Friday, June 01, 2012




British woman jailed for saying what many think

We read:
"A DRUNK passenger who hurled racist abuse at fellow travellers on a London underground train in a tirade that became an internet sensation has been jailed for 21 weeks.

Jacqueline Woodhouse, 42, launched an expletive-laden rant at passengers on the Central line, telling those seated near her: "I used to live in England and now I live in the United Nations."

In the video of her latest foul-mouthed outburst, filmed by businessman Galbant Juttla, Woodhouse can be heard shouting in a thick Essex accent: "All f***ing foreign f***ing s***heads."

Prosecutor Claire Campbell said Woodhouse, who has since lost her job and is now claiming benefits, began her stream of abuse after a retirement party when she was feeling a little "worse for wear". She had drunk an unknown quantity of champagne.

Source




15 comments:

Anonymous said...

I am sure that American Indians can relate to Ms. Woodhouse.

Anonymous said...

Yes, even drunk, you're not allowed to say the truth in this nation of PC'ized pansy's.

Anonymous said...

Yeah right - such an obnoxiously drunk person in the confined space of a US subway train would be praised by everybody present for upholding just what free-speech was intended to mean in the US Constitution!
But of course on a US subway she would have been arrested and probably cuffed and dragged out the station for disturbing the peace, or some other misdemeanor (tho' such cuffing not usually done in the UK).

Anonymous said...

What exactly was she jailed for? Certainly not the rant. She's supposed to have freedom of speech (expression) under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. She wasn't "caught in the act", so they don't know she was leagally drunk. Apparently all they have is a video clip of her being obviously offensive.

I could see a fine, and she should be shamed for her behavior, but 5 months in jail? That seems excessive for a non-criminal offense where nobody was harmed (except their fragile feelings).

Anonymous said...

Maybe the jail-time was to reflect the previous similar offence(s) mentioned by the source. And what about the human rights of her several fellow passengers not to be verbally assaulted in such an aggressive and offensive way when on public transport!?

stinky said...

"Verbal assault"? Orwell himself could not have coined a more Orwellian phrase had he tried.

Anonymous said...

Jailed for thought crime and wrong speak and wrong think.

Anonymous said...

I agree this woman should be free to speak whatever is on her mind.
I also agree that the term of imprisonment here is just mind-blowing.
Thank said, I do think that verbal abuse can be a breach of the peace and people deserve some protection from being harangued.
Finally, the 'racial aggravation' part might hint at extra protections under the law unless it is applied across the board.

Anonymous said...

Someone should introduce her to Mel Gibson.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure stinky would love to be sworn at by perfect strangers in public. Perhaps he is so often that he actually enjoys it! Or more likely, it is he doing the verbal abusing!

Anonymous said...

An assault is a physical attack. So how can something be both verbal and physical? Only in the modern world of feelings, self esteem, and political correctness. It sure sounds Orwellian to me.

Anonymous said...

That should probably ask how a solely verbal rant can be physical as well, before some troll points it out. <_<

Morris Dancer. said...

She was incarcerated because she offended the precious sensibilities of some useless entitled git.


Eventually the English, the Scots their related kin will get their Shit together. It will not be pretty when it finally happens......

This is what the Eurpopean 'all Lies' died for in two world wars ? All fucking lies. The political animals of today attend remembrance ceremonies to piously mock those who are no longer with us to speak for themselves. If they could reach from their graves, many likely would, to silence the sanctimonious suited driveller.

Those who value racial difference and attempt to preserve it for its own sake and as a mechanism to derail a "Chosen" Nanny State global governance of psychotic Munchausen by Proxy afflicted mental cases have no 'tolerance' for the lying 'racist' wailing weasels that slither about our nations claiming a monopoly on 'courage to care'.

Akin to vandals on the loose in a cave, they destroy all that has taken generations to create. Their "money" is the universal solvent that appeals to the lowest common denominator of all whose sole interest in life is to eat, fuck and shit.

In building the 'New World Order' it is cheapest knock down all existing cultures and rebuild. As any Good Mason knows, a viable society cannot be built on a foundation of Lies.

Some however, "Chosen", are willing to try .

Anonymous said...

The troll is the one like stinky who tries to be a pedant and define "assault" as purely a physical one when the poster had qualified it with "verbal". In any case I have a dictionary which says an attack can be a verbal one.

Anonymous said...

... and that "assault" can be a verbal one.