Thursday, 31 May 2012
In the latest atrocity committed by the rambling Socialist experiment that is twenty-first century Britain a woman has been jailed for speaking out about her concerns. For the supposed hate crime of having fears relating to the uneasily and unevenly shifting demography of this country she has been sentenced to twenty-one weeks loss of her freedom and most likely her ability to earn a future living unaided by the state. Good move, Judgey.
At the same time, violent young thugs up and down the country are being given feeble tickings-off by magistrates, receiving fines which will never be paid and being offered counselling and anger management courses – at huge cost to you and me – which are almost universally ineffective. Those same thugs will go on to perpetrate ever more violent acts on individuals and society with impunity: statutory rape as they create more under-aged mothers, drug-peddling, casual theft and routine threatening behaviour, often spilling over into actual assault.
So, jail for Jacqueline Woodhouse for drunkenly saying out loud what is now considered a crime to even think about, but counselling and care for real violent offenders. The race-hate-filled Lee Jasper must be cock-a-hoop as the state spends more and more of your money pursuing new, easy targets – white people who dare to be afraid or ignorant – rather than tackling the true crimes all around us.
Woodhouse was undoubtedly drunk and disorderly and she definitely used threatening language, but did she actually hurt anybody? Her language was indefensibly offensive, but were any of her words translated into action? And since when did causing offence become an actual offence? As with the case of ‘Olly Cromwell’ in Bexley she has been punished for nothing – absolutely nothing – more than speaking her mind. Sticks and stones…
In vino veritas, they say, except often that simply isn’t true – we say things under the influence of drink that we definitely don’t mean and in any reasonable society her drunkenness, whilst a misdemeanour in itself, would be taken as partial mitigation for her words.
Even if her intoxicated tirade represented what she actually thinks, Is it a crime to prefer the company of your shared heritage peers? Really? It’s an actual offence to feel like a minority in your country of birth? It’s illegal to feel physically intimidated by persons of significantly different appearance to your own? Animals survive by recognising shapes and postures as friendly or otherwise – is it now a crime to allow evolutionary instinct to shape your views? Apparently so.
Diplomats learn foreign customs and gestures so as to fit in and to understand the ways of the countries they visit. When Woodhouse’s lawyer asked for a lesser sentence, combined with a “diversity awareness and prejudice training course” her plea fell on ears deaf to the very notion. If judges think we can re-train the uneducable chav scum of our society, why should not the same accommodation be offered an otherwise useful member of the same society?
And as for threatening behaviour, have any judges actually been to a town centre on a weekend evening and seen at close quarters what their liberalism has wrought on Britain’s moral fabric? Have they ever watched a soap opera where virtually every plotline revolves around some moral failure or other? Threatening violence? Why not just lock us all up for thinking violence?
Orwellian thought crime - Labour's legacy - will take a generation to eradicate even if we start today. But that’s not going to happen, is it? Because tomorrow’s judiciary and educators, police and politicians have already been brainwashed into believing the Socialist diktat.
We used to say you can’t be locked up for telling the truth. Well that seems to no longer be so. At least some of what Jacqueline Woodhouse said was true. We’re fucked.
Will the last intelligent Briton please put the cat out and unplug the telly?