Exclusive Interview with Andrew Clarke on the National Action Trials and His 18 Months in Prison

Introduction.

Several weeks ago, Andrew Clarke, a former member of Britain’s National Action, walked free with no criminal convictions after 18 months in prison. During that period of time, Andrew, along with some of his former colleagues, was subjected to two trials at the direction of the Crown Prosecution Service, neither of which convinced a jury that Clarke was guilty of the charge levelled at him – that he remained a member of National Action after the banning of the organization under terrorism legislation in December 2016. Shortly after his release from prison, Andrew reached out to me on social media, in part because I was one of the very few people on the dissident Right to speak out at the time of the banning of National Action and again during the subsequent series of arrests. I was extremely disturbed by what he then described to me about the background and nature of his arrest and imprisonment, and I felt that the attention of a wider audience should once again be directed to these events in England, and for Andrew to be able to have a voice for his experiences.

The nature of increasingly oppressive developments in legislation require that, in order to ensure the continued freedom of Andrew and others, this interview begins with certain legal caveats. Part II, Section 12 of the Terrorism Act (2000) makes it an offence to “invite support for a proscribed organisation,” or to arrange a meeting that is to be addressed by someone “who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation.” It should be abundantly clear from the following interview, but just to reiterate: the following interview is with an individual who ceased to be a member of National Action either before, or at the event of, its banning under the Terrorism Act (2000). Furthermore, no aspect of this interview should be interpreted as lending or inviting support for National Action, an organisation that is now defunct and probably has been since it was arbitrarily banned by the Home Office. That being said, the position is firmly and unashamedly maintained that the banning process itself, and the background to that process as it relates to a specific proscription, should, in any truly democratic society, be open to scrutiny and critique. The arrest and imprisonment of the many individuals following the proscription of National Action in December 2016 should also be open to scrutiny and critique, especially since these arrests have evidently resulted in the jailing of innocent men.

It is hoped that this interview breaks some of the fear that surrounds the discussion of “right wing terrorism.” The banning of National Action, and subsequent related arrests, have been met with almost complete silence from the dissident Right, presumably because many are fearful of making any kind of statement that could make them liable to arrest themselves. And yet the proscription of National Action is a key element in trends of government actions against the dissident Right, preceding Unite the Right by 8 months, but in many respects also prefiguring the response to the latter. To be clear, the proscription of National Action marked the beginning of the most recent wave of mainstream associations between dissident Right thought and “terrorism” — a term that had hitherto been reserved for acts of violence in the pursuit of political goals. Just days after the proscription of National Action, and long before Charlottesville, I warned:

Faced with a White identity movement that remains, frustratingly for its opponents, law-abiding and peaceful, we can expect an elaboration on existing tactics. The meaning and definition of words like ‘terrorism’ and ‘extremism’ will themselves be expanded to encompass non-violent entities and individuals in an effort to drag them into hastily constructed spheres of illegality and, thus, deeper social opprobrium and even prison sentences.

This prophecy was to come ominously to fruition around a year later, when Andrew Clarke and several others had their homes raided, before being summarily charged and dragged into police vehicles to begin an 18 month odyssey of prison transports, trials, and intense media demonisation. While some would eventually walk free, many remain in prison, and will remain in prison for many years to come. The vast majority were never convicted under the original charges, or indeed under any aspect of the Terrorism Act. Instead, a slow trickle of speech laws and related legislation was brought into play in order to imprison individuals for up to 16 months for placing stickers reading “White Zone” around university campuses. One of the most striking features of all of the trials, and the related media coverage, has been the focus not on what these individuals have or have not done, but on what they think and believe. Thus, regardless of one’s opinion on the organisation that was once in existence, or on any style of activism, these arrests have grave implications for anyone still entertaining the idea they live in a free society.

