People Were Shocked by the
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 бер 2023
- Get an Exclusive NordVPN deal here: NordVPN.com/blackbeltbarrister - It’s risk-free with Nord’s 30-day money-back guarantee!
Media/Business enquiries: contact@blackbeltbarrister.com
Support me by becoming a member or joining www.blackbeltbarrister.com for more exclusive content!
£50 Free for switching Energy suppliers:share.octopus.energy/happy-hu... Sponsored!)
Join for exclusive content at blackbeltbarrister.com/
Become a Channel member: / @blackbeltbarrister
Support the channel: buy.stripe.com/14kdUS6gb4f26e...
or one-off: buy.stripe.com/bIYdUSfQLcLy7i...
TO CONTACT ME: Follow & Message on Instagram:
/ blackbeltbarrister
Media/Advertising requests: contact@blackbeltbarrister.com
For FORMAL ADVICE Requests ONLY:
clerks@ShenSmith.com
(other emails to this address will not receive a reply)
Disclaimer: Neither this nor any other video, may be taken as legal advice. I accept no liability whatever for any reliance placed upon it, as there is no contract between us and I am not instructed by you.
For formal advice, please contact clerks@ShenSmith.com.
💌 Become a channel member to access stripes and perks!
/ @blackbeltbarrister
LAW FAQS
• Common Law
CONSUMER LAW PLAYLIST:
• Consumer Law
TREE LAW PLAYLIST:
• Tree Law Miniseries
ROAD TRAFFIC LAW PLAYLIST:
• Road Traffic Law
FAMILY LAW PLAYLIST:
• Family Law
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER:
I'm a Barrister of England and Wales.
Videos for educational guidance only, Always seek advice before taking action. Videos on my channel are not legal advice and should not be taken as such. I accept no liability for any reliance placed upon the content of these videos or references, therein.
#blackbeltbarrister #lawyer #barrister
Description contains affiliate links; I will occasionally earn commissions from qualifying purchases or leads generated. Description may contain affiliate or sponsored links, for which we may receive commissions or payment.
Get an Exclusive NordVPN deal here: NordVPN.com/blackbeltbarrister - It’s risk-free with Nord’s 30-day money-back guarantee!
I paid for Nord VPN, but then so many websites, Google etc would not work unless I identified myself.....
Maybe you need to do a video about our legal rights and so on online, especially when using or not using a VPN, and if we use software to block ads, could that have legal consequences? And what about if we do something online that is anonymous, just how anonymous is it? Can people still be prosecuted if they do things online thinking they are anonymous?
I feel I'm both harassed and stalked by nordvpn ads in UA-cam videos. Also Raycon earbuds 😬
VPN's are the latest biggest scam, if you think they protect you then think again, they only make it a slightly more difficult, a determined individual smirks at a VPN.
Aren't VPNs illegal when used to access international content? Or at least a legal grey area?
Better yet is there a BBB VPN video?
There have been cases of stalking where the person is actually assaulted by their stalker, they have their homes broken into and it doesn't result in a prison sentence.
They didn't work for the BBC
Yep, one of the Rochdale grooming gang got 3 years, yet AB got 5 yrs for this, it makes no sense to me
@@helensmusings He tried to expose the establishment's corruption. That the worst thing you can do.
@@helensmusings I agree
It seems that the legislation is so vague that anyone could be found guilty of an offence if someone cries in court
its almost as if the law makers design these things like that deliberately so they and their rich friends can take advantage of it ......
Same with defamation. vague so catches a great deal. Then down to lawyers to fight it out. Ker ching!
The Bellfield 'victims' provided no proof that it had affected them. One claimed to be suicidal yet sought no medical or psychiatric help. Simply saying you have been affected by comments seems to be enough these days.
Welcome to Britian, land of the castrated.
@@ianstobie Same with "Hate" crime laws.
When my daughter was at uni she took out a student account with Barclays, and they showered her with cheap overdrafts, facilities, all the usual marketing stuff. A few months after she graduated, in a low paying job, she was regularly phoned by Barclays staff demanding repayment of the overdraft, often quite late at night. Barclays wouldn't talk to her father, reasonably, because they did not have consent. Meanwhile, my daughter was getting very stressed by it all. Eventually consent was arranged, and I spoke to Barclays on her behalf, Do you know how much the overdraft was? £180. That's it, just £180👺
I paid the money owed, she closed her account and went elsewhere, swearing never to go near Barclays again, and soon after that got an IT contracting job paying £100K pa (20 years ago). And how much Barclays time was spent harassing a customer?! What did that cost? Maybe it is no surprise that the recently sacked Barclays CEO Jes Staley was a big buddy of Jeffrey Epstein. Barclays used to be a reputable Quaker founded company - how times change!
