Racist Tube rant woman Jacqueline Woodhouse jailed

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:18 am

BBC News - Racist Tube rant woman Jacqueline Woodhouse jailed

Jacqueline Woodhouse, 42, of Romford, east London, directed an expletive-ridden rant at Tube passengers on the Central line on 23 January.

A seven-minute video of the verbal assault was uploaded to YouTube.

She received a 21-week prison sentence and a five-year Asbo at Westminster Magistrates' Court.

I'm guessing there are some here in the Garden that support this decision?

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:30 am

It depends on what sort of society you want to create. She was jailed for inducing fear in an enclosed environment from which others couldn't escape. The fear was both acute, nobody knowing the length she was about to explode to, and long-term, making those present wonder how many other foul-mouthed racist drunks they might encounter if they were to go out again.

She wasn't jailed either for holding her opinions or for expressing her opinions. The racist element of what she said aggravated the public order offense and increased her sentence.

It may well be that scenes like this are commonplace on your local public transport systems - I do hear people imply they don't travel on them because they're not that low-caste. If so, it's because you don't enforce your existing public order laws adequately.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:28 am

I can't help wonder what the outcome would be if the situation was turned around and the black woman had carried on a similar rant at Woodhouse.:-3

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:20 am

My feel for that, living here, is there would have been no difference once it had been virally Youtubed. Finding a UK example of the prosecution of a racist rant by an immigrant to the UK might be hard though, I don't imagine it happens often.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:25 am

Lon;1395638 wrote: I can't help wonder what the outcome would be if the situation was turned around and the black woman had carried on a similar rant at Woodhouse.:-3

I put a thread here some months ago re: the Irony of the Emma West case where I linked verbal racist abuse from black and Asians on the Underground towards whites and nothing was done. In one case Involving a black man, he made threats to kill towards the white passengers yet to the best of my knowledge remains un-prosecuted.

There Is a difference between the Jaqueline Woodhouse and Emma West cases. ( Emma's trial begins 11th June next week ).

Emma although vocal In her beliefs did not come across as aggressive and threatening.

I think her downfall will be that she used the **** word which can constitute a public order offence.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:38 am

I agree with the prosecution, but believe 5 months an excessive sentence, for a drunken rant.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:46 am

Bruv;1395647 wrote: I agree with the prosecution, but believe 5 months an excessive sentence, for a drunken rant.

Excessive sentence was my first reaction to the Woodhouse case.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:47 am

Might I ask though - does anyone here actually think this is a freedom of speech issue, rather than public disorder?

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:54 am

spot;1395651 wrote: Might I ask though - does anyone here actually think this is a freedom of speech issue, rather than public disorder?

Possibly, because I can't help but thinking had she said the same rant in a calm & controlled manner, would the sentence or outcome be the same?

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 9:59 am

Lon;1395653 wrote: Possibly, because I can't help but thinking had she said the same rant in a calm & controlled manner, would the sentence or outcome be the same?

Had she said the same rant in a calm & controlled manner I'm quite sure she'd not have faced prosecution.

Lon · Post by **Lon** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:09 am

spot;1395656 wrote: Had she said the same rant in a calm & controlled manner I'm quite sure she'd not have faced prosecution.

If that's the case then, I think it is a Free Speech Issue and she should have been possibly sentenced for public drunkenness or beligerency.

Post by **spot** » Wed Jun 06, 2012 11:32 am

Lon;1395660 wrote: If that's the case then, I think it is a Free Speech Issue and she should have been possibly sentenced for public drunkenness or beligerency.

Check the BBC report, the belligerency is what she was prosecuted for. The sentence was for "racially aggravated intentional harassment". The prosecution had to prove "intentional harassment" for there to have been a conviction. It also had to convince the judge that the crime was "racially aggravated" in order to have a higher sentence imposed. Without the guilty verdict for "intentional harassment" she would have been found not guilty of anything.