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

a reply to: Itisnowagain

By the way, this letter is so important not only to Andrew Bridgen but to the entire effort made to expose the official collapsed narratives and the unsubstantiated claims and accusations.

I haven't seen yet its contents to be discussed on the MSM

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Why have you created another thread about Andrew Bridgen?

Why did people create another thread about Trump, or Boris, or Prince Andrew?

There's a LOT to talk about with Andrew Bridgen, same as other people in society.

Hope that helps.

PS: What is really enheartening about this development is that public figures who were pro Covid jabs erroneously spoke publicly using false anti-semitism to defame someone with, namely Andrew Bridgen, and now they are being called out by some in the Jewish community and admonished for that abhorrent behavior.

People really should think about the implications of this.
Basically it totally exposes and annihilates what they tried to do to him and shows the world that what they did was false and without any merit. And at the same time insulting the Jewish communities around the world.

It can be used by Andrew Bridgen who is about to sue this genius, a guy called Hancock, who had the audacity inside the UK Parliament to lecture the rest of the audience in terms of anti-semitism and indirectly accuse Bridgen. I think Bridgen will sue him for at least £100,000 fir libel and defamation.

It can also be used as a testimony against this anomalous situation and the medical tyranny it has been established with the help of the Government and their cronies.

It can't as the comments were said in the House and are protected by Parliamentary Privelege. See the Trafigura/Probo Koala scandal for how the privelege grants a lot of legal protections and exemptions from libel, defamation and super-injunctions courts imposed that banned the press from exposing the scandal.

I can't stand Hancock myself and he's the last person who can lecture on ethics due to him having an affair during lockdown while telling the country not to have casual sex and he gave multi-million PPE contracts to his friends who had never worked in the PPE field.

The same privellege is protecting Brigden from being sued for libel and defamation by BHF after his false allegations they're part of a massive cover-up and failure to provide any evidence for the claim and their Centre of Research Excellence and Data Science Centre are one of the world leading independent bodies conducting Phase IV analysis and updating patient advice for paticular cardio-vascular conditions.

If either body tried to sue the case would never make it to court as it would infringe on the supremacy of Parliament and damage the democratic process as it would allow companies to ban Parliament from investigating or speaking up on major scandals.

I do think Sunak and Hancock should withdraw their claims of anti-semitism as Brigden was quoting someone and it was unevidenced hyperbolic use of a tired cliche rather than anything remotely anti-semitic.

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Why have you created another thread about Andrew Bridgen?

Why did people create another thread about Trump, or Boris, or Prince Andrew?

There's a LOT to talk about with Andrew Bridgen, same as other people in society.

Hope that helps.

PS: What is really enheartening about this development is that public figures who were pro Covid jabs erroneously spoke publicly using false anti-semitism to defame someone with, namely Andrew Bridgen, and now they are being called out by some in the Jewish community and admonished for that abhorrent behavior.



People really should think about the implications of this.
Basically it totally exposes and annihilates what they tried to do to him and shows the world that what they did was false and without any merit. And at the same time insulting the Jewish communities around the world.

It can be used by Andrew Bridgen who is about to sue this genius, a guy called Hancock, who had the audacity inside the UK Parliament to lecture the rest of the audience in terms of anti-semitism and indirectly accuse Bridgen. I think Bridgen will sue him for at least £100,000 fir libel and defamation.

It can also be used as a testimony against this anomalous situation and the medical tyranny it has been established with the help of the Government and their cronies.

It can't as the comments were said in the House and are protected by Parliamentary Privelege. See the Trafigura/Probo Koala scandal for how the privelege grants a lot of legal protections and exemptions from libel, defamation and super-injunctions courts imposed that banned the press from exposing the scandal.

I can't stand Hancock myself and he's the last person who can lecture on ethics due to him having an affair during lockdown while telling the country not to have casual sex and he gave multi-million PPE contracts to his friends who had never worked in the PPE field.

The same privellege is protecting Brigden from being sued for libel and defamation by BHF after his false allegations they're part of a massive cover-up and failure to provide any evidence for the claim and their Centre of Research Excellence and Data Science Centre are one of the world leading independent bodies conducting Phase IV analysis and updating patient advice for paticular cardio-vascular conditions.

If either body tried to sue the case would never make it to court as it would infringe on the supremacy of Parliament and damage the democratic process as it would allow companies to ban Parliament from investigating or speaking up on major scandals.

I do think Sunak and Hancock should withdraw their claims of anti-semitism as Brigden was quoting someone and it was unevidenced hyperbolic use of a tired cliche rather than anything remotely anti-semitic.

You may want to take a look around about the intentions of Andrew Bridgen who is about to sue Hancock for a large sum of money.

The BHF cannot sue Bridgen for libel and defamation as it isn't a person. For libel and defamation as far as I know you need to direct your allegations against a person not an institution or organisation. So if you maje a number of allegations and direct them against Pfizer for example, which is very common in our days, Pfizer can do nothing about it.