As a final note, the story of these arrests, and of Andrew’s in particular, is an important corrective and admonition to those among us who have waxed eloquently with their “disavowals” of “terrorism” because it “undermines White Nationalism.” I have always had a problem with such disavowals, and for a few simple reasons. More often than not, they are simply exercises in preaching to the converted. Most disavowals are made by people “plugged into” the “movement”, while the very rare handful of extreme acts of White violence are carried out by isolated fringe individuals who never hear such disavowals or are least likely to be moved by them. Disavowals are thus, more or less, languid and effete acts of moral self-satisfaction. Second, disavowals simply add to, and increase the volume of, discourse critiquing the dissident Right, and they are divisive and demoralising. They implicitly assume a problem within the “movement” that needs to be addressed (where none in fact exists because the movement is already overwhelmingly non-violent), a pernicious trend that conforms very strongly to opposition narratives. They are, therefore, in terms of image management or “optics” undoubtedly worse than mere silence – we can’t correct criticism and image problems by making concessions to the opposition’s vision of our cause. Third, and related to the second, “right wing terrorism” is a largely invented phenomenon, embellished by falsified statistics, media tactics, and the steady production of propaganda by dedicated anti-White groups. It is a largely fictional opposition talking point that would be foolish to adopt ourselves. Fourth, and most important, by adopting discussions and perceptions of “right wing terrorism” we are easily corralled into fear and silence when entirely innocent activists are swept up in “terrorism” arrests. We allow ourselves to be pre-programmed to disavow these individuals and abandon them to their fate. I personally find this mode of conduct to be shameful, cowardly, and highly revealing. I reject it in disgust.

After Andrew Clarke secured his freedom, he wrote to me: “Only you and the Occidental Observer had the balls to speak out.” Now we let him speak.

1. Andrew, congratulations on securing your freedom. It seems that while the relatively minor arrest and imprisonment of Tommy Robinson received a great deal of media attention and financial donations from the Right, the National Action “proscribed organisation” arrests attracted relatively little attention, even within discussions of censorship and state oppression. Many of our readers might be unclear about the origins of the case against you and your co-defendants. Can you first briefly explain the immediate circumstances of your arrest and imprisonment, and the type of punishment you would have faced if found guilty?

Thank you AJ, it’s been the best part of two years now since it all began.

The arrests happened on the 27^th September 2017. Eleven officers from North West Counter Terrorist Unit (NWCTU) – I think they’re now known as Counter Terrorism Policing North West – performed a dawn raid just before 6am, while I was staying over at my sister’s house.  Before I was told what I was being arrested for I was placed into handcuffs and was sat down in the living room. I then asked the officers what I was being arrested for. One told me I was being arrested under Terrorism Act 2006, Section 5 (Preparation of terrorist acts), namely a plot to murder two Members of Parliament, one being Rosie Cooper MP and the other Amber Rudd MP, the then Home Secretary. I was also arrested under Terrorism Act 2000, Section 11 (Membership), as I was suspected of maintaining membership of the proscribed organisation National Action. Finally, I was informed I also came under Terrorism Act 2000, Section 15 (Funding), for allegedly funding National Action.

I was then driven to Manchester from Liverpool were the NWCTU headquarters are situated, to a police station. This station was like nothing I had seen before. I have been arrested a few times for political activism, but in this station there were very few electronics allowed, and everything to be recorded was handwritten. This was the case for the police and my legal representation during my stay there.

After a few hours of being there it became clear that I wasn’t the only former member of National Action being held. There were six of us all being held on the same potential charges. The others were Garron Helm, Chris Lythgoe, Matthew Hankinson, Michal Trubini, and Jack Renshaw. Over the next three days, the police interviewed all of us at length. I was interviewed four times over the three day period, at the end of which I was bailed, as were all others except for Renshaw who was then on remand and was being held at HMP Preston. He had been remanded in July 2017 in relation to the same matters that myself and the others were arrested for in September 2017. I believe there were a total of eleven arrests that day across the country, and among those arrested were former National Action leaders Ben Raymond and Alex Davies. I was bailed on Friday 29^th September 2017 for 28 days and I was given a date of the 26^th October 2017 to answer bail back in Manchester at the TACT suite as it is known (Terrorism Act Suite). All of those arrested went through the same process.

At this point the allegations being investigated carried a life sentence. To spend those four weeks on bail with that threat looming over you was insane. For me, it was one of the worst parts of the whole two year charade. In the space of one week I had gone from working in a respectable professional career in construction management to being destitute and facing a life sentence.

