I am surprised that there is that option. Considering Alex will need to take care to avoid them, for example, if he walks in to a restaurant and they are there, he will have to leave and go somewhere else. It does not seem fair considering he has been found not guilty for harrassment of these people.
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
I'm not sure on the technicalities as I don't know the extended details on the ins and outs of the case and nor would I claim to be a legal expert. I was seeking clarification more than anything.
Perhaps someone who can translate from legalese can put it in plain English for the likes of me!
I know some facts about the law but like you, I am certainly no legal eagle. It would be good to have an expert opinion on this.
Alex seemed to do well at cross examination of Jeremy Vine in court. He seemed to be thorough and put a good case in his defence, especially the part about whether Vine's upset was for his father rather than over himself. But, obviously Alex is not legally trained and I wonder if mistakes in the sentencing have been made and not picked up on. I really hope he hires a solicitor to go over this with a very fine toothcomb, especially the restraining order for those he was found not guilty of harrassing.
Time will tell. What I have picked up is that the law (from personal experience, although I can't go into it here) seems to be still very murky around the impact of online activity and how to administrate it.
The length of the sentence is disproportionate to the crime ! That is my view and the view surely of anyone who judges by evidence and not by whether someone is a smug bastard.
His barrister would say that wouldn’t he? He’s being paid to try and get him a lenient sentence. Belfield doesn’t give a tit, doesn’t think he’s done anything wrong and didnt think he’d go to prison. I’ve no doubt he’ll continue this kind of behaviour when he gets out as well because in his head it’s all one big conspiracy against him.
From the transcript it sounds like Alex thought submitting the fact might have an influence on the sentence, same as when he claimed to be sorry for what he'd done. Maybe when Alex is released in 2025 you can ask him why he thought it relevant to mention. As part of his defence it seems like he might have claimed that he can't be homophobic as he's gay himself.
There was a video uploaded to his youtube channel after he was taken to the cells. Alex Belfield's Best Bits. Obviously a timed upload just in case and it says he will be back. He's one of those terminally online people so no internet access will KILL him.
Thanks for the link.
I think I might have said it before but I saw a clip of him saying he'd consider housing an adult female Ukrainian (or was it several) in return for sexual favours. Cvnt
I wonder when the fraud and defamation trials begin? I imagine he'll be representing himself again 
So, there are some interesting points from the court document. Bernie Keith's lawyers did ask Alex to stop communicating with him.
Count 4, section 29 I am struggling to comprehend. It only states that Alex's postings resulted in his followers giving him abuse. It does not explicitly say whether or not Alex encouraged his followers to give the abuse. Should he be held responsible for other people's actions, if he hasn't asked them to make the actions? It then goes on to mention Alex making a false claim that Bernie Keith had sex in public on gay beaches. I have a feeling this might be hinting at a homophobic element, which I could understand making an increase in the sentence but it does not formally acknowledge homophobia or hate speech/hate crimes. So effectively, it doesn't seem to be an official charge of homophobia, only hinted, which is not good enough in my opinion, if being used to justify his sentencing.
Section 30 says that remorse was expressed and he was of previous good character.
Given those factors, I don't see how a 2 year and 6 month sentence can be justified for that charge.
Count 4, section 29 I am struggling to comprehend. It only states that Alex's postings resulted in his followers giving him abuse. It does not explicitly say whether or not Alex encouraged his followers to give the abuse. Should he be held responsible for other people's actions, if he hasn't asked them to make the actions? It then goes on to mention Alex making a false claim that Bernie Keith had sex in public on gay beaches. I have a feeling this might be hinting at a homophobic element, which I could understand making an increase in the sentence but it does not formally acknowledge homophobia or hate speech/hate crimes. So effectively, it doesn't seem to be an official charge of homophobia, only hinted, which is not good enough in my opinion, if being used to justify his sentencing.
Section 30 says that remorse was expressed and he was of previous good character.
Given those factors, I don't see how a 2 year and 6 month sentence can be justified for that charge.
Funny to express remorse when you don't think you've done anything wrong. He said he didn't, his fans say he didn't. Why is he remorseful?
Another quote from the judge
I am not sure how claiming legal action was being taken can count as being intimidatory.
You're not sure how falsely telling people you've started legal action against them that can intimidating or make people suffer stress? He also used to tell people they've been reported to the police too, giving out fake crime numbers to shut them down. That kind of thing is considered harassment and is part of the reason he's currently shivering in a cell dreading his first night.
Is legal action legally acknowledged as intimidating?
Of course it is! He also told people he’d hound them for the rest of his days. Are you going to find a way of justifying that as well?
If the threat of legal action is used as a form of intimidation, then obviously yes.
From one witness statement:
"In almost 100 emails he threatened me with rising court costs, costs which now appear to have been fabricated to alarm and blackmail me, since no evidence has been provided that any legal action was ever taken. He regularly told me I'd lose my family home and on multiple occasions said that he had hired solicitors or private investigators to find out where I live. Living in fear of this on a daily basis had an enormous strain on my family life, for most of my wife's pregnancy with our second child I was withdrawn and vacant, a time that was supposed to be joyous and exciting, stolen from me by Belfield."
Last edited:
---------
I have read through the document and I still feel that the sentence is too harsh. I feel there is too much of an emphasis on emotional language and not enough pin points on the actual offences.
However, I have changed my mind on the restraining orders for those that Alex was found not guilty of, because of the link and pattern with them being employees of the BBC. I still don't agree in principle that someone found not guilty can then be issued a restraining order anyway. This is slightly different though.
I have read through the document and I still feel that the sentence is too harsh. I feel there is too much of an emphasis on emotional language and not enough pin points on the actual offences.
However, I have changed my mind on the restraining orders for those that Alex was found not guilty of, because of the link and pattern with them being employees of the BBC. I still don't agree in principle that someone found not guilty can then be issued a restraining order anyway. This is slightly different though.
What was the alleged blackmail for, money? Would that not have been investigated as a seperate crime in itself?
I am not justifying his actions. I am wondering if he had a fair sentencing or not.Are you going to find a way of justifying that as well?
Obviously not since he was threatening someone with how much money they'd lose due to court costs. He did this to try to shut people up whenever he got into arguments with them or held a grudge. He wanted people not to speak out about the abuse he was sending them in private based on apparent career jealously.
He is facing defamation (against Jeremy Vine) and fraud (begging for money from his followers for legal costs involved in "suing the BBC" which he spent on first class trips to Las Vegas and paying off his mortgage) charges later.