Jacqueline Woodhouse may not hold very pleasant views and her decision to engage in a drunken, expletive ridden rant on the underground was, perhaps, ill-advised and churlish. The worst of chav culture, perhaps. But that was all it was; words. Unpleasant words. So what, eh? Well, so what is now worth 21 weeks inside.
Freedom of speech means the freedom to say what we like without being sent down for it, no matter how unpleasant the views being expressed, for that is the mark of a free society. Woodhouse has been jailed for thought crime, for expressing a view. Britain is not the land of free speech. It is a land of which I am becoming increasingly ashamed.
Woodhouse may be appalling, but the laws used to prosecute her and everyone involved in that prosecution is far, far worse, for they have eroded the liberties of all of us, not least Galbant Juttla who decided to record the incident and post it on the web – once again we have thought crime tried by Internet. Mr Juttla says that he found Woodbouse’s behaviour very distressing. Well, maybe, but not half as distressing as nasty little righteous authoritarians who think it is okay for people to go to prison for what they said.
The whole Ruhr valley are was run by less than 50 full time Gestapo men. The rest was done by informers.
Britain is setting it’s self up for some potentialy very worrying times.
I recall watching a documentary about that once and it always comes back to mind when this type of thing happens.
I agree, this is a very worrying development, your comment above about informers in the Ruhr Valley and in fact all of East Germany were also the first thing I thought of when I heard about people informing on their neighbours for using hosepipes and filling paddling pools during the hot weather.
We seem to be on a very dangerous slippery slope with the State cultivating their informers very nicely indeed.
Very worrying
Quite. It appears to be a reocuring thread on all these “Woman fined for putting rubbish/cat/child in bin” type stories. See how many were “Reported by well meaning citizen”.
The way the new “race descrimination act” is worded, enshrines the practice into law “I FEARED it COULD be, on a foggy night in November when the street lights are all switched off/stolen by Rumanian scrap dealers, seen as racist when the drunk kicked the dark coloured dog and shouted “piss of you black bastard””.
An informers wet dream come true.
I still don’t understand why Diane Abbot is not in jail for what she’s done. Oh, sorry, I do understand. Special privileges for MPs…
She is also black and therefore cannot be a racist according to righteous mantra.
Ashamed. That sums up how I feel about this country precisely. I used to be proud. Now I’m ashamed.
“Freedom of speech means the freedom to say what we like without being sent down for it, no matter how unpleasant the views being expressed, for that is the mark of a free society. ”
People may say what they like but there can also a consequence for doing so.
Just as you can administer trolling comments on this blog, the state does consider that some things are better left unsaid in public. In this case the woman not only handed herself in she admitted ‘racially aggravated intentional harassment’ and the court has passed judgement on her actions.
Then it isn’t free speech. Period. If people are jailed because of what they said – and it was only words – then we do not have freedom of speech. The correct approach would have been to have ignored the outburst and likely as not she would have tired of it. The absolute worst she should have endured as a consequence of mouthing off was a night in the cells to sober up.
That we have laws enabling people to be prosecuted and locked up for this is appalling. Far more appalling than anything this woman might have said.
And please do not confuse private property – where fee speech does not apply – with the actions of the state. It is not up to the state to decide what we may or may not say – at least that is how it should be. If TfL wanted to ban her as the property owner, then that would be their prerogative, of course and would fit in with the consequences argument.
Train passengers also have the right not to be abused while peacefully going about their business.
I’m not even going to dignify that with a response.
Do you disagree that passengers on a train do not have the right not to be abused on their journey?
Offensive and abusive behaviour on trains is an everyday occurrence sadly, how often does it result in charges being brought let alone a custodial sentence ? We all know she was sent down for what she said not how she was behaving.
It may well become less of ‘a common occurrence’ if cases like this are reported.
Of course they don’t it’s this kind of absurdity that has been fostered by the professional offence takers. What we have here is a drunken rant. TfL may well impose sanctions as is their right as the property owner. It should not be a matter for the law. There is no right not to be exposed to poor behaviour.
