Skip to content

CARELESS STALK COSTS LIVES

September 26, 2022

THERE may be something I am missing about the Alex Belfield “stalking” trial after the obviously jaundiced and bitter DJ was jailed for five years but I fear that something is amiss.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/19429242/alex-belfield-ex-bbc-radio-dj/

https://www.change.org/p/overturn-alex-belfield-conviction-in-public-interest

https://www.jsc-chambers.co.uk/post/harsh-sentence-for-alex-belfield

Stalking I took to be an unhealthy obsession, usually sexual, with an individual who requites neither the love nor lust of another individual who has developed some unwanted and intrusive psychological dependence upon them or a fantasy version of them.

Obvious symptoms of this unwanted and intrusive psychological dependence would be things like person B persistently turning up in person A’s garden uninvited or sending them flowers and love letters every day.

Online, we would have person B getting into person A’s Facebook account to bombard them with promises of undying love or persistently posting pictures of them or sexual pestering. This is why we have the concept of “blocking” where you can bar individuals you don’t like.

Belfield did not, it seems to me, have an unrequited passion for nor any unwanted and intrusive psychological dependence upon any of his “victims”. It appears to me that instead he held personal grudges against them or harboured some animosity to them, in common with some others, which he expressed online in deeply revealing bile-filled blasts redolent in loathing and disdain – much of it, of course, for himself subconsciously – which many people online could identify with and may have enjoyed for their rather gleeful sense of personal catharsis.

Our jails are filled to bursting point with little convincing evidence that they reform and rehabilitate, yet the maximum sentencing guidelines for this kind of offence was increased in 2017 from five years to ten years.

Belfield was also ordered to pay £10,000 prosecution costs and because he lacked the BBC-backing and legal expertise, he was reduced to defending himself while covering the case as a journalist on his Voice of Reason You Tube stream to save costs.

Yes, bitter, sad, lonely social unfortunates who once were at all the best parties due to their status and popularity but suddenly were crossed off all invitation lists due to some embarrassment or fall (Belfield’s apparent vendetta against the BBC blossomed and bloomed because at some point he was rejected by them) usually sink lower rather than rise higher when they are left vulnerable and isolated lacking the natural buoyancy and access to shoals of like-minded athletic speedy swimmers which would keep them afloat protected and zooming stealthily forward with all the other visibly popular usually celebrity status, politically prominent or wealthy individuals.

In many ways, Belfield appears to have become the mascot for similar individuals more heavily loaded with grudges and personal animosity to former colleagues and responsible, high-profile shoal swimmers than might perhaps be best for them.

His rancid, embittered, often brazenly nasty and viciously vindictive personal abuse (an everyday part of life in the media and in politics behind closed doors, in my experience) may have constituted harassment or threats (though I personally find the evidence of this to be relatively slight and definitely not justifying such a heavy sentence) but stalking?

It has prompted a flood of sympathetic apparently unconditionally supportive copy for “victims” like Jeremy Vine with leftist journalists decrying a new “menace of stalking” in stories like this.

https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/alex-belfield-stalking-jeremy-vine-sentence-1872434

Free speech is your right to abuse and insult me in a tolerant and liberal society which values self expression more than state suppression. It offers a mighty safeguard when those in power, those who are wealthy or who have celebrity-status persistently abuse their positions to persecute and punish others.

It would, for instance, have prevented atrocities like Nazi dictatorships and communist death camps because each individual would have been defended by law if they had called Hitler or Stalin an asshole just like Belfield called his “victims”.

My very real fear is that the internet is becoming a policed no authentic opinions zone where the more mighty and powerful resort to law each and every time someone points out that they are not very nice people.

Here in Wales, we saw how blogger Jacqui Thompson was hounded by council chief executive Mark James, who set his legal dogs on her for saying nasty things about him.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/blogger-forced-pay-council-chief-14457177

Belfield, obviously, is not as similarly naive and uninformed, but I grow more disturbed by the draconian punishment meted out to oddballs and outliers like him, who hold unconventional views and express them in personal vendettas which are deeply distressing for the “victims” but do not constitute genuine threats to their safety.

Assertiveness has been psycho-pathologized and made automatically into confrontation which monied people can now protect themselves against. Politicians and celebrities are now actively disproportionately magnifying the level of “online hate” and the concomitant potential for violence directed at them personally to insulate themselves against honest opinion in a cynical political exercise to demonise and marginalise all dissenting voices.

Debate has become stifled and sterilised by an all-powerful political elite which has wildly ramped up fears of physical violence, death or injury arising out of conflict or disagreement and restructured our interactions to be safe and non-threatening by placing huge posters up in public places warning that certain types of behaviour will not be tolerated.

This artificially over-insures, protects and validates the chosen and empowered officials – many of whom are incompetent, casual and may even be corrupt – while artificially over-demonising, marginalising and infantilising members of the public who now rely on these officials to make major decisions concerning their health and status which they are able to take without any authentic and meaningful expressions from those people in defence or in mitigation, who have been artificially over censored and policed.

The obvious direction of travel is towards an infantilised and fearful populace prevented from uttering authentic opinions in robust, assertive and aggressive ways so made mute and strait-jacketed languishing in safety cushioned rooms strapped down under the Online Safety Bill by health and safety totalitarians, snowflakes and fascists who simply want you to do as they say without question or challenge (a bit like the mendacious and deeply flawed government communication during the COVID-19 pandemic).

“Get a move on…there are people out here waiting to be crucified,” said a Jew to a Roman soldier ticking names off a list in the film Monty Python’s Life of Brian while sending them to their deaths.

I sense that Belfield will not go gently into that good night and I sense that some totalitarianism is well worth fighting against.

Advertisement
No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: