Royally Deserved
My only concern is that Rebekah Dawson, the wife of this character Royal Barnes, now wants to live and quiet life and have his children, apparently.
But what future do any children of this bizarre union have to look forward to given the vile behaviour of their parents up until now?
Not a lot if you ask me.
Couple jailed for YouTube videos glorifying Lee Rigby murder
Royal Barnes and Rebekah Dawson recorded and uploaded videos shortly after the soldier's murder in May 2013
By Press Association
Royal Barnes was jailed after admitting three counts of disseminating a terrorist publication and one of inciting murder. Photograph: Metropolitan police/PA
A couple were jailed on Friday for glorifying the murder of the soldier Lee Rigby in videos posted on YouTube that were "offensive in the extreme". Royal Barnes, 23, and his wife Rebekah Dawson, 22, of Hackney, north-east London, recorded and uploaded three videos shortly after the murder in Woolwich, south-east London, last May.
Barnes was jailed for five years and four months at the Old Bailey after admitting three counts of disseminating a terrorist publication and one of inciting murder. Dawson admitted disseminating a terrorist publication and was jailed for 20 months.
Before sentencing, Judge Brian Barker QC asked Dawson's lawyer to confirm the defendant was the woman in the dock in the full veil.
Earlier this year, Dawson admitted an unrelated charge of witness intimidation, after she waived her right to give evidence in her defence, arguing it was against her religious views to remove her veil.
Barnes has previous convictions for using threatening words or behaviour, and one for assault on a security guard at a mosque. He also has a five-year antisocial behaviour order for taking part in vigilante patrols of east London promoting sharia law, the court was told.
The court heard the first of the three videos was made on the day Rigby was murdered, with Barnes hailing it as a "brilliant" day.
It was edited with graphic images of a man holding a decapitated head, a scene of the Woolwich murder and the Twin Towers, and posted on YouTube the following day.
The second video contained the same edited images and included Dawson ranting about how British troops would be killed in London.
In a follow-up, Barnes mocked the outpouring of public grief, laughing as he drove past floral tributes with Dawson.
Prosecutor Kate Wilkinson said Dawson sent links of the videos to contacts and friends and received some negative comments back.
One friend said to her: "Can you please stop sending me these links. I'm not interested in it."
Another told Dawson: "Be careful with the YouTube stuff." Dawson replied: "My husband took this one down. If they got that they would have arrested. Have you watched it – it was really inciting and almost glorifying. LOL."
In messages between them discussing the videos, Dawson told Barnes: "Babes, someone has reported the laughing video. It has been removed."
Barnes, who knew one of the murderers, Michael Adebowale, also posted on Facebook the offer of a reward for avenging the rape of an Iraqi woman. None of his 500 friends replied.
The post on 12 June 2013 stated: "Any1 who kills an invading soldier in Muslim land I will give them a Vauxhall Astra 3door and money (French British American any kaffir soldier take ur pick)."
Michael Adebolajo, 29, was given a whole-life term and Adebowale, 22, was sentenced to life with a minimum term of 45 years at a hearing last month after being found guilty of Rigby's murder.
Mitigating for Barnes, Naeem Mian said: "There are no ifs, no buts, no maybes, Mr Barnes makes it absolutely clear that these are idiotic acts borne out of breathtaking stupidity."
He said his client was vulnerable to coming under bad influences, having been taken into care at the age of eight and prevented from attending his mother's funeral after she died in custody.
Dawson's lawyer Susan Meek said her client, who had been studying at university, also came under the influence of others and her dreams of becoming a teacher were now in tatters.
She said: "Over the last nine months, her faith and dress has been put under national and international limelight and it has caused her to reflect deeply about her belief and the way she lives her life and her religion.
"There is an understanding from her all she wants now is to live a life quietly, legally, as a wife to her husband and have a family."
The judge, who is Recorder of London, sentenced Barnes to 26 months in jail for each of the three counts relating to the YouTube videos.
Barker said the charge of inciting murder was more serious because it "encouraged others to carry on the war against the west" and kill soldiers.
For this, he handed Barnes five years and four months' imprisonment, all to run concurrently.
Dawson was sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment for each of the first three charges, to run concurrently.
Barker told the couple: "Freedom of speech has long been jealously regarded by the law but with that freedom comes respect and responsibility."
Here's an interesting opinion piece from a veil wearing Muslim woman - Sahar Al Faifi - which appeared in the Independent the other day.