Quaker? They supported apartheid in SA
@@crivsmum4820 It was started a long time before that. And by "supported" I guess you mean they were slow to disinvest - which is rather different
I've just moved away from Barclays banking after 40 years loyalty. Offering less and less services with more strings.
They shut down my local branch,next nearest branch was a 20 mile round trip. I moved away from that area shortly after that, I was later informed by text that,that branch was closing too and people would have to travel 30 to 35 mile round trips to do their branch banking.
It's quite clear they're trying to shunt us all onto internet banking. Bye bye branches bye bye staff .
They forged my name on a loan agreement because they made an admin error
@@ianhill4585 My nearest NatWest branches are a 40 and 65 mile round trip respectively, in totally different directions, neither of which direction is one that I take more than rarely.
So is Harry repeatedly slagging his father in the public domain considered harassment?
"father"
King Charles is not his dad do your homework, look what happened to his mother, 💯🤔 Beautiful human being, Did any one get convicted of her death nuff said, rip Diane Spencer 🤗💯💪👌🙏☠️
Don't you people have lives? Who cares what a bunch of aristocrats do?
@@spooncrease “farter”
@@northpeckhamestateoldschoo2947 So you are saying that she had an affair and got pregnant by another man???
So based on this, are letters from TV licensing stalking? There's certainly lots of them sent for services not required or requested and would have an adverse effect on the receiver... any thoughts?
If there is a name on them, yes.
I heard TVL get away with it coz their letters are littered with words like if , might .maybe , could be etc , without accusing someone outright of breaking the law
To stop receiving letters from the BBC Tax department, go onto their website or call the number on the letters and inform them that you no longer need a TV Licence, because you no longer watch live TV as it is being broadcast, and only watch streaming services, they will acknowledge this by sending you an exempt certificate, then you will not be bothered from them for 2 years, then do the same thing simple really.
I personally find them as harrassment, I told the bankers with a w that I do not require a tv license (as I do not need one, haven't watched "live" TV at home now for 10+ years), and then they still ask me every year - I think I will tell THEM if I do suddenly require a tv license, they should not have a right to keep harrassing me.
@@martyndawson7484 NO! In 52 years of marriage we have never had a TV set, and never wanted one. I have hundreds of letters from the Provisional Wing of the BBC saying I am about to be prosecuted, that inspectors are about to call so buy a licence NOW, etc etc They are all addressed to "The Current Occupier". I'm now retired, but used to work in information security and data protection. I was pretty sure that it still fell under the GDPR, because the BBC or the thugs it employs have access to the address database, meaning a cross reference is trivial, however I rang the Office of the Information Commissioner to check - and had strong confirmation that "The Current Occupier" did not excuse their actions
It was a total disgrace. Sex offenders get less. His offerings were a Public Service considering all the included who were up for it.
“Public service” 😂😂😂😂😂
I posted someone a letter once, it wasn’t a love letter, a threatening letter, or a joker letter, or just a letter from the alphabet. I didn’t phone them or text or turn up anywhere I thought they could be. Yet I got done for harassment then fined. The system is wrong when dads just give one letter to an ex regarding kids
anything written on that letter ?
@@pauldavies5655 yeah, I wrote, I want to see my kids.
I think it was totally wrong what Belfield done, not condoning his actions at all but considering his sentence to what murderers, rapists and kiddie fiddlers get was shocking, 5 and a half years for sending dodgy emails but Jason Owen who killed baby P after torturing the poor kid to death over an eight month period, Baby P's injuries included a broken back, broken ribs, gashes to the head, a fractured shinbone, a ripped ear, mutilated fingertips, skin torn from the nose and mouth, cuts on the neck, tooth knocked out and a Rottweiler set on him and he's released after just 2 years! yeah that seems very balanced sentencing.
AB's sentence does seem harsh.
Of course it was a ridiculously light sentence , but that was the fault of the particular judge , Bellfield stupidly and arrogantly represented himself because he thought he knew the law better than a barrister , I think that played into his seemingly rather harsh sentence, I must admit I expected him to get about 6 months
😲
Don’t forget Belfield was sentenced for crimes against 4 people, hence the longer sentence. He will only serve half in jail anyway.
Judicial system is broken,kill a baby and get few months,talk about someone get nearly six years sic
Alex was warned about messing with the "Common purpose" hierarchy and he laughed it off and mocked those who warned him.
Now he has found out what happens when you mess around with key members and chapter commandants .
They are end to end in society as he found out.
Alex was warned about stalking and harassing people, carried on and faced the consequences of his actions.
