Breaking: YouTube has taken down the speech given by Andrew Bridgen in UK Parliament

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Cheers for clarifying. I'm probably getting mixed up with something else or a different country.

originally posted by: Encia22
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Cheers for clarifying. I'm probably getting mixed up with something else or a different country.

It doesn't matter whether this isn't a criminal offense. They will find something to charge him if he exposes them with names and events. Probably they wil use defamation laws.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Not if he does it in Parliament. Parliamentary Privilege would apply.

He does have form for making false allegations, like against his own brother?

www.thisismoney.co.uk...

Now, to be clear, I am not nor have ever suggested that he is being paid by anyone to support anti vax ideology.

Just pointing out that he is not the living Saint you might think he is. Just for the sake of providing a bit of balance into this conversation.

I still can't think of any criminal offence that he might conceivably be charged with, and, like I said, I doubt any claim for defamation could be brought either.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Not if he does it in Parliament. Parliamentary Privilege would apply.

Yes, but he seems to be speaking a lot more when he is outside of parliament. He doesn't seem to want to stop and he has the nerve to say what he believes to be true.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
He does have form for making false allegations, like against his own brother?

www.thisismoney.co.uk...

Now, to be clear, I am not nor have ever suggested that he is being paid by anyone to support anti vax ideology.

Just pointing out that he is not the living Saint you might think he is. Just for the sake of providing a bit of balance into this conversation.

I still can't think of any criminal offence that he might conceivably be charged with, and, like I said, I doubt any claim for defamation could be brought either.

You don't have to be a Saint to expose the Covid campaign and the vaccine propaganda. The source you have linked it's more like gossip about matters that are not important and don't constitute any crimes or some major wrongdoings.

I find it bizarre that it's only him and maybe a few others who have spoken out against the pharmaceuticals and the Covid campaign. It shows precisely why democracy struggles in your country.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Gossip?

He was branded "dishonest" by a High Court Judge and ordered to pay 800,000 pounds.

www.leicestermercury.co.uk...

Seems like a "major wrongdoing" to most folk.

"Not important"?!!!!!

Like, being branded as "dishonest" by a High Court Judge?

Not a good look, by any standard.

I'd say that might have some relevance. No?

A proven liar, no less.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Gossip?

He was branded "dishonest" by a High Court Judge and ordered to pay 800,000 pounds.

www.leicestermercury.co.uk...

Seems like a "major wrongdoing" to most folk.

"Not important"?!!!!!

Like, being branded as "dishonest" by a High Court Judge?

Not a good look, by any standard.

I'd say that might have some relevance. No?

A proven liar, no less.

Naaah. Good try but the guilt by association doesn't work.

The pharmaceuticals are dishonest and engaging in criminal acts.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Gossip?

He was branded "dishonest" by a High Court Judge and ordered to pay 800,000 pounds.

www.leicestermercury.co.uk...

Seems like a "major wrongdoing" to most folk.

"Not important"?!!!!!

Like, being branded as "dishonest" by a High Court Judge?

Not a good look, by any standard.

I'd say that might have some relevance. No?

A proven liar, no less.

Yes, not important. He hasn't committed any crime. And whatever wrongdoings can be forgiven his stance exposing the greatest medical scandal in history.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

No "guilt by association". Just plain guilty. Of being dishonest.

As in, being, a liar.

As found to be by a High Court Judge.

Difficult to forgive such a thing.


Clearly, he has previously had the "nerve" to state untrue stuff.

Sorry, but that might just tend to cast some doubt as to his credibility? No?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

No "guilt by association". Just plain guilty. Of being dishonest.

As in, being, a liar.

As found to be by a High Court Judge.

Difficult to forgive such a thing.

Sorry, but that might just tend to cast some doubt as to his credibility? No?

You are trying to go off topic as usual and trying the guilt by association fallacy. No, his credibility is fine if you are going in this path. I am sure you are going to mention it and you have done it. You couldn't resist the temptations...

Where did you learn to argue this way? In the School of Law?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

No "guilt by association". Just plain guilty. Of being dishonest.

As in, being, a liar.

As found to be by a High Court Judge.

Difficult to forgive such a thing.

Sorry, but that might just tend to cast some doubt as to his credibility? No?

I am repeating

Yes, not important. He hasn't committed any crime. And whatever minor wrongdoings can be forgiven because of his stance exposing the greatest medical scandal in history.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

No "guilt by association". Just plain guilty. Of being dishonest.

As in, being, a liar.

As found to be by a High Court Judge.

Difficult to forgive such a thing.

Sorry, but that might just tend to cast some doubt as to his credibility? No?

You are convincing anyone with these arguments.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

No, I am completely on topic.

He has been found to be "dishonest" by a High Court Judge.

This has relevance to his credibility. It isn't "fine" at all.

Like it or not.

"School of Law"? No, just plain old common sense.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

"Minor wrongdoings"?

Most folk would think that being branded as "dishonest" by a High Court Judge might be a bit relevant. And quite a big "wrongdoing".

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

No, I am completely on topic.

He has been found to be "dishonest" by a High Court Judge.

This has relevance to his credibility. It isn't "fine" at all.

Like it or not.

"School of Law"? No, just plain old common sense.

Good try but naaah you are not convincing and you are off topic as usual trying the guilt by association tactic.

I don't think the 25 Jewish scientists and medical doctors and who supported what Bridgen said and sent a letter to Sunak, found him to be non credible or unreliable. On the contrary the said in their letter that he has raised very legitimate questions in relation to the vaccines and the Covid campaign.

You seem to have a short term memory

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

"Minor wrongdoings"?

Most folk would think that being branded as "dishonest" by a High Court Judge might be a bit relevant. And quite a big "wrongdoing".

As far as I know lying isn't a crime and if lying or dishonesty was the barrier your entire Parliament would have been suspended ..

Ho ho go

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Quite agree. Lying is not a crime.

Never suggested it was.

But if you place your faith in a proven liar for your claims, that does tend to have some relevance.

Yes, I tend to agree, lying to Parliament is a serious thing.

I hope that Boris gets done for that.

But the subject of this thread is Andrew Bridgen.

A proven liar.

He can be free to sue me.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

"You seem to have a short term memory"

Maybe.

But what do you have to say about the subject of your OP having been proven to be "dishonest"?

Surely, a bit relevant to your topic?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Quite agree. Lying is not a crime.

Never suggested it was.

But if you place your faith in a proven liar for your claims, that does tend to have some relevance.

Yes, I tend to agree, lying to Parliament is a serious thing.

I hope that Boris gets done for that.

But the subject of this thread is Andrew Bridgen.

A proven liar.

He can be free to sue me.

And Bridgen has been very right about what he said in relation to the Covid campaign and the vaccines.