STALKING: Barrister Explains R v Alex Belfield
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- #AlexBelfield, ex-BBC Presenter is in Nottingham Crown Court - but what does the offence even mean? Here's a brief explainer.
Check out my exclusive content at www.blackbeltb...
Also me: ua-cam.com/users/bl...
My wife's cooking: ua-cam.com/users/ea...
Address for PAID Formal Advice ONLY: clerks@ShenSmith.com
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
MY CAMERA GEAR
🎥 Big Camera amzn.to/3yFFcFf
🎥 Small Camera amzn.to/2RB7ez9
🎙 RODE VIDEOMic Pro+ amzn.to/2QCJURi
Gobe ND Filter amzn.to/2R3eEuA
Neewer Ring Light amzn.to/3aOkLtT
Switch Pod amzn.to/3sZb8yA
JOBY Tripod amzn.to/3dXJYDT
External Media Drive amzn.to/3uxNDOQ 🎓 Brilliant contract law book:
amzn.to/2PHC2O1 🎓 Excellent book with an overview of criminal law:
amzn.to/3gTPEAV 🎓 Learn more about trespass and tort law:
amzn.to/32N6TLS
(Affiliate link)
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.
the definition of stalking is when two people go for a long romantic walk but only one of them knows about it.
🤣🤣🤣
Yep, that made me 😂
Senior Citizen here; old/forgetful. I’m ‘stalked’ daily (mostly fam/friends - Scoundrels!)
That's pretty good. 😂
😂
I immediately thought of the harrowing case of Shana Grice. The police fined her over £100 for wasting police time after 6 reports by her, that her ex was threatening her. He cut her throat in her own home. She died. Her work colleagues said what a sweet, bright , hardworking, lovely young lady she was. She worked in a bank.
Mr. Dysfunction just couldnt allow her to go on and live her life without him. So horrible. ⚘
Did the "Police" return the 100 pounds to her estate....with an apology obviously.
Hi, I have just read up on the Shana Grice case as I had not heard of it - terrible that she died due to the inaction of the police. Even if there were no laws about stalking any sane person would recognise that the man was a serious threat. Trying to discredit her and even fine her just shows how stupid the police are these days and how they mess up, have no common sense or ability to evaluate properly, which also implies that there are serious issues with their recruitment process. Much like the government!
@@gwenlillianlondon3772 police officer is one of the top ten chosen careers of Psychopaths. The police need to do a comprehensive psychological report on every person that enlists
@@gwenlillianlondon3772 Alex and the jealous husband would appear to have a lot in common?
@@wyattfamily8997 Probably pocketted it
QUESTION FOR YOU BBB why does Katie price keep getting away with her crimes
She's employed by the BBC now to put shows on their channel's. I guess they are bailing her out.
Expensive lawyers.
I guess she hasn't actually committed any crimes.
@@rozzgrey801 so driving under the influence without insurance isn't a crime then?
@@rozzgrey801 guess again
The first stalking case we had in Victoria Australia. The accused constantly followed the accuser to work and said hello to her. She was terrified and called the cops.
Turned out he worked next door to her.
Still went to court though. Poor bastard was on the front page of the paper.
😂
What " the police wasted a lot of public money taking him to court ?
@@jackwatsonepic626 Often when a law is introduced the police want to test it out.
They get it in front of a judge and see how they interpret it.
I think in this case the Police hated the law so they set out to use this guy as a stool pidgeon.
The parliament had to amend the legislation after the case.
This guy was clearly not a stalker, but still broke the very broad anti stalking laws.
Not sure what happened to him TBH.
Interestingly there is a unit in New South Wales. Called the Fixated Person's Unit. It's meant to tackle stalking. However over half it's "victims" are politicians.
They recently tried to charge a UA-camr because he approached a high ranking politician. Essentially as a harmless gotcha kind of prank.
There was no violence and no threats whatsoever.
They did devote a huge amount of resources to framing this guy. Unsuccessfully.
The Parliament had to get involved.
FriendlyJordies is the channel. I kind of disagree with his politics. But being harassed by the state, for political reasons, really is not on.
@@HouseholdDog I don't agree with him all the time either
but this is out of order
but thank you for educating me they say you learn something new everyday !
Wow
Good to see this covered. Ever since they broke his door down and related alleged abuse of power instances by the local PD have been following.
He is a liar
He is a liar
@@julianshepherd2038 And your proof is...?
@@Mistermopar No proof , he just wants to be next one in court .
@@Mistermopar
...is him telling people to Don ate as there's no evidence against him.
.. is pleading not guilty when he was🤣🤣🤣
Still a little confused with this. Surely under the definitions outlined, all celebrity journalists and the paparazzi would fall foul of what is considered stalking. Is there separate legislation that covers what people who work in the media are allowed to do?
Yes. It's also illegal to be suffering from mental health issues and issuing cries for help. I was one of the Protection from Harassment Act's first victims back in 2000. One of the more shocking aspects is that it criminalises genuine misunderstandings. This was something civil liberties groups were warning about at the time and that's how it panned out. The government expected 300 prosecutions a year. They got 3000 the first year alone.
The legislation is extremely broad and covers all sorts of behaviour. Like all bad laws, it is only selectively enforced against those the police don't like or those who cannot afford to defend themselves.
