Jake Clarke found guilty of harassment

In a post on Facebook, Belinda McKenzie announced late yesterday that Jake Clarke has been found guilty on one charge of harassment against two unnamed persons, presumably in relation to the Hampstead SRA hoax. The trial took place over two days at Willesden Magistrates Court.

Jake was found not guilty of a second charge of “upsetting” people at the Church of England Synod in February. (Does she mean “harassing”? “Upsetting” somebody isn’t a crime to our knowledge.)

Jake’s barrister apparently put forth a freedom of speech argument, but the magistrates considered that since Jake had been visited by police and warned that his behaviour constituted harassment, he “knew or ought to have known” that what he was doing would be subject to criminal charges.

Sentencing is scheduled to take place on 17 October, according to Belinda.

We were not surprised to note that Belinda glossed over the fact that a young man’s life has now been seriously adversely affected by a criminal record, because of the encouragement he received from the Hoaxtead mob to continue his behaviour.

Instead, she claimed a “small victory in the ongoing fight for improved police reaction to allegations of crimes against children”. Seems a bit rich, considering that she has advocated publicly for amnesty for paedophiles, so long as they weep and apologise.


Do we really need to explain to Belinda again that the “suspects reported by child victims” were fully exonerated not only during the police investigation in September 2014, but during the High Court judgment in March 2015, and again during the appeal of that judgment in August 2015?

Incidentally, Belinda is sailing a bit close to the wind here, as she is, so far as we know, still under an injunction which prevents her from publishing about this case online.

Belinda via Wesley 2018-10-04 Jake Clarke verdictBelinda via Wesley 2018-10-04 Jake Clarke verdict 2

Willesden Magistrates

52 thoughts on “Jake Clarke found guilty of harassment

  1. I’ve reread that several times. Could anyone point out the “small victory”?

    However, max sentence is 6 months so I don’t expect what the man on the Clapham omnibus would call a deterrent to these loons.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Ah, here we are.

    According to the Channel 4 producer’s handbook,

    In short, once legal proceedings become “active”, it is a criminal offence for media organisations to broadcast material which would create “a substantial risk of serious prejudice” to the proceedings. Criminal proceedings become “active” as soon as one of the following has occurred: a person is arrested, a warrant for arrest is issued, a summons has been issued, or a person has been charged, and they remain so until such time as the accused has been acquitted or convicted….

    Once a person has been acquitted or sentenced, or the proceedings come to an end in some other way, proceedings cease to be ‘active’ and there is much more scope for commenting on the proceedings and the convicted person and publishing material which it was not possible to disseminate before or during the trial. In practice, once a defendant has been convicted, even if they have not been sentenced (sometimes sentencing is delayed), the media treats the proceedings as no longer ‘active’. This is because sentencing in the Crown Court is carried out by professional judges who the law deems will not easily be prejudiced by media reports.

    …(A)lthough professional judges are largely considered to be immune to prejudicial media reporting, some courts are presided over by lay people (most Magistrates’ Courts), and the law assumes that such people can be prejudiced.


    Liked by 2 people

    • For goodness sake, the law does NOT assume that magistrates can be prejudiced just from a press report; if it did there wouldn’t be much point having them would there? They are simply subject to the same restrictions as any other member of the judiciary – they can’t deal with people they know well or in issues where they have an interest, and that’s all. They’re quite different from jurors who are selected at random with no training or appraisal.

      You can comment as much as you like post conviction provided it wouldn’t otherwise be illegal.

      Liked by 3 people

  3. Has anyone noticed if Belinda’s head on the right way around on her shoulders! How anyone could call that a victory must be speaking out of a wonky brain.

    As regards to the Policeman mumbling, Belinda, have you listened to yourself giving that speech the other day/night!

    Liked by 5 people

    • I wonder if The UK police will get access to Angie’s tech? These people need to be tried for a conspiracy. I am sick of seeing videos everywhere with the two children in them which this lot are responsible for.

      Liked by 4 people

      • It is a conspiracy among the core participants and we know who they are. APD’s insane claim she has been “working on the case” when what she means is she has been harassing and making endless false claims about a man & his kids and other North London residents who have already been cleared in the courts with a judge proclaiming they are victims of a campaign to harass.

        As for Bellend- she is determined to treat Jake like he is some sort of Martyr and will most likely encourage him in that belief and he will end up in further trouble. God only knows what his despairing parents must think.

        The particular police officer in charge of the case should sue Bellend for libel as well. He does not deserve to have his reputation smeared by her.

        Liked by 2 people

  4. Freedom of speech to harass people? Another awesome bit of lawyering. SMH

    PS: I’d like to express my freedom of speech and state that Jake Clarke is an utter twat. There, I said it.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Personally I think Jake needs to man up. If he is on something, clean up & go & get a frigging job. If his parents are enabling him, they need to stop, tell him the lie of the land . “If you are living under our roof, you live by our rules, if you don’t work, you don’t eat”.

      Parental responsibility needs to be acknowledged, he has been allowed to fart about with his stupid notions for far too long.


  5. “Could DC Steve Martin be finally cracking up over this horrible case?”

    Hmm. Probably not. He’s probably just bored with dealing with you you feckin’ eejits. Dream on, Bellender

    Liked by 3 people

    • “Could he finally be cracking up?” asks the woman who wants to put paedophiles in zoos until they cry, and believes in something called the “umbilic part of the brain”.


      Liked by 3 people

  6. Another bandwagon-jumping fruitloop to report and vote down:

    Thanks to Special Agent J for alerting me to this one

    Liked by 2 people


  8. Pingback: Angela’s getting anxious, for good reason | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  9. Still reading five go off to camp. can i expect a ‘Where’s Wesley’ post soon ? where the plucky ex football hooligan turned homeless rights campaigner turned horticultural entreprenaur (can’t be arsed finding a dictionary) publicly posts updates on social media about what an utterly terrible time he’s having. As for jack clack ? he sounds like a knobhead.

    Liked by 2 people

    • There’s something of a high contrast emotional charoscuro about wesley. he swings from manic highs of being ready to conquer the world to the pits of agony railing against the gods for their cruelty. not once does he accept one iota of responsibility for his situation.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. Pingback: Update: Whatever became of Jake Clarke? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.