20p / 21 weeks
The length of jail sentence for the “ranting racist woman on the tube” has been handed down at 21 weeks.
Jacqueline Woodhouse, 42*, who was drunk whilst travelling on a tube train and who swore and ranted at fellow passengers on a tube was found guilty of racially aggravated harassment, alarm or distress by using threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behaviour. She pleaded guilty.
Her drunken ranting shows that Boris Johnson was wrong to ban drinking on the tube because it does nothing to stop those already drunk getting on the tube. So will he now get officials to stop drunks getting on the tube, leaving drunk and vulnerable people to find some other way home. Possibly leaving them prey to attackers like the woman who was 20p short of her bus fare. Whilst such attacks are very rare, which politician is brave enough to stand by such a policy when the first incident happens? I would say that TfL are well within their rights to decide if drunks can get on their trains just like landlords can kick out drunks. TfL could also say that people in loud T-shirts are banned as well. But then they would be laughed at so that particular ban will never happen.
Politicians live by being seen as more in control than their fellow MPs. So politicians will jump at the chance to say that something needs to be banned. They need to do this to be seen as someone in authority. To just sit back and do nothing is seen by the populous as a weak willed.
In actual fact to sit back and do nothing in the face of extreme pressure to change the law to stop bad cases is acting in a very strong and positive manner. Being a person of authority able to stop the populous descending into mob mentality is what is required, not someone who changes their mind as frequently as the mob changes theirs.
So drinking on the tube should be allowed just like swearing and annoying other passengers. I mean have you been on the tube in the height of the rush hour with someone’s smelly armpit in your face? That is extremely upsetting, more so than the odd naughty word.
Jacqueline is a very nasty person when drunk. Probably a fine upstanding person when not. Does she require such a long jail sentence for a shouting upsetting words. I mean, to start singing a national anthem that is not British in the face of someone ranting about immigrants could be seen as goading her on. To then say that you are scared of interacting with white people on the tube sounds like me to pushing the victimisation status. Who interacts with anyone on the tube? Everyone stays in their little cocoon like people standing in a lift, studiously trying to avoid making eye contact. Someone else said they felt victimised because of their cultural background, but that works both ways. Jacqueline was probably ranting off because she felt victimised because her cultural background was being ignored in the dash to pander to immigrants.
Is her case that special compared to loads of other cases where the police have done nothing and where actually physical violence was used. The only difference being in that her case was filmed and the video put on Youtube. But should police only respond to Youtube videos?
SBML
* Why is it so important that a person’s age is mentioned in newspaper reports? Does it make any difference ?
-
1
May 30, 2012 at 13:05 -
You invent a non-existent policy (stopping drunks boarding the Tube) and then criticise politicians for their adherence or otherwise to the policy? Looks like you are trolling your own website.
And she didn’t plead guilty to being drunk but to using racially abusive language. Calling it ‘upsetting words’ to ‘the odd naughty word’ (actually a seven minute rant) is tendentious.
Perhaps if she had pleaded guilty from the outset her sentence would have been shorter.
-
2
May 30, 2012 at 14:12 -
But Richard, just words are all they were. And people have walked from from court following actual physical assaults. That’s the issue here.
-
3
May 30, 2012 at 21:55 -
But Julia… that is the law. There is evidence on YouTube to show that this is not the first time that this particular individual has done this to complete strangers on public transport. Most importantly, SHE PLEADED GUILTY! She recognised that she had committed the offence and, critically the manner and choice of words have no place whatsoever in multicultural 2012 Britain.
While I completely support everyone’s right to the concept of freedom of speech there should, I would submit, be things that anyone with at least half a brain cell just would not utter. Such it is with Ms. Woodhouse.
Unfortunately, it is because people like her exist that legislation is needed. That is a sad fact. There are a minority of people who just don’t get that appalling racism wounds people, whose only ‘crime’ (if that is not to strong a concept) is to be different, either because they follow a different belief, or because they were born in a different country, or are a product of both.
Why should they be exposed to such appalling behaviour when they are going about their normal lawful behaviour? Is that right?? Is that correct??? Is that even tolerable in our supposedly enlightened country???? NO!!
