Ex-Tesco worker denies compiling kill list of ‘race traitor' staff and customers
The gun found in Alfie Coleman's bag after he was detained outside a Morrisons supermarket in Stratford, east London (Met Police/PA)
On Thursday, prosecutor Nicholas De La Poer KC reminded Coleman of a list he had compiled of people who had 'upset' him.
Individuals fell broadly into two categories – people he categorised as 'undercover police officers' and 'race traitors', jurors heard.
Describing the annotated list, the prosecutor said 'a very large number of people are the subject of a racial slur by you or described as race traitors'.
Coleman said: 'I cannot remember what was going through my head. I cannot say what I meant when I wrote those words down.'
Referring to a colleague and her husband who appeared on the list, the prosecutor observed: 'This is a white woman married to a person of non-white heritage and you have described her as a race traitor. This is someone who you worked with. Why did you describe her as a race traitor?'
Coleman said he could not remember.
Mr De La Poer went on: 'Was that a list of people who you thought needed to be killed?'
The defendant replied: 'No.'
Coleman said he understood 'race traitor' to mean someone who was friends or in a relationship with a 'non-white' person.
He added that he also included those in the 'system' working against the interests of white people.
Referring to the defendant's list, Mr De La Poer said: 'Can we agree that none of the people you are describing as race traitors here fall into that category?
'They are not white people who are politicians who betrayed other white people because of their power. These are customers and colleagues at Tesco.'
Coleman replied: 'I do not know specifically. They may not all have been where I worked. I cannot say any more other than that.'
Judge Richard Marks KC asked the defendant to clarify his stance, saying: 'Regardless of colour, if you co-operate with authorities and work in the Government you are a race traitor – people working for Government means doing something against white people?'
The defendant replied: 'That's the way I understood it, yeah.'
Alfie Coleman in a skull ski mask and holding a knife (Met Police/PA)
Mr De La Poer quizzed the defendant about his collection of extreme right-wing books including one Coleman had described as 'captivating' and life-changing.
A chapter entitled 'the day of the rope' detailed public hangings of people it described as 'race traitors', the court was told.
Coleman said he was not 'specifically' interested in that part even though he had searched for artwork from the book and downloaded an image of a public hanging.
He denied he had read another book in his collection about a man who hunted down inter-race couples as 'race traitors'.
The prosecutor suggested: 'You were preparing to engage in illegal behaviour because you bought a firearm and so it's not a case that you did not do things because they were illegal.'
The defendant replied: 'I agree to a certain extent. There are a lot of reasons why I did it.'
Mr De La Poer asked: 'In terms of publications likely to be of use to terrorists you know the explosive manuals were describing how a person might make a bomb, is that right?'
Coleman replied: 'I did not read them. It is only through the process of the trial I have seen excerpts and screen shots.'
The defendant has accepted he had a large quantity of extreme right-wing material and has pleaded guilty to possessing 10 documents which contain information likely to be useful to terrorists.
Coleman, now aged 21, from Great Notley in Essex, has admitted attempting to possess both a firearm and ammunition but denies he was preparing for a terrorist attack.
The Old Bailey trial continues.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Starmer's own guidelines ‘should have spared Lucy Connolly from jail'
Sir Keir Starmer has become embroiled in a hypocrisy row over the prosecution of Lucy Connolly on the eve of her release from prison. The Prime Minister supported the conviction of Mrs Connolly for inciting racial hatred over an expletive-ridden post on X after the Southport attacks, but it has emerged that he had previously suggested that people who swiftly deleted offensive social media statements should not necessarily face criminal action. On Thursday, Mrs Connolly will be released after being sentenced to 31 months in prison for posting the comments, which she deleted hours later. The mother-of-one's supporters claim she has been subjected to an unfairly long jail term and made a scapegoat for the rioting last summer. Sir Keir has defended Mrs Connolly's conviction, saying that while he was strongly in favour of free speech he was 'equally against incitement to violence' against other people. He added: 'I will always support the action taken by our police and courts to keep our streets and people safe.' However, in 2013, when director of public prosecutions, he introduced guidance for prosecutors to consider a more lenient approach towards suspects who 'swiftly' deleted social media posts and expressed 'genuine remorse'. The guidance urged prosecutors to consider four factors where 'a prosecution is unlikely to be both necessary and proportionate'. These included if 'swift and effective action has been taken by the suspect and/or others for example, service providers, to remove the communication in question