Fascist and PA activist Kris ‘Charlie Big Potatoes’ Kearney imprisoned for nearly five years

In the last twenty-four hours, another far-right extremist has been jailed – this time because he thought it appropriate to distribute the manifestos of terrorist groups online.

Kristofer Kearney

Kristofer Thomas Kearney, 38, who is probably better known within the far-right community as “Charlie Big Potatoes” and, until yesterday had an active Telegram account, pleaded guilty in March to two offences of disseminating terrorist publications.

The media are reporting that he is believed to be the first member of far-right group Patriotic Alternative to be convicted of terrorist offences, although it must be mentioned the group are not averse to working alongside those who have, or are later convicted of criminal offences. Last month, James Allchurch — who allegedly suggested a politician’s daughter should be raped was convicted of 10 of 15 counts of distributing material intended to stir up racial hatred via his online radio station, Radio Albion. The material included references to hanging black and Jewish people. Following his conviction PA  offered him their full support and condemned “draconian restrictions on freedom of speech”. Additionally, PA Talk (their nasty ultra-nationalist podcast) previously were happy to broadcast an interview with the far-right extremist and convicted criminal, Blair Cottrell who, among his many ‘achievements’ can boast how he is the former leader of the white supremacist group, the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

As for Kearney, the offences relate to two Telegram posts that he distributed on January 23 and March 8, all in  2021. These posts disseminated dozens of documents encouraging extreme right-wing terror attacks, including the manifestos of Christchurch mosque killer Brenton Tarrant and Anders Breivik, who murdered 77 people in Norway. Alongside this, he unashamedly distributed two other far-right manifestos related to Texas Walmart mass killer Patrick Crusius and John Earnest, who killed a Jewish woman and injured three others attending a California synagogue in 2019.

The court heard previously that Kearney told fellow Telegram users Adolf Hitler “showed people the way” and “did nothing wrong” as he shared posts encouraging violence against Jews and Muslims. He also shared a “Punish a Muslim Day” letter, in which readers were encouraged to “butcher a Muslim” for 500 points, remove a woman’s headscarf for 25 points and bomb a mosque for 1,000 points, it has been said.

During 2021, Kearney also posted a numbered list and links to 89 extreme right-wing documents.

An image of Kearney with a National Action flag was also shown to the court, which the defendant said was taken at an anti-grooming gang rally in  Darlington. Although he denied membership, he is known to have been an active member of the neo-Nazi group until a week before it was proscribed.

Kearns seen saluting with members of National Action

In his lacklustre defence, the self-described British fascist said that he was “horrified” to have shared videos which encouraged violence and described some of the phrases used on his channel as little more than a “rallying cry” for people to get involved in community groups. Instead, he argued they were not aimed at promoting violence and denied that his intention was to prompt anyone who saw the material he posted to then go on to seriously injure people or damage property – this is despite that on one occasion alone, he called for people to ‘Butcher a Muslim’.

Kearney told the court the point of setting up his channel was to “spread the right-wing and the fascist world view”.

At the Old Bailey, the court heard how material on Kearney’s Telegram profile did, in fact, depict or encourage violence in the battle against “white genocide”. After a rather long and somewhat tedious trial, Judge Richard Marks KC jailed Kearney for four years and eight months with an extended licence period of two years after finding the defendant ‘legally dangerous’. A notification requirement for a period of 10 years was also ordered.

The judge determined at an earlier trial of issue that Kearney shared the posts both recklessly and with the intention of encouraging terrorism, accepting that he may not have familiarised himself with all of the postings but rejecting the claim that he was completely ignorant of any material involving violence. He told Kearney on Friday:

“In this country, we have lived for many years in a multicultural society which most people regard as being enriching … Right-thinking members of any society regard tolerance, kindness, understanding and inclusivity to everyone regardless of their background as being of absolutely fundamental importance … Much of the material that you posted entirely negates those values and is extreme, vile, inflammatory, divisive and deeply offensive … Whilst I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that your entire agenda and intention was not throughout to encourage acts of terrorism, I conclude from the nature, extent and volume of the material posted that such was your fanaticism in achieving your state of objectives that you were prepared and intended at least in part for that to happen if that is what it took.”

