THE CLAIM
In a video recorded during a show at Blackpool’s North Pier, Katie Hopkins talks about Alex Belfield, the former BBC local radio presenter and YouTuber.
Hopkins tells her audience:
“Alex Belfield is still in jail, serving time for taking the piss out of the BBC.”
She then gives viewers details for contacting Belfield in prison.
But was Alex Belfield really imprisoned for “taking the piss out of the BBC”?
No.
Belfield was convicted by a jury of stalking four people.
And the judge who sentenced him specifically distinguished Belfield’s right to criticise the BBC from the conduct for which he was convicted.
WATCH THE ORIGINAL VIDEO
Katie Hopkins’ original video can be watched here:
WHAT WAS ALEX BELFIELD CONVICTED OF?
Alex Belfield was prosecuted at Nottingham Crown Court in 2022.
The case involved a number of complainants who said they had been subjected to prolonged campaigns of online and other unwanted conduct.
On 5 August 2022, a jury convicted Belfield of four stalking offences.
The victims in the four counts on which he was convicted were:
BBC presenter Jeremy Vine;
BBC Radio Northampton presenter Bernie Keith;
videographer Ben Hewis;
and former BBC employee Philip Dehany.
Belfield was subsequently sentenced to a total of five years and 26 weeks’ imprisonment.
Those are stalking convictions.
They are not convictions for criticising the BBC, insulting the BBC or “taking the piss out of the BBC”.
WHAT DID THE JUDGE SAY?
The sentencing remarks are particularly important because they address the freedom-of-expression issue directly.
Mr Justice Saini recognised that Belfield was entitled to express opinions, including strongly expressed opinions, about the BBC and other matters of public interest.
The prosecution was not based simply on Belfield holding controversial views or criticising a public institution.
The judge instead described sustained campaigns directed at individual people.
In the case involving Jeremy Vine, the judge referred to highly abusive and “wholly false allegations” which had received enormous exposure online.
The court therefore drew a clear distinction between controversial journalism or criticism and the persistent targeted conduct for which Belfield was convicted.
WASN’T BELFIELD ENTITLED TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH?
Yes.
And that issue was expressly considered during his trial.
The jury received legal directions concerning freedom of expression.
Those directions recognised the important protection afforded to journalists and commentators, including their right to be provocative, controversial and offensive.
But freedom of expression is not an unlimited defence to every form of conduct directed at another individual.
The question for the jury was not simply whether Belfield had said things people disliked.
It was whether his conduct met the legal requirements for stalking.
After hearing the evidence, the jury convicted him on four counts.
SO WAS HE JAILED FOR “TAKING THE PISS OUT OF THE BBC”?
No.
That description substantially misrepresents what happened.
Belfield certainly criticised the BBC.
He also had disputes with people who worked for the BBC.
But criticising the BBC was not the criminal offence of which he was convicted.
A jury convicted him of stalking four individuals.
The distinction matters.
Someone being imprisoned merely for mocking or criticising a public broadcaster would raise an obvious and serious freedom-of-expression issue.
Someone being convicted after a jury concludes that their persistent conduct towards identifiable individuals amounts to stalking is a very different proposition.
Hopkins’ description collapses those two very different things into one.
WHY IS BELFIELD IN PRISON NOW?
There is another important omission in Hopkins’ account.
Belfield has not simply remained continuously in prison since his original sentence.
He was released from custody in June 2025.
He was subsequently recalled to prison in February 2026 after breaching his licence conditions.
The precise circumstances of that licence breach have not been publicly disclosed by the Prison and Probation Service.
So even the statement that Belfield is “still in jail” risks giving viewers the impression that nothing has happened since his original imprisonment.
He was released and then recalled.
His current imprisonment therefore also needs to be understood in the context of that recall.
THIS DOES NOT REQUIRE ANYONE TO AGREE WITH THE VERDICT
It is perfectly legitimate to argue that Belfield was treated too harshly.
People are entitled to criticise his prosecution, his sentence, the stalking laws, the BBC, the criminal justice system or the decision to recall him to prison.
Hopkins is entitled to believe that Belfield should be free.
But those opinions do not change what he was actually convicted of.
If the argument is that Belfield was wrongly convicted of stalking, that argument should be made openly and supported with evidence.
Describing his imprisonment simply as punishment for “taking the piss out of the BBC” removes the central fact that a jury heard the evidence and convicted him of four stalking offences.
CONCLUSION
Katie Hopkins tells her audience that:
“Alex Belfield is still in jail, serving time for taking the piss out of the BBC.”
That is not an accurate description of the criminal case.
Belfield was convicted by a jury of four stalking offences involving four individuals.
He was sentenced to five years and 26 weeks’ imprisonment.
The court expressly recognised the importance of freedom of expression and Belfield’s right to express controversial views and criticise organisations including the BBC.
His convictions were not for criticising the BBC.
They were for stalking.
There is also an important subsequent development omitted from Hopkins’ account.
Belfield was released from prison in June 2025 and recalled to custody in February 2026 after breaching his licence conditions.
Hopkins is entitled to argue that Belfield’s conviction, sentence or recall was wrong.
But saying that he is serving time simply for “taking the piss out of the BBC” fundamentally misrepresents what the jury convicted him of.
VERDICT: FALSE AND MISLEADING
SOURCES
Judiciary of England and Wales — R v Alexander Belfield, Sentencing Remarks, Mr Justice Saini
Judiciary of England and Wales — R v Belfield, Legal Directions to the Jury
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/R-v-Belfield-Legal-Directions-28.7.22.pdf
BBC News — Alex Belfield jailed for stalking Jeremy Vine and others
ORIGINAL VIDEO
Katie Hopkins — Blackpool / Alex Belfield comments
Batshit Bonkers Katie Hopkins 