation that re-establishes the facts and offers a completely different vision of history', Reynouard's lecture on 'The challenging politics of revisionism' had among its list of 'discussed subjects' such topics as 'The invention of National Socialist crimes to cover up Allied war crimes', 'Enlisting youth against anti-fascism' and 'The question of gas chambers'.
Reynouard was then due to give a follow-up lecture on Nazism at an event in Paris some weeks later but it was shut down by the Parisian authorities.
Shortly after his arrest in Scotland in 2022, Reynouard said he expected to spend at least 'five years or more' in prison should he be extradited back to France.
In a letter from his prison cell addressed to French far-right weekly magazine Rivarol, seen by The Herald, Reynouard wrote: 'Back in France, I will serve several prison sentences for 'disputing crimes against humanity'.
'In total, these sentences exceed 24 months (29 months to be exact). There will undoubtedly be other convictions for the same reason, because since my exile in Great Britain, in June 2015, I have published many revisionist videos likely to fall under the Gayssot law [which makes it an offence in France to question the existence or size of the category of crimes against humanity as defined in the London Charter of 1945].
'Several are not time-barred, either having been published less than a year ago or already being sued. Therefore, I expect to stay in prison for five years or more.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
5 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Glasgow sidelined by Labour Spending Review, says Aitken
In a letter seen by The Herald, the SNP councillor warned that Ms Reeves's review is a 'retrograde step' for regional devolution in Scotland, and risks 'disempowering' Glasgow. READ MORE: Although the Treasury confirmed a £160 million Investment Zone in the Glasgow City Region and £20 million for Trailblazer Communities, Councillor Aitken said this fell far short of the funding deals being rolled out to five English Mayoral Strategic Authorities. The Spending Review included detailed commitments to expand integrated settlements for English city regions. Rahcel Reeves delivering the spending review (Image: House of Commons/PA Wire) Instead of applying for individual grants through competitive bidding processes, these areas receive a single, flexible pot of long-term funding, allowing Mayors greater autonomy in making their own investment decisions. This integrated funding grants local control over budgets for areas such as housing, skills, and transport. Following the Spending Review, these settlements are being expanded to include London, the North East, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and Liverpool City Region. These will join existing arrangements in Greater Manchester and the West Midlands, meaning nearly 40% of England's population will now have local control over this unified funding for growth and public services. Glasgow will instead be forced to enter what one council source described as a 'beauty contest' and need to bid for cash — similar to the process under the last Tory government, which Labour criticised in opposition. Councillor Aitken told Mr Murray: 'It is clear from the Spending Review that the UK Government recognises the best way to support economic growth of English City Regions is through an integrated settlement, allowing places the ability to make their own investment decisions. 'And yet Glasgow City Region, which is larger in population, size of economy, opportunity and need than most of the Mayoral Combined Authorities, is reduced to simply administering programmes on behalf of UK Government as if it were a small local authority.' She added: 'The empowerment of our comparator city regions in England and the disempowerment of Glasgow City Region threatens all of the progress we have made. We have a shared priority of growing Scotland's economy and ensuring our people reap the benefits of that. 'We cannot grow Scotland's economy without growing Glasgow's economy — and yet yesterday's budget will not contribute to that growth and will cause us to fall behind our English counterparts.' Council insiders told The Herald the lack of progress had come as a surprise, particularly given the constructive tone of recent discussions with the UK Government. Cllr Aitken and Kevin Rush talking to Newsquest's Stewart Paterson in February (Image: Gordon Terris) In February, Councillor Aitken and Glasgow's head of regional economic growth, Kevin Rush, told The Herald the city was 'ready to go' on a bespoke devolution deal. The model would mirror Greater Manchester or the West Midlands — with a 'single pot' of funding and the ability to make investment decisions locally. They said the structures were already in place and that Glasgow was managing numerous major UK Government-backed programmes, including the City Deal, Innovation Accelerator, Investment Zone, Shared Prosperity Fund, 5G Region, and Clyde Mission. The Treasury did reaffirm its commitment to the Glasgow Investment Zone — which it says could unlock £1.7 billion in private investment and create up to 18,000 jobs — and praised the region's potential in advanced manufacturing. READ MORE: But Councillor Aitken said that without control over wider investment decisions, Glasgow's economic future would remain constrained by short-term funding rounds and top-down allocations. She told The Herald: 'If anyone thought locking Glasgow and other Scottish cities out of investment talks last year was a simple oversight, this Spending Review risks creating the impression that the UK Government has now decided it is prepared to let our city regions be left behind. 