@Credible Threat He certainly ridiculed them. But then again, if that was illegal every comedian would be arrested. From recollection, Alex still being somewhat in the loop as to what was going on at the BBC, he submitted FOIs to confirm rumours he was hearing and then sold the stories to the mainstream media. None of the papers were sued for libel or defamation, which would lead you to suspect that the contents of the articles were true. Personally I think they're just trying to shut him up any way they can. I think he's a perfect example of 'you create you own monsters'.
@@MrEdrftgyuji surely the effect such behaviour has on an individuals life must come into the equation? Thousands of people were urged to ( and did) donate to this man in order to let him continue to harass, belittle and threaten eight individuals no one but him could pick out of a crowd with perhaps one notable exception. I could go on slagging off Boris Johnstone all day online but when I start crowdfunding and raise hundreds of thousands of pounds to attack and harass him or anyone else, I think he’d start to worry he has a serious threat in his hands that perhaps he shouldn’t ignore?
Belfield raised hundreds of thousands of pounds to continue his daily tirades against these people, his supporters sounded distinctly hostile and possibly frightening to the people being harassed. Belfield spoke about them individually to arranged meetings in pubs and venues which he then posted online and were available for his alleged victims to watch and grow fearful over. These were freely available in the public domain for any vulnerable victim of his ire to fret and obsess over . I’m sorry, I’ve seen this kind of online trolling used against vulnerable youngsters for sport and we’ve all read the horror stories of people driven to desperate measures by online bullies and trolls. Take Saint Alex’s name out of the equation and think how you’d feel if you were afraid to open your inbox or browse UA-cam knowing thousands of people were donating to an online bully for your ruin?
@@davidlister7214 no, a comedian tells a good one liner about a politician in the public domain , if he persistently belittles the little woman running a corner shop and encourages his fans to send him money so he can sue her for not selling his favourite crisps can we agree s line may have been crossed, especially when she can see he’s whipping up his fans and they are donating thousands of pounds to her detriment?
I've been "stalked" for years by BBC TV Licensing but it seems there's nothing I can do about it.....
ChiliJonCarne on here is worth a watch on how to deal with them when/if they ever turn up. Only had one visit in 20+ years of not having a brainwashing licence though.
@@tentaklaus9382 yeah I had a drawer full of threatening letters, I was keeping them for if I ever got rich to sue them for harassing me. I haven’t watched the BBC for about 40 years. In the end I know have it down to re-registering every 2 years that I don’t watch the 💩 the BBC wants me to pay for. I was stationed in Cyprus during the Turkish invasion, I was 19 and I nearly choked at the untruths being broadcast by all MSM (especially the BBC)of the day 1974. It’s 20 times worse now.
Soros owns the bleeding lot anyway so yeah we all have to go discern our facts elsewhere.
@@tentaklaus9382 Yes, but over 30 years ago I had a nasty letter saying "YOU WILL BE FINED £1000" in big bold print. Quite scary for some no doubt but in small print below it went on to say "if you are caught watching TV". Yes, "if". After that I decided never to pay for a TV Licence ever. I will not be bullied! I've lost count of the number of harassing letters I have received since then.
I think this is actually a very valid point, and one which Jon Carne would love to bring up.
You haven't been stalked since they have a valid reason to be contacting you .
So you described what the BBC do to the public over their TV licence via Capita but funny no prosecution of the BBC
THAT is a very valid point! We all need to accuse them of stalking.
Here a point, Why does not stalking come under harassment?
The licence people:
1). Harass tenants and home owners
2). Demand monies with menaces, that is, if you do not pay up you will be punished by jail or a heavy fine
3). Fraud. If they turn up with a court warrant it is not actually a valid warrant as it comes from Northampton Money Claims Center, rather than it legally coming from the local magistrate
Enforcing the statutory TV licence isn't harassment. Don't be daft.
@@snowflakemelter1172 Just bow down and be trodden upon, Laugh!
@@dougaldouglas8842 it's still not harrasment even if you cry about it, it would be if you had proven to them you are not able to watch BBC tv. Have you ?
Some people will 'suffer' from serious alarm or distress when they fear the truth will be exposed.
We need more people like Alex Belfield to expose their corruption.
The truth and nothing but the truth as Alex says each and every day.
And by 'the truth' I think he means Boris Johnson truth (a.k.a lies)
What “truth” are you talking about? He’s alleged nothing criminal about any of them with the one exception of the “theft” charge. Just a load of insults about their work and their sexuality and their looks and how “light on their feet they are”. He’s the one conducting the Witch Hunt aided by thousands of the most easily duped folk in the UK, allegedly.
People will also suffer from serious alarm or distress when they have been constantly stalked, harassed, bullied, humiliated and defamed online. We certainly do not need any more people like Alex Belfield!
@@emmal7920 Which is no comparison to him being repeatedly raided by the police and having his possessions confiscated. Even though they found nothing on said possessions. The BBC were using the police to stalk, cause alarm and attempt to prevent him from earning a living. See the power imbalance there?
Jeremy Vine didn't like being asked if he was paid £700,000 pa. Who would've thought that amount of money for him of all people?
So all reporters are guilty of stalking!! This law is therefore open to interpretation and will come down to the Judges own interpretation
Trusting a Judge under British law is concerning, just ask Tommy Robinson.
He just told you why that's not the case.
You could have knocked me down with a feather when the first witness for the prosecution said she had received 3-4 THOUSAND emails from Alex.
He's a dodgepot, the verdict proves my point. Read the definition of the charges according to Law and if you have any sense stop taking his word for it. The offence was real as found by the jurors.
