I believe he is. His credentials are written in his bio. I think he's in his early 40s.Is he really a criminal psychiatrist? Not a psychologist? I only ask as he's so young, every psychiatrist I've come across is at least 50! lol.
I believe he is. His credentials are written in his bio. I think he's in his early 40s.Is he really a criminal psychiatrist? Not a psychologist? I only ask as he's so young, every psychiatrist I've come across is at least 50! lol.
Ok, I'll bow to your greater knowledge. I've only ever seen him on gameshows and that awful panel programme on 5 ... probably says more about me!Try listening to Vine on his Radio 2 show, where he interviews politicians as well as "ordinary" people. He's a bloody fantastic journalist.
Still not free speech.The Facebook messages and YouTube videos are different things. One of those is a direct contact, the other one is not.
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.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.
Online stalking. It was described in court as a 'relentless online stalking campaign'Yeah I know that. But from the sounds of it, he wasn’t out in the bushes watching him so was it the videos that he made that are classed as stalking or was there more contact?
Not everyone can be paid by MI6.Also been taking donations from them for the last two years for "legal fees" despite representing himself.
I doubt he had a team.I keep reading 'his team' ... who are 'his team' exactly? The mind boggles.
Thanks for the infoThe Crown Prosecution Service describes stalking as:
Stalking is not legally defined but section 2A (3) of the PHA 1997 lists a number of examples of behaviours associated with stalking. The list is not an exhaustive one but gives an indication of the types of behaviour that may be displayed in a stalking offence. The listed behaviours are:
(a) following a person,
(b) contacting, or attempting to contact, a person by any means,
(c) publishing any statement or other material relating or purporting to relate to a person, or purporting to originate from a person,
(d) monitoring the use by a person of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,
(e) loitering in any place (whether public or private),
(f) interfering with any property in the possession of a person,
(g) watching or spying on a person.
I would think B and C were Belfield's main crimes. The police use the FOUR acronym to describe behaviour that's considered stalking, which seems to sum up Belfield's tweets and videos about certain people:
Fixated
Obsessive
Unwanted
Repeated
I am not sure how claiming legal action was being taken can count as being intimidatory.That is because it led you to
direct a flood of abuse towards him, despite a rapid apology and retraction from him.
You claimed in multiple communications to have hired and paid lawyers to sue Mr
Hewis. Those statements were false. This was intimidatory behaviour towards a man
who felt his family and home were at risk
My opinion does mean something actually, I am a citizen of this country.Good job your opinion means nothing at all then and he's safely locked away where he can do no harm![]()
Some/all of the people he was convicted of, he never actually met. I think stalking is a rather extreme term for this.He stalked people. Was found guilty in a court of law. Got a sentence. End of.![]()
![]()
I did Google and I found various contradictions. I guess my thinking was he wouldn't publicly lie to thousands of people especially when legals were involved. I think I said something on a thread here about him being a bit extreme and I got my arse handed to me, discussion about him and what was really going on was shut down.It only took about two seconds of googling to see what he was being charged with.
It can't be a coincidence that his followers always seem to be lacking in good judgement and, in Alex's words, "hard of thinking". I suppose people have to be to find that kind of thing entertaining or information.
there seems to be a few of his Lackys that do his admin work as they closed since he wen't to jail new members joining the SVOR the shop has closed down aswellI keep reading 'his team' ... who are 'his team' exactly? The mind boggles.
Abusive tweets! The poor luv.Belfied was only actually sentenced to 13 weeks for his stalking/harassment of Vine. The 5 years is because he has 4 consecutive sentences against 4 victims. The most serious were 2 years 6 months.
Is publishing Jeremy Vine’s home address to a mass audience free speech? Is encouraging people to contact Vine over false allegations and to find private information about his family also free speech? All resulting in Vine receiving thousands of abusive tweets.
Evidence?He did both.