or otherwise block access to it'. Mrs Connolly was jailed for a post on the day three children were killed at a dance class in Southport, on Merseyside, urging followers to 'set fire' to hotels that housed asylum seekers 'for all I care.' At the time, the childminder had about 9,000 followers on X. Her message was reposted 940 times and viewed 310,000 times before she deleted it three and a half hours later, saying she regretted it. Sir Keir's 2013 advice was caveated with a warning to prosecutors that it was 'not an exhaustive list' of mitigating circumstances and that 'each case must be considered on its own factors and its own individual merits.' Legal experts who have followed Mrs Connolly's case noted that the guidance suggested public order offences, such as inciting racial hatred, should be treated separately and suspects would not therefore necessarily benefit from the same protections. Sir Keir followed up publication of the guidance with interviews in which he said: 'There's a lot of stuff out there that is highly offensive that is put out on a spontaneous basis that is quite often taken down pretty quickly, and the view is that those sort of remarks don't necessarily need to be prosecuted. 'This is not a get out of jail card, but it is highly relevant. Stuff does go up on a Friday and Saturday night and come down the next morning. 'Now if that is the case a lot of people will say that shouldn't have happened, the person has accepted it, but really you don't need a criminal prosecution. It is a relevant factor.' The 2013 guidance is repeated nearly word for word in the latest version for prosecutors. However, the initial advice that the factors could make a prosecution 'unlikely' has been tempered to state that prosecutors should take 'particular care' to ensure prosecution is 'necessary and proportionate'. Critics who have claimed Mrs Connolly was a victim of two-tier justice said it raised further questions over her treatment. Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, said: 'Keir Starmer's enthusiasm for prosecuting Lucy Connolly appears to contradict his own guidelines. She rapidly deleted the message and showed remorse. This suggests Keir Starmer is guilty of hypocrisy and double standards by supporting a breach of his own prosecution guidelines. 'Lord Hermer personally authorised this prosecution, in what looks like another example of two-tier justice bearing in mind the very long sentence given when compared to others who committed actual acts of violence.' Lord Toby Young, the director of the Free Speech Union, said: 'Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, should have listened to the advice of Sir Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, and urged the CPS not to bring charges against Lucy Connolly. 'Sentencing her to more than two and a half years for a single tweet which she quickly deleted and apologised for has undermined public confidence in the criminal justice system, particularly when Labour councillors, MPs and anti-racism campaigners who have said and done much worse have avoided jail altogether. 'The public have concluded – rightly – that it's one rule for people on the Right and another for people on the Left. 'The Free Speech Union urged Lucy to plead not guilty, and offered to pay for her defence. Had she done so, I'm confident she would have been acquitted. But she decided against that precisely because she wasn't granted bail and was worried that her case would take so long to come to trial that she would end up spending more time in jail than she would if she pleaded guilty.' Richard Tice, the deputy Reform UK leader who visited Mrs Connolly in prison, said she should have pleaded not guilty. 'There was pressure in the legal system to get her to plead guilty. That was the establishment working in its mystical ways,' he claimed. 'The proof of my point is that Ricky Jones, the Labour councillor, can urge for people's throats to be slit live on TV in front of a big crowd and be found not guilty by a jury. It proves the whole point about two-tier justice and two-tier Keir. He is the biggest hypocrite that has been in Downing Street.' Frank Ferguson, the head of the Crown Prosecution Service's special crime and counter-terrorism division, said: 'It is not an offence to have strong or differing political views, but it is an offence to incite racial hatred – and that is what Connolly admitted to doing. 'The prosecution case included evidence which showed that racist tweets were sent out from Lucy Connolly's X account both in the weeks and months before the Southport attacks – as well as in the days after. The CPS takes racial hatred extremely seriously, and will never hesitate to prosecute these cases where there is enough evidence to do so.' The CPS also noted messages raised during her appeal on her remorse, in which she suggested she might claim that it was not her who had posted but that she was a victim of 'doxing', and that she had published the apology at the suggestion of a third party and her husband. A Government spokesman said: 'Sentencing is a matter for independent courts, and we support the action taken by the courts, as well as the police, to keep our streets safe. 'In all cases where Law Officers' consent is required, the Law Officers carefully consider whether to grant consent, including all relevant factors to the public interest in the prosecution.'