I think he’s fooled many people! His utube channel was very large until it became members only mainly. His filming from holiday locations whilst asking for donations although promising most would go to charity if he won I found strange. Definitely a character but an honest one- we’ll see !
@@mandycmorris Alex has never once asked for donations. In fact he specifically stated that he's not asking for donations after I myself left a comment saying I would donate. I had to hunt round for a PayPal link on his channel then asked him to fix it because it was defunct. Alex appreciates all our donations and will donate the rest to charity if it's not needed. Fine with me. I bet you can't find one instance of Alex asking for money.
You are conflating non coincident activities ,but feel free to identify to me when he was on holiday and asking for donations etc.The return of donated money ,related to legal costs being less than money from his youtube appeals
His.what you call "utube channel "is not members only that's his website .Perhaps in a parallel universe where "UTUBE" exists you might find the answer to the strangeness.
That’s over an 11-year time span, I believe. So one a day, to a work colleague as she was for most of that time. Not unreasonable, especially if some of those were group or cc emails.
Another law that is vague and able to be interpreted in wildly different ways, depending on what suits those prosecuting.
The Law needs to be 'vauge' to enable justice.
@@noelward8047 Or injustice.
@@noelward8047 As with many things its a question of degree. Too strictly defined and they are easily bypassed. Too vaguely defined and they can be applied in circumstances well beyond their original intent. This strikes me as more of the later than the former.
stalking is only stalking when it affects the police .
@@noelward8047 or 'preference'
"She said "I'll see you in court",
Well I can't wait, she calls it a trial but I call it a date" Women call it stalking by Otis Lee Crenshaw aka Rich Hall
The government and google stalking me causes me alarm and distress. Look forward to your analysis of the AB case as it unfolds.
AB is that auditing Britian?
@@gingernutpreacher No, it's AB as in the Alex Belfield criminal case taking place now.
@@patpending8134 oh ok sorry
@@gingernutpreacher No need to apologize.
You are correct.
'AB' is well known to be referring to Auditing Britain.
@@noelward8047 I read that as Auditing Britain too. Nice to see he's so well recognised!
Seems to me the government fall foul of this law on a daily.
No statutory definition of stalking? Then anything COULD be stalking. And by the same token NOTHING could be stalking. That's the trouble with these bollox laws. And of course the police are exempt from the same laws that we are subject to. It IS all bollox.
Case law makes it clear what can and can't be considered as stalking.
Anything which puts a victim in a state of fear and alarm has crossed the line. Ranting on Social Media that you will “hound you for the rest of your life online or if I see you at events.”See what I did with those quote marks ? I reckon that could be pretty frightening for an already spooked person to see, and then you see it got 375,000 likes from supporters who are actually disliking you enough, a complete stranger,to financially support him. In the words of Shakespeare, I’d be shitting it.
Thanks for your learn'ed input your honour.
I like this Alex case. It all comes down to , to what extent is exposing corruption, wrongdoing, abuse of power & / or general tittle tatter allowed before it turns into harassing that person. We know that the BBC hate the spotlight being placed on them & will use all means to stop it. We also know that Alex really has a thing for the Bbc . In order to find him guilty, they are really going to have to prove that they are absolutely squeaky clean, nothing to hide, all above board & that he just was a sad ex employee. He needs to show that the people in question all have questions to be answered about them…..so, let the trial begin & lets see the evidence
Actually no; they just have to stop him proving he's innocent; which can and probably will be quite easy for them. They have a lot more money and power than he does.
Neither they nor the BBC are on trial, Belfield is. No one “likes”, the BBC who isn’t employed by them but that doesn’t mean they have committed “wrong doing”, a partisan loyalty to a political thought isn’t something we can legislate for or against, it’s about how much a person can bully harass and intimidate another, while crowdfunding thousands of people to donate and join in the harassment ( allegedly) before it becomes a criminal offence. A lot of Belfields fans still think this is about him fighting for THEIR right to bully harass and intimidate under the banner of Free Speech, it’s not, he’s on trial in a criminal charge for driving these people to despair and fear for their safety ,allegedly.
@@Katya-zj7ni
Well said.
Hahaha,your deluded....check out the Police breaking into his house without a warrant.....He's one being unfairly treated and stalked
Anything that exposes (or could potentially being down) the *Cold Cold Cold Packed Faced Leftist Cultural Marxist Communist Anti White Male Straight Christian normal working class British BBC* is ok is my book!
Funny how Alex can be accused of stalking, but journalists and photographers can follow people all day, everyday 🤔🥴
He is a journalist ! Whether he is guilty or not , it is up to the court . The BBC have been guilty of very corrupt and damaging behaviour over decades. We now know what Bashir ( BBC ) did to the Princess of Wales . She was shown “ evidence “ that proved that the Royals were going to have her eliminated . She would have been terrified . No wonder she would not accept the bodyguards .
This is why the prosecution wanted the judge to consider that Alex wasn’t a Journalist and entertainer, which of course he is.
If they could have had the judge believing that Alex wasn’t a a journalist, then their case probably would be stronger, as it is the judge didn’t buy it, and declared that Alex is a journalist and entertainer.
@@andydbedford he isn't a journalist, he shares his opinion, not news
@@billbrooke4355 spose being a journalist now counts for nothing. Either way, belfield is not a source for truth
@@billbrooke4355 1970s entertainment
Finally a video for those of us not obsessed with celebrity non-issues. Thank you!