Now unlike Sahar I have no religious beliefs, but I was brought up to believe that religion was essentially a private matter - as opposed to something that to be visited upon (whether they like it or not) other family, friends, co-workers or neighbours.
So the difficulties I have with Sahar's argument is that she wants to set different rules and standards of behaviour - outside her own personal space and inside the communal space she occupies with me (potentially at least) and others who don't share her particular faith.
Now if I turned up at Sahar's front door or her workplace wearing a Klu Kluk Klan hood or a balaclava mask - I wonder what the reaction might be?
None too welcoming, I imagine, so the solution is simple - dress as you want in private and even in public - up to the point that you have to or want to engage with other people - because at that point people should leave their religious baggage at the door.
By SAHAR AL FAIFI
I wear the niqab, let me speak on my own behalf
I welcome a debate, so long as it respects a diverse range of views including that of veiled Muslim women, but don't we have more important things to talk about?
After the recent (and now revoked) decision by Birmingham Metropolitan College to ban the niqab (Muslim-face-veil) and Jeremy Browne MP’s comments, the niqab has once again become a hot topic for many politicians and commentators. There are, however, voices missing in this debate – and I for one think it is imperative for the voices of the face-veiled Muslim womento be heard.
I started wearing the niqab at a the age of 14, although my parents discouraged me. I was motivated by a deep belief that this was the right decision for me and that hasn't changed in the intervening years since.
The common impression that many people have about those that wear the niqab is that we are oppressed, uneducated, passive, kept behind closed doors and not integrated within British society. The terms used in the press often reflect this, as do some politicians statements. Jeremy Browne MP is a case in point with his call for a national debate about whether the state should step in to “protect” young women from having the veil “imposed” on them. Sarah Wollaston MP finds the niqab “deeply offensive”. Enter the Prime Minister and commentators across the political spectrum ready to discuss us.
Allow me to introduce myself. I am a proud Welsh and British citizen, a molecular geneticist by profession and an activist in my spare time. I have formerly been elected as the Wales Chairperson of a national Muslim student organisation and held other leadership roles including working with bodies such as the National Union of Students. I wear the niqab as a personal act of worship, and I deeply believe that it brings me closer to God, the Creator. I find the niqab liberating and dignifying; it gives me a sense of strength. People I engage with judge me for my intellect and action; not necessarily for the way I look or dress. Niqab enables me to be, simply, human.
To understand the niqab it helps to understand the religion behind it. Islam has three simple messages – liberation from worshipping anything but the one God, following in the way of His Prophets including Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, and servitude to the whole of humanity. Islam’s practical acts of liberation are many – from the duty of environmentalism (protecting ‘the Creation’ from the ‘excessiveness’ of humankind) to the imperative of modesty for women and men – one part of which is the face-veil. Indeed, in my view, the authentic reading of Scripture does not deem the niqab as compulsory but highly recommended; crucially, a woman has total freedom of choice to decide what she wears.
Concerns associated with the niqab include “security” and whether it represents an obstacle in the pursuit of justice in court. Islam is not a monolithic religion and therefore Islamic scholars may differ in their jurisprudence but most agree that in particular cases, Muslim women are allowed to take off their veils – though each case should be dealt with individually. Muslim women including myself do not find this a problem.
In principle, I welcome the call for a national debate– so long as it respects a diverse range of views including that of veiled Muslim women. However, my work in community-organising forces me to raise the question of significance and need of it. There are more important issues that are not being tackled – including institutional racism, unemployment, affordable housing and growing inequality.
Perhaps such MPs should rethink their priorities and should not allow the state to interfere the basic individual’s rights to choose, practice and express. We are not living in a state like Saudi Arabia or Iran where the hijab or niqab to some extent are mandated; nor are we living in Turkey or France where militant secularism is deeply rooted, forbidding them. In Britain, public freedom is a part of the fabric of our society. Those public freedoms extend to religious freedoms that give us the right to practice and articulate our religious freedoms and rights. We cannot take this public freedom for granted for the sake of social scares, deep-seated psychological fears, ignorance and fear of the unknown.
The veil-ban and negative prejudices associated with it are old news in the British arena, but what I find new is that we are living in times of remarkable complacency. Comments of anti-Muslim-hatred are not made exclusively by the far-right but by politicians and intellectuals. A widely accepted fear of Islam seems to be fortified, able to justify a sense of collective oppression.
Making such negative comments about face-veiled Muslim women or banning the veil will not enhance integration but rather exclusion, leading to cultural destruction of minorities in the name of equality. Indeed, Muslim women too must raise their heads, speak on behalf of themselves and platforms should be given to them.
