5 years 26 weeks sentence.

MWT is delighted though he can't even spell a name correctly...

Well the jury is in.

Sentence was a bit harsh imho.

I thought a suspended sentence/fine would have been more appropriate as he's never been convicted before.

Alex made mistakes and may have gone too far and i think was a bit too cocky thinking he could win by representing himself.
But he was no danger to the public.

If Alex had got representation instead of himself it could have gone different.

I think they just wanted to make an example of anyone with opinions that went against the "establishment".

A shame though that the likes of MWT and Vine now have a permanent "cheshire cat" smile on their face.

I have no idea regarding the e-mails and what went on behind the scenes, if that was true then of course it's not right
but i seem to recall at least one of the e-mails during the court case was revealed to have been faked which
makes me think do we know if all these e-mails were actually Alex and a troll impersonating him as i would have
thought Alex had much better things to do then to send 1000s of e-mails to people.

Alex Belfield was just a shock jock like Jon Gaunt, Iain Lee (no love lost between him and Alex), but all
shock jocks have said even worse things and got suspended from their shows.
Another broadcaster Nick Abbot (now on LBC) had the nickname "Nasty Nick" back in 1993 when he was on late nights
on Virgin Radio and some of the things he said on air he would have got in serious trouble for today like
comments about Vanessa Feltz and Steve Wright (particularly reading a letter alleged to be from his wife),
and Nick eventually got suspended after terrorising the radio station he now works for and mocking their calls
and their host live on air.

So Alex is no more guilty than other shock jocks he just went too far and the others didn't have social media
or youtube. If Nick Abbot was like he is today and using youtube then he could have found himself in
the same kind of trouble as Alex.
But Nick has toned down a lot since but it's laughable how he now works for the same radio station he
terrorised in 1993 now....so maybe there's hope for Alex all he needs to do is change his ways
and tone down his act but that won't happen.
When he gets out of prison (probably be less with good behaviour) he will be the same.

I'm a bit bemused by this. Presumably the basic and traditional point of incarcerating someone is either because they'll otherwise pose a physical threat or they won't learn from their errors in any other way. If it's decided that the best way to get a just and constructive punishment for Belfield is to lock him up for 2 to five years, I really don't see how they reached such a judgement.

He's no physical threat to anyone. Whatever indirect threat he is to anyone could surely be minimised by various means of surveillance and electronic control. So I don't get what a long custodial sentence is expected to achieve except to make him even more embittered and unhinged than before.

Half the people who use twitter strike me as a pretty unpleasant bunch, but I doubt they'll change for the better by bunging them inside. The courts these days seem like they're controlled by the mind of some agitated 12 year old.

MCR wrote:




So Alex is no more guilty than other shock jocks he just went too far and the others didn't have social media
or youtube.

With all due respect that seems disingenuous. He DID do more than they did. Being a shock jock is one thing. Directly harrassing individuals as part of a private vendetta is quite another.

But I do agree that slamming him inside is hardly appropriate. He's been targetting a small number of people. He's had indefinite restraining orders placed on him. That and a massive fine and subsequent monitoring surely would deal with the matter without obliging the public to pay for yet another person clogging up the prison system. That's the depressing thing - I don't think the public is encouraged to actually think about the prison system, they're just left to celebrate people being locked up without any reflection on how and why and with what consequence.

Well the jury is in.

Sentence was a bit harsh imho.

I thought a suspended sentence/fine would have been more appropriate as he's never been convicted before.

Alex made mistakes and may have gone too far and i think was a bit too cocky thinking he could win by representing himself.
But he was no danger to the public.

If Alex had got representation instead of himself it could have gone different.

I think they just wanted to make an example of anyone with opinions that went against the "establishment".

A shame though that the likes of MWT and Vine now have a permanent "cheshire cat" smile on their face.

I have no idea regarding the e-mails and what went on behind the scenes, if that was true then of course it's not right
but i seem to recall at least one of the e-mails during the court case was revealed to have been faked which
makes me think do we know if all these e-mails were actually Alex and a troll impersonating him as i would have
thought Alex had much better things to do then to send 1000s of e-mails to people.

I do think Alex got a bit too obsessed with certain people though and should have left them alone.
Alex made mistakes and was too cocky and that's why he is where he is now.

Left both your posts in MCR.

MCR wrote:
Well the jury is in.

Sentence was a bit harsh imho.

I thought a suspended sentence/fine would have been more appropriate as he's never been convicted before.

Alex made mistakes and may have gone too far and i think was a bit too cocky thinking he could win by representing himself.
But he was no danger to the public.

If Alex had got representation instead of himself it could have gone different.

I think they just wanted to make an example of anyone with opinions that went against the "establishment".

A shame though that the likes of MWT and Vine now have a permanent "cheshire cat" smile on their face.

I have no idea regarding the e-mails and what went on behind the scenes, if that was true then of course it's not right
but i seem to recall at least one of the e-mails during the court case was revealed to have been faked which
makes me think do we know if all these e-mails were actually Alex and a troll impersonating him as i would have
thought Alex had much better things to do then to send 1000s of e-mails to people.