Bet he will have book deal
@@carine4318 I doubt it. He’s only famous for serial stalking.
It’s philisp dehany again, you have been busy. Stalking thief
We heading towards ‘thought control’ as more laws are slowly removing free speech. Love you videos.
Wasn’t that woman allegedly arrested for standing outside some centre… for praying in her head 😃…
@@sarahbrennan1342 Yes but we’re are they going next with laws on freedom?
Its time the brave started to get braver to compensate for all the weak cowards in the country that roll over and take it
What is it you want to say you can't now?
@@fullsizedwarf Almost anything can get you arrested and probably prosecuted under multiple excuses….offensive words or ideas made public, hate speech which is loosely defined as saying you don’t like one or more minority categories, incitement to cause [insert offence], publicly decrying accepted doctrine on anything from climate change and covid vaxes to anti abortion and anti recycling. Comedians have been warned, threatened even by the law for making jokes about Hitler. People have been cautioned by police for saying hurty words on Twitter. Just look into it a little…there are countless examples over the last few years of speech clampdown.
but its not the fact of the conviction with Belfield that gets me, its the fact he go consecutive sentences, on a first prison offence, i actually think it was his first court offence, that to me shouts stitch up
🥱
Ive always thought the same too. I also went to The Lambley Pub both to meet him, then to his big meet up, and he is ok
@@thebeerinnandrewmckenna2655 You only saw the public persona that Alex wanted you to see. The real man was very different.
He was a repeat offender, disregarding previous injunctions and the complaints of several different people, and encouraged others to harass his victims.
@@edeledeledel5490 they lied im sorry if you'r in the public eye you will have things said about you that you might not like, they couldn't back up most of the claims with actual evidence, where were all these emails he sent, they couldn't find them and as for the BBC the investigation they did found him to not be a threat at all, but then, hay that lot they kept quiet about good old Jimmy, i bet Jeremy Vine was good mates with Jimmy, but i degrees,,, that was his first court case i believe, i think its pretty extraordinary for that to get him a consecutive sentence, it was a stitch up
I think that Haz and Meg have been manipulating their own image in public and putting grossly photoshopped images of themselves on the covers of papers and magazines, so they have sort of opened themselves up for this. What about their stalking of their father and brother.
That's just plain nuts, all due respect
@@thehangingparsiple5692 What is nuts, enlighten me.
What are the legalities of using a VPN to 'spoof' an online streaming supplier into thinking you are in another country and using a type of service that you wouldn't normally have access too? Also should a Barrister be telling people how to do this via their sponsored product?
Great question! 👍
I would say the only reason to limit availability for geographic purposes is purely commercial. To milk it. In these circumstances I don't see a problem with accessing it. Why not just make it available? VPNs don't 'spoof', they prevent tracking.
So if someone is in the public eye they are immune from being joked about?
How could anyone damage harries and markels image any worse than they have themselves. They brought this all in by their very public actions
Seems to me that H & M are harassing and stalking the Royal Family. Especially King Charles, Prince William and Kate. And are definitely trying to damage their images.
It was a hit job and you know it was.
So, if that’s the case, does it amount to stalking if the local government takes pictures of your car going through 15 minute cities in order to curtail your freedom of movement?
Could this harassment & stalking also apply to journalists and TV license people (who are very persistent).
They are a special class of people immune from such laws.
@@MrEdrftgyuji
They're "special" alright...🤪
Would 'piss taking' comic sketches or 'Spitting Image' type humor fall foul of these laws. I could see these being streched to silence critics by public figures
Southpark nailed it on Hazza and The Megster. 🤣
Whole point of spitting image was there was no way to sue a puppet
As a system administrator, I find the sales pitch of Nord quite misleading. A VPN might hide your IP address, but it won't prevent any tracking with cookies unless you use a separate device just for use when you're connected with VPN. What's more likely in the contrived example he's talking about is the spying your android/apple phone does. You were talking about buying furniture and your phone picked up on it.
So what would you recommend please?
@@margaretnicol3423 dump your phone lol
I'm also a bit surprised that a barrister would be advocating using a VPN to circumvent licensing and copyright restrictions...
@@margaretnicol3423 if you use a phone, you're more or less stuffed. Apart from that, I use adblocker plugins and always choose "NO" to allowing tracking cookies
@@xTerminatorAndy My phone can take and make calls and even take and send texts. Aren't you impressed?
Yes - it is an antique and works very well. It only needs charging about once a week. 😀
Wonderful news. Christopher Bouzy comes to mind followed by the Harkles.
Sooo true!!
You forgot the sugars who have threatened certain members of the Royal Family but nothing seems to happen to them! They are still out there spewing vileness every day.
Oh! If only, now that I'd love to see.