'That is incredibly frustrating, at a time when we have been working closely with the Secretary of State, Deputy First Minister and officials from governments in Edinburgh and London to develop a positive, deliverable proposition for a devolution deal that would allow us to build on our strong record for innovation, unlock investment opportunities and grow the Scottish economy. 'Despite all of that, it appears the voice of Scotland's cities has not been heard around the Cabinet table." 'We are not asking for anything difficult," she added, "just a level playing field." In her Spending Review, Ms Reeves confirmed that the Scottish Government is set to receive an average of £50.9 billion per year between 2026–27 and 2028–29, representing its largest settlement in real terms since devolution. A UK Government spokesperson said: "Glasgow City Region is at the heart of our Plan for Growth in Scotland. "We are delivering more than £663m funding for the region including an Investment Zone focussed on developing advanced manufacturing and a strategic partnership with the National Wealth Fund. "Further plans will be set out, including the city's important role in the Industrial Strategy. "Devolution within Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Government but, building on the success of city and growth deals, we will work with them to help to ensure places like Glasgow City Region have the tools they need to deliver change and unlock the same levels of growth as their English counterparts like Greater Manchester."
The Herald Scotland
5 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Parents need to go on record before being written out of it
This last concern is especially important given the widespread issue of council attempts to mothball, close, or otherwise change nursery provision. There has been a rash of nursery closures and mothballing–temporary closure–in recent years, with councils seeing declining rolls at small settings as a quick way to reduce their deficits. Different councils have taken wildly different approaches: some have attempted to avoid talking of 'mothballing' entirely and, in doing so, avoid a statutory requirement to consult with parents; others have delegated the authority over mothballing to unelected council officers; and at least one council has tried (without success) to stand by a belief that local authorities have free reign over when, how, and why to mothball nursery settings. For its part, the Scottish Government has consistently stated that there is statutory guidance requiring councils to consult with parents about mothballing nurseries. In many cases, this, combined with media and community pressure, has convinced local authorities to take this official route. Most recently, this led to a major reversal in Aberdeenshire Council, where a set of nurseries were slated to be mothballed without consultation and based on the decision of unelected officers. After increased pressure from parents, the media and the Scottish Government raised questions about the policy, the council ultimately held a special meeting to abandon the current proposals and review local policies. However, decisions were finalised in other local authorities before the spotlight was shone on the council, and some parents are still wary that delays and partial victories might make it harder for communities to continue applying pressure. This is because, despite councils often claiming to engage with communities, parents repeatedly tell us that this does not mean a real opportunity to impact decision-making or guarantee a fair (if undesirable) outcome. The word "fair" is important. Parents often say they understand the pressures on councils and know that they cannot have a perfect solution. Instead, they want the feeling that democracy has run its course: a fair outcome does not mean everyone gets what they want, but it does mean an outcome that preserves trust in the system. Instead, parents raising complaints are easily painted as troublemakers; the longer they persist, the easier that becomes. During a recent consultation in the Scottish Borders over changes to nursery provision, a group of parents emailed the education director and key councillors with a list of concerns following a meeting. Parents asked for an explanation of why the meeting was not recorded, argued that the council's official minutes did not reflect the whole discussion, and asked for some form of written assessment of the new type of nursery model that was being proposed for their children. Before getting straight explanations, parents received another type of response. In an email seen by The Herald, one Scottish Borders councillor entered into this correspondence chain, asking for them to "dial down some of the rhetoric.' The email called out two parents by name and included dozens of councillors on its recipient list. Read more Numerous examples of this type of treatment have been reported across the country. It can discourage open disagreement and cut off dialogue, especially when many parents do not have the luxury of volunteering their time to cut through bureaucracy. The result is that parents keep quiet, or are kept quiet enough, so that when the official council papers come out reviewing a consultation and summarising its findings, there is barely a whiff of