Royal Marine guarding nuclear weapons grilled by terror cops over alleged neo-Nazi links
'NAZI' LINK Royal Marine guarding nuclear weapons grilled by terror cops over alleged neo-Nazi links
Click to share on X/Twitter (Opens in new window)
Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
A ROYAL Marine guarding nuclear weapons has been grilled by counter-terror police over alleged neo-Nazi links.
Commando John Carr was interviewed last week when he flew to Scotland.
Sign up for Scottish Sun
newsletter
Sign up
3
John Carr serves with 43 Commando, guarding the UK's Trident 2 missiles and nuclear submarines
3
Carr was interviewed last week over alleged neo-Nazi links
Credit: YouTube
He said it was 'political bullying' as he had campaigned against women joining the Marines, which he claimed lowered physical standards.
But security sources said he was grilled over his extremist views and links to far-right groups.
Carr serves with 43 Commando, guarding the UK's Trident 2 missiles and nuclear submarines at HMNB Clyde, Faslane, in Argyll and Bute.
The Sun understands he is a member of the far-right Homeland Party — which splintered from a neo-Nazi party in 2023.
Speaking on YouTube Carr said: 'I am a member of a political party.
'I don't think it's their business or anyone's business to know what that is, but know that it isn't the main political party.
'It isn't Labour.'
Carr lost his security clearance and will work from home pending an investigation.
Police Scotland declined to comment.
3
Carr serves at HMNB Clyde, Faslane, in Argyll and Bute
Credit: Alamy
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
3 hours ago
- Spectator
Tories split on Ricky Jones' verdict
The decision to clear Ricky Jones of encouraging violent disorder has not gone down well with many senior politicians. Footage of the suspended Labour councillor went viral last August after he suggested that far-right protesters should have their throats slit. Jones, 58, drew his finger across his throat and called demonstrators 'disgusting Nazi fascists'. On Friday, jurors found him not guilty after just half an hour of deliberations. Many were quick to contrast it to the Lucy Connolly case, whereby the wife of a Tory politician was jailed for 31 months during the Southport riots after writing 'set fire to all the… hotels [housing asylum seekers]… for all I care'. Some senior Conservatives certainly see it this way. Chris Philp, the Shadow Home Secretary, made that comparison explicit, writing that 'the development of two tier justice is becoming increasingly alarming.' He added that ministers 'must come forward with plans to ensure justice is handed out equally, regardless of the background or views of the perpetrator' but 'this Labour government seems to be quite happy with two tier justice'. His colleague James Cleverly, the Housing spokesman, called the verdict 'unacceptable', writing on X that 'decisions like this are adding to the anger that people feel and amplifying the belief that there isn't a dispassionate criminal justice system'. Clearly, this decision is a controversial one. But there is a crucial difference between the Jones trial and the punishment meted out to Lucy Connolly: she pleaded guilty so she did not receive a jury trial. Had she done so, she might well have been acquitted. Take the case of former Royal Marine Jamie Michael. Charged with stirring up racial hatred after Southport, he was acquitted by his jury after just 17 minutes. It was only five weeks' ago that Robert Jenrick was leading a big campaign against proposals to limit jury trials. For some of his fellow Tories to now rush to condemn them, off the back of one verdict, is an overreaction, given the essential pressure valve they function. All this matters because judicial reform is likely to be a cornerstone of the next government of the right. Kemi Badenoch is reviewing how Britain to leave the European Court of Human Rights; others want her to go much further. The last Tory administration found itself fighting endless battles in the courts, in a fruitless bid to halt illegal migration. Picking the right battles over the right principles is essential if the next government is to avoid repeating that fate.