When the 26^th October eventually arrived, I travelled to Manchester to answer bail. I thought at the very least I would be charged with membership, because I believed the entire affair was a message being sent by the State. The supposed plots to murder MPs seemed so outrageous and beyond the pale that I didn’t see how they could ever possibly charge me with those counts. In the end, I handed myself into the TACT Suite not knowing what I was to be charged with, and was completely unaware that I would not be a free man again for another 18 months. I was taken to the custody suite by two detective constables where I was then charged by the lead officer in the case with one count under Section 11 of the Terrorism Act —  Membership of National Action post-proscription. The charge carried a maximum of ten years imprisonment. To be honest, it was a relief to be charged with the membership count as its maximum sentence was much shorter than the life sentence that was running through my head during those 28 days on bail.

In the early hours of the morning, those of us who were charged were driven down to Westminster Magistrates Court in London in a police convoy, to appear before the Chief Magistrate. It was the morning of 27^th October 2017. We set off from Manchester, at around 4:30am, on what I can only describe as the journey from hell. The police transport was what I can only call an icebox – it was the coldest most cramped journey I have ever taken. I was refused my jacket to stay warm by the officers of NWCTU. Upon the hearing being completed at Westminster, all of us were remanded into high security prisons and the case was transferred to the Old Bailey to be heard one week later on the 3^rd November.

2. One of the truly standout incidents from reports of your most recent trial was your response to being asked by a prosecution lawyer whether you agree with “The 14 Words.” You responded by asking “Am I on trial for my views?” It’s long been my impression that prosecutions involving ethno-nationalists are often based on a strategy designed to demonise them as individuals rather than present evidence of actual criminal conduct. Would you agree that the “terrorism” case against you amounted to little more than accusations that you are a “racist”?

I remember this clearly. It was during the second trial which began on the 18^th February 2019, and finished on the 2^nd April 2019. I was being cross-examined by Duncan Atkinson QC, the lead prosecution barrister. I was being presented by him and his team as one of two figures in charge of forming the ideology of National Action (the other was its leader). I was also being presented as the man in charge of legal matters, this notion was based on an organisational diagram which had been produced pre-ban.

The basis of the prosecution case was that “mind-set” somehow was enough to prove membership. They relied on this as a strategy due to a lack of real evidence that pointed to, and directly proved, the offence of membership post-proscription. The majority of the prosecution case throughout both show trials was spent on lawful pre-proscription material. What they were trying do by using pre-proscription material was to build up prejudice in the hope that the jury would hate, or at the very least take a dislike to, us the defendants.

When I pressed Duncan Atkinson QC by asking him “Am I on trial for my views?” he could say nothing to me. I remember that, during the first trial, Lord Justice Jay, the presiding judge, said explicitly that the defendants are not on trial for their views and that they are fully entitled to hold whatever beliefs they wished. However, it was almost as if they gave with one hand and took with the other —  a double edged sword of sorts. The prosecution did attempt to use my views against me, and with the judge’s permission. It was the same during the second trial, only on this occasion the judge and prosecution were not so clear, and had failed to say make it clear to the jury that we were not on trial for our views – the lines had been blurred.

When Duncan Atkinson began to lose his grip on his strategy he resorted to accusing me of being a racist, anti-Semite and a homophobe – the usual slurs. To which I replied to him “Slurs! Is that all you have!” To me, the exchange summed up the whole case to me. Those words are irrelevant and hold no power.

Which brings me back to your question. Yes, I do believe that the case against me amounted to nothing more than accusations of being racist. The case was built up of mainly prejudicial pre-proscription material which was footage from demonstrations, fly-postering and speeches from people like myself, Ben Raymond, Alex Davies etc.

Another standout moment which hadn’t been reported, and which stunned me, was at the very end of the retrial. The jury at this time had been out for about a week considering their verdicts when the judge, Lady Justice McGowan, insidiously informed them that terrorism was like theft. She said to the jury that, like theft, there are different levels of terrorism, ranging from a lower end to a more extreme version like bank robbery. She equated our trial with shoplifting. It felt like she was encouraging the jury to find us guilty by creating some kind of petty space in their judgment to still find us guilty of terrorism despite the lack of evidence.