Legal system is all about making money , and just lately about controlling anyone who puts thier head above the parapet .
I have been defrauded by solicitors 3 times in my life, 2 in house sales and the other being executor for my mother's estate and making the mistake of trusting the said solicitor who whilst doing probate robbed her estate blind. All 3 different solicitors in my town were caught by auditors as I in all 3 cases were not the only persons robbed, all 3 solicitors were charged with fraud and went to prison, what a state of our world.
so if someone has knowingly taken money from you and you are trying to get it back, how is harassment avoided in such cases?
read the law and you will see the defences available
@@Non-Stick_Pan Wow, that's really insightful. You've really made an effort to come up with that.
I remember a neighbour who owed money to a store over some furniture. He ended up in court but said the store was harassing him over collecting the money. Court ruled the store had not to send people to his home, not to go within so many feet of him and even if he went into their store they'd not to approach him. So I suppose it's how a person puts themselves across and how it's affecting them, even if it is BS. Take them to small claims court. I think you can do it all online now and don't even have to go to the actual court
'Could be' was used many times.
When does it become 'should be' or 'will be' ?
Who decides ?
People would not be questioning laws regarding stalking as long as they are applied equally !
They often cite the condition that a "reasonable member of the public" would consider it stalking... I think any reasonable member of the public would consider reporters and the paparazzi to be stalking people so why do the Police not just arrest them all?
I am constantly harassed by tv licencing threatening letters despite cancelling licence and receiving a refund I have people knocking on door which I do shut door on them how dare they continue sending these nasty letters every month it's disgusting
Thanks. Interesting video. Something to ponder on maybe…I’m sure like many husbands, I find myself watching Coronation Street on a regular basis (mostly under duress) where currently “Daisy”, one of the characters in the show is being “stalked” by “Justin” an obsessive, dillusional Scot who has repeatedly texted, approached, cancelled elements of Daisy’s forthcoming wedding, and most recently entered her house via an unlocked rear door following her refusal to let him in. Daisy has repeatedly involved the police to be told they have little power to do anything beyond “having a word” with Justin. As he “hasn’t broken any laws”. Daisy is trying to obtain an “anti-stalking order” through the courts. I appreciate this is a “soap” and the writers of the plot could take us in any number of directions, but soaps can be highly influential and contrary to what I think you have said in your video on the subject, my wife in particular and I feel that the producers of the show have created a perception that women who find themselves in the position of being “stalked” are wasting their time involving the police. I would be interested to hear your take on the legal realities of Daisy’s situation.
Doesn’t matter what the law says if the copper or cps refuse to pursue it.
Almost six years of exactly that with every excuse imaginable including directly lying.
Yes, they are the gatekeepers to justice, which also means they can violate the law with impunity.
I had to move house over a stalking neighbour. The police did nothing to help me. In fact they said I was spending too much time in my own home (therefore giving the stalker reason to lurk outside my windows). They said write down everything that happens. When I followed their instructions they said I was focussing too much in writing things down. A woman who lived in the property before me also had the same experience and moved house also. The police were absolutely disgraceful and I wish I'd reported them at the time
That's what Belfield expected to happen - then the BBC and Vine got involved!
The police are very political. They very much care who the victims are and how much press interest there is. If there’s no interest from the press they can ignore it.
Why do the press not get arrested for stalking when they camp outside someone’s home because they are a celebrity or in the news.
?
Surely sending 3 emails out to 3 different people in reference to your one law practise should count as 3 separate incidents therefore it was stalking your law practise.
Ok,let me pose a situation.If you have purchased an item and it’s faulty.You send it back for a refund.The refund doesn’t appear.You email them,no reply,so you email again,and again,add Infinitum.Eventually they do reply,but accuse you of stalking,and don’t contact them again or they will make a complaint.How does that stack up?
Could receiving continual letters from TV Licensing be classed as harassment?
Surely, if the video is a)obvious parody and b) is labelled as parody/comedy and c) does not offend against a protected characteristic and d) does not incite hatred or violence against the person, then surely that cannot reasonably be construed as "stalking" or "harassment"?
Last Saturday I saw a notification on my phone suggesting that I looked at Google maps to see where I'd been recently. I had no idea this was enabled, so I had a look. It listed how long I'd been in the car, at work, at home, etc., every day for the last month or so. I then looked at the previous day, Friday. It said that I had been to the local war cemetery. Thursday was a killer day for me at work, and I had to work from home on Friday. I was very tired, so I didn't go anywhere on Friday. I didn't even go to the yard to fetch wood for the fire as we had enough indoors. So I didn't step foot outside the door. Luckily for me, the only dead people in the cemetery were those with a reason to be, and no police came knocking on my door suspecting me of a crime in that area. I wonder if you or anyone else on here has a comment to make on this. Could Google maps records be used in court as evidence?