It is a drunken rant that she admitted to and you are still responsible for your actions whether you are drunk or not. (I’m not sure if you are trying to use that fact she had been drinking as an excuse there…..?)
In this case the way she behaved (not for the first time if some news reports are correct) in abusing other passengers is not appropriate. She is not a child, she should know better. And now, thanks to the court, she does. As do others.
Voyager, I don’t like what you said, it made me cry and feel violated and abused. I’m probably going to be traumatised for life because I didn’t like what you said. You should be in prison for such a vicious verbal attack on me.
All it will take is enough Third Party Offence to make that a reality. If that doesn’t scare the sh*t out of you, it should.
Be very careful what you wish for. There are many who will be perfectly happy to ensure you receive it. š
Well, Voyager, should the penalties for ‘offensive’ speech be greater than those for actual physical harm?
Because if she’d physically assaulted those passengers, she’d have likely got a suspended sentence.
Of course there shouldn’t be any penalties for offensive speech at all. They are only words š
I don’t disagree that sentencing for crimes does seem somewhat confusing sometimes, but your conclusion is not correct. We cannot know what sentence would have been passed had she had assaulted one of the other passengers the range is vast – between conditional discharge and several years inside.
She did not assault anyone. She wa drunk and abusive. Should people be imprisoned for being twats? I which case the Houses of Parliament is full of criminals. Jail’em now! You really don’t get it.
Like to see the fuzz enforce this rubbish
“The judge told Woodhouse she would serve half her prison term behind bars and imposed an order banning her from using the Tube and the Docklands Light Railway while drunk, for a five-year period.”
What if she was sober when she got on and got pissed on the journey?
That one made me smile, too.
If she was sober when she got on and became drunk on the journey she would be in contravention of the sentence and, I suspect, be guilty of drinking on the tube as that is no longer allowed either, Boris banned it.
How will they enforce that ? Is this going to become a regular part of sentencing ? Will they start breathalysing everyone who sets foot in a train station at some point ?
Bizarre.
Why is it bizarre?
As a condition of her sentence she must not be drunk while on the tube or DLR. It is easy to enforce, if she is found to be drunk again she will have a further penalty applied.
Hmm. What’s “drunk” though? For some twats it could mean they could smell the fact that she had walked past a pub three hours ago.
A police officer, or bar keeper/staff, medical proffession (Drs, Nurse, Ambulance crew, etc) “may give expert witness testemony as to drunkeness” (Unless that has been changed in the last ten years) in court, but eventualy, a blood test would have to be obtained, even if for her own defence team.
She may be a raving nutter without the drink. We don’t get told.
Just perhaps, after a spell inside the threat of further sanctions is intended to dissuade Ms Woodhouse from acting in an abusive manner on the train again and does not need to be dissected by those who are desperate to see how many angels can dance on the head of this particular pin?
To put things in perspective…
Drunk Barrow bully, 21, avoids jail after attacking boy, 14
http://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/drunk-barrow-bully-21-avoids-jail-after-attacking-boy-14-1.959348?referrerPath=home
Physical abuse is clearly not as offensive as verbal!
Especially once the race card gets played. Racial comment may be unpleasant, but is doesn’t cause any physical harm.
Having not caused any harm, she should not be inside at all. Eric Blair will be spinning in his grave.
“if she is found to be drunk again”
Bizarre because enforcement is reliant on “being found”. Or will they pay for someone to follow her around ?
If you cannot enforce a penalty there is no point in setting one.
“And please do not confuse private property ā where fee speech does not apply ā with the actions of the state. ”
Er, you do know that the Tube is owned and run by London Underground Ltd., right? It’s a business and therefore private property. It’s not directly run by the State in the way British Rail was. London Underground was also run by a board directly appointed by the Minister of Transport of the day, but the Tories’ previous administrations changed all that. It’s all done using ALMOs now. For all practical purposes, the Tube is a private corporate entity. Like ASDA.