3. You’ve mentioned to me that The Occidental Observer, in particular an article I wrote on the National Action arrests, featured during your trial. Can you explain how your sharing of my article on social media was employed by the prosecution in an attempt to prove your guilt?

The article was titled “National Action, Islam, and Britain’s Lamentable Terrorism Priorities.” I shared the article on my personal social media as it was the only article I had seen that had spoken out against the stupidity of proscribing National Action in December 2016 as a “terrorist” organisation. I remember the build-up you mentioned in the article of some non-existent threat from the Right and then suddenly the terrorist who set off a failed explosion on the London Underground. You argument was basically that the real terrorist threat remains from the Islamists and not the dreamt-up threat of the Right which exists only in the minds of the paranoid leftists who occupy many positions of influence and power.

I understand that, for many, National Action was a divisive political organisation. It was meant to be. Accusations of racist, anti-Semite etc. were of no concern as they’re meaningless accusations which serve as nothing but thought-stopping clichés. However, the banning of National Action as a terrorist organisation was arguably a knee-jerk reaction by a nervous administration. Their wilful intent to change or destroy nation states and their complicit criminal responsibility in the effects of multiculturalism on our people, are embedded, I believe, in the depths of their consciousness as deep-seated guilt.

Your article readdressed the balance, and the prosecution tried to use my reason for sharing the article as evidence of me supposedly lending support to the now non-existent banned organisation. Atkinson QC tried to twist as best he could that it was proof that I was a member post-proscription due to their allegation that I was supporting it. As I stood on the stand and answered his questions, I explained to the jury that the article redresses the balance between the supposed threat from the Right that the state and media are trying to engineer, and the real threat from Islamist terrorists. As I stood on the stand, I encouraged the jury to read the article. I asked them directly to read it, and my barrister kindly had the article in its entirety entered into evidence, which allowed them to consider it during their deliberations. I feel it helped me in the end.

4. I sometimes feel that many individuals on the dissident Right don’t quite understand just how difficult things are in European countries where free speech is not an inalienable right. This bleeds into a related issue where perhaps American dissidents are less experienced with the threat of arrest and long prison sentences for merely disseminating propaganda. In my perspective, the proscribing of National Action was followed by a period of shock, fear, and disbelief, and, even aside from the legal ban of the organisation and support for it, there seemed to be a great reluctance to discuss the group, the ban, and the arrests. Did you at any stage feel disappointed or abandoned by “the movement”?

This is a good question, and one I will answer unapologetically. I often feel that people are all up for the “fight” until the time arrives to fight the actual fight – obviously my use of the term “fight” is metaphorical. Since my release, I have become aware of people who have been quick to comment on what has happened, people who know nothing of the facts of the case. What they do know comes from what has been chosen by the mainstream media outlets to be published, the very same outlets who lie in the same bed with Hope Not Hate. The weird thing about court cases is that rarely is the full and accurate story told. The jury does not see, or hear, all the evidence involved. My legal team are of the belief that the facts of my case and its origins merit criminal charges for those involved in bringing it to the courts. Those involved are Hope Not Hate and, obviously, the Police. My QC and his junior told me that the evidence against me was “shite,” and that I should never have even been charged never mind remanded. This was the same for Crispin Aylett QC, the guy who took [Hope Not Hate informant] Robbie Mullen apart on the stand during that first trial. They believed that the case against all of us was a charade.

People on the Right seemed oblivious to the ramifications of what the proscription order placed in December 2016 actually meant. Jewish lobby groups, such as the Campaign Against Antisemitism, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, and especially Hope Not Hate who provided a dossier to the government which should have been made available to the defence teams during both trials (but was withheld), all had a hand in the banning of National Action. As an example of how the ban was designed as a message to the whole of the Right, even Tommy Robinson applauded the ban. Where is he now? I remember watching him on Sky News speak out in support of it and I thought to myself then that he is either stupid or had ulterior motives.

