Alex Belfield

Funny how Alex was so against the BBC yet always had a range of BBC shows on DVD in the background. Also pretended to be against the covid vaccine yet himself received at least two of them. Almost like he'd just say any old shite as long as the hard of thinking paid him for it...

ohannie said:

I see Alex's lies of him "suing the BBC" really did infiltrate some people's minds.

Click to expand...

You see that?
Must be true.

It's what he was claiming for the first 18 months of grifting.

What is true is that this cunt has spent his first night behind bars Hopefully he's been left alone long enough to think about what he's done, though he's got plenty of time left to think about it if his first night was as rough as many people report.

He wasn't just criticising people on his youtube channel, it was more than just "slagging off."

Id only seen bits of his vids in the Harry and Meghan threads. Didnt realise the extent of his 'work.'

And if hes taken 'donations' to fund his legal defence andvthen defended himself then thats fraud, surely?

The video in this link is private, but Iain Lee's comment gives an idea of what Belfield did.

Still no word from his fake business buddy Katie Hopkins !!

wibble said:

So you'll be deleting your Tattle account then?

Just on the off chance that people at THE STATE BROADCASTER might get offended.

A STATE BROADCASTER who regularly sends people to gaol, and harasses countless others (SOMETIMES TO THE POINT OF HOMELESSNESS OR SUICIDE) for not funding the "stars" of STATE BROADCASTER.

Ironic?
No?

Click to expand...

Hello Alex Have they let on the internet for a few hours?

Why are those people who support the likes of Belfield always so obsessed with pedophiles and grooming gangs? Not that those things aren’t awful, but the answer in response to anything not going their way is always ‘yeah but pedophiles‘. It’s very unnerving.

Gym&Tonic said:

Why are those people who support the likes of Belfield always so obsessed with pedophiles and grooming gangs? Not that those things aren’t awful, but the answer in response to anything not going their way is always ‘yeah but pedophiles‘. It’s very unnerving.

Click to expand...

You'd think they'd spend their time campaigning for stronger sentences for paedophiles rather than simply using them as whataboutery concerning the jailing of someone whose output they just happened to enjoy. There is detailed information out there about how the exact sentence for Alex was reached - other people "getting away" with shorter sentences doesn't have anything at all to do with that decision.

If Alex is such a danger, then why was he not held on remand after the conviction?

In my opinion, prison should only be used for public safety, to keep dangerous people away from society.

If it was up to me, I would have given Alex 200 hours of community service, a three year suspended sentence and made him pay a victim surcharge and even that sounds harsh for online behaviour of a man of previous good character.

Gloria Rostron said:

If Alex is such a danger, then why was he not held on remand after the conviction?

In my opinion, prison should only be used for public safety, to keep dangerous people away from society.

If it was up to me, I would have given Alex 200 hours of community service, a three year suspended sentence and made him pay a victim surcharge and even that sounds harsh for online behaviour of a man of previous good character.

Click to expand...

He has made the lives of so many people hell. Not just Jeremy Vine and Iain Lee but countless others who are now coming forward. He targeted peoples families, their spouses and their children. Even their unborn children. He tried to ruin businesses, livelihoods and professional reputations. He threatened them with legal action, even faking solicitors letters and crime numbers.. and this went on for years. He was relentless. It might not have been physical (I believe he’d have shit himself if someone ever physically stood up to him), but he caused people immense psychological distress. Its long been argued that psychological bullying is far worse than physical, and he knew that. All of this in the guise of ‘free speech’ though ironically he didn’t seem to like others speaking freely about him, as most of these hate campaigns stemmed from little perceived slights that would go over the head of most normal people.

Add to this he also stole thousands of pounds from gullible followers under the guise of paying for his legal fees and used the proceeds to go on luxury holidays to the USA. He is dangerous and unhinged and without a custodial sentence he wouldn’t have stopped his behaviour, we saw this during the trial. Locking him up is the only way to stop him destroying lives, he lacks any moral compass or ability to self reflect and would have carried on IMO.

Gloria Rostron said:

If Alex is such a danger, then why was he not held on remand after the conviction?

