BY JAMES SIMONS
AN INTERNET blogger has been found guilty of harassing the family of soldier Lee Rigby.
A blogger has been found guilty of harassing the family of soldier Lee Rigby- the family of the soldier brutally murdered by 2 British Muslim extremists in 2013.
Christopher Spivey, a 52 year old tattoo specialist from Rochford Essex Garden Way, ridiculously claimed the murder was a hoax and is said to have left the family fearing for their lives after he proceeded to suggest in a post that the murdered ex soldier was a rapist.claiming Mr Rigby’s murder in Woolwich in May 2013 was a hoax. The court case proceeded in the absence of the witnesses against Spivey, despite his barristers insistence that the trial would not be fair .
The blogger lamented the fact that one of the prosecution evidence being used in court related to an incidence of 30 July, 2014, about which he had never been arrested or questioned since his original arrest on the 30th of July 2014. However, the crucial issue is whether he was guilty of the offence charged not whether witnesses were present in court or not or if he was questioned. Disturbingly, the blogger claimed the murder of Rigby was staged and was a conspiracy to incite anti islamic hatred. He went on to claim that they had doctored family photos using photoshop and so included Lee in it, and allegedly have published addresses of family members online. Details of Lee Rigby’s sister’s address, Sarah, were also posted online, and Chelmsford Crown court also heard that he outrageously claimed the murdered soldier was a rapist.
Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale were jailed in May 2013 for the senseless and brutal murder of Lee Rigby in broad day light and full view of members of the public. Spivey, whose blog has been running for just under a year, is a competent writer who expresses his views on various world issues and also delves into controversial topics, even daring to probe historical matters about the British Monarchy. However, he was alarmingly unwise and driven by a mysterious callous motive in attacking a grieving family on what can at best be described as malicious and fictitious grounds.
Comments from readers on Spivey’s blog have been mixed with some condemning him for his indiscretions and others lending support for him, most likely because they knew him. Spivey claimed that the rule of law was undermined when the case against him was allowed without witnesses, but Spivey himself undermined the rule of law when he failed to be honest with his publications. He is lucky he is not being sued for defamation of character.