Did we feel disappointed or abandoned by the supposed “movement”? Yes. In some quarters there was support. I received some letters and cards of support whilst inside, which was great and I am thankful for those who wrote to me. But support of another kind was needed. National Action up until the ban was a small group made up of 18 to 35 year olds. It wasn’t a group with deep pockets lined with gold, nor did it have experienced leadership. It was a movement of youth, created for, and led by, this youth. It was driven by nothing more than sheer conviction. In my opinion, the ban, and the subsequent arrests during the 2017/18 political witch-hunt could be questioned without having to support or endorse the divisive message the group put out. It seemed very few were willing to be vocal -which is disappointing as the metaphorical ban-hammer has been swung in the direction of the Right, as a whole, in the months and years since.

5. Much of the panic around National Action and the largely imagined phenomenon of “right wing terrorism,” both before and after the banning of the group, originated with leftist organisations, especially Hope Not Hate. Is there any evidence of Hope Not Hate collusion with the authorities during your trials, or their involvement in any part of the attempt to prosecute and convict you?

That organisation was central to the whole case against me and the others. Without HnH there would be no case. I would never have been remanded and held in custody for those eighteen months and I would never have had to go through two, long drawn out, trials in the Old Bailey. The excuse of the police was that they were given evidence and had to act upon it. But it appeared they, the Counter Terrorism Unit, were under undue political interference to bring the case to court.

Following the banning of NA, it appears that some people continued to meet, as friends. People tend to maintain friendships with those who share the same interests. It’s natural. However, by 2017 HnH had a mole inside a group of friends who used to be members of pre-ban National Action. Robbie Mullen was this mole, and Mullen used to be the regional organiser for what was National Action in the North West. The evidence shows that Mullen was playing people off one another as late as July 2017. His efforts were not working and he himself described the group of friends, supposedly a clandestine continuation of National Action, as like “an old man’s drinking club” with “not much going for it.”

At the end of April 2017, Mullen approached Hope Not Hate via email, alleging that NA continued to exist and that he was a current member. He said in court that it (“NA”) had discarded all of the symbolism of NA and was “going it alone” as a nameless entity. HnH activist Matthew Collins has since said that they began to publish articles on their website in the hope the media would pick them up — presumably in order to generate paranoia among former members.

Former NA member Christopher Lythgoe had, post-ban, taken out a private gym for himself in Warrington and that this, according to Mullen, was supposedly “NA” headquarters. I’d like to add that Michal Trubini, who was found not-guilty with me in April 2019, was the name on the lease for the property that the gym was situated in. There wasn’t a single shred of political literature or items found in that gym when the police searched it in September 2017.

Mullen had supposedly expressed to HnH that he wanted out of NA, but that he couldn’t leave because he was too embedded within NA and feared for his safety. HnH later said through Matthew Collins that they were slowly withdrawing him from the group. However, they contradicted this statement through Collins, their “Head of Intelligence,” stating that they persuaded Mullen to remain in the group to work as an informant for HnH, and that Collins would be his “handler.”

Legally speaking, this was arguably a highly questionable move for HnH. At the first instance of anybody becoming aware of terrorist activity, we are all duty bound to report it to the police. The security services are covered by legislation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which governs how they operate informants, but Mullen was nothing more than a covert human intelligence source for an anti-fascist charity. As far as I am aware, Hope Not Hate were not covered by any legislation during their handling of Mullen.

HnH were publishing articles from Mullen’s information during 2017, most of them articles alleging that NA continued to be in operation. Some of these were picked up by the mainstream news outlets. One of the articles included allegations against me, labelling me a member of NA post-ban, and alleging I was a drug dealer. In the days leading up to the arrests I began pre-legal action against HnH with a Defamation Notice under Section 5 Defamation Act 2013. Hope Not Hate later removed this particular article because none of it was true.

Hope Not Hate leader Nick Lowles called me on the Friday (22^nd September 2017) before I was arrested. Mullen had passed him my personal mobile number. After I had served the Defamation Notice on Hope Not Hate, Lowles responded to me directly via email saying that he would not remove the article and that in fact the notice I served had spurred them on to write even more about me. I then sought further legal advice and was advised to put them on notice of harassment, which I did. Lowles ignored this notice of harassment when he called me. During this period, between 21/09/17 and 25/09/17, when I served them with the Defamation Notice, Hope Not Hate had me dismissed from my employment. I am, or rather was, a professional within the construction industry.