I'm sick of Google saying I've been to the end of my street and to a certain number house. I don't even go that way, the shops and bus stop are the other way. I don't even know who lives there. It also said I'd been down a street opposite that I've never even been to. I've disabled the function now, it's annoying
I also was surprised to find Google had this function turned on. At least it told me eventually - presumably some legal ruling somewhere has triggered this. But it had been collecting the information anyway, going back far in time. Not sure if you turning it off does anything more than just turn off the display. The collecting may continue.
Evernote, an app I pay for, has also suddenly started telling me all about my own activities. I never asked it to do so. Perhaps somewhere in the voluminous terms of service something vague is mentioned that allowed them to think they were legally covered. Anyway, the fact that various software has suddenly started providing this unwanted "service" suggests some ruling somewhere has forced them to come clean about the data they are (and have been) collecting.
Who else they are sharing it with (and who else can access it by hacking) are the crucial questions. But I expect we have already given permission for the state to get access to such data collected on us somewhere in the terms of service. Where it will probably be a default we can't override.
So Harry and Megan have been stalking the King?
This details everything that is wrong with this victim Society of today. All this does is closes down discent now termed as harrassment.
Unfortunately all to often the ‘law’ seems to punish first offenders or people who are normally law abiding, disproportionately in comparison to the ‘scum bags’ who appear in court regularly and have criminal records as long as your arm. It might be the ‘law’ but if the public believe it to be fundamentally unfair then they will have no faith in either the ‘law’ itself or the people and institutions that represent it.
If the people - or more precisely, a JURY - decide a law if unfair or unjust, they can literally refuse to hear the case and tell the Judge so, and the law has to go.
That is what happens when you make the criminal record itself be the punishment.
Of course career criminals aren't going to care about a criminal record. But your average person with a job, family and mortgage does.
Some might call this deliberate. They want the "lawful majority" to sit in fear of criminals, whilst the real criminals keep raising taxes and passing more nasty laws to "bring back law and order".
Wouldn’t that also mean that H&M could be charged with stroking William ,Catherine ,King Charles and Camilla?
I don't doubt you but the basis of these laws worry me. It strikes me these laws are being expanded into a method to stop criticism or, in the case of politicians, mockery. Also, I don't see the people harassing the Batley school teacher being pursued by the police. This is, surely, a double standard?
Exactly. In this respect, the law makes no sense.
I can only assume (I’m aware of what assume does) that it all comes down to cash. i.e. if you have enough to drag it through the courts, as the bbc does, then you could pursue it.
This whole post is just an ad for nord vpn
I wouldn't say it's a good one, as it doesn't give the protection needed to stop data harvesting in the first place
Yep he thinks we’re all fools
Yes, he's got the balance wrong and doesn't do the transition to the sponsor smoothly. He needs to watch some other UA-cam channels that do it better.
On the channels I watch can't remember many good examples, but lots of failures taking heavy criticism in the comments.
Good? Sabine Hossenfelder and Lindybeige come to mind, if you don't find Lindybeige himself annoying!
Hmmm. Individuals simply fail to understand how their conduct is not acceptable but rather seem to consider that their victim or victims are the unreasonable ones.
Whatever happened to rational consideration?
Why aren't journalists, especially paparazzi ones, stopped by this legislation? Having journalists hanging around outside your home hoping for a photo or quote, in some instances being there for days, seems to me like it fits in with many of the actions listed in the legislation that could be construed as harassment and causing distress. These journos seem to be exempt though. Why?
The harassment and stalking laws are not fit for purpose.
So with Harry and Megan, if someone does these things in the UK to a foreign resident then I appreciate that there MAY be a case. But surely they may struggle to enforce that in other countries where they don’t have the same laws as we do.
So according to this every member of the press is a stalker especially pap's
Did the court send #AlexBelfield a cease and desist warning before charging him?
For life ❓🙄
Why would the courts send a cease and desist warning?
@@ony583 he's confused with yank law, way too much time spent watching Netflix Yanky nonsense
@@crozwayne that would certainly explain the nonsense.
There were plenty of avenues they could have gone down to stop and punish him, starting with no-contact orders, injunctions, community service, probation, suspended sentence, fines, compensation, but no, they wanted vengeance not justice, and gone from social media
I think he knew he was going down. Possibly why he went to Vegas and didn’t get himself legal representation.
Probably, coupled with the fact the gay isn't right in the head.
@@jackjude A N@rcyCy$t thinks they know better than the legal professionals and represent and then not bother to defend themselves!