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
Here is what actually needs to be done to address Australia's childcare abuse crisis - and politicians can't say they didn't know
On Friday, state education ministers will meet Jason Clare to discuss the thorny and critically important issues facing the country's childcare sector. There could not be a more significant moment for the conversations that we are having about the safety of the more than 1 million Australian children who attend childcare. Except for the last most significant moment. And the one before that. Because this – tragically – is not the first time there has been a government meeting or report or a major review into childcare policy in the wake of horrifying allegations of serial abuse of children in childcare. Review after review has made recommendations to the government – about record-keeping, oversight, regulation, funding – that have sat, for years, gathering dust on government shelves. After charges were laid against Ashley Paul Griffith, who was found guilty last year of abusing 73 girls while working in childcare in Brisbane and Italy over two decades, Clare commissioned a review. It made recommendations about how to monitor childcare workers who exhibit concerning behaviour, and even those who have serious reports of child abuse made against them to police, but who aren't convicted. These recommendations still have not been implemented. Last year, the Productivity Commission handed down a comprehensive report into the childcare sector, which included recommendations related to standards and safety, including that an independent national commissioner for early childhood be established and that regulators be given additional funding so they could conduct more frequent inspections. Many of these recommendations still have not been implemented. Before that, there were recommendations handed down in 2015 after the royal commission into the institutional abuse of children, which included a call to have a national working with children's check, a recommendation that sat in the too-hard basket for a full decade until last week, when the attorney general announced there would be a national working with children check (WWCC), of sorts, by the end of the year. Sign up: AU Breaking News email In light of this, it is imperative that Friday's meeting produces real solutions that are actually implemented. Here is what the government has indicated will be on the table. This idea has been mentioned a number of times by Jason Clare since the arrest of a Melbourne childcare worker, who has been charged with sexually abusing eight children in his care, was announced in July. Parents across Victoria were subjected to the horrific experience of getting a 'drip feed' of information about where the alleged offender had worked, said Clare, as police were forced to pore over the records at individual centres to find out if, and when, the alleged offender had been there. 'This highlights… why you need a database or a register, so you know where all childcare workers are and where they're moving from centre to centre,' Clare said. I don't know anyone who would disagree. But, if this is all the national register does – tell us who has worked where and when – then its utility is extremely limited. A more useful register is one that would allow centre directors, the regulator, even police, to create a record of 'red flag' behaviour, logging when someone has been fired for cause, or for allegedly grooming a child; or of times someone has been reported to the police for alleged child abuse, even if the police have not been able to lay charges, so that people looking to employ a childcare worker can know the history of the person they are dealing with. Last week, Det Sup Linda Howlett, the head of the NSW police child sex abuse squad, threw her support behind a 'red flag' register, saying it would likely help police identify and apprehend potential offenders much earlier. 'At the end of the day, the offenders that we've actually charged, and a number of them are quite high profile, have never had a criminal history,' she said. Obviously this would be tricky to do. Obviously there are privacy concerns and legal issues to be sorted. Our society operates on the fundamental principle of people being innocent until proven guilty, we don't want a system where one false and malicious accusation can ruin a person's career and life. However, we also don't want a situation like the one we find ourselves in now, where the concern for the privacy or reputation of the adult so dramatically trumps the safety of the child. Such a system could have made an enormous difference in preventing some of the offending of Ashley Paul Griffith. Before he was investigated and arrested, more than one complaint was made about Griffith to his employers, the Early Childhood Regulatory Authority and the Queensland police, including at least one of sexual abuse against a child in his care. The earliest of these reports to police was made more than a decade before he was eventually arrested. Sign up to Breaking News Australia Get the most important news as it breaks after newsletter promotion This was a recommendation presented to the government in 2015. Attorney general Michelle Rowland acknowledged last week that the fact it had taken 10 years to implement was a 'failure of successive governments'. However, Rowland acknowledged governments wouldn't be standardising the criteria that led to someone's WWCC to be revoked across the states. Instead they would implement a system that meant someone banned from working with children in one state, wouldn't be able to keep their WWCC in another state. Firstly, let it sink in that that hasn't been the policy until now. It is great that a 'banned in one, banned in all' policy will be introduced by the end of the year. But this is a bare minimum. It should happen, but let's not kid ourselves that it's the answer. In the case of Griffith, at the time of his arrest, he didn't have a criminal conviction and still had a valid WWCC. A national WWCC system