BREAKING: Jewish Scientists and Doctors stand with Andrew Bridgen, Letter sent to Rishi Sunak

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

It's up to Pfizer, I suppose. But suing for defamation is an expensive game and not worth it unless you have a Defendant who can pay loads of dosh for damages and costs.

The only winners are the lawyers.

As in the recent Vardy v Rooney debacle.

So in your system anyone can sue anyone else for defamation. Including companies who can go against individuals or even institutions. Imagine you start an online discussion on how corrupt Oxford University is. How can they bring you to court and with what charges? You haven't accused an actual person which changes things a lot.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I can't see his case standing due to privelege laws that grant protection from civil or criminal liability for stateent made in Parliament: Parliamentary privelege

Companiies can sue for libel, defamation and impose injuctions or super-injunctions in the UK - it's happened thousands of times. Carter-Ruck are the main law firm companies use to do this.

EDIT: Social Media like this site are AFIAK exempt from libel, defamation, injunctions or at least I'm unaware of any court cases - it's regularly used to name and shame companies or individuals who have abused the super-injunction systems - I think server location grants immunity if it's not UK based but I'm not 100%.

Companies mainly use it against broadcastetrs newspapers to stop them reporting stories such as the Trafigura vs Guardian case I mentioned earlier; they've been trying to impost a system of prior notification against the press for years which would force the press to notify any company prior to publication and allow the company to obtain court injunctions against the newspaper that stop them publishing any scandals.

It could be possible for them to sue social media influencer as they have a bigger audience and influencer (apparently) - but my knowlege of the subject is from before they existed.

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I can't see his case standing due to privelege laws that grant protection from civil or criminal liability for stateent made in Parliament: Parliamentary privelege

Companiies can sue for libel, defamation and impose injuctions or super-injunctions in the UK - it's happened thousands of times. Carter-Ruck are the main law firm companies use to do this.

I said above that there could be different laws on different countries. I don't know on how the defamation & libel laws are applied in the UK but it still seems to be a rare event that companies sue individuals for defamation, even if they can do so.
For example do you know of any company which have taken someone to court for defamation?

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I don't think you understand what I am saying.

Not "charges", "claims".

Defamation is a Civil matter, not a Criminal one.

Although, rather uniquely for Civil claims, the process leads to a jury trial.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

McDonalds?

www.mcspotlight.org...

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Bridgen has form for making stupid and offensive comments, by the way:

www.bbc.co.uk...

That seems like an honest mistake unlike the ones we are seeing over on this side of the big pond. I would take his mistakes over Biden's and Pelosi's any day if that is what you have against Brigden. He bothered to apologize., and sincerely it appears too.

Yes, I don't think either that he meant any harm. And in comparison with Biden and Pelosi who have lost the plot he is a saint.

Remember Biden saying you can't get Covid-19 if you get vaccinated?! Clear confusion there.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I don't think you understand what I am saying.

Not "charges", "claims".

Defamation is a Civil matter, not a Criminal one.

Although, rather uniquely for Civil claims, the process leads to a jury trial.

Yes I know it is a civil matter.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

McDonalds?

www.mcspotlight.org...

I know the case but I didn't know they had to pay £60,000 for libel and defamation of McDonalds. Did they pay in the end? Probably not.

Later on another court the ECHR ruled in favour of them duo.

You really have strange laws in England. The verdict was clearly against freedom of speech and what they were saying was true. Good that the other court recognised this.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Agreed.

McDonalds suffered huge reputational damage in bringing the case.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Yup the courts are really poor on this issue - instead of innocent until proven guilty, the person has to defend their innocence and is considered guilty until they can show that their comments could not be interpreted in a negative fashion and cause damage to the companies reputation.

Multi-nationals come to the UK to abuse this system and impose incredibly restrictive laws or cases - certain arrangements are made to make sure such cases are heard in Court on a Friday afternoon as only junior, wet behind the ears judges work then and rule in favour of the company 99% of the time

i.e Trafigura knowingly dumping toxic waste in the Ivory Coast and killing, maiming thousands was completely illegal to mention in the UK until MPs used Parliamentary Privelege to break the super-injuncttion and allow newspapers/people to report/discuss the issue without beinig sued.