Probably why he spent all the money he raised to pay for legal representation, in Vegas.
@@ony583 Did you watch his last video on where the donations went? Because if you did you wouldn't be spouting such nonsense
@@VMM34 the one where he just had a handful of ratty looking a4 paper that he said was bills but didnt show any of it , do you mean that one ? , he could have blanked out any details and showed them.
Are the TV licensing guilty off harassment if the bombard your letterbox with bills with only a assumption you have a TV and no licence then ???????
We were harassed for 3 years by our neighbour, I would say it got to the point of stalking.
It was so difficult to get anything done about it even thought the police were amazing and very kind, they used everything in their power to prevent it.
In the end we finally got them arrested, charge and found guilty. They got a 12 month conditional discharge, a 12 month restraining order, 10 hours of anger management and court cost, however this didn’t stop them, they then phone the Jeremy Kyle show, who were full of apologies when I told them we had a restraining order in place.
We moved house and our nasty neighbour tried to follow the tombs vans but they were wonderful and lost them on the way.
Thankfully the exneigbour didn’t find out where we moved to
This is something I have needed to find out for ages. Does this mean that if someone put a picture of someones face on a t shirt or cake or calendar without that person permission. Is this concidered a criminal offence?
Wouldn’t when Nutmeg tried to sell pictures of Prince George, Princess Charlotte, and Prince Louis, all sleeping in their beds, be a “form of harassment on Nutmeg’s part”??.. especially pecially when “minor children” are involved?? Princess Catherine had to have many feelings going throughout her brain, ALL at the same time!?! Could this also fall into a form of harassment, too?
Am I the only one thinking that the bbc fits this idea of stalking ...harassing you through threatening letters.visits to our doors etc. ?
You’re not alone.
Alex jailed because of people crying he’s been ‘stalking them’. Alex bless him, couldn’t stalk or threaten anyone, used to be a regular listener and loved his channel and live shows. I like hundreds and thousands of other folk eagerly awaiting his return…
Riddle me this BBB, if I was to conspire with a group of individuals to I still fear into a person or group of people in order to manipulate their behaviour would that be a crime?
Yes, unless you're a Politician.
@@ony583 ..... or the BBC?
@@totherarf yes and them, in fact any institution/organisation that's affiliated with the government, gets a free pass.
Its not about how you upset someone, its more about "who" you upset ... just like when cops attend a heated dispute between the public and a corporation, you just know whose going to jail
To I still fear? Do you mean to instill fear?
with Harry and Megan constantly going on about the royal family through books, interviews and news articles would look like a case for the the mentioned. Can't see the police turning up on their door, only the vulnerable public I bet or the odd show case celeb.
Thank you as ever Black Belt Barrister. I've some information on Bellfield. I watched some of his videos on U-Tube & he constantly asked for financial support in his Crown Court case. In a couple of videos he thanked his supporters for their donations. When he first appeared in court he represented himself. The Judge awarded him legal aid & through that a Barrister. What happened to the donations?
Luxury holidays to Florida and Las Vegas, gambling and rent boys! 😂
He had the advice of lawyers, but just represented himself in court. They did a lot of research and advised him how to carry on..
So yes, he had legal fees.
@@cybersal7 wierd that I prevented aput that thing the child molostrer in intensive care for tyring to molest a 6 month old baby giirl I'm definety discriminate against those defending grown men in makeup molesting boys & girls. Nowadays the pedophile is made to be a sovereign citizen. Luckily in the UK through our Duty of Peers pedophiles have to answer their crimes. Even indirectly via the hard but angry fist who will not let a, child become the sexual property of the filthy LGBTQ mob
It became obvious that there was going to be a serious result once the judge insisted Belfield was legally represented so he couldn't stand any chance during any appeal.The judge knew exactly what he had to do.
I wonder if Hancock and the rest of the egregious shower will get this long?
Is 'scaring the pants" off UK citizens stalking?
What about the storyline in Coronation Street, the police keep saying Justin has broken no laws unless any threats
The character Daisy is nowhere near as important (to the police) as the BBC are. So the police are just following the law. With the BBC the police & the CPS went the extra mile with their unwarranted raids and malicious prosecution.
So in that respect the soap opera is very realistic.
Who on earth was the elitist that drafted this legislation and put forward as law? Far too wide and will be used by selective enforcement as a rich persons law whilst things like actual bodily harm get ignored.
Out of curiosity, are there circumstances where you could take the police to court, for stalking? And are there any circumstances where the police are allowed to "stalk" you (as defined by your definition of stalking)?
I've started using a VPN now, Amazon won't allow me to use it to watch Amazon Prime, even though I was using a UK location.
is being pestered by power company by e mail and letters and phone calls stalking / harassment ...? they are pestering me to have a smart meter...
