Former Health Secretary Matt Hancock could regret his tweet suggesting that fellow MP Andrew Bridgen was antisemitic, a comment so wounding it prompted Mr. Bridgen to issue libel proceedings.
Mr. Hancock has attempted to avoid explaining himself, and inevitably his part in overseeing the dangerous Covid vaccination rollout, by applying to have the case cancelled. He claimed that he had not identified Mr. Bridgen in his tweet so the case should not go ahead. Last week, a High Court judge threw out his bid to ‘strike out’ the claim.
A quick recap on events. On January 11th 2023 a Twitter account called ZeroHedge said that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) had published figures for Covid vaccine injury, provided by the U.S. health watchdog VAERS. ZeroHedge’s subsequent analysis was originally published by Dr. Josh Guetzkow, Associate Professor and Senior Lecturer in Criminology at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.
Dr. Guetzkow’s graphs showed that major cardiovascular events reported to VAERS had exceeded 70,000 by then, which included nearly 4,000 cases of atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat), and 2,000 cases each of myocarditis and cardiac failure.
Dr. Guetzkow made no association with the Holocaust.
Mr. Bridgen discussed his research with various heart specialists then shared a link and a screenshot of the cardiac numbers with the comment: “As one consultant cardiologist said to me, this is the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust.” He has never named the cardiologist.
Hours later, Mr Hancock, MP for West Suffolk since 2010, wrote on Twitter: “Disgusting and dangerous antisemitic, anti-vax, anti-scientific conspiracy theories spouted by a sitting MP this morning are unacceptable and have absolutely no place in our society.” The tweet has been viewed 4.4million times and resulted in Mr. Bridgen, MP for North West Leicestershire, also since 2010, being expelled from the Conservative Party.
Mr. Bridgen said: “Every person reading the tweet knew it was about me. It was seriously defamatory and untrue and intended to cause grievous harm to my reputation.” Mr. Hancock, who has 435,600 followers, argued that he had not named Mr. Bridgen, who has 234,200.
Mr. Bridgen added: “I welcome the decision of Mrs Justice Steyn to allow this important case to continue to a trial. A strike-out is a high-risk strategy often used by defendants who are worried about the prospect of a trial, and in this case, it failed, thus making clear that there is nothing wrong with the substance of the claim.”
In her 20-page judgment, Mrs Justice Steyn cited numerous cases where defendants had tried and failed to strike out claims because they had not named the plaintiffs.
The judge decided that Mr. Bridgen could establish that the tweet was about him. She wrote: “It is highly likely that the claimant would have little difficulty establishing reference innuendo.” She added that “numerous replies on Twitter to the defendant’s [Hancock’s] tweet indicate that the reader was aware that it was about the claimant”.
Many Twitter users recognised it was about Mr. Bridgen’s tweet. Underneath Mr Hancock’s tweet, Rebel News reporter Avi Yemeni tweeted a screenshot of Mr. Bridgen’s tweet with the message: “Please point to what exactly is ‘antisemitic’ about his statement. And while you’re at it, please show me the lie. Stop pretending to care about our Jewish community in your cheap political point-scoring. Andrew Bridgen is right.” Account Geordie at Heart also tweeted a screenshot of Mr. Bridgen’s tweet, underneath Mr. Hancock’s message. She wrote in capitals: “WE SEE YOU AS YOU ALL JOIN TOGETHER TO SPOUT THE SAME SCRIPT.”
In a statement after the latest judgment, Mr. Bridgen, who himself suffered a serious adverse reaction to a Covid jab and needs medication for life, said:
The tweet I put out regarding vaccine harms and excess deaths in January 2023 which resulted in my expulsion from the Conservative Party was not just not antisemitic, it was true and based on evidence, evidence which gets stronger by the day. I hope the Government will take note of this judgment and suspend the experimental, emergency use mRNA vaccines with immediate effect.
He is pressing the court for a hearing before the General Election so that he can clear his name. He tweeted this last Monday and claimed Matt Hancock and Rishi Sunak illegally smeared his character.
Update on my libel action. I have written to the court today on the question of the timing of the trial referring to section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983: False statements as to candidates. (1) A person who (a) before or during an election, (b) for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election, makes or publishes any false statement of fact in relation to the candidate’s personal character or conduct shall be guilty of an illegal practice, unless he can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing, and did believe, that statement to be true.