Couple jailed for YouTube videos glorifying Lee Rigby murder
Royal Barnes and Rebekah Dawson recorded and uploaded videos shortly after the soldier's murder in May 2013
By Press Association
Royal Barnes was jailed after admitting three counts of disseminating a terrorist publication and one of inciting murder. Photograph: Metropolitan police/PA
A couple were jailed on Friday for glorifying the murder of the soldier Lee Rigby in videos posted on YouTube that were "offensive in the extreme". Royal Barnes, 23, and his wife Rebekah Dawson, 22, of Hackney, north-east London, recorded and uploaded three videos shortly after the murder in Woolwich, south-east London, last May.
Barnes was jailed for five years and four months at the Old Bailey after admitting three counts of disseminating a terrorist publication and one of inciting murder. Dawson admitted disseminating a terrorist publication and was jailed for 20 months.
Before sentencing, Judge Brian Barker QC asked Dawson's lawyer to confirm the defendant was the woman in the dock in the full veil.
Earlier this year, Dawson admitted an unrelated charge of witness intimidation, after she waived her right to give evidence in her defence, arguing it was against her religious views to remove her veil.
Barnes has previous convictions for using threatening words or behaviour, and one for assault on a security guard at a mosque. He also has a five-year antisocial behaviour order for taking part in vigilante patrols of east London promoting sharia law, the court was told.
The court heard the first of the three videos was made on the day Rigby was murdered, with Barnes hailing it as a "brilliant" day.
It was edited with graphic images of a man holding a decapitated head, a scene of the Woolwich murder and the Twin Towers, and posted on YouTube the following day.
The second video contained the same edited images and included Dawson ranting about how British troops would be killed in London.
In a follow-up, Barnes mocked the outpouring of public grief, laughing as he drove past floral tributes with Dawson.
Prosecutor Kate Wilkinson said Dawson sent links of the videos to contacts and friends and received some negative comments back.
One friend said to her: "Can you please stop sending me these links. I'm not interested in it."
Another told Dawson: "Be careful with the YouTube stuff." Dawson replied: "My husband took this one down. If they got that they would have arrested. Have you watched it – it was really inciting and almost glorifying. LOL."
In messages between them discussing the videos, Dawson told Barnes: "Babes, someone has reported the laughing video. It has been removed."
Barnes, who knew one of the murderers, Michael Adebowale, also posted on Facebook the offer of a reward for avenging the rape of an Iraqi woman. None of his 500 friends replied.
The post on 12 June 2013 stated: "Any1 who kills an invading soldier in Muslim land I will give them a Vauxhall Astra 3door and money (French British American any kaffir soldier take ur pick)."
Michael Adebolajo, 29, was given a whole-life term and Adebowale, 22, was sentenced to life with a minimum term of 45 years at a hearing last month after being found guilty of Rigby's murder.
Mitigating for Barnes, Naeem Mian said: "There are no ifs, no buts, no maybes, Mr Barnes makes it absolutely clear that these are idiotic acts borne out of breathtaking stupidity."
He said his client was vulnerable to coming under bad influences, having been taken into care at the age of eight and prevented from attending his mother's funeral after she died in custody.
Dawson's lawyer Susan Meek said her client, who had been studying at university, also came under the influence of others and her dreams of becoming a teacher were now in tatters.
She said: "Over the last nine months, her faith and dress has been put under national and international limelight and it has caused her to reflect deeply about her belief and the way she lives her life and her religion.
"There is an understanding from her all she wants now is to live a life quietly, legally, as a wife to her husband and have a family."
The judge, who is Recorder of London, sentenced Barnes to 26 months in jail for each of the three counts relating to the YouTube videos.
Barker said the charge of inciting murder was more serious because it "encouraged others to carry on the war against the west" and kill soldiers.
For this, he handed Barnes five years and four months' imprisonment, all to run concurrently.
Dawson was sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment for each of the first three charges, to run concurrently.
Barker told the couple: "Freedom of speech has long been jealously regarded by the law but with that freedom comes respect and responsibility."
Veiled Arguments (24 September 2013)
Here's an interesting opinion piece from a veil wearing Muslim woman - Sahar Al Faifi - which appeared in the Independent the other day.
Now unlike Sahar I have no religious beliefs, but I was brought up to believe that religion was essentially a private matter - as opposed to something that to be visited upon (whether they like it or not) other family, friends, co-workers or neighbours.
