Muslim couple jailed for rejoicing over Rigby’s murder

Muslim couple jailed for rejoicing over Rigby’s murder

A PAIR of London Muslims who pleaded guilty to glorifying the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby by posting a series of videos on YouTube were jailed this week.

Royal Barnes, 23, of Hackney, east London, was sentenced to five years and four months in prison after he and his wife Rebekah Dawson, 22, admitted to making three “vile” videos following the murder of Rigby in Woolwich on 22 May 2013.

Royal Barnes, left and Lee Rigby

Royal Barnes, left and Lee Rigby

In one of the videos, Barnes could be heard describing the soldier’s murder as a “glorious day”. They also uploaded a video of themselves laughing hysterically as they drove past a floral tribute to Rigby at the scene where he was killed.

Barnes, who was friends with one of Rigby’s killers, Michael Adebowale, also posted a message on Facebook encouraging people to murder British, French and American soldiers. It said:

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].

One video showed Barnes laughing hysterically as he and ... drove past a floral tribute to the slaughtered soldier.

One video showed Barnes laughing hysterically as he and Dawson drove past  floral tributes to the slaughtered soldier.

Barnes pleaded guilty to three counts of disseminating a terrorist publication and one of inciting murder.

Dawson, who insisted on wearing her veil in court, admitted to disseminating a terrorist publication at an earlier hearing. She was sentenced to 20 months in jail.

One of the videos made by the pair features a clip of Rigby’s killer, Michael Adabolajo, holding a knife in his hand next to Rigby’s body followed by a to-camera tirade from Barnes, filmed by Dawson. The second showed Dawson in her veil with the title: ”

British troops kill Muslims so they will die on London streets.

The third video shows the pair driving to the scene in Woolwich where Rigby was killed and laughing hysterically at the tributes paid to the soldier while blasting loud music.

It was established that Dawson had also sent links for the videos to a number of associates with an extremist mindset.

Temp cmdr Duncan Ball, head of the Counter Terrorism Command, said:

Dawson pictured outside the court

Dawson pictured outside the court

Disseminating violent extremist material and encouraging others to carry out acts of terrorism are serious offences. I hope today’s sentences send out a clear message that we will arrest and prosecute those responsible.

Mari Reid, of the Crown Prosecution Service’s Counter Terrorism Division, added:

While the whole country was unified in grief and horror in the wake of Fusilier Lee Rigby’s death last year, Royal Barnes and his wife sought to take advantage of the situation to promote their extremist views.

Royal Barnes went further, using the savage attack on Fusilier Rigby to encourage others, via Facebook, to murder British, French and American soldiers. These were not throwaway comments from a thoughtless individual, but the hardened beliefs of an extremist.

We pride ourselves in Britain on allowing the right to free speech to flourish. But the vile views posted online by Royal Barnes and Rebekah Dawson justified and glorified terrorist attacks, and tried to foster hatred in our communities.

Adebolajo was given a whole life sentence for the murder of Rigby. Adebowale was told he must serve a minimum of 45 years in jail for his part in the killing.

31 responses to “Muslim couple jailed for rejoicing over Rigby’s murder”

  1. This stinks. I’m not a particular fan of Islam, and I don’t think the killing of that squaddie was a particularly good move, but I don’t think that jailing people who exercise their freedom of speech is any better.

    The real shitheads are those people who agree with such judicial sentences. But of course their own ranting speech is in support of the filthy establishment, so can’t exactly see that happening.

    But criticise one of the arseholes who get paid to shoot guns at people (mostly ugly foreigners) and that’s it, you’re banged up.

  2. mikespeir says:

    Yeah, Matt, I’m feeling a lot like you. I’m not sure this rises quite to the level of shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

  3. AgentCormac says:

    @ Matt & mikespeir

    Personally I do agree with prosecuting these two. Not because they mocked or revelled in the murder of Lee Rigby – it might be utterly unsavoury, but in a democracy that’s their right. However, inciting others to commit more acts of murder goes way beyond freedom of speech. To my mind they deserved everything they got.

  4. Angela_K says:

    I agree with AgentCormac, Free speech is fine but incitement to terrorism and murder is not.

    Wait, is that the sound of “moderate” muslims condemning these two vile people? No, thought not.

  5. David Lawson says:

    This is completely wrong. They have basically been jailed for expressing an unpopular opinion. A lot of people may not like that opinion, but they have the right to hold and express it. Hearing things that you don’t like is the price you pay for living in a society that has freedom of speech and expression.

    I hope they appeal.

    This can do nothing but play into the hands of Islamists.

  6. David Lawson says:

    I want to point out that I’m only disagreeing with them posting their opinions about the murder. The encouragement to kill others should be punishable. The extent to which it is punishable should be dependant on the extent to which others carry it out.

  7. Eric says:

    There are limits on free speech and inciting murder is one of them. I say good. Fuck these assholes.