Yes me too, is this stalking and if not why not? I have been deluged by emails, phone calls and texts.
It’s whatever the police/CPS decide it is and they will always side with the corporation.
The more i hear this stuff the more i realize the laws in this country are rediculous
Lord jesus, I was dogpiled on twitter over the weekend courtesy of the sussexsquad. Even after I pointed them to the netflix shoe which showed meghan and Harry packing boxes
I take it Belfield didn't have Nord VPN
I wonder how many of the advert moaners willingly pay for a TV license...?
The man provides his content for no charge and apparently HE'S the as*hole because he's found a way to monetize OUR WASTED TIME 🤣
Keep up the great work Dan!
Yeah these comments don't read well. Lot of jerks seem to visit this channel these days.
@@PaulStargasm if I've learned anything in my 26 years, it's that the only difference between the sweet taste of success and the bile brought on by jealousy is one of perspective, namely, whether you're the one who made success happen or the bystander...
This is the single greatest nord vpn advert i have seen in my life
I don't understand how the NordVPN ability to remotely change your location to see movies is a good thing, it sounds more like a feature that could be misused by dishonest people to create false impressions
The "online safety bill" will outlaw end to end encryption which will therefore outlaw NordVPN.
Came for 5 minutes of interesting discussion of the law.... Skipped over 10 minutes of NordVPN advert. Sort yourself out Dan, you're way better than needing to do that.
I appreciate Daniel's legal qualifications and information he shares with us. But when it comes to IT security, what are his qualifications? I realise he is pushing NordVPN as he gets a commission, but if I am buying a VPN I go to an IT expert. Just as I do not ask a computer programmer for legal advice on some legal dispute involving a road incident.
@@AwakeTruthSeeker It's the age old case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. VPNs are almost exclusively used to get around Geo Blocks on streaming services or to hide your IP address if you are downloading copyrighted works via bit torrent. The sales pitch that they protect your security and privacy is a lot of hot air.
@@AwakeTruthSeeker good point, people are always being told they shouldn’t give even the most basic legal advice without a law degree. It cuts both ways.
Odd, isn't it??
James Gillray, the great 18th century cartoonist and charicaturist, has his works shown in The National Gallery.
Today, he could end up in prison.
What a sad indictment of snowflake culture.
I'd be intrigued to know your thoughts on the abuse levelled at J K Rowling then. Could people who send abusive comments to J K Rowling also fall within the remit of the harassment/stalking laws?
I always feel like someone is watching me. And I have no privacy.
This is a very important issue.
For a long time we had no Laws against, 'Harassment', now, with, The Protection From Harassment Act 1997 we have them which is both good and bad.
Ironically, 1997 is the same year in which, The European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated into UK Domestic Law.
It is bad because Harassment can be interpreted very widely, taking Legal action against someone via a Solicitor is in fact, 'harrassment' in the literal sense of the word and also 'antisocial behaviour' in a localised sense of the word antisocial'since it is likely to cause them them distress and alarm which is one of the objectives in engaging in Litigation/Prosecution.(Deterrance and Punishment).
It might be assumed that no right minded person or agency would ever attempt to misrepresent, Legitimate/Legal 'Harassment/Antisocial Behaviour' as 'llegitimate/Illegal 'Harassment/Antisocial Behaviour' HOWEVER there are numerous videos on UA-cam of people and even Police Officers doing just this, harassing, arresting, charging and even convicting people upon the crass perception that offending someone or some people/causing harassment alarm and distress in society is Illegal!
The problem here is a chronic lack of competence or a presence of miischevious intent in drafting legislation so as to make it possible that interpretation of the letter of it's implementation does not serve what should be the spirit of it's intention.
Well intentioned Laws can be misused by bad people. (Plato), (Paraphrased).
Getting more like an infomercial every day.
gotta shill nord
Baristas are expensive. ☕ Barristers even more so.
It's interesting that there are some people who are not allowed to use a VPN by law. So the LAW prevents them from protecting themselves against online crime and helps the criminals!
Our police are not interested in harassment, stalking or bullying. Rather go after people driving 35 mph in a 30 zone.
They don't even do that very often, they have cameras to do it. No they're busy checking people's thinking or checking whether people are praying quietly to themselves.
@Paul M so true. They are working hard attending pride events
Wether plod is interested or not depends on who is being harrased.
❤️
Popping round to a woman's home because she's been "untoward" about pedophiles on UA-cam. I kid you not.
in the Alex Belfield case i thought some of the issues raised by alex were also questionable as harassment. All of those police raids and missing equipment and such would of been quite distressing. im not defending him just seemed very odd, much like alex tbh.