EDIT: I'm not a lawyer but I think it would be plausable for a company to obtain an injunction against any of the independent bodies like BHF and Royal Colleges monitoring the vaccines under 'corporately sensitive info' laws and damage to reputation - sorry for deraiiling thrad but it's a really iteresting point.

I worked for a Uni who refused to allow their course material to be reviewed by other University professors even though it's common practice - A professor rightfully took them to court but the Uni stil refused and won the case under corporate sensitivity - It was a terrible course with no basis in science, contained illegal teachings about curing cancerr, that myself and other Uni staff managed to get banned from the Uni - after the ruling I whistlebew the whole affair, gave the course info to the professor who took them to court and ended up working for them.

Still the letter and story hasn't been picked up by the MSM.

But another familiar source of information here

expose-news.com...

Jewish doctors and scientists to Rishi Sunak: “We request you withdraw accusations of anti-Semitism levelled at Andrew Bridgen”
BY RHODA WILSON ON FEBRUARY 3, 2023

25 leading scientists, doctors and researchers from Israel, the UK, Canada and the USA sent a letter to Installed Prime Minister Sunak to protest the weaponisation of anti-Semitism in what is clearly a political assassination of Member of Parliament Andrew Bridgen for raising well-established concerns regarding harms caused by covid injections

The letter from the group of Jewish doctors and scientists backs up an article in which Mark Pickles makes the point that using the false charge of anti-Semitism as a means to deflect debate is in itself a dangerous trivialisation of anti-Semitism:

The label “anti-Semite” that the Conservative Party evidently wants to attach to Bridgen is a merely a confusion tactic, Pickels noted. Any other smear would have done, such as “racist” or “homophobe” or “bully.” It seems that Bridgen was asking too many questions of the Establishment’s covid vaccine narrative, and an ad hominem attack was needed urgently

a reply to: Asmodeus3

They are using the Antisemitism card for one simple reason, THEY are incompetent but that claim worked against their main political rival and opponent as they used it to character assassinate him and destroy his credibility that man was Jeremy Corbyn the former leader of the Labour Party, their allies within that party have also removed him from his former position and even from being a member of that party a man whom also had Jewish backing from people who remembered him actually helping to wash anti semitic graffiti from a Synagogue and stand with the Jewish people AGAINST antisemitism, something NON of his character assassins have actually ever done themselves.

Since it under the controlled and corrupt media worked very well in that Assassination of there main enemy's character and worked to placate the public by convincing them of THEIR lies they then tried it against this MP even though he was actually a member of there Party.

What we are dealing with here is NOT conservatives, NOT Labour but a very real cabal of very evil people that have taken control of and have a stranglehold upon both party's.

Simple as that really, they are not our friends and are not running our country for OUR people but are running it as an arm of a corrupt financial group whom they WORK FOR and whom fund them, bribe them and are pushing an illegal agenda over our nation and silencing anyone that actually represent real democracy be they Conservative OR Labour.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

British politics are sometimes very fascinating and in this case the Conservative Leadership has put itself in a very difficult position.

They have made Andrew Bridgen very popular. But he was already popular as he was raising very legitimate questions in relation to the Covid vaccines and rightfully so.

I disagree for two reasons.

The Conservative Party is an omnishambles. It is beset by national and internal problems that would challenge a Churchill or a Thatcher while shackled to an ineffectual leader.

Second, Bridgen is a non-story. He's just one more Tory feck up. On a scale of one ten of political significance, he struggles to reach a one. Even when he sues an ex-health minister for £100k, he only makes some of the papers and even then as a novelty story. Jeremy Clarkson - a past-his-sell-by-date TV presenter who made some tacky comments about someone or other - got more attention from the press and, significantly, from the usual faux freedom campaigners like Toby Young.

The British government has successfully communicated the idea that COVID is over, done, last year's story, something dealt with two prime ministers ago - while, incidentally, fitting state of the art filtration equipment into Parliament.