  8. Canada Dave says:

    Matt, Great Satan and Mikespea

    Excerpt from an article on British Law….

    The Human Rights Act 1988 is the starting point for any discussion about free speech.
    With the Human Rights Act, freedom of expression is not an absolute.
    The Act recognises that we live in a democratic society and that any interference with freedom of expression must be carefully monitored.
    But, with the Human Rights Act, freedom of expression is not an absolute.
    It will be subject to such restrictions that are necessary in the interests of national security or public safety or for the prevention of disorder or crime. These restrictions may change from time to time.
    There are two possible prosecutions for incitement of terrorism. The first is incitement to commit terrorism in the UK.
    “It is an offence at common law to incite another person to commit a criminal offence, in this case the criminal offence of terrorism.”

    So NO…. freedom of speech is “not” absolute”… British law.

  9. barriejohn says:

    Yes, Canada Dave; it’s a minefield. Oops!

  10. remigius says:

    Terrorists used to be rewarded with 72 virgins, now all they get is a second-hand Vauxhall Astra (3 door). Ho hum.

  11. mikespeir says:

    Well, Canada Dave, I agree that freedom of speech is not absolute and shouldn’t be. Whence my reference to shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. However, does this amount to that? Were they really inciting others to terrorism? That, for me, is the issue. If they weren’t, then they shouldn’t be prosecuted. If the law says they should, I think the law is wrong.

  12. Paul Cook says:


    No it is not 72 virgins. The word has been incorrectly translated and used and bastardised by many – muslims included to be that.
    It is actually 72 raisins.

    the problem with isialm and the koran is that it is often very unclear on its meaning. so they simply make it up. Does that sound familiar?

    it is not so different to the so called virgin birth – the word used for so called jesus’s mother was ‘maiden’ not virgin.

  13. @Canada Dave: Yes I see the wording of the act as you wrote it and I think it stinks and sucks:

    “It will be subject to such restrictions that are necessary in the interests of national security …”

    FUCK national security.

  14. As I say, they only got prosecuted because Lee Rigby was a squaddie.

  15. remigius says:

    Even so, given a choice between a Vauxhall Astra and a bag of raisins, I’d still go for the raisins.

  16. Paul Cook says:

    Only the most hopelessly enslaved are those who falsely believe they are free.


  17. mikespeir says:

    “Only the most hopelessly enslaved are those who falsely believe they are free.”

    I’d love to ask Goethe what he thought real freedom looked like, and how it could be distinguished from false freedom.

  18. Trevor Blake says:

    Here’s a link that has something to say about freedom of speech, including unpopular speech.

  19. AgentCormac says:

    @ David Lawson

    The encouragement to kill others should be punishable. The extent to which it is punishable should be dependant on the extent to which others carry it out.

    Sorry, but that is the most stupid thing I’ve read in a very long time. What are we, as a society, supposed to do? Let people like Barnes incite murder, wait for others to take him up on it and then count the body bags in order to decide just how ‘bad’ his crime has been? Utter, utter nonsense.

  20. Paul Cook says:

    David Lawson.

    You use the word ‘islamists’.
    I have no idea what this is.
    And I suspect neither do many others.

    Do you actually know what is the difference between a good muslim and a bad muslim. A muslim who is tolerant and one intolerant. One who never will use terror to achieve an unspeakable aim of religious murder and genocide and one who will live happily in society like the rest of us. One who cherishes life and all that means against the ones so quick to want to die and kill and maim the rest of us for nothing other than they do not ‘like’ the way we live or the things we wear or the ideas we have, the music we make or listen to or the way we behave, the foods we eat or drinks we consume.

    Do you know what is radical islam and tolerant respectful islam. Who in society is on one side and who is on the other. Who is an extremely dangerous person hell bent on death and destruction and one who is not.

    As, I would ask, if you do, please enlighten the rest of us. Because I for one cannot find answers to these questions or distinguish between these differences.

    And neither can I for any other religion.

  21. Canada Dave says:

    Royal Barnes actual words are listed as follows:

    “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].”

    Seem he did mean this specifically for areas of the globe that are not British….seemingly referring to some far away country ruled by Islam and Sharia law…..hence the term “invading. ”

    Either way his mind is out of tune as is the case for most radical adherents to Islam.
    His comments may well in fact be quite fine in the land of sheiks and sheep……it’s just not palatable in Britain…or any other civilized nation….that is why he and is veiled wife are now in prison.

    @ Matt Westwood….
    There is a solution for not caring or respecting the countries laws in which you happen to live.
    You can protest and or join one of the local political parties and change society and laws you feel unjust in that way…..or in the extreme ….you an leave.
    At least the laws in Britain “seem” to be made by a version of group think called parliament however much you think them in error.

    There are places that permit people to say what Barnes said ……however they have very hot weather and are run by people with funny hats and long beards who think it OK to have sex with a nine year old girl….cause their prophet had a child bride.

