Comments by "Hittite Charioteer" (@hittitecharioteer) on "History Debunked" channel.

  1.  @localreviewking134  Twaddle there. Belfield was a bit OTT; but he directed searching questions at people who still today have yet to answer. He is massively anti-establishment; and so was never going to be treated impartially. The law was CHANGED specifically to convict him. He didn't so much harass his targets as persist they answer justifiable questions on their probity. An interesting case on many levels; even if the public barely grasped the wider issues. (But there again – and not for a moment suggesting you – the public have limited attention, and even more limited powers of comprehension.) The legal system is a nonsense in your country; it serves ONLY the CPS and the very wealthy. On reflection, Belfield could be considered a victim of it. The BBC and its staff are a mixture of the contemptuous, the criminal, the self-important, the self-aggrandising, and the hypocritical. Belfield was a mouse fighting a gorilla. 🕊and wisdom to you, 🤝from 🇮🇪.
    27
  2. Who is honestly surprised he thinks Syria is next-door to Libya? His brain is next-door to his wreck-tum?
    11
  3.  @caparn100  Online 'stalking'. It didn't exist until Alex Belfield's trial. Harassment turned into stalking. The sentence was a political act: intended to silence and to intimidate. Whatever the sentencing guidelines, it is a joke: a custodial sentence for asking questions of a multimillion pound organisation (BBC)? He never threatened anyone. Compare that to rapists and groomers who don't get a custodial sentence?
    3
  4.  @caparn100  The supposed distress is a SUBJECTIVE assertion. Any objective assessment surely fails to justify a custodial sentence? The Establishment closed ranks, and protected its own (the BBC). Whatever Belfield "is", he threatened no one. He asked searching questions on the probity of high profile presenters. Their reaction says more about the BBC than it does Belfield?
    1
  5. Alex Belfield directed searching questions at people who still today have yet to answer. He is massively anti-establishment; and so was never going to be treated impartially. The law was CHANGED specifically to convict him. He didn't so much harass his targets as persist they answer justifiable questions on their probity. The BBC and its staff are a mixture of the contemptuous, the criminal, the self-important, the self-aggrandising, and the hypocritical. It is the propaganda wing of the "establishment" otherwise called The Deep State. Belfield was a mouse fighting a gorilla. The sentence is an outrage and an affront to any notion of fairness.
    1
  6. Who is honestly surprised he thinks Syria is next-door to Libya? His brain is next-door to his rectum?
    1