@Operation Bell Boy because it’s within the terms of the bail, or the bail terms are amended say by the defendant requesting their passport back so they can go abroad🤔
@Vintage Bollinger celebrity culture is a cancer though....
@Vintage Bollinger shame he didn't go into such detail regarding the maxwell case! But the celeb cash cow gotta needs milked :p
@Vintage Bollinger The "law" as it applies to people who are very wealthy is quite different to how it applies to everyone else, and as such is irrelevant...................
@Vintage Bollinger Rubbish! If the law is the same, how come over £20 million has been spent on an "investigation", to ensure wealthy and influential child abusers are never likely to face even the lop-sided version of justice operating in the UK?
The judge has ruled that Belfield is a journalist, seeking out wrongdoing is part of their job. How is this related to the stalking guidelines?
Loosely following the case, it appears that the prosecution has said that Belfield sent thousands of emails to the defendant.
This doesn't seem like the conduct of a journalist . . . however, whether this is true or not remains to be seen.
@@buddhistsympathizer1136 yet only had 27 to present and no index of the remainder. When challenged by the defence Barrister, her pejorative comments about Belfield seem far worse and the emails she sent to Belfield will come out later in the trial when the defence presents their case.
Did you notice how precise her testimony was in relation to Belfield's actions yet had selective amnesia towards her own indiscretions?
@@nizviz Yes, that's fair comment - And the selective amnesia must have left the jury thinking that she is lying/playing games.
If I play 'Devils Advocate' though . . . remember what we hear from Alex may have things ommitted that he may not wish to disclose to his audience.
We'll never know that (or we'll only get to know through other news sources).
@@buddhistsympathizer1136 I'm neither judge nor jury, it's their job to form conclusions. Seems a little too co-ordinated that they are all BBC employees, except for Vine, who works for hispreteen daughter and sub-contracts to the BBC. You would expect a large corporation to have better disciplinary procedures to deal with allegations of 'stalking' and abuse.
Funny that as Belfield has said many times before in videos that he’s not a journalist and hates them. Now he’s on trial and is suddenly a journalist again. In his daily court reports he is cherry picking what he tells his audience and conveniently leaves out details of the allegations reported in the press.
Glad you are covering this
That's what the government and big tech do to us all the time.
If anything, the adversaries ranged against Belfield are more guilty of stalking and harassing him than he them.
The Laws on Stalking are Ridiculous and need changing drastically. I personally have been Stalked by an ex-neighbour for 18years and the individual has only recieved 1 caution.
Granted the individual has mainly used Malicious Slander but non the less it caused no end of mystery to me. The Law needs changing ASAP !!
That won't help.
The police refuse to enforce the law that already exists, making more laws is pointless when the police refuse to protect victims.
I'm glad to see Alex carefully treading the fine line in his self reporting of the case.
In 2007 I was the victim of “gang stalking” which went for nearly a year. I contacted the police, but they did NOTHING about it. I became mentally ill and I was off work for five months.
Thank you BBB for this video. I find it very helpful to have your explanations in mind when listening to AB.
Well alex said to thank you for being a friend and being so nice
Denise Trott Do you seriously think this well respected lovely intelligent man with class and integrity would be mates with Bellend, i doubt that very much, he is simply do a video on him like he does a lot of court cases! I don't think he would be seen anywhere near the vile gobshite that is Alex Belfield
He says that about the judge! LOL
@@pitbull2005 He's manipulative but he's too transparent with it to fool professionals.
I recall Alex giving your channel a big recommendation. It must have helped your subscriber numbers.
Positive actually attracts Positive ...
The magnets have been wrong all along Haha
So?
@@noelward8047 There is nothing positive about Belfield. He slags off people all the time and all his videos are negative to play to his audience of conspiracy theorists, anti vaxxers and the disaffected.
And silly old me thought he was in court to sue the Notts police etc. 😕
Nope, thats what he wanted you to believe, clearly not thought through his lies and probably didnt expect the news outlets picking it up.
Indeed you are a bit stupid, he was in court to sue the Notts police, and that's a civil claim in a civil court which is adjourned while this criminal case is concluded.
You''re in good company though, a lot of commentards are too stupid to learn or understand the difference between costs in civil courts and criminal courts, almost willfully stupid it seems, as if they don't really care if they are stupid as long as they can have a dig at AB? Seems like stalking him in a way.
I think it's all associated to same thing as Nottingham police tried to place it for stalking but have no evidence, so he is seeing them on harassment in associated alledged offences and lack of evidence. That's my understanding .
That's coming next with DC Percival And the dough-nut that knocked his back doors in-after removing I'd(allegedly)but is then dopey enough to appear on TV on Police Interceptors
🤡🌎🤡🌎🤡🌎
Harassment act should also apply for the TV licence threat letters we always get more than two
Ah yes, Our wonderful UK laws which are so fuzzy that they could mean anything. But hey remember ignorance of the law is no excuse.
What even if its the dopey police 😂
@William Tell Scots law is even worse
@@MrEdrftgyuji apart from modern legislation re traffic and health and safety Scots Law is surprisingly simple, it hinges on Common Law for the most part, therefore if you reduce a person to a state of “Fear and Alarm”, you have committed a Breach of The Peace and other crimes can follow that. If you can persuade thousands of people to donate money to allow you to continue that Breach of The Peace and other crimes , well that would certainly be an Aggravation of that crime.
@William Tell So Wales is in England now? Learn something new every day!