So the difficulties I have with Sahar's argument is that she wants to set different rules and standards of behaviour - outside her own personal space and inside the communal space she occupies with me (potentially at least) and others who don't share her particular faith.
Now if I turned up at Sahar's front door or her workplace wearing a Klu Kluk Klan hood or a balaclava mask - I wonder what the reaction might be?
None too welcoming, I imagine, so the solution is simple - dress as you want in private and even in public - up to the point that you have to or want to engage with other people - because at that point people should leave their religious baggage at the door.
By SAHAR AL FAIFI
I wear the niqab, let me speak on my own behalf
I welcome a debate, so long as it respects a diverse range of views including that of veiled Muslim women, but don't we have more important things to talk about?
After the recent (and now revoked) decision by Birmingham Metropolitan College to ban the niqab (Muslim-face-veil) and Jeremy Browne MP’s comments, the niqab has once again become a hot topic for many politicians and commentators. There are, however, voices missing in this debate – and I for one think it is imperative for the voices of the face-veiled Muslim womento be heard.
I started wearing the niqab at a the age of 14, although my parents discouraged me. I was motivated by a deep belief that this was the right decision for me and that hasn't changed in the intervening years since.
The common impression that many people have about those that wear the niqab is that we are oppressed, uneducated, passive, kept behind closed doors and not integrated within British society. The terms used in the press often reflect this, as do some politicians statements. Jeremy Browne MP is a case in point with his call for a national debate about whether the state should step in to “protect” young women from having the veil “imposed” on them. Sarah Wollaston MP finds the niqab “deeply offensive”. Enter the Prime Minister and commentators across the political spectrum ready to discuss us.
Allow me to introduce myself. I am a proud Welsh and British citizen, a molecular geneticist by profession and an activist in my spare time. I have formerly been elected as the Wales Chairperson of a national Muslim student organisation and held other leadership roles including working with bodies such as the National Union of Students. I wear the niqab as a personal act of worship, and I deeply believe that it brings me closer to God, the Creator. I find the niqab liberating and dignifying; it gives me a sense of strength. People I engage with judge me for my intellect and action; not necessarily for the way I look or dress. Niqab enables me to be, simply, human.
To understand the niqab it helps to understand the religion behind it. Islam has three simple messages – liberation from worshipping anything but the one God, following in the way of His Prophets including Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, and servitude to the whole of humanity. Islam’s practical acts of liberation are many – from the duty of environmentalism (protecting ‘the Creation’ from the ‘excessiveness’ of humankind) to the imperative of modesty for women and men – one part of which is the face-veil. Indeed, in my view, the authentic reading of Scripture does not deem the niqab as compulsory but highly recommended; crucially, a woman has total freedom of choice to decide what she wears.
Concerns associated with the niqab include “security” and whether it represents an obstacle in the pursuit of justice in court. Islam is not a monolithic religion and therefore Islamic scholars may differ in their jurisprudence but most agree that in particular cases, Muslim women are allowed to take off their veils – though each case should be dealt with individually. Muslim women including myself do not find this a problem.
In principle, I welcome the call for a national debate– so long as it respects a diverse range of views including that of veiled Muslim women. However, my work in community-organising forces me to raise the question of significance and need of it. There are more important issues that are not being tackled – including institutional racism, unemployment, affordable housing and growing inequality.
Perhaps such MPs should rethink their priorities and should not allow the state to interfere the basic individual’s rights to choose, practice and express. We are not living in a state like Saudi Arabia or Iran where the hijab or niqab to some extent are mandated; nor are we living in Turkey or France where militant secularism is deeply rooted, forbidding them. In Britain, public freedom is a part of the fabric of our society. Those public freedoms extend to religious freedoms that give us the right to practice and articulate our religious freedoms and rights. We cannot take this public freedom for granted for the sake of social scares, deep-seated psychological fears, ignorance and fear of the unknown.
The veil-ban and negative prejudices associated with it are old news in the British arena, but what I find new is that we are living in times of remarkable complacency. Comments of anti-Muslim-hatred are not made exclusively by the far-right but by politicians and intellectuals. A widely accepted fear of Islam seems to be fortified, able to justify a sense of collective oppression.
Making such negative comments about face-veiled Muslim women or banning the veil will not enhance integration but rather exclusion, leading to cultural destruction of minorities in the name of equality. Indeed, Muslim women too must raise their heads, speak on behalf of themselves and platforms should be given to them.
