News & Latest Insights

Like many, I welcome this recent decision by the UK government to sanction the far-right organisation, Blood & Honour. If you’ve never heard of them, they’ve been around a long time. Just do a little open source research and you’ll see plenty of evidence linking them to extreme right organisations and you might find yourself scratching your head asking why hasn’t this happened much sooner?  There’s been books, documentaries, reports, academic works spanning the movement for decades. This international network continues to promote and operate music events through the European continent which have long been regarded as platforms to push narrative, recruit members and raise funds. So, what has taken the establishment so long to get to this point?

One key factor is the legal framework governing sanctions in the UK. For an organisation to be sanctioned, it must first meet the threshold for proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. This requires clear evidence that the group is involved in terrorism—defined as the use or threat of violence to influence the government or intimidate the public for a political, religious, racial, or ideological cause.

Blood & Honour has historically operated as a loosely organised network promoting neo-Nazi ideology through music, propaganda, and cultural nationalist events, rather than directly orchestrating violent attacks. While abhorrent, these activities may not have initially met the legal threshold for proscription. 

Likewise Combat 18, an extremist right-wing group heavily associated with the B & H movement, has never been proscribed in the UK, although certain sanctions exist over its activities. For example, individuals associated with Combat 18 are prohibited from joining the armed forces, UK government roles, or the police service. This reflects an acknowledgment of the group’s extremist nature, even in the absence of full proscription. It has always been problematic and a bit of a grey area. Their violent activities attributed to hate crime rather than extremism or terrorism. Perhaps at root is our definitions for extremism and terrorism. I am certain that the recent expansion around the UK definition of extremism, driven in part by the pervasiveness of extremist ideologies in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Israel on 7 October last year, would have partly enabled these sanctions to take place. 

The sanctioning of Blood & Honour marks another important step in the UK’s recognition of far-right extremism as a significant threat. Last year, the UK Government became the first to proscribe the highly toxic and influential Terrorgram Network. However, the delay in action underscores broader challenges in countering such groups. Moving forward, authorities must ensure that their approach to terrorism is equitable and based on the threat posed, rather than the ideological motivations of the perpetrators.

Monitoring of far-right networks needs to continue and where necessary must be improved. Enhanced international cooperation, and robust legal frameworks will be essential in closing the gap between the speed of action against different forms of extremism. Addressing these disparities not only strengthens counter-terrorism efforts but also reinforces public confidence in the government’s commitment to tackling all forms of terrorism impartially.