Anyone defending him needs to read this Twitter thread and hang their heads in shame. This guy wasn’t a celebrity like some of his victims, but Alex launched sustained attack on him and his family encouraged his followers to do the same.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Aside from the stalking, he often went way, way too far with some things he said about people in his videos. I think the guy needs serious help and hopefully gets it in prison. I think he's mentally very unwell based on this.
The fact that he's gay doesn't surprise me, seems obvious that he was full of self-loathing and taking it out on others.
The fact that he's gay doesn't surprise me, seems obvious that he was full of self-loathing and taking it out on others.
I think we all have an idea of what he was hoping to achieve with the sending of the scan. But, the law should not work on idea and assumptions, it should work on facts and hard evidence. For example, was there any threat of harm in the picture he sent, any threatening words?
I am not saying that Alex Belfield is a particularly nice or pleasant person. I am saying that being unpleasant is not a crime.
From what I have readin the articles, it does seem that Alex overstepped the threshold between an argument and harrassment. However it is not clear of the alleged victims repeatedly asked him to leave then alone or if they replied in any way that invited more interaction from Alex. It also appears, based on what I have read, that Alex did not actually meet with his alleged victims in person.
This is the first case that I am aware of of a lengthy custodial sentence being given for what seems to be online harrassment.
If he has NPD as I suspect then he is beyond help. He’s very dangerous. The way he went about harassing his victims went way beyond a bit of trolling, it was sustained psychological abuse where he targeted peoples families and tried to destroy businesses over a period of years in some cases. He even targeted the pregnant wife of the guy I linked to above, and sold a photo of her ultrasound scan. He stole photos of their children and put them on his website and in his Youtube videos. I’d argue that prison is the wrong place for him. An old school asylum would be more fitting.
I want to add, were the alleged threats that Alex made of a violent nature or were they threats of legal action? If it is the latter, then what about private parking companies sending repeated letters to people, threatening legal action? What about the TV licensing Inspectors knocking on people's doors and threatening legal action?
Is it illegal to contact someone and threaten legal action?
Is it illegal to contact someone and threaten legal action?
That’s not really comparable though is it?
One of the alleged victims in a statement said that their distress was caused by the threat of legal action. We can't have one rule for one person and different rules for organisations. When it comes to the law, it should be judged based in evidence of criminal offences.
If a private parking company asked their Twitter followers to harass you, sent you several hundred emails, encouraged you to kill yourself, made countless videos about you, went to your Facebook and saved your family photos, and called up your family members to humiliate you and boss to ask them to fire you then yes, you could probably use them over it.
He's also got some more civil cases coming up
He's also got some more civil cases coming up
I am not disputing that there is a strong weighted potential claim for harrassment there.
From what has been released on to social media, it sounds as though the threat of legal action was used as a part of the harrassment, and could have been a contributor to the severity of Alex Belfield's sentence. This does not seem right to me.
Diverting slightly, does anyone know if Alex had any previous convictions? If he had a lengthy criminal record, then that might make his sentence seem more reasonable.
Sleep well Alex.
The severity of sentencing was also a result, I suspect, of him representing himself, refusing to give evidence, then continuing with his YouTube channel after conviction. I would imagine the judge was wise enough to smell an arrogant so and so who needed to be made an example of. I agree that he is not a very well man in the upstairs department and his followers seem to misunderstand the meaning of free speech. All very fascinating to follow.
How can someone be issued a restraining order against someone that they have NOT been convicted of stalking?!
They’re not ‘alleged’ victims. He’s been found guilty!
This is the kind of attitude towards sentencing that I disagree with. Belfield may have been arrogant but that in itself is not a crime. The key fact is that he showed remourse during the trial.
- a quote from Alex's barrister.
I am wondering if emotional opinion influenced and clouded the judgement of legal opinion with this sentencing.
When did he show remorse?! As far as I can see he hasn’t shown any at all given by his behaviour.
His barrister said he is "deeply sorry for what he did".
----------------
Does anyone have a link for where he allegedly claims that he is a homosexual? I can't find anything in the articles.
He was taking the piss out of witness statements daily on YouTube, how was that remorse? He only said he felt sorry when he was about to be sentenced.
The judge referred to him as "a member of the LGBT community", presumably that is what people are referring to when they say he told them he's gay.
EXACTLY. Of what. I read or watched on Alex’s channel he asked ‘smack’ about people. Exactly what we do here.
I am not sure why the judge would find that relevant to this case, or his sentencing. Hmmm.
Don't other people get restraining orders where there have not been convictions (i.e. against ex-partners and so on)?
The judge is also reported to have applied the 'civil standard of proof when making the restraining orders'. In other words, the judge was satisfied that, despite the 'not guilty' verdicts on the charges relating to the 4 women, they had indeed felt significantly harassed and there was substantial evidence to warrant some protection for them.