Good Riddance (1 March 2014)
What can you say about the two cowards, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, who ran Drummer Lee Rigby down (from behind) with their car before murdering the soldier in cold blood - except good riddance perhaps.
The Independent gives a detailed account of their behaviour in court as the trial judge sent the two men to prison for the rest of their lives - and held them to account for their twisted religious views and vile betrayal of Islam.
Seems like they can dish it out especially when the odds are stacked in their favour, yet they don't like it too much when the boot's on the other foot just like all cowards and bullies.
Lee Rigby murder: Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale sentenced to life in prison
During the sentencing, a scuffle broke out in the dock and the defendants were removed from the court
By PAUL GALLAGHER
The two religious fanatics who murdered Lee Rigby screamed a final act of defiance in court on Wednesday as they fought with guards and were dragged from the dock prior to receiving a whole-life and life sentence respectively for their “sickening and pitiless” killing of the 25-year-old soldier.
The pair were restrained and wrestled to the ground before being taken down to the cells. Their cries had been a retaliation to the judge's conclusion that their barbaric act had been a “betrayal of Islam”.
In dramatic scenes Michael Adebolajo shouted “Allahu Akbar” meaning “God is the Greatest” before being told he would die behind bars while Michael Adebowale joined the outburst, saying that “ Britain and America would never be safe”. The pair were restrained and wrestled to the ground before being taken down to the cells.
As banging and shouting from the guilty pair could still be heard from the cells below court number two at the Old Bailey in London, Mr Justice Sweeney said the 29-year-old Adebolajo had “no prospect of rehabilitation” as he handed him the ultimate sentence available.
22-year-old Adebowale’s defence team said a whole-life sentence would have been “inhuman” and he was given a life sentence to serve a minimum of 45 years - saved from a whole-life tariff because of his age.
Lee Rigby’s family were visibly distressed at the violent culmination of the lengthy legal process. Mr Justice Sweeney said the killers had “gloried” in their barbaric act in stark contrast to the “compassion and bravery” of the women at the scene who tended to his body.
In the killers' absence, Mr Justice Sweeney said: “You, Adebolajo, were the leader of this joint enterprise, albeit that Adebowale played his part enthusiastically. It was you who provided much, if not all, of the equipment and the car, and you were the mouthpiece on the day. You handed out a preprepared written statement seeking to justify your joint cause and actions. In addition, carrying the bloodied cleaver in your equally bloody hands, and knowing that you were being filmed, you made a political statement.
“Your sickening and pitiless conduct was in stark contrast to the compassion and bravery shown by the various women at the scene who tended to Lee Rigby’s body and who challenged what you had done and said.”
In a statement read outside court on their behalf Lee Rigby’s family welcomed the verdict, saying: “We believe justice has been done for Lee.”
Fusilier Lee Rigby of the Royal Regiment of Fusilier, whose killers were sentenced on WednesdayAdebolajo now joins the list of the nation’s most infamous killers, including Moors Murderer Ian Brady, Rose West, and the Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe.
The sentencing had been delayed while a decision was made on whether whole life tariffs meaning prisoners will never be released can still be made. It followed a ruling in Strasbourg last year by the European Court of Human Rights that said whole life sentences had to be reviewed at some point.
A panel of five judges, including the most senior judge in England and Wales, Lord Chief Justice Lord Thomas, declared last week that sentencing judges can continue to impose whole-life tariffs for the very worst crimes paving the way for today’s verdict.
Victim statements from Lee Rigby’s family read out in court all described the “irreparable” damage his murder had wrecked on their lives.
Far-right protesters outside the court (Reuters)
Rebecca Rigby, the mother of Fusilier Rigby’s child, said Lee would "never be forgotten”. In her impact statement, read out by the prosecution, Mrs Rigby described the moment when she heard what had happened last May.
She said: “I was also suddenly living in the public gaze. I couldn’t go anywhere or do anything, I felt like I didn’t want to go on. I saw people nudging and looking at me if I walked down the street. I know that my son will grow up and see images of his dad that no son should have to endure and there’s nothing I can do to change this.”
Mrs Rigby, who had separated from Mr Rigby before his death, said the pair had discussed “the dangers of Afghanistan” and braced themselves for it “but you do not expect to see this on the streets of the United Kingdom”.
She added that she had received overwhelming support from all over the world following the murder. She said: “Lee will never be forgotten and we love him and miss him every day.”