You may want to take a close look at the BHF as there is a lot of talk online and developments. I actually wanted to make another thread but just wait to see how it develops.

The letter is very powerful by the way. It can also be used as a testimony against this anomalous situation and the medical tyranny it has been established with the help of the Government and their cronies. A number of Jewish Scientists and Doctors have written to the UK Prime Minister to request that he stops the bs with antisemitism. They have exposed him irreversibly and all the others who have adopted similar rhetorics.

At the same time they have exposed the official narratives with the 'safe and effective' nonsense and the 'rare' events.

a reply to: bastion

You seem to be think high of the various institutions in your country. But this culture has changed In the last 2-3 years. Many of these institutions have lost their prestige and their reputations have been damaged irreversibly.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Not strictly true:

www.humphreys.co.uk...

But Hancock can claim Parliamentary Privilege for anything he may have said in the House as Bastion pointed out.

But he is a slimey creep. Hancock, not Bastion!

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Not strictly true:

www.humphreys.co.uk...

But Hancock can claim Parliamentary Privilege for anything he may have said in the House as Bastion pointed out.

But he is a slimey creep. Hancock, not Bastion!

He could do so. I am not challenging this and I am not from the UK. But still Bridgen threatens with legal action for libel & defamation.

What I know is that libel & defamation laws involve accusations between people. I don't think a company can sue a person for libel & defamation. If this was the case then Pfizer would be suing thousands who are making comments on a daily basis and accuse Pfizer of various crimes and malpractices & corruption.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

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

www.bbc.co.uk...

a reply to: Asmodeus3


"Only the person who believes he has been defamed may bring libel proceedings.

Legal entities such as companies or LLPs can sue for libel. They have their business reputations to protect.

But Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 (the “serious harm requirement”) restricts the ability of claimants (including companies) to sue for defamation. Serious financial loss needs to be shown.

Partnerships (other than limited liability partnerships), can bring an action in the name of the partners jointly in relation to statements that are defamatory of the firm as a whole.

In relation to any other unincorporated association (for example, an unincorporated charitable trust), there is no right to bring an action on behalf of the association, but individual members can sue if they are sufficiently identified in the statement concerned"

From my link.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Justoneman

He has not been "kicked from Parliament".

He is still an MP.

And I think he should stay. That is the real thread not whatever distraction you tend to bring being a hall monitor from grade school. That is what you remind me of when I was in Elementary School as you English would call that level of education. There were Hall monitors made up of the students who would make like tyrants when we moved a few feet out of line or touched something on the way to the bathroom breaks.

a reply to: Justoneman

Just stating a fact.

I'm a practicing lawyer, by the way.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Justoneman

Slamming? Just a question?

Well being a "hall monitor" from grade school is not helping with the discussion of is this man worthy of being kicked from Parliament is it?

Actually he has been suspended from his party, the Conservatives. Not from parliament.

I am sure that if they had the power they would have suspended him from parliament too. He was temporarily suspended for 5 days for another matter back in 2022.

Well, he came out looking the hero of mankind on this one.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

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

www.bbc.co.uk...

I am sure unfortunate comments are a common characteristic when it comes to members of parliaments and politicians, generally speaking. But I don't think this is related to the current case.

If anything the letter by the Jewish Scientists and Doctors is a massive boost for Andrew Bridgen defense in case anyone would decide to accuse him. And is not good news for the establishment as it criticises the decision to mass vaccinate citizens.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I wouldn't argue with that, except to repeat that his form is relevant.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3


"Only the person who believes he has been defamed may bring libel proceedings.

Legal entities such as companies or LLPs can sue for libel. They have their business reputations to protect.

But Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013 (the “serious harm requirement”) restricts the ability of claimants (including companies) to sue for defamation. Serious financial loss needs to be shown.

Partnerships (other than limited liability partnerships), can bring an action in the name of the partners jointly in relation to statements that are defamatory of the firm as a whole.

In relation to any other unincorporated association (for example, an unincorporated charitable trust), there is no right to bring an action on behalf of the association, but individual members can sue if they are sufficiently identified in the statement concerned"

From my link.

But is this likely to happen?

If this was the case, would Pfizer or any other company and corporation, start suing thousands who accuse them on a daily basis online and offline. Ok the laws vary between countries but on the other hand I haven't seen any such company taking people to court for libel and defamation.

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.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Justoneman

Just stating a fact.

I'm a practicing lawyer, by the way.

I am not against you/ I am just sticking to what I have seen while being honest. I do understand that Lawyers look at life differently for obvious reasons. I even add stars to your posts if I agree with them anytime. I do read what you post and respond accordingly. I am not against you personally at all, but about facts as we each see them.

I think you have been honest and I see your points. Even if I think in this case the man looks more saintly than most ever one of our elected leaders.

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.

a reply to: Justoneman

Thanks. I'm no fan of most of our politicians over here.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Fact is, it is the case.