Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
UK woman faces jail after racist train rant
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8460436/uk-woman-faces-jail-after-racist-train-rant
A British secretary faces jail time over a racist attack on fellow passengers on The Tube that she claims she cannot remember.
Jacqueline Woodhouse, 42, was filmed ranting at passengers on January 23 after drinking an "unknown" quantity of champagne at a retirement party earlier in the evening.
Though she claimed she could not recall the incident, she turned herself in to police after seeing the video online when it went viral, the Daily Mail reports.
Yesterday, Woodhouse admitted to Westminster Magistrates' Court she had harassed, alarmed and distressed the Sikh man who filmed her.
Galbant Singh Juttla was on his way home from the funeral of a close family friend when he saw Woodhouse harass a black woman and began to film her expletive-ridden rant.
"Where do you come from? Where do you come from? Where do you come from?" Woodhouse asked nearby passengers.
"I would like to know if any of you are illegal. I am sure like 30 percent of you are.
"I used to live in England, now I live in the United Nations. "
She then turned on Mr Juttla after she noticed him filming. When he told her to be quiet because she had had too much to drink, she began screaming at him.
"It's not your country anyway so what's your problem?" Woodhouse yelled.
"It's been overtaken by people like you."
Mr Juttla pulled the emergency alarm as the racist tirade continued in the fear Woodhouse would get more worked up.
She was removed from the train and Mr Juttla uploaded the footage to YouTube in the hope it would "fast-track" the process of catching her.
"I also needed to show the public that kind of person is out there and not to put up with this kind of behaviour," he told the court.
District Judge Elizabeth Roscoe said all sentencing options were being considered, including committal and jail.
Woodhouse, who was fined following a similar offence in 2008, has been banned from riding the Tube and has been given a daily curfew that bans her from going out from 10pm to 6am, which will be monitored by an electronic tag.
She is due for sentencing on May 29.
Re: UK woman faces jail after racist train rant
Ok, what she did was terrible.
But jail time? I don't know how effective that would be. She's not a threat to society - not even close. I would think counselling or something would be best.
As an American, I don't think I will ever be able to wrap my head around someone going to jail for something that they said.
I'm also reminded why the 1st Amendment was penned in the first place...
I agree that this was a hate crime, or at the very least, harassment or some kind of verbal assault charge.
Very un-pc but I'd really love to see her get the *** kicked out of her. That video was sickening.
I don't think jail time will be at all reformative for her.
Yeah that's right my name's Yauch!
lollety lolling lol lol. Yep, America and Freedom of Speech. Unless you say something that is bad against the prez, or terrorist related, or both of those and being brown of skin...and are caught saying it on the totally legal surveillance of public citizens in their home, then sent to jail without trail due to being judged an enemy combatant. Pfft.
Your freedom of speech is as valuable as the UKs. That is to say, sometimes, if you have enough money and power, and you don't get caught by the wrong people. Otherwise, its about as valuable as the paper it was written on.
I'm not sure that it was written to protect the rights for people to repeatedly verbally harrass minorities.
If she was just saying this type of thing at some huge KKK rally I'd be all about 1st amendment rights. But to get in someone's face and drunkenly yell offensive stuff at them... that's assault.
ETA: I don't think jails need to be filled with people like her. But I think it's totally legitimate to punish her in some way, either in a criminal or civil suit. At some point she moved towards his face and then later raised her arm. If someone is that drunk and yelling hateful things at me in my face, I'd have been worried when I saw their arm move. That's assault.
Word I would just wait for someone to whup her a$4. Now she is going to have jail time and folks have to pay for her room and board.
This. Freedom of speech comes with social consequences sometimes, but it's not a criminal matter. One must just be prepared for however society responds to what they have to say. If she was becoming physically threatening, that's another story..Sticks and stones..
I didn't watch the video so really, I didn't see what exactly she was doing. I obviously have no problem with punishing assault, but FFS, charge it that way. I do have a problem with criminalizing the making of unpopular and offensive comments.
"Yesterday, Woodhouse admitted to Westminster Magistrates' Court she had harassed, alarmed and distressed the Sikh man who filmed her.
...
Mr Juttla pulled the emergency alarm as the racist tirade continued in the fear Woodhouse would get more worked up. "
The article doesn't mention what she was charged with - it was Meggers that brought up hate speech. And it's not just that she made unpopular and offensive comments, it's that she was yelling such comments drunkenly directly into someone's face.
She did something similar before and was fined for that, so it's not like they are rushing to send people to jail for just yelling out "I hate immigrants" randomly into a crowd. If this becomes some sort of aggravated charge because of the hate speech component, I would have no problem with that. I'm cool with limiting the 1st amendment in these types of situations.