Alex Belfield

Notice
Thread ordered by most liked posts - View normal thread.
Northern northener

Northern northener

VIP Member
Whoarewe2021 said:
Now he’s changed his tune in this video today at lunchtime he said first it was £300k then it’s £350k now it’s £225k which one is it.

Also he’s said for months he show he’s paid his legal team but to see evidence of his so called receipts you got to pay him Away to F*** and show it public Alex or is that there no evidence and it was actually to fund your staking trial and not to sue the bbc or police can’t believe people are still following his BULLSHIT LIES

Here’s the video and comments are turned on

Click to expand...
Let's be honest the money has gone on Botox for those eyebrows. He looks like a pantomime dame
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Gloria Rostron

Gloria Rostron

VIP Member
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.
 
  • Heart
Reactions: 1
dorydaryl

dorydaryl

Chatty Member
Gloria Rostron said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
  • Heart
Reactions: 1
Adawu

Adawu

VIP Member
Gloria Rostron said:
Unless Alex explicitly said he had a bomb, I don't see how he can be held responsible for someone thinking he had one.

This sentence is particularly concerning as it comes days after people in Essex were threatened with arrest for holding up a Russian flag and a man was arrested for saying something to "Prince" Andrew as he walked past. I feel that there is an element of censoring free speech. Some of the evidence used was Alex's YouTube channel where he discussed the alleged 'victims'. This is not a direct method of contact and I struggle to see how it can be classed as any form of contact. It makes me wonder if they are trying to send a message out to anyone who chooses to speak their mind publicly. It is very concerning.
Click to expand...
I am not a fan of Belfield but he definitely didn't deserve a 5 year sentence. He did not contact anyone directly or indirectly, Vine let him get into his head.

Radiorebel said:
If only life was that easy, if you block someone they can simply make another account, another email address and of course send their “free speech” mob against anyone they please. I think if any of us were subjected to the abuse that his victims were we would be worried for our families safety at some point.

May I also add for those defending “free speech” free speech does not mean hate speech is ok, also let me ask you this, if you believe in free speech for all, should ISIS be allowed to have a YouTube channel and a Twitter account? To freely express their views after all?
Click to expand...
Just block, block, block or stay off social media if you don't like what you are hearing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Chita

Chita

VIP Member
JustHereForTheAgriculture said:
Thanks for the info 😊
So am I right in thinking in regards to C that it’s not that he made the videos, but more the number of videos? I mean I understand the contacting him/his family side of it but I thought talking about people in the public eye was fair game. Like with all the drama channels on YouTube or even sites like this one.
Click to expand...
Also on some videos he said he would keep on hounding the "victim."
Threatening to never leave them alone.

Also looks like he bombarded them with emails.
Looks like some might have exaggerated the number received (I think those were the ones he wasn't found guilty of stalking) but seems he has been relentless and sent lots of them.

Interesting that it's stalking and not harassment.

Anyway, he's been found guilty.
Very interested to see what the sentence is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
L

Leinstergirl

Member
Dreamies said:
I believed him too and began watching his channel when a couple of his videos were put on Price's thread and his live phone in's, I was totally taken in by him and his suing of the BBC, but, he is clever as he knew the public would not be able to find out that he was actually the one on trial until the trial itself began. I only knew what was reported on his pre-trial hearing last year.
Click to expand...
He's hardly clever in lying about his case,it was eventually always going to come out and his lies were always going to be exposed.
Delusional not clever.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Gloria Rostron

Gloria Rostron

VIP Member
---------
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.

ohannie said:
If the threat of legal action is used to as a form of intimindation, 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."
Click to expand...
What was the alleged blackmail for, money? Would that not have been investigated as a seperate crime in itself?

Gym&Tonic said:
Are you going to find a way of justifying that as well?🤔
Click to expand...
I am not justifying his actions. I am wondering if he had a fair sentencing or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
W

Whoarewe2021

Member
And if his appeal gets heard and he loses he will get his sentence increased means he won't be released in 2 years time it could be a extra year or 2 on top
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Gloria Rostron

Gloria Rostron

VIP Member
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1
T

ThePelican

Well-known member
Ndrangheta said:
I know I'm being harsh on the Vine's ... and I know it's my issue ... but it winds me up a bit when people get access to a great education and then decide to just become meeja 'celebrities', it just seems such a waste. ps. Tim is very much a Christian .. Jeremy obviously isn't given that 'forgiveness' is a major tenet of that religion.

The other thing that irritates me about Jeremy Vine is that he consistently invites Mike Parry on his TV show. Mike has a history of bullying people online, has been sacked numerous times from jobs in the broadcast media, and is a drunk. It boggles my mind to invite someone like that onto his programme. It's hypocritical at best considering the bullyiny Belfield has done.
Click to expand...
Try listening to Vine on his Radio 2 show, where he interviews politicians as well as "ordinary" people. He's a bloody fantastic journalist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1