There are other highly questionable aspects to the involvement of Hope Not Hate in their handling of Mullen, but I can’t go into them in detail in this interview without potentially damaging future legal action by my team against the organisation. I think it’s sufficient to mention that at, according to Collins himself, writing for The Independent, at least one detective sergeant told Hope Not Hate representatives: “You’ve broken the law under the Terrorism Act.” It is totally beyond me how a supposed charity – which alternates between two legal entities: a limited company and its charity status as and when it suits itself – can be allowed to run informants and investigations whilst not being covered by any regulation.

It’s interesting that Counter Terrorism Police failed to seize Hope Not Hate computers, and that while investigations and trials were ongoing, as Collins admits, Hope Not Hate “removed the entire history of [National Action] from our servers.” Could their electronic equipment have contained vital material evidence that should have been served during the investigation? There was, at one point, a letter sent by one of the investigating officers to Nick Lowles directly, asking him to be forthcoming with Hope Not Hate’s serving of evidence. They were being anything but forthcoming with it, and by the admission of Collins himself they “took legal opinion” in an effort to avoid sharing sources.

Before I finish this question, I want to reiterate that Mullen, on the 18^th June 2018, during the first trial, was questioned about why, during July 2017 in a conversation online between him and Matthew Hankinson, he described what he was alleging as the continuation of National Action as: “It’s honestly like we’ve become a social club here with not much going for it.”

6. 6. During your trial you mentioned a desire to get on with your life by moving on with your career and settling down with a partner. How damaging has the last 18 months been to your life and relationships?

In the wake of the ban during 2017 I did try to move away from political activism. I had no choice but to do so. I was a part of a group which was radical, which was uncompromising in its message, and which was persistent. You effectively lead a double life. I was aware I was on the Police’s radar because I had a visit from Special Branch officers and then a month or so later the ban happened. The sane logical choice is to step back and breathe. The proscription of National Action was the death of National Action.

I was trying to fit into mainstream society. I had my career, and at the same time I was an activist in a high-profile divisive political group. To then be proscribed as a terrorist organisation, to be outlawed, is a game changer – the stakes rise due to the risks. So, the decision was taken to kill off National Action upon the ban coming into force on the 16^th December 2016. What use is it if people are in jail? There was a conversation between me, Chris Lythgoe, Ben Raymond, and Alex Davies when ultimately it was decided that we should let the group pass into history. Some have argued the ban was a gross misuse of power by the state. This liberal democratic society, this system, prides itself on individual liberty with those rights enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998. In the minds of some, the ban was a breach of Article 11, Freedom of Expression. In this sense, it could be understood as a Machiavellian move, one that is understandable on some levels, but which has led to people being jailed and convicted as terrorists for remaining friends and, more worryingly, simply for being ethno-nationalists — for believing that their White racial identity is worth something.

Personally, I tried to move on with myself and my professional career, to achieve personal goals and live as much a normal life as possible, to settle down. But that all changed with the arrests and my imprisonment. I’m only now really finding out what the effects of it are. Some relationships have changed with my friends. My family rallied around me and supported me throughout and for that I am grateful beyond which any words can express. The whole charade effected my family in a way I could never have anticipated, with the police arresting me at my sister’s house in front of my two nieces. The resulting mess that followed was hard to take, especially because I was unable to help because I was inside. One of my nieces had to move schools. The very people who I stood up and spoke out in defence of (not that I ever expected anything for doing so) treated the arrests as if they were ISIS-related, and my niece suffered at school as a result. I saw one post on Facebook regarding the arrests not long after I was released on bail with one comment saying “hang them.” It is laughable, but insane at the same time.

For me personally, it does appear to have damaged my career prospects, it has also changed me. I am not the same person who went inside, but that is to be expected I suppose. I am one of the lucky ones. At least I’m out, and relatively free of the terrorism label.

7. Now that you are a free man with no convictions, do you have any recourse to compensation for your imprisonment? Can the State be punished in any way for jailing an innocent man for 18 months, or even be made to apologise?

Considering what I spoke of earlier, the activities of Hope Not Hate which were ignored by the police so the show-trails at the Old Bailey could run unhindered, the State is arguably complicit in allowing Hope Not Hate to effectively act as an arm of the executive branch of government. The fact that a charity, and/or, a limited company, can conduct investigations and run informants in a proscribed terrorist organisation is madness. It should be the role of the Counter Terrorism Police and other bodies created by statute to do such work.

