UK-court jails neo-Nazi couple, who named their child after Hitler
A British court sentenced a neo-Nazi couple to prison on Tuesday. The couple had named their newborn baby after German dictator Adolf Hitler and the court described the intentions of the group, they were part of, as dangerous. The outfit, National Action, became the first right-wing group to be banned. Along with the couple, four others, including their friend, were given sentences too.
The couple's history of violent racist beliefs didn't go unnoticed
Judge Melbourne Inman at Birmingham Crown Court sentenced 22-year-old Adam Thomas to six and half years in prison. His Portuguese partner Claudia Patatas was sentenced to five years. "You acted together in all you thought, said and did, in the naming of your son and the disturbing photographs of your child by symbols of Nazism and the Ku Klux Klan," he said giving the verdict.
Another one who was sentenced taught his daughter Nazi salute
Thomas, who applied to the British Army and failed twice, had a manual on how to make 'viable' bombs. The couple's close friend Darren Fletcher was given five-years in prison. 28-year-old Fletcher confessed he taught his daughter the Nazi salute. Another leading member of National Action, 27-year-old Daniel Bogunovic, was given six years and four months time. Two other men were also sentenced.
Group celebrated murder of Parliamentarian
The group was banned in 2016 after it celebrated the murder of Labour Party member of Parliament Jo Cox. Amber Rudd, who was the Home Secretary back then, used the terms 'racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic', to describe the group. Rudd had said the organization stirred up hatred and there was no place in the UK for their vile ideology.
Patatas wanted concentration camps' return; judge said group is 'horrific'
Judge Inman had similar thoughts about National Action. The jury was told Patatas had said she wanted to bring back the concentration camps and that all Jews must die. He said the group had horrific plans like overthrowing the democracy. "If there was any room for misunderstanding then any member of the public need only watch the video shown in court. The public has a right to know what you would wish to subject them to," he added.