The defendant, who was part of the Army’s parachute regiment for two years, regularly featured on right-wing podcasts called Patriotic Talk and The Absolute State of Britain, and had set up a channel called Fascist Fitness to hand out exercise and fitness tips.

As a result of his incarceration PA now have a vacancy for a new “Head of Fitness” – racists, hooligan and thugs are welcome to send their CV in to Mark Collett, but applicants are advised to use short sentences and single syllable words. Having said this, with the recent splintering of PA and the creation of the new Homeland Party, applicants may wish to consider whether it is worth taking a job with an organisation that will struggle to see out the rest of the year.

Will the AV vote be a non-event?

This post was written by Reuben Bard-Rosenberg

In a couple of months we will be taking a vote on the most basic aspect of our democracy – the way in which we elect our government. Yet one could be forgiven, over the past few days, for forgetting that such politically important matters were at stake. First we had the much trumpeted revelation from the no to AV campaign that reform will cost £250 million (!).

The figures themselves were rather suspect, but regardless of that many rightly considered the whole argument to be ridiculous. As one person tweeted “egyptians abandon revolution, decide democracy is too expensive.” The idea that we should keep the same undemocratic voting system the same simply to save a a figure that amounts to less than 0.05 % of annual government spending, is pretty hard to sensibly defend.

At the same time, supporters of AV are also stoically resisting the urge to focus on any important political principals. The headline statement from Nick Clegg yesterday was that FPTP allowed MP’s to abuse the expenses system.

”When a person is corrupt, they should be punished” Clegg said. “When a system makes corruption more likely, it should be changed.”

If there were an offline equivalent to Godwin’s Law, it would almost certainly refer to the tendency of all politicians to invoke The Expenses Scandal. Though last year’s revelations were distasteful, they hardly demonstrated a level of corruption sufficient materially effect our public services or a form of corruption that would imperil our democracy (i.e. bribes for votes).

In the cold light of day the issue seems miniscule compared with mass unemployment, the possible double-dip recession on our door step, or indeed the real democratic deficit inherent in first past the post. Yet expenses have become a kind of lowest common denominator argument that commentators can use in place of politics.

Indeed the idea of democracy has been curiously absent in the campaign for AV. The term barely appears on the website of major pro-av pressure group Take Back Parliament, who instead have chosen the amorphous slogan of “yes to fairer votes” (as though the already vague concept of fairness hasn’t been stretched beyond recognition by the rhetoric of the current government).

This watered down contest might, in part, reflect the political class’ low opinion of the people. Yet more fundamentally, it reflects the nature of the proposals that we are voting on. Unlike the great constitutional reforms of the 19th and early 20th century, and in contrast to proportional representation, there has never been any desire outside parliament for the Alternative Vote.
The proposals emerged almost wholly from the Westminster village. And this is because they do not represent the application of an clear principles to our political system.

A system that equates the first preferences of some with the least objectionable options of others, and which – on a fairly arbitrary basis – counts the second preferences of some but not others, cannot, unproblematically, wrap itself in the flag of democracy.

Equally the temptation to see AV as a stepping stone to a genuinely proportional system is misplaced. As Andy Newman explains, the AV system is best seen as a variant of of First Past the Post. As Jim Jepps, of the Daily Maybe put it to me, one of the underlying principles of Proportional Representation is that minority opinions ought to be represented in parliament. AV in fact does the polar opposite, ensuring that nobody can be represented unless they win over 50% support in a given constituency.

Indeed, it is difficult to see what great criteria AV meets, aside from introducing a bias towards moderates – who are most likely to be people’s least bad option – and therefore making the electoral system more amenable to the Lib Dems. At the same time, FPTP, a residue of the pre-democratic age, remains fairly indefensible in contemporary political language.

So expect to see more of the rubbish, more arguments about how much money reform will cost more references to the expenses scandal, more shallow and patronising rhetoric about how “tribal” and dinosaur-like the opponents of AV are. But just remember, it’s not because the people are stupid. It’s because the proposals before us fundamentally miss the point.