This section was enacted by Parliament to make smearing an MP not just unlawful, but illegal, and inconsistent with the holding of a fair election. This protection was enacted for both the benefit of the candidate and the voters, in this case the people of North West Leicestershire. That is because a breach of section 106 denies the 90,000 constituents of North West Leicestershire a fair election.
Sally Beck is a freelance journalist with 30 years of experience in writing for national newspapers and magazines. This article was first published by TCW Defending Freedom.
Stop Press: The Guardian reports that the High court struck out part but not all of Bridgen’s case and ordered him to pay Hancock’s legal costs of £40,000. According to the newspaper, the judge said if Bridgen “did not provide the details of his amended claim or did not successfully make the required application, the libel claim would be thrown out entirely”.
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.
Ooh look, we’re allowed to comment under this one.
Yes – I tried to offer support for Melissa Kite but the comments option disappeared.
any explanations? would be decent of them to tell us why, otherwise its not helpful to the beliefs of the people who put together the site and its supporters. If we are truly meant to be open and honest and about freedom of speech an explanation would be the right course of action
It’s simply a law of nature that editorial control will be exercised for reasons nobody understands. This follows from the fact that nobody ever intentionally violates a sites content policy as that’s not a useful course of action. Because of this, it’s best understood as form of bad weather.
Maybe, but on a site owned by the head of the Free Speech Union, a site dedicated to questioning and debate, it’s not a good look.
The British Royal Family is a protected species.
Well, I don’t know why DS would be especially keen on protecting them, and in any case they chose to publish an article on the subject.
Maybe they regret it. And in any case it’s basically a republish of a Spectator article. So if anyone is in trouble, it’s the Spectator.
Unless the comments were obnoxious, which it doesn’t sound like they were, then they been pressured into shutting comments down.
Indeed though why not pull the whole article then
I think the BTL commenters should consider going on strike until we know more. Or decamp to the Lockdown Sceptics subreddit where we manage to keep it fairly civil with very light touch moderation
Or use every comment section to comment about the Melissa Kite article, until they explain what happened.
Let’s make a list of everyone who is up for making one a post in every comment section about the Melissa Kite article and DS comment censorship:
stewart
I don’t think we will let it drop
yes could everyone comment here what they did write before it was stopped.a nd continue to coment on the kate article just comment here
yes it does seem very strange and obvious to me that the shots have caused charles and kates and the queen’s a nd maybe prince Phillips health problems .
it seems they want to take out the royal family because they are independent of the government or are supposed to be .
that plus the stress caused by a certain couple
Sadly, Royalty appears to have embraced the promulgation of government agenda that wisely was not practiced by previous generations of royalty. Bet they think twice before doing it again.
Aye from me
I thought they would’ve not had the real thing and had a saline solution. I would’ve made that point on the original article. I hope OFcom haven’t got the DS over a barrel already!
I always wondered whether Faucci was stupid or evil. Stupid if he actually took the real thing or evil if he pretended to.
And I couldn’t decide which of the two disturbed me more.
In a strange way I think the latter disturbed me less but couldn’t quite say why.
I will second that tof.
The purpose of the FSU is to provide legal support to its members when they get into trouble because of free speech issues.
Unions don’t tend to fully represent what they claim to exist for and can be directed by other factors. A Free Speech union has no reason to be different.
See if an explanation is forthcoming next week as it is Easter weekend.
It’s a strange business. I could understand Meghan endorsing a BigPharma product but I would have thought that Kate would have turned down any offer.
Hancock is a liar and a criminal and along with over 600 others has no legitimate place in the House of Commons. If Hancock owned any decency he would have withdrawn his accusation of antisemitism against the Honourable Andrew Bridgen and offered a grovelling apology but as we all know he thinks he’s batting for the big boys now and he can say and do as he pleases. If anybody should have been ejected from the Con party it was Handicock. Yet again Fishy’s rag tag mob are revealed to be a bunch of spineless, treasonous wannabes who besmirch this country by their very existence.
My hope now is that Andrew Bridgen is fortunate enough to have the trial heard by an honest lawyer although on this matter my expectations are low. I feel sure that Fishy would not want to suffer the fallout of a clear Andrew Bridgen victory, unless of course Handicock is to be offered up as a sacrificial victim. Still, if he is at least it will provide DS subscribers with a smile and some small degree of satisfaction.
Salute Andrew Bridgen.
unless of course Handicock is to be offered up as a sacrificial victim
It’s surely the right day to crucify someone.