would have made no difference in preventing his offending. What could have played a role, is if the bar for cancelling someone's WWCC was lowered, so that it considered repeated reports to police alleging sexual abuse, as a reason to cancel someone's right to work with kids. A review of the Victorian childcare system, released on Wednesday, recommended precisely this – that a worker's WWCC could be suspended or refused when there were 'credible allegations or patterns of concerning behaviour with children'. It will be interesting to see how much traction this suggestion gets at the national table on Friday. In the wake of huge community outrage after the recent Victorian allegations, one of the first things the federal government announced it would do was to introduce legislation that would allow it to pull funding from centres that repeatedly failed to meet national safety standards. The government introduced this in the first week of the new parliament, and it has already put about 30 childcare centres on notice that they need to pick up their game or face a funding freeze. We have seen enough reports of poor-performing centres, where children are kept in unsafe or neglectful circumstances, to know that this is a good change. And while it will help to address the centres that operate so poorly that children are in danger, it's not a policy that will necessarily help with the other issue at the front of mind for the public – sexual abuse of children. There are arguments in favour of this. Howlett told a parliamentary inquiry last week that CCTV has been instrumental in some prosecutions of childcare workers, who would've escaped justice without that evidence. However, there are valid concerns about introducing this surveillance into childcare centres, including hacking, the safe storage of footage and who is allowed to access and view it. Implementing CCTV safely will cost money, with Goodstart, one of the largest not-for-profit childcare providers, saying the 'installation costs of secure systems are in the tens of thousands of dollars per centre'. So, that's one to watch closely at Friday's meeting – if CCTV is mandated, it must come with adequate funding to be implemented safely, or we are opening up a whole new dangerous can of worms. None of us watching this unfold think their task is an easy one, but it's far too important a task for them to look for easy wins.
The National
6 hours ago
- The National
Humza Yousaf issues 'firebombs' warning over anti-migrant rhetoric
Earlier this month, former immigration minister Robert Jenrick wrote a piece in the Daily Mail, headlined: "I care more for my daughters' safety than the rights of foreign criminals. That's why I support every peaceful protest outside an asylum hotel". The statement comes as the UK Government is working on contingency plans for housing asylum seekers after a court ruled that they should be removed from a hotel in Epping, Essex. Ministers are now bracing for further legal challenges from councils across the country. In a direct response, Yousaf said that the Tories are "deliberately trying to fuel hatred" through fear. READ MORE: Police probe 'kill 'em all' banner outside Scottish asylum seeker hotel Jenrick also told the Telegraph this week that he wanted 'every single illegal migrant in this country' to be deported, and that included not only those arriving on small boats, but also those who have arrived in lorries or claimed asylum after landing at airports. In the video posted to Instagram, Yousaf did not name Jenrick but shared an image of the Daily Mail article, and hit out at his rhetoric around asylum seekers, warning that it fuels division and puts vulnerable people at risk. 'The Tories are telling us that we have to protect our children from asylum seekers," Yousaf said. "Well, as a father of three girls, let me tell you that it's not asylum seekers I'm worried about when it comes to my daughter's safety. It's men, predatory men who come in every colour, every religion and from every background.' He stressed that those who commit crimes must face justice, regardless of background, adding: 'Of course, those who do commit heinous crimes against women, be they asylum seekers or those who have lived in the UK for 10 generations, they should and must feel the full force of the law. 'But when you purposely single out asylum seekers, as the Tories are doing, you're not interested in protecting women, you're deliberately trying to fuel hatred. You're reviving the old colonial lie that people from the east are somehow dangerous savages.' Yousaf warned of the consequences of such rhetoric, citing previous instances where "peaceful protests" developed to setting hotels housing asylum seekers on fire, like in Rotherham in 2024. 'This isn't just rhetoric. We've seen exactly where it leads. It turns fear into mobs who are ready to set fire to hotels that are housing asylum seekers. It leads to bricks through windows, it leads to firebombs aimed at vulnerable families who've already fled war and persecution.' READ MORE: Israeli-owned Rosebank oil firm reveals profits doubled in last six months He added that violence against women is a universal issue, not one tied to asylum seekers, and warned against falling for the "oldest populist trick in the book". "And here's the truth. Violence against women is committed by men from every walk of life. Blaming asylum seekers doesn't make women safer. It just makes society more divided, more suspicious, more willing to turn on the most vulnerable. 'What the Tories are doing isn't about women's safety. It's about stoking fear. It's the oldest populist trick in the book. Let's make sure we don't fall for it.' The latest Home Office data showed there were 32,345 asylum seekers being housed temporarily in UK hotels at the end of March. This was down 15% from the end of December, when the total was 38,079, and 6% lower than the 34,530 at the same point a year earlier. New figures – published among the usual quarterly immigration data release – are expected on Thursday, showing numbers in hotels at the end of June.
