The length of jail sentence for the âranting racist woman on the tubeâ 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?
* Why is it so important that a person’s age is mentioned in newspaper reports? Does it make any difference ?