the discontent that dominated the conversation. Instead, any reporter, councillor, or government minister reviewing the record a few months down the line will see a neat timeline of how the council ticked all the right boxes, held all the right meetings, and reached a decision. The situations in Aberdeenshire and Scottish Borders are only two of the many examples of parents struggling to be heard. Aberdeenshire's nursery ordeal gives an example of what can happen when enough pressure–and perhaps critically, enough resources to bring in legal advice early–is applied. There have also been multiple recent examples in Dumfries & Galloway where parents were able to convince councillors to step in and stop mothballing decisions. In one case, the council had no relevant policy on the books, and in another, nurseries were slated for mothballing with no input from the community. Had these decisions gone through, they would have been extremely difficult to overturn, and official reports written in flat council-speak would not have fully captured parents' opposition. That is why what is happening in the Scottish Borders is important, and why parents want their version of events to have a place. Parents in the Borders have spoken out following their recent consultation to voice concerns about its challenges. There were regular IT issues, meetings were not recorded, and minutes lacked detail; weeks later, they were left with many of the same questions they had at the start. When presented with the parents' concerns, a council spokesperson said that 'the consultation process was indeed adequate.' 'Consultation commenced on Monday 12 May and concluded on Sunday 1 June. 'Parents/carers in all affected settings were invited to 2 meetings to discuss the proposed models, and there was an opportunity to provide written feedback through a Microsoft Form. A focus group was held mid-way through the consultation.' The council recently voted to approve its new model for some nurseries–combining some primary and early learning classes to maximise efficiency–and to create a working group to write a new early years policy. But parents have spoken out to have their concerns on record. Speaking on behalf of concerned parents from affected settings at Cockburnspath, Walkerburn and Ednam nurseries, Dr Alice Blackwell said that she and other parents 'take issue' with the council's depiction of the consultation. "There were significant issues with the structure and execution of this consultation which has made it impossible for SBC to take our views into meaningful account." Importantly, these concerns are less about the final proposals than about the Council's process. Although there was initially clear consensus among parents at all affected nurseries when they were first slated for mothballing, some have now opted to wait and see how the situation develops. Most parents, even those with ongoing concerns, are hopeful that the new model, combining nursery and primary classes, can work. The problem is that they feel this is based more on hope than evidence. The council says it has been done before, and it has, but multiple nurseries that have used composite classes are no longer in operation. Another reason parents want their concerns about the process to be recorded is that they remember how the process began. In March, council officers tabled recommendations to list multiple nurseries as 'inactive,' a process that would have seen them close for the upcoming year. Officials explicitly claimed that this was not the same as mothballing, which by extension meant that they did not need to consult with parents. In fact, many parents, nurseries and even local councillors only found out about the plans days before they were to be approved. Scottish Government officials made it clear to the council that they were misinterpreting the guidance, and by the time the meeting was held, the word 'inactive' was dropped in favour of mothballing. After voting the measure through a contentious meeting, the council called another snap meeting to undo the decision and instead pursue the 'alternative' strategy of combining some nursery and primary classes. Each step of the way, parents only felt they were getting a reprieve. One lingering question is: why was all of this necessary? The original reason for wanting to list the nurseries as 'inactive' was that too few children were enrolled; the same was true for the attempted mothballing. The council has been explicit about why it began investigating the current composition model. A spokesperson said: 'SBC did identify the primary reason to look at changes, which was to avoid mothballing.' If the primary reason was to avoid mothballing the nurseries, then why not leave them as they were? When pressed, the council gave a clear response. 'We believe that we have been as clear as we can be through the report presented to Exec committee on 6 June, and through the consultation process with local communities, that the benefit is to achieve a model which provides places for children in their rural communities while addressing the challenge of operating services with very small numbers of children, and will allow us to look at how this can provide a degree of sustainability.' As councils battle tightening budgets, questions about sustainability will constantly swirl around rural schools and nurseries. This is why many parents want their concerns noted, because these difficult decisions might be revisited in the future, and the written record will be a key witness.
