Andrew Bridgen is suing Matt Hancock for £100,000 over a Twitter message in which the former Health Secretary accused him of spouting “anti-Semitic, anti-vax, anti-scientific conspiracy theories” about the COVID-19 vaccine. The Telegraph has the story.
Mr Bridgen, who lost the Conservative whip over comments he made about the vaccine this month, wants Mr. Hancock to pay damages to a legal fund for “people seeking collective redress for vaccine harms”.
The row centres around a Twitter message originally published by Mr. Bridgen on January 11th, comparing the effects of Covid vaccines to the Holocaust.
“As one consultant cardiologist said to me, this is the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust,” he wrote, above another Twitter message from an Israeli doctor which questioned the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.
Mr. Hancock condemned Mr. Bridgen’s remarks on Twitter the same day, saying “the disgusting and dangerous anti-Semitic, anti-vax, anti-scientific conspiracy theories spouted by a sitting MP this morning are unacceptable and have absolutely no place in our society”.
In the ensuing furore, Mr. Bridgen denied that the comment was “racist” or “anti-Semitic”, and said he would be “speaking to a legal team who will commence action against those who have led the call suggesting that I am”.
The disgusting and dangerous anti-semitic, anti-vax, anti-scientific conspiracy theories spouted by a sitting MP this morning are unacceptable and have absolutely no place in our society
— Matt Hancock (@MattHancock) January 11, 2023
My question to @RishiSunak in PMQspic.twitter.com/6ospPGfi9a
Mr. Bridgen posted on Twitter on January 13th that Mr. Hancock had “still not removed his defamatory tweet falsely alleging that I am anti-Semitic. I will allow Matt three days to apologise publicly for calling me an anti-Semite and racist or he will be contacted by my legal team.”
In a letter to Mr. Hancock five days later on January 18th, as seen by the Telegraph, Mr. Bridgen’s legal team set out its claim against Mr. Hancock and the demand for damages.
It said: “By inclusion of the phrases ‘anti-Semitic’, ‘anti-vax’, ‘anti-scientific’ and ‘conspiracy theories’ the words are defamatory at common law.”
According to the seven-page “letter before action”, Mr. Bridgen wants Mr. Hancock to “retract and delete the defamatory statement contained in the tweet complained of with immediate effect”.
It adds that he should “apologise for the tweet complained of – both orally in the House of Commons and in writing on Mr. Hancock’s personal Twitter account”.
And he said Mr Hancock should “acknowledge full and final settlement of any prospective claim in the form of a payment of £100,000 – to be transferred into a legal fund on behalf of persons seeking collective redress for vaccine harms (under the U.K. Government’s Vaccine Damages Payment Scheme)”.
Mr Bridgen’s legal action is being funded by the Reclaim Party and the “Bad Law Project”.
Matt Hancock was defiant, his spokesman telling the Telegraph:
What Matt said was obviously not libellous and he stands by his comments. Rather than wasting his time and money on an absurd libel case he will undoubtedly lose, let’s hope Bridgen does the right thing and apologises for the hurt he’s caused and keeps his offensive view to himself in future.
I think Hancock may find falsely calling someone anti-Semitic is libellous and defamatory. But we’ll all find out soon enough.
Read Daily Sceptic articles offering a defence of Andrew Bridgen here, here and here.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Haha, great minds think alike!
This is what I posted on the Pfizer thread:
Marvellous. A bit of infighting is just what we need.
What’s the betting on an ‘out of court settlement’ in order to ensure not much comes out? Which is why I suspect the claim for damages is so low.
Yes it’ll be interesting alright. Anyone flinging around slanderous accusations should be done for defamation. The reason I initially balked at the small amount is because I’m thinking of Dr Malone’s lawsuit against the Breggins for $25 million i think it was. The Americans take a “Go hard or go home” mentality to their culture of litigation though. But that Hancockwomble seriously needs taken down a peg or 3 man..
Go get him, Andrew!
According to the Telegraph a Hancock ‘spokesman’ said: “Rather than wasting his time and money on an absurd libel case he will undoubtedly lose, let’s hope Bridgen does the right thing and apologises for the hurt he’s caused and keeps his offensive view to himself in future”. That’s libelous in itself, isn’t it? They just can’t stop themselves, these people.
People like Matt Hand-Cock would be much less obnoxious in a society where question of honour are to be settled with duels.
An open and shut case you might think. Unless you get a judge who makes up case law on the spot as happened to Arron Banks when he had Cadwallader bang to rights.
Aren’t libel and slander cases heard before a jury, and can be decided on balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt?
Also Hancock would have to prove he did not libel Bridgen.
I once sued a culprit for damages, and it was determined by a County Court judge, No jury, and you’re right that it’s a balance of probability, not the same as a prosecution. A lot will depend on the quality of the evidence presented by his solicitor, but you’d have thought that Bridgen will know what he’s doing.