Ms Woodhouse is utterly wrong in what she has done. She has no excuse. No excuse, for example, because she committed the offence whilst apparently drunk. Did someone force alcohol down her neck? Unlikely. She is a product of a nasty subculture that we just don’t need. This has nothing whatsoever to do with how ‘full’ the country is, this is just abuse from a moron. She belongs in jail.
-
4
May 30, 2012 at 23:46 -
Julia is right though. You can go out tonight and have your face re-arranged by someone leaving physical scar’s and the attacker will get a suspended sentence, asked to work maybe 100 hours in the community. You
shout on a bus/tube (no matter how unpleasant others regard your opinions) and you get jailed.Someone commented that if your assaulted and want the person to go to jail, your better of claiming it was a hate crime and they racially abused you. One gets a prison sentence, the other a slap on the wrist.
-
5
May 31, 2012 at 18:30 -
JUliaM is right— there was the case the other day of the lady who ” Glassed” another woman, severing an artery, and walked away because the judge thought she was a nice person.
Basically non violent/ threatening verbal abuse should nver be jailed unless very exceptional circumstances— tagging, community service orders, probabtion far more appropriate
For violent / threatening verbal abuse a consideration needs to be given of whether the threat was realistic or just posturing before send more people to prison
-
-
6
May 31, 2012 at 05:56 -
“Ms Woodhouse is utterly wrong in what she has done. She has no excuse. No excuse, for example, because she committed the offence whilst apparently drunk.”
Tell that to the judge who let off the young Somali girls after they beat a girl up because ‘they weren’t used to alcohol in their culture’. Tell it to the hundreds of judges who accept ‘my client was drunk, your honour’ as mitigation.
But don’t try telling it to me. I’m sick of hearing it.
-
-
-
-
7
May 30, 2012 at 13:09 -
This whole thing bothers me a bit, although I can’t actually say why. I mean, a lot of these people are British, but even labelling them “These People” could be seen as Racist. This all comes from years and years of being afraid to pass comment about anything much at all to do with the Race of another person. I can’t even say “Bog Irish” anymore, despite coming from a Bog Irish family myself.
What she did in fact, was to make an utter and very unpleasant fool of herself. And YouTube dealt with that. So I think that the Gaol Term was inappropriate and over the top. -
8
May 30, 2012 at 13:19 -
Surely the issue here is that someone is being imprisoned for using their voice. There was no assault, no one got any bruises, no one was placed in danger – it was mere words.
I condemn her words with the same vigour that I condemn those Muslim extremists who interrupted the Armistice Day 2 minute silence with their anti-war anti-British protest, and those Christian fundamentalists who were arrested for saying homosexuality is a disease/sin.
We have lost our freedom of speech. Perhaps even worse is that the average man on the street doesn’t seem to care.
-
9
May 31, 2012 at 06:27 -
XX We have lost our freedom of speech. Perhaps even worse is that the average man on the street doesn’t seem to care. XX
I doubt he even KNOWS. Until Plod come knocking on his door. You can not take the people who write these blogs, or in reply to blog posts, as the “average”.
For the majority of people who do not have anything to do with blogs, they probably have “never heard such rubbish”, until they are in the dock.
-
10
May 31, 2012 at 07:03 -
Entirely agree with James, there are worrying double standards at play here and its plods’ evident enthusiasm for enforcing labours’ racism nonsense so enthusiastically that is a concern.
I presume none of Anna’s gentle clientele plan on getting shit-faced at the Racoon Arms tonight and thumping someone ? However it happens every Friday and Saturday night in every town in the country. Those apprehended rarely get custodial sentances from the Magistrates,( largely because there are so many, there would be nowhere to put them ), unless this is pressed for by the CPS. Therefore there is an element of plod / CPS show-boating here.-
11
May 31, 2012 at 18:31 -
Well said james
-
-
-
12
May 30, 2012 at 14:09 -
“Why is it so important that a person’s age is mentioned in newspaper reports? Does it make any difference ?”
I have often assumed it’s so that – where they might have a common name – they can be identified and so innocents sharing the same name (but of different age) don’t get vilified.
House value, though, that’s the odd one!
-
13
May 30, 2012 at 14:27 -
Not for the Daily Mail. It’s more important to them than breast size.
-
14
May 30, 2012 at 14:34 -
Re ages: Julia got there first – but the practice seems to have acquired a life of its own, with ages appearing incongruously in headlines where there is no possible justification (except, perhaps, added prurience).