Leader Live
8 hours ago
- Leader Live
Tories and Reform decry two-tier justice as suspended Labour councillor cleared
Ricky Jones, 58, faced trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court accused of the offence after he described demonstrators as 'disgusting Nazi fascists' at an anti-racism rally in the wake of the Southport murders. He was cleared on Friday. Nigel Farage and shadow home secretary Chris Philp both pointed to the idea of 'two-tier justice' in relation to the case. This is another outrageous example of two-tier justice. — Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) August 15, 2025 Mr Philp compared the case to that of Lucy Connolly, who was jailed after she posted a tweet calling for 'mass deportation' and 'set fire to all the f****** hotels' on the day of the Southport attacks last year. In a post on X, Mr Philp said: 'The development of two tier justice is becoming increasingly alarming.' Ex-Reform chairman Zia Yusuf also referred to Connolly's case, and said that 'two tier justice in this country is out of control'. Connolly pleaded guilty last year to a charge of inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing 'threatening or abusive' written material on X, which meant she did not face a trial. In Jones' case, a jury deliberated for just over half an hour before they found him not guilty. A video showing Jones addressing crowds on Hoe Street in Walthamstow, east London, on August 7 last year went viral on social media after the protest, which had been organised in response to plans for a far-right march outside Waltham Forest Immigration Bureau. It is astonishing that Labour councillor Ricky Jones, who was caught on video calling for throats to be slit, is let off scot free – whereas Lucy Connolly got 31 months prison for posting something no worse. The development of two tier justice is becoming increasingly alarming.… — Chris Philp MP (@CPhilpOfficial) August 15, 2025 The suspended councillor said in the clip: 'They are disgusting Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.' He also drew his finger across his throat as he spoke to the crowd. Jurors deliberated for just over 30 minutes before finding him not guilty. Jones, who wore a navy blue suit with a white shirt and pale pink tie in the dock, was seen mouthing 'thank-you' at the jurors. Family and supporters hugged each other before Jones, who declined to comment, was driven out of the court grounds in a car. The 58-year-old, who at the time was also employed as a full-time official for the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association union, was arrested on August 8 last year and interviewed at Brixton police station that night. Jones, who has been a borough councillor in Dartford, Kent, since 2019, was suspended by Labour the day after the incident. It is understood a party investigation continues and its outcome will decide what happens to his membership. A spokesperson for the party said at the time his behaviour 'was completely unacceptable and it will not be tolerated'. Giving evidence in his trial, Jones said his comment did not refer to far-right protesters involved in the riots at the time, but to those who had reportedly left National Front stickers on a train with razor blades hidden behind them. Before he made the comment, jurors were shown video where he said to crowds: 'You've got women and children using these trains during the summer holidays.' Lawyers said the case cannot be compared to that of Connolly, as they faced different charges and she pleaded guilty while Jones did not. Peter Stringfellow, a solicitor at Brett Wilson, said in Connolly's case, racially aggravated discourse on social media translated into real-life violence across the country, whereas Mr Jones' comments at a rally did not cause violent disorder. Ernest Aduwa, partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, said: 'We need to be honest about what is going on here. The verdict in the Ricky Jones case was not political, it was legal. 'A jury listened to the evidence, tested it and decided unanimously he was not guilty. That is not bias or 'two-tier justice', it is the justice system doing what it is supposed to do, separating facts from noise.' Laura Allen, head of the protest and public order team at Hodge, Jones and Allen lawyers, said it was 'frankly offensive' to the ordinary members of the public who sat on the jury to suggest they had not acted appropriately. She said: 'They are 12 members of the jury, picked at random, who have done their civic duty, have listened to the evidence in the case and concluded they could not be sure that Ricky Jones was guilty. 'Due to the way our jury system works they are not required, and certainly are not permitted, to explain the reasons for their decision.'
