Vermin

[ChillDoubt]

If only there were some sort of anti-British law whereby we could have these two vile creatures removed from these islands.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-26579717

Hope springs eternal.......

[Svejk]

Apart from the usual 'right-on' posters on AB, i think you'll find people united about the likes of these 'vermin'.

[emmie]

we are a soft target, that is why they do it, i hope there will be no more killings in the name of their religion on our soil, but sadly i think that is not the case.

[THECORBYLOON]

Has anyone defended the actions of these two folk at ANY point?

[emmie]

likened their actions to those of Charlie Gilmore, how could that possibly be the case. He climbed the Cenotaph, the d*ck, these two are not, they are dangerous religious zealots, who want to see their brand of Islam installed in Britain. They are in prison, what happens when they come out.

[emmie]

and tell me if i am wrong, that whenever there is a conflict, for example the one going on in Syria, some suggest we should get involved, now those same people will cast aspersions on our servicemen and women if they kill civilians, it's not like they do it deliberately, but in war zones these things will happen.

so we get involved in any one of these conflicts, and get a kicking because we are westerners, imperialists even, or stand back and watch it from a distance, where people are suffering and dying, and we are cold hearted bstards. Its this that gets my back up, time and time again. We cannot win, we get the blame whatever the situation, we have people like the killers of Lee Rigby, and these two who see us in the role as aggressors, interfering, not that we could be doing some good, they don't see that. Like the aid workers who are getting their backsides shot off for trying to help, why do they do it, because they think they can help.

My advice is we should leave them all to it, negotiate by all means via the UN, but any military intervention should never be considered

[Gromit]

I am not defending these individuals, and their actions were offensive, but I am not sure why they admitted their guilt. They were charged with 3 counts of disseminating a terrorists publication. In this case, a terrorist publication is a video put on YouTube. The last of these counts of 'terrorism' consisted largely of...

// ...Barnes laughing hysterically as he drove past floral tributes to the soldier alongside his partner. //

A terrorist publication? Unpleasant and offensive, but 5 years for laughing?

The other charge was incitement to murder. This was a post by Barnes on YouTube in which he promised a secondhand Vauxhall Astra to any one repeating the Rigby murder. Would anyone actually be incited to actually do that for a secondhand Vauxhall Astra?

//  ''Any1 who kills an invading soldier in Muslim land I will give them a Vauxhall Astra 3door and money //

I'm sure there will be many who will read this post as supporting these nutters. I am not. I just want to point out how ludicrous this has become.

[emmie]

so you think they don't deserve jail time.

[emmie]

not sure you are aware that they have been in bother already, that she is the woman who refused on religious grounds to remove her veil.

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/uk/woman-denies-witness-intimidation-1.182460

[Gromit]

Yes, 5 years for laughing at something seems reasonable - in North Korea.

[emmie]

here you go again, are you quite sure this was the only reason, because making death threats isn't to be taken lightly, as others have found out.

[emmie]

did you read the link, it relates to an incidence last year,

[Gromit]

Yes Emmie, it was in the huffington post link I posted earlier.

// The jury trying Rebekah Dawson, 22, at Blackfriars crown court in London was discharged on Thursday afternoon after failing to reach a verdict after deliberating for more than 12 hours.

But in a dramatic twist after a short delay, Dawson came back into court and admitted the same charge of witness intimidation that she had denied at her trial. //

So the charge was unproven she could have walked from court. Instead, she came back into court after the jury was dismissed and admitted her guilt. These people seem to be admitting to stuff just to be martyrs.

[emmie]

are you sure, she admitted intimidating the witness, the incidence was at a mosque where she took umbrage over some visitors who were not dressed appropriately according to her, so she had a go at the security guard, she nor her husband are good people, misguided, stupid, zealots, who can do harm, they are where they should be. If you think it's simply because he laughed at Lee Rigby's death, then i reckon that wouldn't be correct.

[Gromit]

// The first video, which was posted the day after rigby was hacked to death in Woolwich, southeast London, in May last year, showed Barnes hailing the killing as a "brilliant" day. The clip also features a graphic of a man holding a decapitated head, the murder scene in Woolwich and a picture of the Twin Towers in New York.

The second video featured Dawson ranting about how British troops would be killed on the streets of London, while the third showed Barnes laughing hysterically as he drove past floral tributes to the soldier alongside his partner.

The post on June 12 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).''  

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.  //

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/14/royal-barnes-youtube-lee-rigby_n_4965490.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

And yes, the case of intimidated for which the jury coyldn't decide a verdict, related to the incident at the mosque.

[emmie]

you have likened the sentence to North Korea, so what would you have done, let them off, ?

[Gromit]

All 3 charges of disseminating a terrorist publication are trumped up. Laughing at a floral tribute is not a terrorist act, and posting that on YouTube is not disseminating a publication. The problem is, they want to be martyrs, so they admitted the charge, so the judge had no option but to sentence them.

The charge of incitement to murder is more serious. While a clapped out 3 door Vauxhall Astra isn't much of a bounty, the offer was made. Again the charge was admitted so the judge probably isn't have much leeway in sentencing.

So they are now martyrs of the evil British judicial system and feel like they have achieved something.

It may have been better to lock them up under the mental health act. Keep them in detention and away from he public. Their delusions will hopefully diminish rapidly.

[emmie]

i don't think they are delusional, nor do i think we have heard the last of these two. I do find it disturbing that she was allowed by the judge to wear the veil in the dock, that is wrong on every level. No one else can do this, no one. So why did he say that she could. The more women i see on the streets of the capital wearing the burkha and veiled, the more i wonder where this is all going to lead, i see little girls dressed head to toe, not veiled as they are not old enough, but the idea that it's done so that they will not be visible to anyone but the husband, family, is quite loathsome, suggesting that all men are vile creatures who can't control their urges, so she must be hidden.

[emmie]

mental health units don't need people like this i can assure you.

[naomi24]

Jim, //Naomi is utterly wrong. If the terrorists laugh, then it is not at our tolerance, but at how easily they can divide us.//

Listen, learn, and think again.

Gromit, if you think your posts have been misunderstood, before throwing hissy fits I suggest you read what you’ve written and examine your ability – or inability - to convey the message you intend to convey.

[Zacs-Master]

Gawd, I see it's the same old same old.