The court also heard part of a statement from the soldier’s stepfather, Ian Rigby, who arrived at the Old Bailey with other family members, including his wife and Fusilier Rigby’s mother Lyn, and sisters Sara McClure and Chelsea Rigby, wearing black t-shirts bearing the soldier’s picture with the message “Justice for Lee Rigby”.
Mr Rigby said: “After all he had been through in Afghanistan all Lee was doing was just walking through London. Just seeing on the television and seeing the violence of it you just can't comprehend. You take it all in and it doesn't click in your head, it is like being somewhere else. You’re watching it without being actually there.”
Relatives of murdered fusilier Lee Rigby, (L-R) his stepfather Ian Rigby, his mother Lyn Rigby, his sisters Sara McClure and Chelsea Rigby, arrive at the Old Bailey
Prosecutor Richard Whittam QC said that the family’s lives had been devastated. He said: “The scale of the impact on them of the nature of the murder of Lee Rigby in the circumstances made so public during the trial and after such a killing causing a son to predecease his parents and stepfather and leave those others who loved him without a husband or a soulmate is too obvious to set out in detail.
“He had a young son. All their lives have been irreparably changed for the worse.”
Several family members of the murdered soldier shook their heads as they heard Adebolajo’s defence barrister David Gottlieb argue for leniency. Mr Gottlieb said that although Fusilier Rigby’s murder had “shocked the whole nation… whole-life terms can never be justified”. He said that tariff would “likely create a martyr” adding Lee Rigby, from Middleton, Rochdale, was targeted solely because he was a member of the armed forces and that “no one else was hurt”.
Adebolajo’s only regret was that the armed police who arrived at the scene did not kill him, the court heard. Mr Gottlieb said: “ There’s evidence he can be rehabilitated now, not much evidence, but some evidence… He should not in these circumstances be deprived of any hope of release.”
Adebowale’s barrister said a whole life sentence for the 22-year-old would be “inhuman, extinguishing all hope of release”. The plea prompted further derisory reactions from the family.
Protestors scuffled with City of London police outside the Old Bailey today in the moments leading up to the sentencing. Far right extremists brought portable gallows and chanted for the men to be hanged.
Adebowale and Adebolajo had been found guilty in December of killing Lee Rigby, 25, as he walked back to the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, south-east London, on 22 May last year. They drove into the young soldier at 40mph as he was crossing the road opposite the barracks after spotting him wearing a Help for Heroes hooded top. They then dragged his body into the middle of the road and attacked him with a meat cleaver, almost decapitating him as shocked members of the public looked on.
Adebolajo, a married father of six, was filmed saying that the attack was: “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”
During their trial at the Old Bailey, Adebowale, from Greenwich, south-east London, offered no evidence in his defence, but Adebolajo, from Romford, Essex, gave a rambling testimony during which he told the jury he loved al Qaida and that as a “soldier if Allah” he had carried out the killing as revenge for the treatment of Muslims abroad.
Murder Most Foul (19 December 2013)
Here's the best report I've read of trial of the two men charged with the cruel and cowardly murder of Drummer Lee Rigby.
Writing in the Independent, John Hall lays bare some of the ridiculous arguments advanced by a defence lawyer who go as far as to suggest that his client was motivated by a 'noble idea'.
What a complete load of old tosh - and what I can't understand is why the state pays for some of the most expensive lawyers in the land, QCs no less, to spout such nonsense.
I could understand a defence lawyer saying that his client admits to killing someone, but has a misplaced belief that he was entitled to carry out this horrendous act because of his twisted religious and political beliefs - and then sit down.
But all this guff about a 'noble idea' and 'manslaughter' really is an insult to people's intelligence - why else would Adebolajo and Adebowale try to cut off the head of their victim, other than as a vile trophy to be help up as part of a triumphant display?
I read somewhere previously that Adebolajo described his actions as 'merciful' and likened the killing of Drummer Lee Rigby to the Halal tradition of slaughtering animals - by cutting their throats and ensuring a quick death.
Which is sophistry, of course, because human beings are not beasts and Halal does not require practitioners to cut the head off and otherwise disrespect the body of an animal - which is intended solely for human consumption.
So, I am amazed that a member of the legal profession can argue his client did not intend to murder Drummer Lee Rigby by first of all rendering him helpless with a cowardly attack from behind in a motor vehicle.
Noble deed, my arse.