@@denise4487 Nice one and the only criminal organisation that manages to get away with at least 90% of all crimes committed by it.
Your videos are always very informative 👍 sometimes the “law itself” is often difficult to understand but you clear those muddy waters… keep it up 👍
Thanks so much for talking about Alexs' case. I used to watch his videos. If anyone was harassed by the Police it was him.
The police did not identify themselves or have their names and numbers visible. Crazy
@@melaniescott1039 They don't have to. The police don't have to identify themselves on suspected terrorism raids. His fans would harass them and make further threats if they did. From what I can work out, he made bomb threats and claimed they were jokes. He got raided. Nothing of interest was found and that was it, until he got his followers to pile on the senior staff at Notts police.
He's just an idiot, who's desperate for your attention and money from (one sided) 'free speech' supporters.
"If you don't come down immediately, we'll smash your door in"
Quite clearly, that is not harassment
@@buddhistsympathizer1136 No. It's a raid. From what I saw he was given more time than most to answer the door. I think he just got exited at the thought of having his back doors smashed in by a big burly copper.
@@alfsmith4936 You're a secret watcher of the show with that comment ;)
Apparently the raid found nothing. Unless he's lying about that as well.
After listening to this , my dog is in serious trouble . She stalks me everywhere and even now is perched on my bed !
Haha
Give Martyn Swinscoe a call ... he will sort it out.
🤣
i have a seagull outside every day, waiting for me to come outside and give it food. It even sits on the railing outside my window and looks into the house to see where I am, then bangs on the window to gain my attention..
My question is, do I report it too the police in the hope of taking it too court for stalking. Or will the police write it off as a "none crime species event".
Scary... my yorkie even follows me into the loo! No privacy at all...
@@mikespencer4922 Your Yorkie is not for girls Haha
Alex Belfield speaks very highly of the BlackBeltBarrister.
As do we all.
BBB has also been manipulated, I can't think he has a connection with a suspected criminal facing charges in a crown court.
That doesn't mean the BBB backs Alex.
So it's a very grey area, that is why they used it to shut him up, he will be found guilty just like Tommy was.
If the law is unclear (not specific on what stalking is) then Alex is in real trouble as the British "justice system" isn't used to provide justice to individuals, just to the elite, politicians, police, bureaucrats, big business etc. with individuals being penalised heavily whenever possible.
He committed harassment, Robinson did nothing.
Guilty of what... "I don't remember" has been the answer to 90% of the questions in cross-examination of the witnesses so far
I can't stand the term "Alarm and distress" when used in law, especially when related to things like the communication act. It's a ridiculous standard. It's all based on the fee fees once again. Our legal system is dumb as hell. Describable acts not subjective feelings. One person's alarm and distress is another person's free speech. What constitutes any of these things really? They say that it has to demonstrate "real emotional disturbance and upset", but there are some weak pathetic people in the world who could demonstrate that even if it was totally unfounded - for a joke a comedian makes for instance. It's just nanny state nonsense that curtails free speech and expression. Other than incitement or threats there should be no limits placed on people based upon other people's feelings. Are we children who need coddling? Or grown adults that can hear things we don't like and deal with it?
They expect judges to use common sense.
I am for it.
The law can't define an exact set of rules to describe human behaviour and how it is measured in a scale of good or evil.
People are not programmable robots, the system must allow some place for common sense and human factors or it will simply not work.
And judges in the UK are not stupid, alarm and distress is not a dramatic fuss over nothing, it is something that would make most people feel alarm and distress and clearly made that person feel alarm and distress.
I am guessing both have to be either very obvious or proven
If you are alarmed by apples and someone ate an apple near you, a judge will tell you to get a life (in nicer works though) but if you were eating an apple and a stranger snatched it from you, throw a potato on you, and then showed you photos of you extended family and told you where you live, the judge probably would agree that would cause someone alarm and distress
Nope, person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he-
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
Apply the legal principle of what a reasonable person would think and you have as sensible definition. The fact that the police don't understand this is another matter.
Weak little wimps in the Uk.
Hence the butthurt police and law.
There is no justice. Anyone that thinks otherwise is a fool
The Law needs crystal clear "definitions" not woolly examples.
Exactly, stalking should be a purely physical/unavoidable thing (outside your house, following you, constant phone calls) - not be merging into some sort of cyber harrassment that you can literally block and report
I suppose TV licence goons could be accused stalking then if they turn up multiple times a year and send threatening letters multiple times.
I successfully sued my postman for harassment: There was a clear pattern of behaviour (that of posting bills) and I managed to get a restraining order. I only get 'nice' post now. Vague!
Thought AB asked for that money to sue the Police?
He did he told his gullible followers he was suing the BBC, Nottingham police etc but all along it was for his defence 12 stalking charges over 10 years 8 different people.
I'd be interested in a video on Jeremy Vine v Alex Bellfield case for Defamation.
One trial at a time please!
Well Bellfield had to pay J Vile £12000 compo and pay Viles legal fees.
@@JackOfski I do wish you people would make up your mind about, alledged, amounts.
A former BBC Radio DJ accused of stalking Jeremy Vine waged a nine year 'campaign of harassment' against his former colleagues after being axed from his mid-morning show, a court heard.
Alex Belfield, 42, is accused of stalking eight members of BBC staff after bosses failed to renew his contract at BBC Radio Leeds in 2011.
@@noelward8047 Not alleged but fact and it was £25k. There is a court document online in the public domain about the hearing in the High Court.