The feminist lobby should, perhaps, note that the inclusion of ages allows even the least numerate reader to see that the vast majority of women who appear in reports of social deprivation, benefit fraud and crime must have conceived their first child while still in their mid-teens.
I expect the Mail employs someone whose only job is to find out the price of any house mentioned in the paper; what amuses me, though, is that in the recent ‘Take Me Out’ scandal, when the two winners of the TV dating show sent off for a ‘romantic weekend’ together both turned out to be ex-professional escorts, the Mail conscientiously published their prices too.
-
15
May 30, 2012 at 19:42 -
I agree with that, I have always wondered why the house price, usually exaggerated, is mentioned at all, very strange as it is mostly nothing to do with anything being written.
-
16
May 30, 2012 at 22:11 -
Aye, Julia. A few lifetimes ago, when I had barely started shaving, I considered journalism. Reporting the age of the subject of a piece, unless they were well known or the holder of an office, was essential to avoid misidentification.
-
-
17
May 30, 2012 at 14:40 -
JuliaM, I’ve learnt that it is difficult to comment in any meaningful way about a sentencing decision unless you were in court and/or have heard all the arguments.
However I don’t think it is helpful to argue that this sentence is too long because others are (mistakenly) too short.
-
18
May 30, 2012 at 16:53 -
Not at all! The law should be consistent, if it’s nothing else. And when it declares that there’s not enough space for any but crimes of violence, or that alcohol should be considered a mitigating factor, and then breaks that when it’s politically (correct) convenient, we are entitled to ask questions.
In fact, I’d say we were duty-bound to. If we lose what little faith we still retain in our justice system, what then?
-
19
May 31, 2012 at 05:34 -
Do you not thinking that witnessing the actual crime for yourself via video allows you to comment on the sentence, even in the absence of the arguments of others?
-
-
20
May 30, 2012 at 14:42 -
I’ve been abused by Pakistani youths more than once, in Bradford in certain areas, it’s best not to go there. After darkness falls, the city divides even more so.
Aggressive racist abuse can occur in both ‘directions’ and I’ve heard the Pakistani population being very unpleasant when referring to Indians, Chinese, Africans and particularly Afro-Caribbeans.
Mind you, it is pitiful crap, mostly it involves numerous pretty awful swear words and a reworking of “Christian infidel bastard” [shurly shom mishtake and oxymoronic one at that – I fear].Water off a ducks back, as they say in Yorkshire, the thought of reporting it to the police is risible, they ignore young white girls who have been raped – why would they bother with a white person – who is still conscious?
-
21
May 30, 2012 at 16:05 -
“Why is it so important that a person’s age is mentioned in newspaper reports?”….
….queried Mr. S.B. MadLad 38, a turntable underlooker from Devizes.
-
22
May 30, 2012 at 16:46 -
Haul down the statue of Themis, and lets stop pretending that “justice” in Britain is blind and objective, it has been evident for many years that a rich person in Woodhouse’s predicament would hire a competent lawyer to argue mitigating circumstances and be released, likely with only a reprimand. If you are Jill-public, have recently been fired from your job, and cannot afford representation then the full force of ignorant judges will be meted out to you. The white working-classes do not obtain justice in Britain.
Should you happen to be a certain favoured victim-class, or melanin-enhanced then you can expect sentencing to be neglible, as witnessed by this case:
and this is not even the worst example, I seem to remember an innocent electrician being executed by the state’s police on a London tube train, can anybody refresh my memory the “law’s” sanction for that act? There was an element of race identification to that case too. Where was Boris-the-clown grandstanding when this happened?
The “law” and “justice” in Britain is a racist joke that dances to the tune of Boris-the-clowns bloviations, Theresa May and the Camoron can witter about a big society but they are supporting dangerous racially-divisive policies that will bring strife to communities such as Mile End and Romford. Although Woodhouse appears to be a gobby harridan. that does not mean her views are not mainstream amongst a good portion of working-class Britain that feel oppressed by uneven application of the law.
Oh, and for good measure the judge is a fool (or worse).
-
23
May 30, 2012 at 16:55 -
I’m not sure why you are asking where Boris was.