LUL is also in the unusual position of being a business that owns railways. Railways have an unusual legal status: the entire Tube network was sanctioned by a series of Acts for each line and there are very specific laws that apply to them.
The Undergroundālike most other railwaysāhas the right to impose its own bylaws if it so desires. And that includes banning people from drinking alcohol, smoking, and anything else they so desire.
As LUL is a corporate entity, pressing charges against a loudmouthed arse is therefore fine and is NOT a violation of “freedom of speech”: it’s LUL’s property, so they can set their own rules. If you don’t like those rules, you’re welcome to walk, or drive, instead.
There’s also a very good reason for such rules: imagine what it’d be like if they had no right to kick out some of the more thuggish football supporters? An entire crowd of fanatics would be free to stomp through the train, screaming the name of their preferred collection of footballers and intimidating everyone else on the train without let or hindrance, because it’s just “words”.
I do agree that there is no right to “Freedom from Offence”, but your human rights aren’t unbounded and unlimited in scope: the public have NEVER had the right to just go for a stroll up the East Coast Main Line, even when it was owned and run by the British Railways Board. Similarly, you’re not allowed to ride your bicycle or go hitchhiking on a motorway, despite those being properly public pieces of infrastructure.
We still live in tribes; we just call them “societies” now. Every tribe has an implied social contract that every member is expected to abide by. You don’t get to pick and choose which rules of that contract you want to adhere to, but you _do_ have the option of leaving the tribe for one that offers a contract that better suits your own preferences. That’s why I moved out of the UK.
Travel! Check out the competition to “UK Plc.” Just because you were born and / or raised in one country, it doesn’t mean you have to spend the rest of your life there.
Sean,
What part of “TfL may well impose sanctions as is their right as the property owner” don’t you understand? (See Longrider’s reply to comment 4 above).
“As LUL is a corporate entity, pressing charges against a loudmouthed arse is therefore fine and is NOT a violation of āfreedom of speechā: itās LULās property, so they can set their own rules. If you donāt like those rules, youāre welcome to walk, or drive, instead.” I agree with the second part, but pressing criminal charges and locking someone up is not using its own rules, banning would be using its own rules. Laws that restrict what people can say ARE self-evidently a violation of freedom of speech, you may agree that they should exist but they still violate freedom of speech.
DocBud beat me to it. It would help if you read my comments before responding, then, perhaps you won’t make quite such a tit of yourself, eh? š
Change the record. It was tedious the first time you said it. And, again, if you actually bothered to read what I write, you would realise how vacuous your statement is.
I did read what you wrote. TfL don’t own the stations: London Underground Limited does. TfL is part of the GLA. LUL is a private corporation that TfL happens to own the shares of. It’s a subtle difference, but an important one, because it means that line I quoted from your own post effectively negates your entire rant.
I may have missed a reply made while I was writing mine, but you appear to be blaming the State for something the Stateāunusuallyāwasn’t actually involved in.
Freedom of Speech applies in the public realm. In theory, it also applies in the private realm, but in the latter, you don’t get to claim “Freedom from Consequences”, because no such right exists.
If the woman had been thrown in jail for spouting her opinion on the streets, I’d be right behind you, but she wasn’t. She did it on private property. It is also clear from reports that she has a history of doing so, and that many people find it intimidating. When you’re stuck on a packed, moving train, it’s not as if you can just move away.
See DocBud’s reply to you. Because it was on private property was precisely why she should not have been thrown in jail.
I find it quite remarkable how some people think it’s a good idea to let the state determine what you can and can’t say (as long as the state’s prejudices match up with their own, of course).
And I find it quite tragic how the state doesn’t like you saying bad things about Johnny Foreigner, but has no problem at all with murdering them, dropping bombs on them, invading them, etc. (for their own good, of course).
