FWIW I've read a fair bit about Naziism in an attempt to understand how such a political movement could emerge, thrive and nearly come out on top and surprisingly it is very difficult to come up with a brief summary of what defines how monstrous it was. To brand it a "hate group" won't do, if you're talking about the original Nazis. As you get nearer to an understanding of the historical truth, it becomes clear that it was far more complex and far more disturbing than that. But that said, it's clear that your comment refers to a grouping in modern Britain and when dealing with the ill-educated, rather moronic people involved, it's an unsuitable tag which nonetheless serves a purpose.
I tend to think that wearing a couple of pro-Nazi tattoos (cryptic or clear) is more an indicator of inarticulate cluelessness than anything else. I doubt very much if the average "Nazi" in the UK would be able to tell you anything about what Hitler stood for or the horrors which his regime involved. I suspect that for them Hitler is little more than a convenient symbol or brand which carries the added attraction (for them) that any hint of support for him and his movement is regarded as being very naughty indeed and we all know that a lot of young, agressive men love being thought of as bad boys.
Ultimately in poltical terms, they are a bit of a joke and I cannot imagine the circumstances in which the general public will ever come to take them seriously. Although clearly it is no joke if you are a black bloke who is unfortunate enough to get a kicking from them. What they probably need is resocialising as opposed to ostracising.
The bloke in question seems to be a good example. He came across as being decent enough, assuming you could get past the dubious aesthetic effect of his facial artwork and assuming that you failed to recognise any of the symbology. The fact that he was friendly to the black bloke makes me think that he may be a little "confused" (to put it kindly). How does he reconcile his instincts as a human being with the ideology which he apparently embraces? It is of course highly unlikely that he understands anything about Nazi ideology (see above).
The whole thing is compounded by the kind of people who froth at the mouth in their "anti-Naziism". It seems to me that at best they are well-meaning but as historically clueless as the people they oppose. At worst they are the equal but opposite of the original Nazis - think SWP.
The conclusion I've come to over the years is that both ends of political extremism are incompatible with a liberal democratic society which spans centre left to centre right. Both extremist roads lead ultimately to death camps or gulags. It really doesn't make much difference if its far right cyanide in your lungs or a far left bullet in the back of your neck that helps you shrug of this mortal coil because they are two sides of the same coin. In moral and ethical terms I can't see any difference between the cancel culture types who prevent academics from speaking and the book-burning brownshirt hordes.
"A plague on both your houses" seems to catch it for me and I suspect for most of the British public. At the moment the hard left is the bigger threat to western democracy than is the hard right because it is in the ascendancy but I've no doubt that the hard right will re-emerge one day but it won't be in the guise of overly tattood, ill-educated young men.
Can you imagine the screening process they'll put potential contestants through now - 'Yes, yes, that's a lovely tatoo of a rose but my great, great,,,,,,,,,,,,,,grandfather was a Plantagenet and we've been caught out once already, NEXT....'Wonder if they'll shoot another series?
Hmm, going by that perhaps I’m closer to being French than I originally thoughtI used to think the French were a bit rude, overly fond of female body hair in the armpit region and a tad garlic fragrant.