So all reporters can be arrested for stalking?
No, BBB just explained that.
The government is stalking me for taxes 😒
They made something illegal without defining it?!? They just said what it's "associated" with? Clearly the people who voted for this law presumed their privilege would protect them as the letter of the law in no way protects them or any innocent party.
No.
@@resistancefighter9009 Yes.
Can you also explain Belfields decision to not give evidence too?
I don’t follow Belfield. I find him annoying, and to describe as a “journalist” must be insulting to journalists. I might be wrong, but didn’t he receive money from his subscribers to help with his court costs, and now I read that he is representing himself...WTF.
I conducted a survey of 100 women and asked them what their most favourite shower gel was. The most common answer was "HOW DID YOU GET IN HERE!"
This analysis and expert explanation video is absolutely excellent. Thank you.
Seems it’s Belfields QC that’s off with Covid, however, he just says “One of the QC’s” but then mentions the prosecution QC, Mr McGuiness talking in court.
What about the press perusing someone for a story? I seem to recall reading that this was part of his defence.
I was surprised when Alex’s reporting on the case suggested 4000 emails had been sent by him. Unless I misheard him. That does seem excessive but if it falls in the realms of a request maybe not? 🤷🏻♀️
The number means nothing without context.
you need to ask over what time period as that is a lot of emails, to write that many is a massive amount of time.
I would like full proof being show . the court should ask to see the 4000 to 6000 emails and prove that they have come from what person. and then what they say and if that is what the person says they are.
@@davidsworld5837 i believe 4000 over 11yr period is what they said
@@badcampa2641 4015 days so that's roughly 1 Email a day for 11 years .
Some people need to learn how to block emails, messages, and phone numbers.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge. It is very much appreciated x x
Do you have any comments on the recent verdict?
So someone can claim some bs "protection" excuse to stalk and harass someone (e.g this person hates me) or they claim the are a private detective while stalking and harassing someone, including threats of violence and an extensive slander campaign. (by implying that the person being stalked is a criminal because they are being investigated.)This person can basically get away with causing sever damage to someones life by using these excuses with no repercussions?
Why is it ok to stalk (and harass) people if someone is paying you to do it? Overt investigation is harassment and damages peoples relationships and reputation.
The message here is if you want to stalk and harass people, just pay someone to do it and have some bs excuse and you are in the clear?
As per usual, they carved out a very clear exemption for authorities and rich people.
Can you do a video on the legality of begging fans for money to sue the BBC, when zero monies were spent on suing the BBC.
So all paparazzi and the police are liable for stalking under the law 😂
The law is probably only meant to be applied to white males, everyone else gets a "pass".
The mindset of stalking has changed with the use of social media
If I was being sent unpleasant emails , I do believe that I would block the sender after the first few , if not the first . I would also expect my boss to make sure that they were stopped . To allow this for ten years without doing anything about , means to my thinking that I didn’t care and didn’t bother looking at it .
People need to switch off their social media if they are having problems .
@@BlackStump172 It’s reported that they did block his email address, however, he continued to create new addresses.
@@smileyriley3119 "It is reported that:" Such a lovely term, best loved of the legacy media. I think it means "I just pulled that statement out of a hat."
It was Alex belfield who put me on to your channel all this is a load of nonsense he just made fun of people or told the truth, hate to think that we should hear the truth about things not everyone like all his coments even me at times it's just been a witch hunt.
The court will decide. I could only have an option based on the bits & bobs I have heard.
Very little of what belfield says is the truth, might line up with your opinion but not the truth
@@elliotwilliams7421 Now you have downgraded to 'very little' Haha
Are you suggesting that only your views are true ?
Interesting.
@@noelward8047 I think Elliot is spot on.. What Alex does is grifts to people who have supported Yaxley Lennon and C**t Dankula for easy money.
All he does is play the victim, whilst encouraging his followers to harass people, while he reads Daily Express stories to people who say they don't trust the msm. Don't forget to subscribe to his paywall, as well as the UA-cam (I thought he had been cancelled, according to him) though. He really needs the money for another holiday and his rent isn't cheap.
@@alfsmith4936 Are you feeling OK ?
When it’s appropriate for you to do so. Looking forward to your “summing up” of this case and the implications moving forward. Particularly if you think any precedents get created
Great to have legal background like this on a trial that is current.
Can a police person , paparazzi , reporter or bailiff be charged with "Stalking " ???
All i want to know is, when's he going to jail 👍
If guilty , will he go down?
@@dixienormous2440 ...often.
@@dixienormous2440 Nah. He'll get a years probation and have to promise not to contact them again.
He will of course claim that as a win..
We have a Jeremy Vine supporter..😂👍
Very helpful on the definition of stalking and a warning at the same time not to nick his videos!
2:20 Paragraph 3(c) seems a bit weird and to over encompassing for stalking. That would make anything published anywhere about an individual classed as stalking, especially when there are multiple publications mentioning the person. So every single celebrity is being stalked when the MSM publish stories about them.
That is the point of the law - to make everyone a criminal. Then the police and courts only take action against those they don't like.
@Sad But Mad Lad You never fail to arrive at the wrong conclusion.
@@135Ops how does he arrive at the wrong conclusion, his argument is consistent
The one question I have is on the charges. Originally there were 12 charges, but these have been reduced to 8. However, some of the charges had a date range covering a period 25 Nov 2021 to 02 April 2017 and then further charges covering a period 03 April 2017 to 31 March 2021. E.g.