This is what Hancock is party to. What a triumph.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-nhs-chief-teaching-granny-to-suck-easter-eggs/
And this is how the filthy, Gates-funded, socialist rag that is the Guardian report it: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/28/andrew-bridgen-must-pay-matt-hancock-legal-fees-of-40000-in-libel-claim
Know your enemy.
Having just read The Groan’s version of the initial hearing it seems as if the author of this article, Ms Sally Beck, has got the wrong end of the stick. Andrew Bridgen has been hit with a bill of £44k for the criminal Hancock’s legal fees. So the seemingly ‘honest’ judge Steyn is nothing of the sort. If Andrew Bridgen goes to full trial I tend to the view that his chances of success are between slim and none. And Slim just left town.
An attempt at a full trial would no doubt be a major financial risk. However, if he has the assets he might take the risk, perhaps with the possibility of Hancock becoming bankrupt.
Off topic apologies:
This is what the future of the UK looks like!
https://www.gbnews.com/news/yobs-storm-shopping-centre-causing-mayhem-security-struggle-contain-antisocial-chaos
Apology not required Dinger. If we don’t post Off-T on the latest thread it doesn’t get seen.
If that is what the kids get up to, then brace yourself for “charger rage” from the gangs of owners this weekend.
Needless to say that Bridgen is a hero who has our support, and Hancock is a psychopathic cockroach.
That said, it’d be beneficial to have all the facts, and not too much spin –
I would happily contribute to a crowdfunding campaign to support Bridgen.
Quote
In a ruling last week, Mrs Justice Steyn “struck out” certain parts of Bridgen’s case but did not dismiss the whole claim, instead giving the independent MP a chance to make amendments and “remedy the deficiencies”. Bridgen was ordered to pay £44,300 in legal costs to the MP for West Suffolk in a court order on Thursday.
Steyn added that if Bridgen, a former Conservative MP, did not provide the details of his amended claim or did not successfully make the required application, the libel claim would be thrown out entirely.
yes why comments closed on article about kate. is it because the site would have been
shut down or what was eager to read the comments please allow them back
I wish I knew more about libel laws. From what little I have read, the case is not clear cut. To be clear, I think the accusation of antisemitism is preposterous and dishonest. But I don’t think it’s the same as falsely accusing someone of having done something specific. I doubt anyone thinks worse of Bridgen because of what Hancock said – his supporters and detractors will both see what they want to see in Hancock’s statement. Hancock just expressed an opinion, albeit a despicable one that I doubt is sincerely held. I am not sure the law is the correct remedy – I would much rather see Hancock defeated in the court of public opinion, and answer for other crimes he may have committed. That said, a court case at least well get the issue debated with the protagonists testifying under oath.
Regular readers will know how much I despise Hancock and support what Bridgen is doing.
Testifying under oath is a concept for the little people to be concerned with. Given what those like Hancock have done and participated in, what would “under oath” mean to them in a corrupt system?
Possibly though he wasn’t smart enough to delete his WhatsApp messages so he may have privately said something that incriminates him which he’d get in trouble for lying about – but yes it probably is not going to make much difference
Even if Andrew Bridgen had quoted someone who said, or even if he had expressed a personal opinion, that it was a bigger crime than the Holocaust: so what?
Are people not entitled to draw their own comparisons and come to their own conclusions?
What’s that in Stop Press ?????… Does that mean Hancock has succeeded, HELP
Hancock has not succeeded. Bridgen’s claim rolls on. However, it would be helpful to know what part(s) of his claim were struck out and what the required amendments to it will be
Hancock has blood on his hands just like Fauci for the deaths of thousands of people.
I just hope he dies VERY VERY SLOWLY and VERY VERY PAINFULLY.
Tell you what TDS is in danger of losing my support if they start closing down the comments section. Why are we suddenly not allowed to comment on Kate and Wills and what happened to free speech? Come on Tobes pots and kettles are springing to mind here. TBH I’m a bit shocked.
I am not just a bit shocked but hugely shocked and angry. However, I do believe that DS may have been leant on heavily by TPTB/RF to remove the comments. Was DS threatened with legal action? How interesting it would be to be able to read them. Perhaps DS did this to protect itself as well as its commenters. If it did not agree to remove them, perhaps it might have been threatened with an application for an order of the court to reveal the identity of commenters?
Under the general rules of costs « Orders for costs made against a claimant may only be enforced after the proceedings have been concluded and the costs have been assessed or agreed ». So if Bridgen amends his claim, he can continue with it and hopefully win it and get a costs order against Hancock. The interim order for costs against Bridgen must eventually be paid however.