-
-
24
May 30, 2012 at 16:55 -
Rhea Page – an alternative view to the DM.
-
25
May 30, 2012 at 17:53 -
The story you link to asks “Why is this about Muslims attacking a white woman?”
There’s a very simple answer – that’s exactly what happened.
And if Anorak doesn’t like race being an issue then why is it using headlines like:
“Stephen Lawrence’s Racist Murder: Has The Mail’s Bravery Prejudiced A Trial?”
-
26
May 31, 2012 at 05:58 -
“There’s a very simple answer – that’s exactly what happened.”
Spot on!
-
-
-
27
May 30, 2012 at 17:19 -
A nasty tirade and she has got a previous conviction, plus she only pleaded to it at the last moment. But is prison the place for people who insult but who don’t wound? I am afraid our courts pander to the Twitter and youtube generation.
Gildas the Mon (1500 and three quarters years)-
28
May 30, 2012 at 17:20 -
“Monk” even!
-
29
May 31, 2012 at 18:36 -
I dont think prison is the right place for mere verbal insults, even if racist.
Are we saying calling some one a ” Name” is the same as violating them in other ways such as burglary for example.
Dont forget its not just White people who are racist — its very common in all sorts of groups of people
We happily sweep the dirt under the carpet
-
-
30
May 30, 2012 at 18:12 -
I’m not sure the courts pander to the twitter.
Isn’t it just that the evidence is compete? The actual words are on record and often the name and address of the perpetrator are also on file.
An easy arrest and fully CPS compliant to standards of evidence?Supposes Bill Quango, age 55, MP for Surreysex, where he lives in a £2 million pound second home with his wife, Willamina Quango, age 31, 34DD, who does charity and topless bar work .
Bill Quango MP drives a Seat Nonplussed.
-
-
31
May 30, 2012 at 17:24 -
SBML
It’s Populace not Populous.
-
34
May 30, 2012 at 17:26 -
It’s corroborative detail. Because the reporter gave her precise age, we’re encouraged to believe that the rest of the article is factual.
Those of us more familiar with the media just wonder what parts the reporter made up, and what parts are the reporter reporting something they heard somewhere.
-
35
May 30, 2012 at 17:59 -
“Jacqueline was probably ranting off because she felt victimised because her cultural background was being ignored in the dash to pander to immigrants.”
I know these jocks get every where
-
36
May 30, 2012 at 18:08 -
“den rant at Tube passengers on the Central line on 23 January.”
Romford , well
-
37
May 30, 2012 at 18:10 -
Jacqueline Woodhouse, 42, of Romford, east London, directed an expletive-ridden rant at Tube passengers on the Central line on 23 January.
Romford Well I mean
-
38
May 30, 2012 at 18:17 -
Politicians like to give the impression they are in control but is the person who always over reacts in control?
Somebody who is in control would say “Look, people behave badly now and then. It doesn’t mean they are racist or a danger to themselves and others. Why don’t we all grow up and understand the world owes us nothing and sometimes life can be unpleasant.
-
39
May 30, 2012 at 18:18 -
Laws won’t fix these sort of problems.
Laws just shift the problem to the person stuck with the hopeless task of enforcement. Yes, the unfailing politician’s answer.
We have become infested with ignorant foulmouthed people who know that they will not be challenged regardless of the offensiveness of their behaviour.
I have, successfully, made two people sat by me take their feet off the train seats. The carriage was in silence as every other passenger resolutely looked away rather than engage.
We don’t need laws, we need spines.
Without courtesy and respect we have nothing. -
40
May 30, 2012 at 18:31 -
Doesn’t the “causing offence” charge fail when the person “offended” chooses to publish the “offence” on YouTube?
By publishing the incident the potential for public disorder is extended beyond the railway carriage.
-
41
May 30, 2012 at 20:02 -
I used to be proud of being a Cockney, but I tend to avoid admitting to that these days. Who would want to admit to coming from Tower Hamlets. Or Essex for that matter.
-
42
May 31, 2012 at 02:37 -
Judgingt from the comments in newspapers etc it is impressive how indoctrinated the inhabitants of England have become.
-
43
May 31, 2012 at 17:50 -
Her crime is against progressive values and an offence against multiculturalism, hence District Judge Michael Snow at Westminster Ma
Comments are closed.
{ 44 comments }