    I know which country I would choose…how about you sometimes rainy Britain….or the land of fatwas and sheep fuckers.

  22. 1859 says:

    I agree with AgentCormac re. counting body bags – the more body bags the longer the sentence – quite stupid.

    Freedom of speech has never been, and can never be, absolute. Look at Hitler – the little nutter standing on a street corner in 1920s Vienna, spouting racist crap to the passers-by – he was exercising his freedom of expression and when he’d finished he had left 30 million corpses strewn across Europe and abolished this very freedom for everyone else.

    Yes, you can incite people to murder, to commit terrorist acts and to hate each other, but in a tolerant democracy you are only free to do so behind bars. Sorry, that’s the price. If you’re not prepared to shoulder the responsibility of your words, go and live somewhere else. I just hope these two man-and-wife retards don’t emerge from prison even more ‘radicalised’ than when they went in.

  23. John C says:

    I favor ruthlessly prosecuting hate mongers who incite people to acts of violence or glorify them.Its just an unfortunate fact that most of these are muslims.Far to many immans have slipped through the net for this as well , talking in jabberwocky means that their words are for their own audience only, and the majority of police cannot understand their spoutings.There has to be a source for these young men who are being radicalised.

  24. @Canada Dave: For your information I fly out this afternoon. And don’t worry, I’m not going back to the refrigerator of a nation that is Canada.

  25. But my point is still valid: if the victim hadn’t been “one of our brave soldiers” the comment would have passed without notice.

  26. … and I will also point out that many of the posts on this very blog from some of the very people who are agreeing with the jailing of these people are guilty of exactly the same crime that they themselves are condemning.

    Take a look back through some of the blogs and you will find plenty of postings suggesting that certain people whose views you don’t agree with should be killed. How is that different from what these guys have opined (apart from not offering a reward)?

  27. barriejohn says:

    JohnC: That’s a good point about “jabberwocky”. All ideologues use it: left and right wing; religious and irreligious. “Standing up for family values”; “preserving our culture and traditions”; even “safeguarding human rights”. It’s coded language and their hearers know exactly what they mean. However, how can you prosecute people for using terminology like that? As I said above (jokingly), it’s a minefield, and we have to tread carefully, otherwise we all lose our right to express our opinions forcefully. If these guys were actually inciting violence then they got off lightly, in my estimation, but were they REALLY offering a car as a reward for killing soldiers? (Vauxhall Astra 3-door? They’ve been watching those repeats of 321!) I’m concerned like Matt at this “nation united in grief” business. What the bloody hell has THAT got to do with justice?

  28. Paul Cook says:

    JohnC and BarrieJohn:

    The very problem is that the use of the language to promote the ideology in the koran is corrupted no differently to, and as was, the bible, by the very people [who are ‘educating’ the ‘subjects’ ] on how they/we should live our lives etc. Blow up bombs, kill, maim, conquer etc.

    The fact that it was written in Arabic and then translated, often poorly, into Farsi, Urdu, Hindi, Turkish, Russian, Indonesian, English etc is the problem. Arabic is a difficult language to translate properly into many other languages. Words just do not exist. Moreover, as with all religions, the messages are altered, twisted and abused.
    It is not the original message. I have heard this many times from Arabs that it can only be learnt in Arabic. And by that what is meant is rote learned. Which of course is not learning anything at all.

    I have heard many times muslims should not drink ‘wine’ whisky’ ‘beer’ ‘alcohol’ all defined alcoholic words and terms – but the actual text says ‘do not poison your body’. Alcohol is not banned by the Koran. SO what are these people being told as the word of god? This is the danger.

    Islam is in its middle ages, at about 1400. The same Gregorian calendar year 1400, Christianity was burning alive thousands upon thousands of men women and children for thinking and voicing contrary opinions. Or saying the world was not flat nor the centre of the universe. Islam is at this point. Islam is in ‘the middle ages’ with little or no intellect to get themselves out of this monstrous thought process, despite the year actually being 2014. This is why we read ‘islam is under attack’, ‘the west is on a crusade against islam,’ and, ‘don’t be racist against islam’ etc.

    I have met many muslims who have been to hajj. And I have been able to discuss with them the filth the mess the litter the disgusting way the pilgrims litter islam’s most holy sites in Saudi Arabia. It is quite astonishing the way these people behave. But the answer is very simple. Islam is a religion that requires illiterate uneducated unthinking cattle to follow it. And they really have these aplenty. Simply individuals who know no better than to shit on their own doorstep, and in that they excel. The problem is, is that they want to shit on ours too.

  29. Peterat says:

    The law in Canada is virtually the same: “counselling” an offence, whether the person being counselled commits the offence or not, is a criminal offence. And the person convited could easily see jail time and there’s nothing in the law that says that it only applies to people counselling or subourning the murder or soldiers.
    Freedom of speech should be restricted by reasonable limitations, this example would be just that.