I do think Alex got a bit too obsessed with certain people though and should have left them alone.
Alex made mistakes and was too cocky and that's why he is where he is now.

I agreed with a lot I agreed on with him and there was shit load I didn't. There was video on YouTube that surfaced telling people to call the Jeremy Vine Show, and jam up the switchboard. ( I'm paraphrasing here)

I am sure they used Alex as an example. Remember when Tommy Robinson was jailed for exposing child grooming in some Muslim communities ? Now the MSM are reporting the child grooming that was ignored by the police, as they didn't want to be dubbed racist.

Alex was too cocky and representing yourself court is risky, does seem a narcissistic characteristic to me.

That's ok

I think the problem with Alex is the power went right to his head and he got too big for his boots thinking he
was untouchable and he foolishly believed he could take the BBC to court and won and represent himself.
How utterly idiotic! He has only himself to blame.

I think when he started with the celebrity radio doing interviews that was great content and some of the stuff with
the isolation station/voice of reason stuff was good and some things i agreed with but he went too far
and went after the wrong people. He lost the plot, and there should have someone there to reel him in.

I think he definately should have got off twitter because he couldn't control himself tagging people he
was talking about or twitter should have removed him.

There's something about social media that turns people into monsters and raving lunatics.

There's a good video here "The Monster Behind The Keyboard" which isn't about Alex but is a good example
of how people behave online.

Andy The Gabby Cabby's view

Tyrone wrote:
[quote]MCR wrote:


That's the depressing thing - I don't think the public is encouraged to actually think about the prison system, they're just left to celebrate people being locked up without any reflection on how and why and with what consequence.

I totally agree with this. Prison should be for those who - to the best of experts' judgement (not bloody politicians) are too dangerous to be free in society. For everyone else, we need to find another way, another response. And we would do well to think about what we do to ourselves when we bang people up we didn't need to, and they come out more damaged and bitter than when they went in...

Wyot wrote:
[quote]Tyrone wrote:
MCR wrote:


That's the depressing thing - I don't think the public is encouraged to actually think about the prison system, they're just left to celebrate people being locked up without any reflection on how and why and with what consequence.

I totally agree with this. Prison should be for those who - to the best of experts' judgement (not bloody politicians) are too dangerous to be free in society. For everyone else, we need to find another way, another response. And we would do well to think about what we do to ourselves when we bang people up we didn't need to, and they come out more damaged and bitter than when they went in...

I think the establishment want Alex, to do himself in. Or send him insane I have no idea what kind of prison or wing he will be in. However his career his dead, he might write a book but getting a publisher will be extremely difficult.

Alex, said he made great 'friends' when he interviewed celebrities. However where were all these friends from the media, during the trail or acting character references ??

He made out he knew ABBA and The Osmonds like they were his blood brothers with along that ilk.

Celebrity Radio is interesting however they can be very unintentionally Alan Partridge at times.

Green Man wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
Tyrone wrote:
MCR wrote:


That's the depressing thing - I don't think the public is encouraged to actually think about the prison system, they're just left to celebrate people being locked up without any reflection on how and why and with what consequence.

I totally agree with this. Prison should be for those who - to the best of experts' judgement (not bloody politicians) are too dangerous to be free in society. For everyone else, we need to find another way, another response. And we would do well to think about what we do to ourselves when we bang people up we didn't need to, and they come out more damaged and bitter than when they went in...

I think the establishment want Alex, to do himself in. Or send him insane I have no idea what kind of prison or wing he will be in. However his career his dead, he might write a book but getting a publisher will be extremely difficult.

Alex, said he made great 'friends' when he interviewed celebrities. However where were all these friends from the media, during the trail or acting character references ??

He made out he knew ABBA and The Osmonds like they were his blood brothers with along that ilk.

Celebrity Radio is interesting however they can be very unintentionally Alan Partridge at times.

He'll self publish. And probably not run it through a lawyer before publishing.

Rick wrote:
I'm a bit bemused by this. Presumably the basic and traditional point of incarcerating someone is either because they'll otherwise pose a physical threat or they won't learn from their errors in any other way. If it's decided that the best way to get a just and constructive punishment for Belfield is to lock him up for 2 to five years, I really don't see how they reached such a judgement.

He's no physical threat to anyone. Whatever indirect threat he is to anyone could surely be minimised by various means of surveillance and electronic control. So I don't get what a long custodial sentence is expected to achieve except to make him even more embittered and unhinged than before.

Half the people who use twitter strike me as a pretty unpleasant bunch, but I doubt they'll change for the better by bunging them inside. The courts these days seem like they're controlled by the mind of some agitated 12 year old.

The judge has been clear that he'll serve 2.5 years inside and the rest on licence.

Green Man wrote:
[quote]Wyot wrote:
Tyrone wrote:
MCR wrote:


That's the depressing thing - I don't think the public is encouraged to actually think about the prison system, they're just left to celebrate people being locked up without any reflection on how and why and with what consequence.