The police were investigating him for multiple cases of online stalking which is why they seized his equipment. They were not harassing him, they were investigating him. Alex played the victim to gain sympathy and money from his followers.
Is protesting loudly with holding placards a form of harassment.
Will this include the stalking and harassment from the government.
Its getting like North Korea 🇰🇵, here 🇬🇧, Americans still can't get their head around the TV licence, no licence FINE, don't pay fine and its PRISON, the law protects the rich as they can keep paying fines till the cows come home. Alex should have gotten a 2 year suspended sentence, FITTED UP
You just described the tv licence letters in your stalking description
Whinge and cringe should be sent the rules as they harass all of us with their lies
If the alleged offence were caused by something that was essentially true, but still caused distress, could that be a defence?
The world is changing in the wrong way, not happy.
"which is why whenever you see my videos about these events I very often refrain from giving my own opinions" translation: there is no free speech in the UK.
If the only speech allowed is the speech the government wants then you have no free speech, don't think just because you can make fun of the Prime Minister you have free speech.
Does anyone have a link to a credible source fo info for law in the uk, like the one used by the#BBB in the vid' to show exactly what the law states?
I think legislation can be accessed on Gov. UK.
@@martyndawson7484 www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/contents
Parliament UK has clear explanations of the process and text of legislation currently going (or not going!) through. It's also a good gateway to other official sites. Texts of Acts of Parliament passed since 1988 are available on the Legislation gov UK site. The Parliamentary Archives has copies of original Acts from 1497 but not online. But be careful. The reason lawyers make their money in a common law system like ours is that the text of the original Act itself doesn't tell you if some later Act has amended it, or if later case law has established precedents about how it should be interpreted.
"Exactly what the law states" sounds like something you could only find in a country with a recent dictator or invader who has imposed a rational, consistent law code on the unruly populace. Elsewhere time and lots of fiddly details and contending interests will have mucked things up. You may find you need a lawyer. What a surprise!
For brief summaries of where they think the law currently stands on certain topics of interest, or that they specialise in, the big law firms in the UK publish occasionally useful stuff. This would be a good area for Black Belt Barrister to cover for us, as it's essentially what he's doing in perhaps a more populist way.
@@martyndawson7484 As can the Bill Of Rights(1688) and linked Bills. Those bills make it clear that statute law is a load of bollox.
@@Renegade1127 Lol. Now there's a comment that could only be made by someone who hasn't actually read the Bill of Rights (1689 not 1688). To be fair most freemen on the land types haven't read it still less understood it. So do let us know where the BofR makes it clear that "statute law is a load of bollox". Do you not find it a bit odd and inconsistent that you claim statute law is a load of bollox and yet your authority for that position is itself a statute, an Act of Parliament ie the Bill of Rights 1689?
I know most fotl types aren't concerned about turning themselves inside out with their argument but it takes a particular type of self-delusion to think "statutes are a load of bollox and I know this because *it says so in a statute"
*hint - it doesn't say that.
I guess I'm suing the government, the UN and the BBC for harassment then
All these cameras and tracking devices are now being used by shops with facial recognition software or councils with cameras and tracking could this be stalking?
I did try and get NordVPN and they don't look after things as I only have a tablet a d a smart phone so I had to cancel so how do I protect my thing and my IP address thank you.
What an infamous bit of legislation, talk about laws that can be used to suppress free speech, suppress opinion. Five and half years Alex Belfield got when he clearly represented no risk to Jeremy Vine at all. I can tell you a story from two hours ago, a man knock at my door telling me he was stranded and needed a Taxi. Arranging this Taxi turned out to be problematic and he became more are more agitated. It became clear he had been drinking, on talking to him I also found our he had been in prison and was returning from a visit with a probation officer. He picked up a knife from my kitchen sink and threatened me should I not arrange a Taxi for him in short order. I dialled 999 and after a very stilted conversation with the Police (I made it clear this man could hear every word that I was saying), I was given a Taxi number by the Police. Long story made short, after more than an hour a Taxi arrived and he was gone. I had to use every diplomatic skill I had, I have no doubt I was in far more danger than Alex Belfield ever represented to Jeremy Vine, but that is how the world works now apparently.
Why do people on UA-cam get away with all the sensational lies they post?
do a video on citizens arrest, can a citizen arrest an officer on duty if they have comitted a crime and you have evidence?
Thank you young Sir. Valuable information
Brilliant information.
so Azza and Migraine reading out private texts on their docuseries is what?
We want our privacy!
Shall we set up a ‘go fund me’ and take them to court?
BBB, does the BBC threat letters mount to harrasment?