Rhyl Journal
14 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
Starmer urges Netanyahu to de-escalate with Iran amid reports of fresh strikes
Sir Keir spoke with Mr Netanyahu as a fresh wave of Israeli strikes targeting Tehran began on Friday afternoon, according to media reports. Israel's earlier attacks overnight targeted nuclear facilities and missiles factories, and killed Hossein Salami, the leader of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. In a video address posted on Friday, Mr Netanyahu said Israel was striking 'the heart of Iran's nuclear weaponisation programme'. The reports of these strikes are concerning and we urge all parties to step back and reduce tensions urgently. Escalation serves no one in the region. Stability in the Middle East must be the priority and we are engaging partners to de-escalate. Now is the time for restraint,… — Keir Starmer (@Keir_Starmer) June 13, 2025 Sir Keir spoke with France's President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz on Friday morning, and the three leaders called for Iran and Israel to use restraint. The Prime Minister also convened a Cobra meeting on Friday, joined by senior ministers and officials. Warren Stephens, the US ambassador to the UK, was also seen outside the Cabinet Office in Whitehall after the meeting. Foreign Secretary David Lammy meanwhile warned the Middle East is facing a 'moment of grave peril'. Giving a readout of Sir Keir's call with Mr Netanyahu, a Downing Street spokesperson said: 'The Prime Minister was clear that Israel has a right to self-defence and set out the UK's grave concerns about Iran's nuclear programme. 'He reiterated the need for de-escalation and a diplomatic resolution, in the interests of stability in the region.' Sir Keir and his French and German counterparts had earlier 'discussed the long-held grave concerns about Iran's nuclear programme, and called on all sides to refrain from further escalation that could further destabilise the region', according to No 10. The UK is prepared to take 'every diplomatic step' to prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons after Israeli strikes, Downing Street earlier said. This could include reinstating sanctions lifted under the 2015 nuclear deal with Tehran by triggering the 'snap back' mechanism. Iran's nuclear programme is 'more advanced than ever, and it is a clear threat to international peace and security', the spokesman said. 'We've urged Iran to continue engaging with President Trump's offer of a negotiated solution and we continue to liaise closely with our partners on this.' Both the UK and US have said they did not take part in Israel's overnight strikes, with US secretary of state Marco Rubio and Foreign Secretary David Lammy both stating Israel acted unilaterally. The attack appeared to be the most significant Iran has faced since its war with Iraq in the 1980s. Mr Lammy spoke with his Iranian counterpart on Friday to 'urge restraint at this time and calm'. 'I recognise that this is a moment of grave peril in the Middle East,' the Foreign Secretary added. Mr Lammy had been due to travel to the US on Friday, it is understood, but remained in London as the situation developed. Tensions between Israel, the US and Iran have escalated in recent weeks, with US President Donald Trump suggesting some sort of attack by America or the Israelis could happen if negotiators failed to reach a deal over Iran's advancing nuclear programme. Mr Trump said he 'gave Iran chance after chance to make a deal' and warned that Israel has 'a lot of' US military equipment, and they 'know how to use it'. 'Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left… JUST DO IT, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE,' he posted on Truth Social. Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch said 'warm words' would not stop Iran, and that she did not see Israel's action as an escalation. 'If Israel sees Iran getting nuclear weapons, I don't think it should sit back and put its feet up and say 'Well, we're de-escalating'. 'Because the person, the country, that will escalate is Iran, and that would be absolutely disastrous for the entire world.'