- Stalking between 25 November 2021 and 02 April 2017 and
- Stalking between 03 April 2017 to 31 March 2021
has been changed to:
- Stalking between 25 November 2012 and 31 March 2021
Any reason why the charges had that specific date range? And any reason why that has been changed?
The law was changed in 2019, so some charges are being charged with one law and the other with the new legislation. Hope that help?
I'm with Alex on this, the way the BBC and police have been treating him is terrible
To okay devils advocate, we’ve only heard one side of the story so far. More details are emerging though.
I haven't watched Alex for quite a while. At the time the police kept coming into his home and searching, removing all his computers and phones
Repeatedly.
It seemed extreme to me.
@John Carpenter nope if it was intact over 11 years
@John Carpenter 4000 emails over 11 years equates to one email a day.
@@melaniescott1039 I guess when there’s allegations of stalking everything needs to be checked.
Jeremy Vine had to watch all of Alex Belfield's videos to be 'stalked'. I suggest Jeremy Vine is stalking himself, and also stalking Alex since he's going massively out of his way to take offence from this person whom he considers as having "no reputation"
Alex is a fuckin hero in a sea full of spineless jellyfish as are you for me we need people like you running the country as you understand the law and the problems with enforcing it and what needs to change to better the lives of ordinary people
So, if people with money and influence comit crimes against you get away with it, because of money and influence, then they can call the 'stalking' card when you go to see them to ask questions about it?
"There is NO actual definition of stalking" (1min50secs in). There you have it ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, it is for you to decide did Mr Belfield commit an act of stalking on social media through electronic devices?
Yes he did on 4 counts
It's irrelevant. He's guilty. Now what is he gonna get? I'm thinking 3-4 years.
I’ve only watched a few bits of Belfield's vids when they’ve been suggested viewing and quite honestly he gave me the creeps so I avoid them now. However I can’t stand the guy he’s alleged to have harassed (Vine) so I’ve got no dog in this fight, I’m just interested to see how the justice system works.
Its tittle-tattle, not “tatter”.
Same. I clicked on the ''do not recommend'' button on his stuff when it comes up after watching only a few minutes as he was so annoying. I support journalistic freedom, but had no idea who or what he represented, or what he was in court for.
I watched 2 vids of his...a burning building which he claimed was a Chinese Lab being burnt and he implied was to cover up the source of COVID, and claiming Starmers ratings were bad compared to Johnson’s. 5 minutes research and hey presto, both complete fabrications. How he has got the following he has beggars belief. I personally find his “comedy” nauseating. This Country is going down the pan.
If you don't know the case, why would you comment. Just stay away from your tipitati.
@@kayew5492
Im the same.
@@gordongourlay7423
Tipitati?
Why did you comment?
Love your channel. Came here from Nate the lawyer. Set your autocue help above the camera you're talking to. It makes the eye flicks a little less obvious
I really hope someone can help Sweet Anita, she has a stalker that keeps breaching his restraining order. Was picked up by the police with a knife on the way to her house and threated to murder her. It would be really sad if something happened to her and it really feels like watching a car crash in slow motion.
At least two people have been murdered in the past year after stalking complaints (and orders) were ignored by the police and the victims were allowed to just be murdered
Does this mean I'm stalking, when I check to see what my MP or local counselors are doing and why there wasting the money of the Swindon people.
Belfield fooled me and is still fooling many others. He lied about is legal fund cash grab.
Oh dear.
Are you suggesting I have been defrauded ?
Please send details, so that I can join your 'class action' Haha
Let’s wait and see …. Innocent before proven guilty after all .
surely there must be exceptions when you are contacting someone repeatedly to get action or information this can not be stalking I give an example I am trying to get my electricity bill sorted out its gone on for weeks and I write each week trying to get an answer which is ignored stalking should not protect people when there is something wrong or they work directly or indirectly for the public
It's nice to hear a UK UA-camr pronounce, 'harassment' the English way!
I and others I imagine would value your comments on the results of his case. Thanks.
I just heard about a case where a person was railroaded into being a stalker and it didn't end well they were forced into a lot of things, sad
From what you say, Belfield has no viable defence, as sending thousands of emails, text messages, and posting hundreds of videos, cannot be explained as suggestive of any sort of reasonable behaviour? Looks like he will end up in chokey...........................
No chance!
@@andrewdutton9505 If he wants to stay out of jail, then he either has to justify the 5000+ emails, videos, txt messages, etc etc, , or play the mental health card.
dicko. Do keep up One of his accusers has already played the mental health card
*sicko*
Sicko And Mr Belfield accusers have no 'viable attack'
Listen to the transcripts They All have selective memories
Though how this case of he said/she said got to Crown Court is beyond me.
Thank you for this.
sounds like stalking law should be void for vaugeness , also these people are claiming fear of violece, whilst also saying no violence or threats of violence are alleged
Alarm and distress are so subjective, they need to be broadly outlined, or you can say someones green sox cause you alarm and distress, its ridiculous. Stalking is also a strange thing under those guidelines all you tube commentators on the Amber and Johnny trial could be accused of stalking.
It's defined in the 1994" public order act
"person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he-
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
@@snowflakemelter1172 Except it isn't since insults are free speech in verbal form or signage. "Abusive" is also too vague to be enforced.
@@jimmoynahan9910 nope, the definition can be made with the standard principle of law ," what a reasonable person would think"
Alex Belfield's channel The Voice of Reason will sky rocket because of this.
