An alleged far-right terrorist who named his baby son after Hitler has told a jury it was not his goal to raise a “miniature Nazi”.
Adam Thomas, who is accused of being a member of banned group National Action, said he had “no concerns” about bringing his child up around swastikas and Ku Klux Klan robes.
But the 22-year-old self-confessed racist admitted that being involved in far right activism and politics “can devastate your life”, adding he had made “mistakes”.
Thomas is on trial at Birmingham Crown Court alongside his partner, Claudia Patatas, 38, both of Waltham Gardens, Banbury, Oxfordshire, accused of being members of the organisation, which was banned in December 2016.
A third person, co-defendant Daniel Bogunovic, 27, of Crown Hills Rise, Leicester, is also in the dock facing the same membership charge.
When officers searched the couple’s address they found an arsenal of weaponry, including two machetes, crossbows and an axe, together with Nazi and Ku Klux Klan flags and pendants associated with National Action.
The group was banned by then Home Secretary Amber Rudd, who described it as a “racist, antisemitic and homophobic organisation, which stirs up hatred”.
The prosecution is arguing that after the ban former members, including the trio on trial, took the organisation underground and “shed one skin for another” re-branding it as the “TripleK Mafia”.
Under cross-examination in the fourth week of his trial, Thomas was repeatedly asked by prosecuting barrister Barnaby Jameson QC whether in naming his son “Adolf”, he was “looking to raise a miniature Nazi”.
Jameson also referred to to a photo of Thomas and Patatas holding their baby with a swastika flag.
Former Amazon security guard Thomas replied: “Claudia did not have any concerns about a Nazi flag being so close to our child.
“But getting involved in the far right can devastate your life, it has cost me the first year of my child’s life, my house, my job – if I could turn back the clock I would.”
Thomas also described Thomas Mair, who murdered Labour MP Jo Cox, as “an absolute idiot” who had achieved “nothing” through the killing.
Wearing a blue pinstripe suit and sporting crew-cut hair, Thomas appeared uncomfortable in the witness box when quizzed about remarks made in a private Telegram chat group on April 4, 2017, in which he and others, including Patatas, were talking.
The discussion turned to a concert by the rapper Stormzy, prompting Patatas to allegedly have said: “I would happily tie them all together and set them on fire.
Another member in the group then said: “A dead n****r necklace?”, prompting Patatas into replying: “Ha.”
Mr Jameson asked Thomas: “Who is Stormzy? What colour is he?”
Thomas replied: “He’s a rapper. He’s black.”
Reading out Patatas’ comment, Mr Jameson asked: “Who is she referring to?”
Thomas replied: “Claudia wouldn’t do that though, she wouldn’t harm a fly.”
Jameson said then told the jury the practice of “necklacing” was associated with race violence and had come from South Africa, where a “flaming tyre” was placed around a black person’s neck.
He asked Thomas: “I suggest to that you and Miss Patatas both had something in common – a shared hatred of people you both referred to as ‘n****rs’.”
Thomas replied: “It’s not a crime. I’d like to know where we are going with this because so far, we haven’t seen a single piece of evidence of any criminal activity.”
Referring to other remarks within the private chat group, he described it as all as “trolling” designed to shock, including remarks about “killing gays”.
Thomas said: “It’s just a sick joke isn’t it.
“I wouldn’t like to see that kind of violence or that kind of suffering ever carried out.”
Asked whether he was a Holocaust denier, he replied it was “a complicated matter”.
He added: “I don’t want to align myself with either side, it’s not something I want to think about.”
Jameson, opening the case earlier this month, said: “They were fanatical, highly motivated, energetic, closely-linked and mobile.
“And they all had, we say, a similar interest in ethnic cleansing, with violence if necessary, and the evidence in this case, we say, speaks for itself.”
The trial continues.