What the State, and Hope Not Hate, expected on the 17^th July 2018, at the end of the first trial, was six convictions and a supposed far-right plot to murder an MP, but what they received instead was a haphazard circus spread over eighteen months and two seven week trials.

On the 18^th July 2018, the night after that first trial ended and the prosecution decided to proceed with a retrial against myself, Trubini, and Renshaw for membership, I was in my cell when I flicked over to Channel 4. There was a Dispatches TV special on about the National Action trials and the six of us who were charged. The show was a rehash of material already present in the mainstream media, and appeared watered down to the point were it lacked any punch. Like the case itself, it had no substance.

The State allowed all of this to continue. They treated Hope Not Hate as if they were an off-limits quasi-intelligence organisation rather than a Jewish-founded, money-chasing, propaganda factory.

The State should apologise, but it hasn’t. It has undermined the rule of law. The State has allowed a questionable charity to act as a police force with impunity. The police involved in my case had to abide by the Terrorism Act 2000/2006, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, to ensure their investigation was above board and that evidence was gathered in accordance with the law to ensure a fair trial. Hope Not Hate were not covered by statute to undertake any sort of investigation of a criminal nature. The State should apologise at the very least for its recklessness. As for Hope Not Hate, I believe that organisation should have its charity status revoked, and for anyone proven to have broken the law to be put before the courts. Hope Not Hate are not above the law. The best way some balance of justice can be achieved is if people spread information of their activities and demand they be held to account like the rest us would be in the same circumstances.

8. It strikes me that a young generation of White racial activists has been terrorised and legally bludgeoned into dispersal, submission, or imprisonment. What are the prospects for young Whites in Britain who don’t want to see their country slide further into demographic and cultural decline? Can they recover from the events of the last few years? Is there any grounds for optimism?

Repression of ethno-nationalism will get worse, I fear. The erratic Theresa May, and her willing stooges such as Amber Rudd, as well as idiots in the Labour party such as Yvette Cooper and Ruth Smeeth (who have all had their hand in having me and others jailed as political prisoners) – their only strength is a reliance on a worldview underpinned by the pseudo-philosophy of postmodernism and its variants such as post-structuralism whereby they try to control public discourse. They warp the meanings of words, and deny all elements of truth and knowledge in favour of a subjective worldview that equates to chaos for the rest of us.

Liberal Democracies have had their day, the postmodernists who believe that Liberal Democracy is the pinnacle of human development are wrong, just as Hegel was wrong in believing that Prussia in the 19th century was as good as it gets. The nation-state hating Capitalists and Marxists are intent on flooding us with non-Whites. It is a targeted attack on the very fabric of our being. Many will know Barbara Spectre’s infamous words. Herbert Marcuse is another, with his advocacy for a revolutionary potential in the Third World to rise up and destroy the metropolis of Europe. Other subversives, such as George Soros and the many other interests he represents, are intent on annihilating Europe as a White continent.

As this multiracial plot thickens, and becomes ever more normalised to the sleeping masses, I suspect that the powers that be will wish to stamp out dissent wherever and whenever they see it. The banning of NA was just the beginning of wider clampdown, but when times get hard it is disastrous to back down. Risk is all around us, and it must be calculated.

I will always be optimistic for the future because we have to believe that we can save our society. Our lands will always will be ours. That claim to soil is enshrined by the blood of our ancestors – blood which soaked the soil and made it ours.

The more dissident Right however must professionalise itself and be ready for when the pendulum swings further in our direction. Street demonstrations and marches are all very well and good, but Britain in particular has never really responded well to that sort of thing. Power currently lies in the democratic process and that is where the battle for victory lies. The dissident ethno-nationalist Right must enter the democratic process and fight tooth and nail for every vote. The other, more revolutionary, method has been tried. The State is bigger than any one group and it will win that battle. The strategy I feel drawn to is conviction politics. Of course, many figures in the democratic process will pander to supposed public opinion gathered from polls or to the requests of a rich benefactor. Those weak enough to sell out the greater good by compromising their values are not worthy. To hell with them. There is one issue that matters, and one that is on the tip of the tongues of most White peoples: non-White immigration. We must sell a version of the future that favours the nuclear family and an ethnically homogenous nation. Polemics serve a purpose but we are not selling a critique.