The legal definition of stalking (vague as it is) could apply to any journalist or comedian, as Alex Belfield pointed out, Jeremy Vine has repeatedly broadcast criticisms of Boris Johnson recently. That is as much 'stalking' as they are accusing Alex Belfield of. Less so in-fact because this group of people who are the accusers in this case clearly ganged up and bullied him, and conspired to have this prosecution brought.
Hi BBB, has there ever been a case before this that allowed the person accused of stalking and harassment to ask questions in court to those he is accused of stalking? This seems as though the court is enabling the continued stalking and harassment of these people.
It's a bullshit grey area where charges are brought against people the justice system don't like.
When that slapper Katie Price can get off with drink driving, and speeding while banned, how the hell does stalking even get to court ?
Alex is a comedian, and his characters are just comedy, you can't charge people for comedy.
It's no wonder the average hard working person on the street has absolutely no faith in the justice system.
Absolutely
I've watched his videos and never noticed comedy.
Delusion yes but no humour
@@julianshepherd2038 Is that the only part of my post you can comment on ?
Sad julian, very sad. You obviously don't care about injustice and the corrupt legal system.
It may not be your type of humour (although I doubt you even have a sense of one), but that doesn't matter. He is being criminalised for performing. No matter what you think of his humour style, the fact somebody can be dragged to court for providing inoffensive media content is extremely worrying.
@@DjNikGnashers well the jury or judge will decide if it is crime or comedy.
He is not in court for his videos.
If he told you the moon was fake you would believe it.
He's got sacked from the BBC for making up fake news, has had a breakdown and can't move on.
@@julianshepherd2038 Clutching at straws now son are you ?
How do you know what I would and would not believe ?
You don't. You don't know anything son.
Keep on hating little man, and that hate will eat you up inside.
Again, I ask, are you only going to pick a tiny part of my post to comment on ? Maybe that is because you agree with the injustice generally of the whole system, you probably think it's fair that daft celebs like Katie Price can get let off repeatedly. Maybe you secretly love her, I don't know. You do seem a bit desperate son.
@BlackBeltBarrister, Daniel, thanks for explaining the stalking and harassment act, is there any justification for someone to hack track and cyberstalk another person or their whole family?
what puzzle me is that the way Alex put this in the past was not for Stalking. he ask for people to give him money so he could sue the police for there actions against him. he from the videos I have watch he has not used until the court case start, used the word Stalking.
it has always been what they have done or said against him.
I have read your comment twice.
Still don't understand your point(s).
@John Carpenter its a belfidian the only things it understands is what the leader tells it.
@John Carpenter Come on mate.. Noel is a Belfidian.. They are trained to not understand the point.
@John Carpenter in a nutshell - brilliant!
@@alfsmith4936 -- Rather like Belfield himself, I guess?
I know nothing about this case, but on the subject of stalking…
It never went anywhere, the security guard told her she was nuts, but I was accused of stalking by a woman because I got of the train behind her, walked to the escalator behind her, walked down the concourse behind her and walked out of the exit of the station behind her. It was obvious I was following her, and she ‘felt’ she was in danger. This happened during peak hour end of day.
Have had something similar when I was younger when I was told by mall security that I had to leave because someone complained that, because they had seen me at the same shops that they were at not only in that day, but a few times over the course of a few weeks of time.
And then there was the time the police were called on me for stalking because the woman saw me outside her house multiple times a day, every day for months… I walked passed her house to go to school and to go home. The cops asked me to find another route just to shut her up. Added 15 mins to my travel time coz she ‘felt’ threatened for her safety by a school kid walking past her home. Turns out it wasn’t me, really, but the fact that when ever she looked out the window at those time of day, she saw a kid wearing the same uniform and thought it was the same kid.
That one got a bit hairy since the cops were quite gun-ho until they saw a bunch of other kids walk past over the course of then questioning me
The train one isn't harassment (stalking) because its not more than one incident/not a course of conduct
@@OncleM oh, I know, you know, she still told the guard I was stalking her. To be fair, she looked over her shoulder at me a few times, so I guess that counted to her since ‘technically’ she ‘saw’ me ‘following’ her on a number of ‘occasions’. And yeah, I don’t think she actually said “stalking”, probably “following”, but I bet, in her head, she thought I was stalking her. Prey/predator thinking. In the common usage that is how it is used. News reports say things like ‘woman left building and was stalked as she walked to her car’( or what have you).
Alex is a journalist. Therefore, all journalists are stalkers.
Wrong.
6000 emails ? If that is not seen as a problem, what is
But they only included 39 in the evidence bundle...
I have joined your channel on Alex Belfield's recommendation - just sayin
In evidence various witnesses have stated that there were thousands of emails sent, however the prosecution has only provided 29. Is it fair for the witness evidence in this respect to stand if those messages have not been made available to the defense to examine and/or contest.
BBB - please help JULIAN ASSANGE?
Julian is beyond help .
@@icouldbewrongicouldberight lol
Finally. let's hear the truth abut Ginger scam mans actions.
One of the “victims” had to obtain copies from 3rd parties of the “abusive” emails.
In other words, Alex sent some sweary emails to someone else . . .
No he just copied lots of people in to his vile emails, the better to harass and embarrass the victim ( allegedly)Not very bright, vindictive but not very bright when a victim is probably going to delete such filth but the abuser has copied in others.