In my opinion, prison should only be used for public safety, to keep dangerous people away from society.

If it was up to me, I would have given Alex 200 hours of community service, a three year suspended sentence and made him pay a victim surcharge and even that sounds harsh for online behaviour of a man of previous good character.

Click to expand...

It's not up to you though, you thankfully didn't create the laws and you're not a judge. Some people think prison is not only for keeping dangerous people like Alex off the streets, but also to give them time to realise what they've done and reflect on it so they don't do it again.

The most hilarious part of this is Alex's twice a year trips to the US won't be happening after this. Not that he'd be able to afford then anyway, he'll be bankrupt, but there's no way his visa waiver application will be accepted with this on his record

ohannie said:

It's not up to you though, you thankfully didn't create the laws and you're not a judge. Some people think prison is not only for keeping dangerous people like Alex off the streets, but also to give them time to realise what they've done and reflect on it so they don't do it again.

Click to expand...

I am a British Citizen, I have the right to comment and petition to change the laws in MY country. It sounds as though he needs to under go a programme to help him with his obsessive behaviour. Prison tends to make people worse.

The general consensus that I have read on Facebook is that the sentence is too harsh. I have read the court document outlining the sentence, thanks to @Gym&Tonic for providing it. My opinion is that the judge was emotionally influenced and I feel that the sentence was too harsh. I am basing my opinion on the facts.

Previous good character?

I am joking as I know that means no previous convictions but even a quick Google it seems he was doing this for years and was trouble wherever he went. Although being a difficult character is not a crime it certainly is an indication of likelihood of re-offending i e he doesn't learn. Often with these individuals it's their arrogance that is their downfall. They truly believe they can get away with whatever they please without consequence. He will be genuinely shocked and already writing the story that he is in fact the ultimate victim which his rather odd followers are happy to validate.

It's fascinating to me.

Northern northener said:

It's fascinating to me.

Click to expand...

Are you watching the Alex Jones trial (s)? Equally facsinating.

Gloria Rostron said:

The general consensus that I have read on Facebook

Click to expand...

Well, there's your first problem.

Facebook of course is where those with a vast knowledge of the intricacies of law hang out and chat, and not the angry, the bewildered and the foolish.

It was actually me that provided the court document outlining the sentence, you're welcome. I also posted a video by a barrister explaining exactly why the sentence was given referencing the laws. I don't know if 18 minutes is too long for you, but it's interesting and is probably required watching for anyone with interest in this case.

I don't see anyone on here defending him or his actions. I see people who use their brains rather than their emotions to judge the case and evidence and who are then quite rightly outraged at the LENGTH of the sentence.
I also see others saying vile things about a man who has lost his freedom for saying vile things.

ohannie said:

He's gay. It was never a secret, he just didn't mention it on his videos and often made homophobic comments about gay celebrities in order to please his audience, who he quite rightly assumed to be thick and ignorant. He lived with his ex-boyfriend for a few years and was dating a different man back when he worked for the BBC. It seems that in the trial he claimed he couldn't have been harassing one of his victims based on his sexuality because he shares the same sexuality, which the judge quite rightly determined to be nonsense because that's exactly what he'd done.

Click to expand...

Still seems conflicting. When he was reading out the court transcripts on his YouTube channel, he read out a section where he recounted to the court that acouple of people when he worked at the BBC had asked how is new girlfriend was and referred to her as ‘ miss bellend’ This of course he took umbrage to.

ohannie said:

Well, there's your first problem.

Facebook of course is where those with a vast knowledge of the intricacies of law hang out and chat, and not the angry, the bewildered and the foolish.

Click to expand...

This is one of the best things I’ve ever read

ohannie said:

He's gay. It was never a secret, he just didn't mention it on his videos and often made homophobic comments about gay celebrities in order to please his audience, who he quite rightly assumed to be thick and ignorant. He lived with his ex-boyfriend for a few years and was dating a different man back when he worked for the BBC. It seems that in the trial he claimed he couldn't have been harassing one of his victims based on his sexuality because he shares the same sexuality, which the judge quite rightly determined to be nonsense because that's exactly what he'd done.

Click to expand...

Thick and ignorant is right!