Given more serious restrictions of freedom of speech, such as last year's Crime and Police Act and proposals to limit the right to strike, the Bridgen saga is likely to remain a very minor distraction.

originally posted by: Whodathunkdatcheese

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

British politics are sometimes very fascinating and in this case the Conservative Leadership has put itself in a very difficult position.

They have made Andrew Bridgen very popular. But he was already popular as he was raising very legitimate questions in relation to the Covid vaccines and rightfully so.

I disagree for two reasons.

The Conservative Party is an omnishambles. It is beset by national and internal problems that would challenge a Churchill or a Thatcher while shackled to an ineffectual leader.

Second, Bridgen is a non-story. He's just one more Tory feck up. On a scale of one ten of political significance, he struggles to reach a one. Even when he sues an ex-health minister for £100k, he only makes some of the papers and even then as a novelty story. Jeremy Clarkson - a past-his-sell-by-date TV presenter who made some tacky comments about someone or other - got more attention from the press and, significantly, from the usual faux freedom campaigners like Toby Young.

The British government has successfully communicated the idea that COVID is over, done, last year's story, something dealt with two prime ministers ago - while, incidentally, fitting state of the art filtration equipment into Parliament.

Given more serious restrictions of freedom of speech, such as last year's Crime and Police Act and proposals to limit the right to strike, the Bridgen saga is likely to remain a very minor distraction.

I don't know precisely what the Brush public believed in our days. But from the comments they make online and the conversations I happen to see, it doesn't look that they are convinced about the causes of the excess deaths for example or the usefulness of lockdowns. I think most people have come to realise the reality of the response to Covid including National Lockdowns and mass vaccinations.

Yes, Covid-19 is over for most people everywhere in the world. It was never a problem to start with in most cases, regardless of the exaggerated claims made and the scaremongering.

The case of Andrew Bridgen is a very important one. They tried to shoot the 'messanger' and you could see what reaction it has caused. Nobody cares here whether Bridgen will sue Hancock. I hope he does so as the random claims of anti-semitism must stop and the letter by these scientists is a blow to the unsubstantiated accusations.

But... The thing the establishment can't battle is what Bridgen said about the response to Covid, the lockdowns, the vaccine passports, the excess deaths, the problematic vaccines, and the vaccine injuries. This is not going to end in 2023 or 2024.

a reply to: LABTECH767
Thank you! Excellent post.
Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: LABTECH767

Absolutely!

The letter has exposed the establishment in .any different fronts.

There is no antisemitism and trying to play the card of antisemitism is both a desperate attempt and a morally reprehensible act they has been condemned by a number of Jewish Scientists and Doctors.

But we all know (apart from the vaccine apologists and the naive individuals) what bothered and still bothers the establishment. The words by Andrew Bridgen did reflect the concerns of a large part of the population and of a large part of the scientific community that has seen science hijacked by the evil forces of the pharmaceutical companies and their cronies.

That's like bringing your findings to the enemy...

Rishi sunak???

originally posted by: Bloodworth
That's like bringing your findings to the enemy...

Rishi sunak???

A ludicrous figure (Sunak)

But if you mean by findings the knowledge that exists about the vaccine injuries, I think everyone knows by now who has had a look at the matter. The MSM doesn't want to touch upon the issue but sooner or later everyone will know.

Just take a look online on the comments made when excess non Covid deaths are discussed.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

these scumbags use the media to throw at us
excuse after excuse when they screw up, but in this case,

they throw accusation after accusation at us until they
finally get a reaction, then using that accusation ,
POUND IT INTO OUR SKULLS 24-7
until they believe enough of us are ok withit
then they can go ahead and do it,....

then they start giving the excuses for their justification

and that dont include the social engineering with artificial intelligence
using supercomputers.... and whatever other tricks they use on us

originally posted by: cappie
a reply to: Asmodeus3

these scumbags use the media to throw at us
excuse after excuse when they screw up, but in this case,

they throw accusation after accusation at us until they
finally get a reaction, then using that accusation ,
POUND IT INTO OUR SKULLS 24-7
until they believe enough of us are ok withit
then they can go ahead and do it,....

then they start giving the excuses for their justification

and that dont include the social engineering with artificial intelligence
using supercomputers.... and whatever other tricks they use on us

They got a reaction they didn't expect this time.