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?