I totally agree with this. Prison should be for those who - to the best of experts' judgement (not bloody politicians) are too dangerous to be free in society. For everyone else, we need to find another way, another response. And we would do well to think about what we do to ourselves when we bang people up we didn't need to, and they come out more damaged and bitter than when they went in...

he might write a book but getting a publisher will be extremely difficult.


It isn't difficult to publish a book these days - aside from the unquenchable thirst for 'suffering' memoirs, there's also the much more effective self-publishing option these days. The actual problem will be getting any promotion for it and making any money from it.

There was always a sort of Rupert Pupkin vibe about Belfield, he always made me think he was in his parents' house trying to sound all 'dangerous' and 'edgy'. Is he married? Does he have much of a life? He's probably going to be turned even crazier by prolonged incarceration. Then what? Oh yes, silly me, the justice system, like the media, doesn't contemplate the 'then whats'.

steveimp wrote:
Rick wrote:
I'm a bit bemused by this. Presumably the basic and traditional point of incarcerating someone is either because they'll otherwise pose a physical threat or they won't learn from their errors in any other way. If it's decided that the best way to get a just and constructive punishment for Belfield is to lock him up for 2 to five years, I really don't see how they reached such a judgement.

He's no physical threat to anyone. Whatever indirect threat he is to anyone could surely be minimised by various means of surveillance and electronic control. So I don't get what a long custodial sentence is expected to achieve except to make him even more embittered and unhinged than before.

Half the people who use twitter strike me as a pretty unpleasant bunch, but I doubt they'll change for the better by bunging them inside. The courts these days seem like they're controlled by the mind of some agitated 12 year old.

The judge has been clear that he'll serve 2.5 years inside and the rest on licence.

Yes, that's why I specified the time frame I did. Read before commenting.

Rick wrote:
[quote]Green Man wrote:
Wyot wrote:
Tyrone wrote:
MCR wrote:


That's the depressing thing - I don't think the public is encouraged to actually think about the prison system, they're just left to celebrate people being locked up without any reflection on how and why and with what consequence.

I totally agree with this. Prison should be for those who - to the best of experts' judgement (not bloody politicians) are too dangerous to be free in society. For everyone else, we need to find another way, another response. And we would do well to think about what we do to ourselves when we bang people up we didn't need to, and they come out more damaged and bitter than when they went in...

he might write a book but getting a publisher will be extremely difficult.


It isn't difficult to publish a book these days - aside from the unquenchable thirst for 'suffering' memoirs, there's also the much more effective self-publishing option these days. The actual problem will be getting any promotion for it and making any money from it.

There was always a sort of Rupert Pupkin vibe about Belfield, he always made me think he was in his parents' house trying to sound all 'dangerous' and 'edgy'. Is he married? Does he have much of a life? He's probably going to be turned even crazier by prolonged incarceration. Then what? Oh yes, silly me, the justice system, like the media, doesn't contemplate the 'then whats'.

He could self publish however Amazon can refuse to stock it same with WHSmiths online.

However in the 2 to 3 years Alex will be forgotten. You can't beat the establishment.

There’s a classic expression ”A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.”. Belfield may realise that now. He couldn’t have shown much more contempt for the court and judge than by turning up wearing comedic clothes and also refusing to give evidence in his own defence.

He’ll probably be able to publish a book via Amazon Kindle. No physical stock involved and they’re fairly liberal in what they’ll allow.

NCS wrote:
There’s a classic expression ”A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client.”. Belfield may realise that now. He couldn’t have shown much more contempt for the court and judge than by turning up wearing comedic clothes and also refusing to give evidence in his own defence.

He’ll probably be able to publish a book via Amazon Kindle. No physical stock involved and they’re fairly liberal in what they’ll allow.

I thought that to, wearing bright and loud shirts in court is never good idea. About 20 years ago or so a member a jury was thrown out for wearing a top by the famous brand FCUK.

If Alex, was hiding evidence then something is shady. In his videos Alex was for the judge and hoped the judge was on his side. Maybe the judge saw through some BS? I don't trust Jeremy Vine, either I think he is an absolute plank.

However, Nottingham police should be accounted for turning up without a warrant and taking of their lapel numbers off.

Bernie Keith seems to be a paranoid individual and very thin skinned. However, if someone is like it's best just to leave alone.

Pranking live call-in shows is nothing new. I remember people calling up CNN live with some outrageous crap it took them ages to know they were duped. Alex, encouraged some shit here.

www.youtube.com/shorts/5ppsmWGS6Xw


Interesting reaction to an honest question, did he even a lawyer?



I switched him off when this showed up on Youtube.




Was his trip to Las Vegas paid out his own pocket or funded from fans? He admitted Las Vegas wasn't cheap and it's not cheap. He claims to be friends with people like Criss Angel over, yet nowhere to be seen when Alex was in court. Some friends hey...

I am sure Criss Angel could of supported him via video link.