9. Do you have any advice for those who might find themselves in a similar situation to the one you have faced?

The situation I faced, along with three others who were found not guilty of membership on the 2nd April 2019 at the Old Bailey, was unique. We spent 18 months on remand and went through two public show trials. We were held in high security prisons and were treated like dogs during long periods. Food was denied. My medication (insulin) was withheld by the prison healthcare team. I’m a Type 1 Diabetic and it was stopped without explanation and I went without. This was during the last trial. Others were stripped of all clothing and were placed on the ‘E’ list – the escapee list – which meant that he was stripped of all dignity and whatever little he had left of his individual liberty, was gone. He was then forced to wear a blue and yellow prison tracksuit, and if he refused to do so he wouldn’t be allowed out of his cell. He would not be allowed to go to court whilst on trial.

There were countless other incidents. I had my cell searched and items removed while I wasn’t present, which is against prison rules. I had evidence interfered with, and at one point it was lost in its entirety, which included all my notes on the evidence I had combed through while behind my cell door at night. This affected my defence and how I was on the stand during the first trial in June 2018.

During 2018, Garron Helm and I were transferred suddenly to HMP Belmarsh. We were pulled to one side first thing the next morning and were taken into a room and told by a Custodial Manager and a Senior Officer that there was a serious risk to our lives and that we were being watched. He told us to trust nobody, including other prison officers. He then said “There are more ISIS here than you.” There were two of us, two of our other co-defendants were on the High Security Unit inside Belmarsh which meant we had to stay on the ordinary wing. I remember the Custody Manager saying that the last thing he wanted and needed was National Action and ISIS fighting inside the prison. We laughed at the irony of it all.

You would think most people would be terrified of things like this, and I can tell you it is not nice and we were worried. You would have to be an idiot to not be worried. But in the moments when you need it most, you find the strength to plough on. You dig deep. If you’re facing prison you must remain calm and remain in control of yourself. A sense of humour is a must. On the days during the first trial, Garron and I would travel together from South East London, where we were in jail, to the Old Bailey in Central London. Sometimes that journey would take an hour and sometimes two, even three hours. What kept us going was that we always managed to laugh. We were two Scousers brought up on rough council estates being paraded as terrorists before the world. The whole thing, to us, was a joke. I remember sitting in the courtroom half expecting Benny Hill to come running into the courtroom with his theme tune blaring.

In all seriousness though, you must “man up” and deal with the situation at hand. Inside a prison the rules are different. It is another world entirely. Keep your mind active by reading, or working within the confines of the prison. Keep your body healthy by training. Train in the gym. Shadow box in your cell. Make acquaintances in there but trust nobody. Build yourself up and do not let anybody walk over you.

10. Is there any way our readers can support you as an individual in any efforts you might undertake to seek redress from the State?

The story needs telling. Our institutions in this country will ignore wrongdoings to save face. Yet this is supposedly a democracy where the people can hold institutions ,and those who lead them, to account. So let’s uphold that notion and hold them to account.

The Charity Commission can be forced into opening an investigation into Hope Not Hate by people requesting that they do so. They can be reported to the Charity Commission online or by post. Spreading knowledge of their crimes anywhere and everywhere would be extremely helpful. The Commission cannot ignore information published in the public arena.

There are people on Twitter whistleblowing the evidence from the trials into the public arena, especially as it relates to Hope Not Hate, as well as perverting the course of justice.

Should Hope Not Hate be investigated by the Charity Commission, and should they have their charity status removed, it would serve a purpose that would aid the Right as a whole for years to come. The Hope Not Hate pseudo-charity has already had one Charity Commission investigation opened up during the days it was known as Searchlight Educational Trust in 2002. Searchlight Education Trust changed its name to Hope Not Hate Charitable Trust.

The Police wrongdoings can be held to account through Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services for ignoring Hope Not Hate’s activities, for malicious prosecution, false imprisonment. Any help, in terms of contacting and lobbying the relevant authorities, would be greatly appreciated.