It’s usually a single judge. One advantage of this over jury trials (at least in criminal cases) is that the judge is required to give reasons for the judgment, whereas the jury cannot give reasons for their verdict. The majority of cases are settled out of court with the judge rubber-stamping whatever the expensive barristers have concocted, because neither side can afford the costs. The old “beyond reasonable doubt” has long gone from criminal trials, at least: the directions are simply “are you sure that the defendant is guilty?”. Much depends, in jury trials, on what selection of evidence the judge decides should be presented to the jury, and how much is redacted or completely withheld.
“The majority of cases are settled out of court.”
And this is what I posted earlier.
No legal immunity on Twitter, compared with the House of Commons. Serves Hancock right if he has to shell out.
Moral support from this side. This is the right thing to do. We’ll see how it works out. Someone should perhaps inform the Matt-Thing that myocarditis is causing hurt while words cannot.
Excellent.
Next, criminal proceeding for crimes against humanity.
Hancock should be facing much, much more than a £100,000 lawsuit for his covid crimes
it is difficult to see how describing the holocaust as the most serious crime in history is antisemitic, a serious allegation indeed ,that Hancock will have to justify.
I think I know how this will be argued: The quote alleges that the COVID vaccination campaign and the holocaust are of the same quality but on a different scale. Since The Safe and Effective Vaccines[tm] are known to have saved mankind in exchange for no downsides whatsoever (Hancock called the claim that people have been injured by them anti-vaxxer conspiracy theory), this implies that the Holocaust really wasn’t a crime against humanity which is antisemitic. Further, the Israeli government has been one of the most vaxx-happy on the planet and alleging that the Israeli government committed a crime against humanity of the same general quality as the Holocaust is clearly antisemitic as well (the well-known position of government of Israel is that anybody who criticizes any of its action is an antisemite).
I fear there’s a very realistic chance that this will go down in flames.
I’m not saying that a pseudo rational case cannot be made that Bridgen’s statement is antisemitic.
But I know Bridgen wasn’t attacking Jews.
Hancock knows it.
The Conservative Party know it.
We all know it.
If he loses all they will be proving is what a joke our system is.
Slightly off topic, but it would be useful to have a common definition of “anti-semitic”. Aside from the elastic meaning that’s in most common use (you’ve said something related to Jews and I want to discredit you or smear you because I don’t like you or some other views you have). Does it mean “I don’t like Jews in general, but I like some of them fine – I take them as a find them and do not prejudge” or does it mean “I dislike ALL Jews because they are Jews”? The first statement describes the attitude that 99% of humanity could have to any identifiable group – they may well have observed a general tendency to not get on with people from that group, because of characteristics commonish to that group, but they take individuals from that group as they find them. The second statement may be true of some people, though I would say it’s pretty unusual. Or does it mean “I think ALL Jews should not be allowed into the country/allowed to work/forbidden to do X or Y etc etc just because they are Jewish” – an extension of statement 2 which is simply a personal preference to actively wanting that preference to be backed up with force of law or force in general?
I think the historical definition – at least for Germany – is that an antisemite is someone who’s opposed to the so-called jewish emancipiation, the granting of full citizen status to jews, which generally happened in the first half of the 19. century. Antisemitism continued to be a popular sentiment throughout all of western Europe (eg, the Dreyfus affair) until it was replaced with essentially enforced philosemitism post-1945.
Thanks. I guess there are people who do not believe Jews should have “full citizen” status just because they are Jewish. Obviously not the definition now most commonly employed.
That’s unfortunately besides the point: In court, nobody knows anything until it has been proven. I’ve already had the mispleasure to experience a lawyer disputing that a certain uphill road would run uphill (from Simmern to Holzbach, FWIW).
I can see this going only one way and that’s Bridgen’s way. 1) The allegations against him are patently false. 2) The reaction in suspending him was totally disproportionate and unjustified if no.1 is established.
If he loses this I can see there being a massive outcry personally.
I agree that we shouldn’t underestimate the capacity of a barrister to perform feats of contortion and chicanery. Neither should we imagine that the judge will be a bastion of virtue. The case isn’t directly about the Jews or the vaccines, so I don’t think that Hancock will get much ‘support’ from the establishment.
Midazolam to the slaughter. Impfen macht frei, nein?
Klaus will pay Wancocks costs !
This is really making me mad! Any moron can see that the statement “this is the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust” is not comparing vaccine deaths to the Holocaust in any way except to say the Holocaust was worse. This is so disingenuous, it takes the biscuit. But, of course, we know Hancock is worried about what might be about to bite him – he’s doubling down. Let’s hope some justice is forthcoming … and I’m not talking about the libel case.
If the legal action goes ahead can Bridgen’s team also add in the neccessity to sue Wancock for being an odious slimeball who can do press ups under snakes?
For me, the smearing of Bridgen represents the final disappearance of any trace of conservatism in the “Conservative” Party.
Vera Sharav supports Bridgen’s statement stating that it is not anti Semitic.