Commentary by Alan Blindfold

So true.

On this day in history: Posted without comment.

Today.

On 20th January, a certain individual’s YouTube channel lost approximately 1k subscribers. On 17th January, a video was deleted, resulting in the loss of more than 15k+ views. This occurred notwithstanding statements that the individual was “banned from uploading, adding, modifying or streaming any material on any site or app.” The deletion of a video constitutes “modifying” published material.

Let us clarify a legal position. All it takes is a little investigation, understanding and translation. Easily done. Under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and associated licence and probation frameworks, HMPPS has lawful authority to impose and enforce restrictions on communications as part of probation supervision. This authority may extend to regulating the manner and form of contact, including written communications, with the police and other public bodies. Accordingly, the assertion that HMPPS has no power to restrict such communications is incorrect. Equally, the suggestion that the exercise of this authority amounts to perverting the course of justice is unfounded in law. The further contention that such restrictions are unlawful or constitute a breach of the ECHR is unsupported. Any interference with qualified Convention rights is lawful where it is prescribed by law, pursues a legitimate aim, and is proportionate, criteria which probationary communication controls routinely satisfy. If this is wrong, prove it.

This account has been identified as one that should be avoided, based on information disclosed following reference to the account.

In public posts and videos, the Defendant has referred to a “legal team” and a “barrister.” For the avoidance of doubt, the Defendant is self-represented and is acting as a litigant in person.

One day to go. Posted without comment. #publicdomain

Another 1k gone on YouTube on 20th January 👀

“Likely” reflects possibility, not certainty. I am not asserting expertise or special insight, nor do I use automated tools to generate content; “z”. Based solely on observable patterns, I question the authenticity of this account.

This is unequivocally accurate.

The assertion that “we were informed” is inaccurate. The only communication on this matter was an email issued by Mr Belfield himself, which is attached. Any reasonable review of the correspondence would have made that clear. Had appropriate diligence been undertaken, this would not have been misrepresented. Always ensure the factual accuracy of your statements. With respect to the other post referenced, it has no relevance to them whatsoever. It is clearly marked PROPRIETARY, a designation they appear not to understand. That designation alone makes their involvement or commentary entirely inappropriate. Another instance of monitoring accounts with which there is no affiliation or follow relationship.

Gotcha! ⚓️

💯

On this day in history (2022): The extent of his knowledge at the relevant time is uncertain.

Spot the deliberate mistake. Someone will be unnecessarily gloat-w4nking into their drinks vase 🤣

He’s provided you with the same assertion regarding probation restricting his internet use. If that assertion were accurate, and the restriction took effect on 12th September, please explain how emails such as this one were sent on 13th October?

Three days to go until the latest civil High Court hearing…