Quite. Note Voyager’s use of “inappropriate”. I just love it when people trot that one out. One day they will be saying or doing something that someone else decides is “inappropriate”.
Where did I use the word “inappropriate”?
Something about reading what is written and not looking a tit comes now doesn’t it?
Oh, silly me, I do apologise… You actually said “not appropriate”.
How dreadful of me to be so inexact.
If I am drunk on a train and abuse others then I would accept what the law has to say about it.
As it goes I don’t think it is appropriate to racially abuse others with a drunken tirade on a train and in this case I believe this woman has been jailed as it is not her first conviction – rather than the severity of the offence.
I am not making excuses for anyone, nor am I suggesting that she is not responsible for her actions. This case should never have come to court. Drunken rants should not be against the law – warranting at most a night in the cells to sober up, nothing more. It is a matter for the property owner to use sanctions, it is not a matter that should involve the state and, fuck me, it should not have garnered a 21 week prison sentence. This woman caused no one any harm – apart from causing them to be disgusted of course. So disgusted they showed their children the video, so they could be disgusted as well.
No, it should not have been reported to the authorities. Nice to know the kind of concerned citizens that made Stalin’s purges and the Stasi so successful are alive and well in modern Britain.
No doubt the self same mindset will enjoy the ‘One hour hate’ before sloping off to watch the mindless vacuity of ‘Britain’s got no talent’.
I always wondered why so many so-called ordinary people went along with Soviet and Nazi inhumanity. Now I know, and that knowledge does not make me sanguine.
a) She’s a chav moron maybe.
b) It’s clear she was wound up.
c) They couldn’t wait to get it up on Youtube to see how many hits it could get.
Personally, I think she should have some recourse to invasion of privacy having been filmed on ‘private property’ and then posted on public media without consent or payment.
Filming for private viewing/taking photos should be legal and for ‘evidence’ of a crime.
However whoever ‘set’ this up (she was known for doing it) is a sick twisted self-righteous f***
I may not agree with views but trust me I’d rather hear her than have to sit next to obese lardy assed, sweaty, BO riddled munter that squashes you up against the window …
That’s a way bigger crime ….
But hey somebody wound her up, they filmed her reaction, 21 weeks nick .. jobs a good one.
Humanity in the UK … nice one !!
No such thing as ‘invasion of privacy’ by taking pictures or filming. Rightly, if you are in a public place you cannot object to being photographed.
Quite. It is a public space privately owned. The property owner may if they choose, ban photography on their premises. However as with the core subject of this discussion, the state should have no business being involved in any shape or form.
Could have sworn I’ve seen this before.
This, of course, is the problem. The wording of these offences is so open to abuse – that someone, anyone, may decide that something is racist abuse even when it patently is not, then an offence is deemed to have been committed and prosecution follows.
Had Woodhouse simply ranted nonsense, without complaining about immigrants sponging off the indigenous population and taking our jobs – or words to that effect – then she would not be doing 21 weeks inside. Sorry, but she has not been though this because she was drunk and disorderly. She was prosecuted because she dared to make some pretty outrageous (and obnoxious) comments about people with brown skins.
Telling her to shut up would have been fine. Ignoring her outburst if she didn’t comply would be fine. Anything else is overkill as she was not violent and was not causing anyone any harm. What happened was the prosecution of thoughtcrime and, yes, it should scare the shit out of people. That some folk are happy with what has happened displays a degree of complacency that is scary beyond belief.
I posted that in response to Voyager comment and their “abusing other passengers”. There’s no mention of race in that phrasing so this poster would have people jailed for “abuse” alone.
Scary enough that making outrageous and obnoxious comments about brown people is enough to get anyone jailed but widening the net to a catch-all of somebody else’s definition of “abuse” ? Now *THAT* is terrifying.
The only point at which they might wake up screaming is when such a nasty little game and it’s rules apply just as brutally and forcefully to them and they learn the hard way but for all our sakes I hope that never happens.