Further details give a clearer picture of Alanson/Colley sentencing

It seems that the mainstream media has finally taken notice of a story which we reported last month.

Readers might recall our report that Alan Colley, better known to readers of this blog as “Alan Alanson”, had been sentenced to nine months in prison as well as a Criminal Behaviour Order, for his harassment of the father of the two Hampstead children.

While he was initially charged with Harassment 4 under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, Colley pleaded guilty in May to a lesser charge of malicious communications—”sending an electronic communication with intent to cause distress or anxiety”.

Reports in Metro and ChronicleLive stated yesterday that Colley, from Kenton in Newcastle, has a long-term partner and two adult children, and works for a housebuilding company as a site operative, a position of some responsibility. It was stated during his sentencing hearing that he had a “long list of previous convictions”, though these were not specified.

Noting that Colley had fully believed in the Hampstead hoax, prosecutor Andrew Espley said Colley had felt justified in his actions, which included posting the names and images of the two Hampstead children online, and encouraging others to make threats against the children’s innocent father. Colley continued to post this material whilst bail conditions prohibited him from doing so, and made several statements defying the police and courts, and stating they were “part of the cover-up”.

“There is no remorse at all for him to rely on as mitigation”, Espley said.

‘An obsessive and frenzied quest of injustice’

In sentencing remarks which echoed those given by HHJ Sally Cahill when she sentenced Sabine McNeill to nine years in prison, Judge Edward Bindloss told Colley,

You posted various grossly offensive remarks on your Facebook page which was open to others and open to people to see and read and re-post.

You wrongly believed two children who you had no connection with had been sexually abused by their father and you joined in a campaign for a prolonged period in what you saw as a passionate search for truth and justice but in fact was an obsessive and frenzied quest of injustice.

There was no credible evidence they had been sexually abused and the High Court judge made a definitive finding of such.

You stirred up anxiety and distress for the complainant.

This was not your fight, but you joined in with gusto.

Even now it seems you fail to see the larger picture and your role in this vicious internet mob rule.

Colley’s barrister, Peter Walsh, pointed out that his client and others had believed the Hampstead allegations, and that the system had failed people.

However, Judge Bindloss pointed out, “All conspiracy theorists find material that support what they think is the true position”.

Truer words, etc. We can only hope that the police and courts will continue to take a strong stance against those who harass and distress innocent folk, based on false allegations made by a bitter mother and her psychopathic boyfriend.