Lee Rigby murder trial: 'Great' Islam is not in trial, jurors told, as judge says nothing in Michael Adebolajo's evidence amounts to a murder charge defence
Prosecutor Richard Whittam says what the men did was 'indefensible in the law of this country'
By JOHN HALL
Jurors in the case of two men accused of murdering soldier Lee Rigby have been told “Islam, one of the world's great religions, is not on trial”.
Muslim converts Michael Adebolajo, 29, and Michael Adebowale, 22, are accused of running Fusilier Rigby down with a car and then hacking him to death with a meat cleaver and knives near Woolwich barracks in south east London on May 22.
Prosecutor Richard Whittam QC told the jury at the Old Bailey what the men did was "indefensible in the law of this country".
But Adebolajo's defending counsel, David Gottlieb, said a proper charge for his client would have been "treason, terrorism, or maybe manslaughter".
Earlier in the day, Mr Justice Sweeney told the jury that nothing said by Adebolajo in his evidence amounts in law to a defence to the charge of murder.
He also told jurors that they were discharged from any further consideration of a count of conspiracy to murder a police officer. Both men deny remaining counts of murder and attempted murder of a police officer.
In his closing speech, Mr Whittam QC said: "It's important that I make it clear - Islam, one of the world's great religions, is not on trial, nor could it be."
Recounting the events of May 22 and the prosecution's case, Mr Whittam showed the jury once again images of bloodied knives, and also replayed the video clip in which Fusilier Rigby is seen being hit by a Vauxhall Tigra.
"What was the consequence of driving into Lee Rigby?" asked Mr Whittam. "The consequence was it broke his back.
He went on: "What was the purpose of what they have done, killing Lee Rigby in the way they had done, in putting the body there and staying at the scene?
"To borrow a phrase from the first defendant - carnage."
Mr Whittam turned to the charge of attempted murder of a police officer and described the defendants' actions when police arrived at the scene.
He told the jury not to be "seduced by suggestions that the sole objective was to commit suicide".
Describing Adebolajo's movements, the prosecutor said: "He had a meat cleaver, a weapon that needed to have direct contact. He raised the weapon above his head and got very close to the vehicle."
Describing Adebowale's movements, he said: "Did he run straight at the vehicle to be caught? He ran along the wall. Why? To draw fire."
Finishing his speech, Mr Whittam said: "What these two men did, crashing their car and breaking the back of Lee Rigby and then killing him is indefensible in the law of this country."
He went on: "Killing to make a political point, to frighten the public, to put pressure on the Government or as an expression of anger is murder and remains murder whether the government in question is a good one, a bad one or a dreadful one."
In his closing speech, Mr Gottlieb said: "All deaths outside of lawful deaths are cruel, needless and unnecessary.
"Do you think really that this is the cruellest, most sadistic, most callous, most cowardly killing that's ever occured in our nation's history? It isn't."
Mr Gottlieb asked the jury to consider whether the prosecution had put their case on the basis that it was "cowardly and callous" to "enflame" or "distract" them from the view that the death "must be murder and nothing else".
He told jurors the proper charge for Adebolajo would have been "treason, terrorism, or maybe manslaughter".
Earlier, Mr Gottlieb quoted from a poem by First World War poet Edmund Blunden, called Report On Experience, and told the jury that religion had been a "red herring" in the case.
The defending barrister also suggested that Adebolajo was "the most law- abiding terrorist in the history of this country" as his client paid for a parking ticket moments before the alleged murder took place.
Mr Gottlieb later explained that he was using a "Sherlock Holmes" approach, adding: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Mr Gottlieb told the jury that they "genuinely have a choice" to acquit his client, and that they will be under pressure "from outside, from the mob, from the world, to convict". He said that the prosecution case "lacks any sense of proportion or of ridiculousness".
Turning to the attempted murder charge, he said it is "possibly the most ridiculous charge ever put before a judge and jury in the history of this country".
He claimed that the prosecution has no satisfactory explanation as to why Adebolajo told a witness to stay back "when the police and the soldiers get here".
The jurors were then played part of the film clip of Adebolajo with bloodied hands, but with no sound.
Mr Gottlieb said that a woman who walked past him as he spoke was clearly not afraid of him.
He said there were unarmed police near the scene, but Adebolajo chose to wait for armed teams, which would not fit with an intention to kill an officer.
The barrister went on to tell the panel of eight women and four men that the issue of what motivated Adebolajo "raises awkward questions" for the UK's political leaders.
He said: "A person, a human being, can do the most evil act in the world and not actually be evil themselves."
The prosecution could not accept that Adebolajo may have been motivated by "a noble idea", and he had attacked "a symbol of the state", Mr Gottlieb said.
