Monday, 18 March 2013

Compare and contrast

In mid-August 2012, a video was published at the YouTube site.

It shows Vandell Brooks ranting nastily at white people for no apparent reason. It was a 'racist' outburst somewhat similar to the one that saw Emma West and Jacqueline Woodhouse charged, found guilty and locked up.

I say 'somewhat'. The brutish and threatening quality of Ms. Brooks' behaviour was far in advance of the admittedly foul-mouthed unpleasantness of the other women.

After she was taken into custody by the police, Brooks was bailed to appear at Thames Magistrates Court on 23 November 2012.

She didn't turn up.

On 12 January 2013, she was found guilty of racially and religiously motivated harassment and failing to appear in court and was sentenced to seven days prison and a £200 fine.

Here's what provoked this sentence:

Compare and contrast the above with Emma's outburst:

Jacqueline's inebriated rant can be seen below:

Despite turning up in court at the prescribed time and behaving less threateningly than Vandell Brooks, Jacqueline Woodhouse was jailed for TWENTY ONE WEEKS for acting as she did! That's twenty one weeks as opposed to one.

You couldn't make it up, could you? Those who created and rule our disappearing world do not like the indigenous saying things like this:
"I used to live in England and now I live in the United Nations."
Oh no. They don't like us taking the mickey out of their pet project.

A Mr Juttla was responsible for filming Jacqueline. Speaking after she was jailed, he said:
"I think the judge made the right decision, although maybe he could have given her a bit longer."
The fact that Jacqueline's poor conduct was prompted by being manhandled by a fellow passenger doesn't appear to count for much with him, does it? Nor was it taken into account during sentencing.

Emma spent more than a month in jail on remand and was kept away from her children AT CHRISTMAS before she was sentenced to a 24-month community order.

Her trial was adjourned FIVE TIMES! I think this is almost certainly because she wanted to plead not guilty. Such an unexpected turn of events causes a problem for the authorities. For one thing, a trial would allow her to claim provocation. A black youth had spat in the tram close to her and this caused her to react as she did.

The establishment managed to keep this salient fact to themselves.

I imagine the suspended sentence wasn't the one they wanted to accord but there was a problem: the precedent set by by Ms. Brooks. As can be seen in the videos, her behaviour was worse than Jacqueline's and much worse than Emma's.

If there is such a thing as racism, ladies and gentlemen, it bears down most forcefully upon the Emmas and the Jacquelines, doesn't it?

The mainstream media in Britain mentioned Emma West and Jacqueline Woodhouse many times. The same media outlets didn't seen fit to disclose Vandell Brooks' identity and sentence at all.

More here...

No comments:

Post a Comment