Leader Live
8 hours ago
- Leader Live
Ricky Jones case should not be compared to Lucy Connolly
Ricky Jones, 58, faced trial at Snaresbrook Crown Court after he described far-right activists as 'disgusting Nazi fascists' in a speech at an anti-racism rally last year, in the wake of the Southport murders. The now-suspended councillor, surrounded by cheering supporters in Walthamstow, east London, on August 7 2024, was filmed stating: 'They are disgusting Nazi fascists. We need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.' Jurors deliberated for just over half-an-hour and found him not guilty on Friday. This caused Conservative and Reform politicians to brand the decision 'two-tier justice' – with shadow home secretary Chris Philp comparing the case to that of Mrs Connolly, who was jailed for 31 months after she posted a tweet calling for 'mass deportation' of asylum seekers and to 'set fire to all the f****** hotels' on the day of the Southport attacks. Former home secretary and Tory leadership candidate Sir James Cleverly also called the jury's decision to clear Ricky Jones 'perverse' in an X post, adding: 'Perverse decisions like this are adding to the anger that people feel and amplifying the belief that there isn't a dispassionate criminal justice system.' Lawyers have said the cases should not be conflated as Connolly and Jones faced allegations of a different nature – and Jones faced trial where Connolly, having pleaded guilty, did not. Peter Stringfellow, a solicitor at Brett Wilson, told the PA news agency: 'Both (Jones and Connolly) said pretty unpleasant things. 'However, I'm afraid the conflation of the two after that is a problem. It comes from people who've got some sort of political agenda, in my view. 'They were facing completely different allegations and a massive part of those different allegations is the racial element. 'If you look at the Connolly case … her intention is of a racial nature.' Connolly pleaded guilty last year to a charge of inciting racial hatred by publishing and distributing 'threatening or abusive' written material on X. On July 29 last year, she posted: 'Mass deportation now, set fire to all the f****** hotels full of the bastards for all I care … if that makes me racist so be it.' 'She directs everybody to the fact that this was a racial comment,' Mr Stringfellow said. 'She pleads guilty to that intention … she accepted that she had intended to stir racial hatred. 'The Jones case is different because one, he's facing a completely different allegation: he's facing encouraging violent disorder. 'And the difference with him is he's saying: 'That's not what I was intended to do'.' Mr Stringfellow added that, in the case of Connolly, racially aggravated discourse on social media did translate into real-life violence across the country – whereas Mr Jones' comments at a rally did not cause a violent disorder. 'What she (Connolly) did, what followed her comments about threatening to burn people in hotels, is that that's precisely what then happened – and people were attempting to burn people in hotels.' Ernest Aduwa, partner at Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, said comparisons between Jones' and Connolly's cases were 'misplaced'. 'We need to be honest about what is going on here. The verdict in the Ricky Jones case was not political, it was legal,' he said. 'A jury listened to the evidence, tested it and decided unanimously he was not guilty. 'That is not bias or 'two-tier justice' – it is the justice system doing what it is supposed to do: separating facts from noise. 'Comparisons with the Lucy Connolly case are misplaced. 'Lucy Connolly pleaded guilty. There was no trial, no cross-examination, no jury. She admitted the specific offence: stirring up racial hatred online. 'Ricky Jones faced a different charge … with a high burden of proof. 'The jury decided the Crown had not met it. 'That does not mean the protest was not passionate or loud – it means there was not enough evidence to prove intent to incite violence. That distinction matters. 'I understand why emotions run high. But flattening two different situations into one misleading narrative does no favours to justice. 'The fact that a black man at a protest can receive a fair trial and be acquitted should be seen not as an injustice, but as proof the system can still get it right.' He added: 'The law is not perfect, but it must rest on evidence – not opinion, pressure, or politics.' Laura Allen, head of the protest and public order team at Hodge, Jones and Allen lawyers, said the two cases involved different decisions that need to be put in their legal context and it is 'frankly offensive' to the ordinary members of the public who sat on the jury to suggest they had not acted appropriately. If there is anything close to a two-tier system in the British justice sector it is one that historically 'has not favoured ethnic minorities', although work has been done to try to repair that situation, according to Ms Allen. A judge made a ruling on Connolly's sentence after she had said she was guilty, while a jury listened to the evidence during the trial and found him not guilty. Ms Allen said they are 'just two very different things and it is not possible to compare them in the way that Nigel Farage is choosing to do as part of his political grandstanding'. She said: 'He (Farage) is suggesting that these 12 people, about whom I assume he knows nothing, have not made their decision on the evidence but on some other ulterior motive. 'They are 12 members of the jury, picked at random, who have done their civic duty, have listened to the evidence in the case and concluded they could not be sure that Ricky Jones was guilty. 'Due to the way our jury system works they are not required, and certainly are not permitted, to explain the reasons for their decision.' She added: 'All we know is that the jury found Ricky Jones not guilty. We don't know why. We also don't know the political background of any of these people. We don't know their views on immigration or on race. 'We don't know any of that stuff and that is the whole point.'