Jurors in the case of two men accused of murdering soldier Lee Rigby have been told “Islam, one of the world's great religions, is not on trial”.
Muslim converts Michael Adebolajo, 29, and Michael Adebowale, 22, are accused of running Fusilier Rigby down with a car and then hacking him to death with a meat cleaver and knives near Woolwich barracks in south east London on May 22.
Prosecutor Richard Whittam QC told the jury at the Old Bailey what the men did was "indefensible in the law of this country".
But Adebolajo's defending counsel, David Gottlieb, said a proper charge for his client would have been "treason, terrorism, or maybe manslaughter".
Earlier in the day, Mr Justice Sweeney told the jury that nothing said by Adebolajo in his evidence amounts in law to a defence to the charge of murder.
He also told jurors that they were discharged from any further consideration of a count of conspiracy to murder a police officer. Both men deny remaining counts of murder and attempted murder of a police officer.
In his closing speech, Mr Whittam QC said: "It's important that I make it clear - Islam, one of the world's great religions, is not on trial, nor could it be."
Recounting the events of May 22 and the prosecution's case, Mr Whittam showed the jury once again images of bloodied knives, and also replayed the video clip in which Fusilier Rigby is seen being hit by a Vauxhall Tigra.
"What was the consequence of driving into Lee Rigby?" asked Mr Whittam. "The consequence was it broke his back.
He went on: "What was the purpose of what they have done, killing Lee Rigby in the way they had done, in putting the body there and staying at the scene?
"To borrow a phrase from the first defendant - carnage."
Mr Whittam turned to the charge of attempted murder of a police officer and described the defendants' actions when police arrived at the scene.
He told the jury not to be "seduced by suggestions that the sole objective was to commit suicide".
Describing Adebolajo's movements, the prosecutor said: "He had a meat cleaver, a weapon that needed to have direct contact. He raised the weapon above his head and got very close to the vehicle."
Describing Adebowale's movements, he said: "Did he run straight at the vehicle to be caught? He ran along the wall. Why? To draw fire."
Finishing his speech, Mr Whittam said: "What these two men did, crashing their car and breaking the back of Lee Rigby and then killing him is indefensible in the law of this country."
He went on: "Killing to make a political point, to frighten the public, to put pressure on the Government or as an expression of anger is murder and remains murder whether the government in question is a good one, a bad one or a dreadful one."
In his closing speech, Mr Gottlieb said: "All deaths outside of lawful deaths are cruel, needless and unnecessary.
"Do you think really that this is the cruellest, most sadistic, most callous, most cowardly killing that's ever occured in our nation's history? It isn't."
Mr Gottlieb asked the jury to consider whether the prosecution had put their case on the basis that it was "cowardly and callous" to "enflame" or "distract" them from the view that the death "must be murder and nothing else".
He told jurors the proper charge for Adebolajo would have been "treason, terrorism, or maybe manslaughter".
Earlier, Mr Gottlieb quoted from a poem by First World War poet Edmund Blunden, called Report On Experience, and told the jury that religion had been a "red herring" in the case.
The defending barrister also suggested that Adebolajo was "the most law- abiding terrorist in the history of this country" as his client paid for a parking ticket moments before the alleged murder took place.
Mr Gottlieb later explained that he was using a "Sherlock Holmes" approach, adding: "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Mr Gottlieb told the jury that they "genuinely have a choice" to acquit his client, and that they will be under pressure "from outside, from the mob, from the world, to convict". He said that the prosecution case "lacks any sense of proportion or of ridiculousness".
Turning to the attempted murder charge, he said it is "possibly the most ridiculous charge ever put before a judge and jury in the history of this country".
He claimed that the prosecution has no satisfactory explanation as to why Adebolajo told a witness to stay back "when the police and the soldiers get here".
The jurors were then played part of the film clip of Adebolajo with bloodied hands, but with no sound.
Mr Gottlieb said that a woman who walked past him as he spoke was clearly not afraid of him.
He said there were unarmed police near the scene, but Adebolajo chose to wait for armed teams, which would not fit with an intention to kill an officer.
The barrister went on to tell the panel of eight women and four men that the issue of what motivated Adebolajo "raises awkward questions" for the UK's political leaders.
He said: "A person, a human being, can do the most evil act in the world and not actually be evil themselves."
The prosecution could not accept that Adebolajo may have been motivated by "a noble idea", and he had attacked "a symbol of the state", Mr Gottlieb said.
