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

a reply to: Asmodeus3

This often happens mysteriously on ATS. I suspect it's a bit like how one MP will tell an alleged opponent to get up & leave the chambers so as to avoid showing implicit support for a wrongthinker.

Wrongthink is to truth the antichrist according to groupthink, yet in fact those accused of wrongthink often are champions of the truth, more often than not in these tyrannical times, the only sound opponents to the freedom-destroying groupthinkers.

And just to add with regards to another poster, quoting FullFact as a legitimate source of truth on ATS is basically the Devil.

originally posted by: FlyInTheOintment
a reply to: Asmodeus3

This often happens mysteriously on ATS. I suspect it's a bit like how one MP will tell an alleged opponent to get up & leave the chambers so as to avoid showing implicit support for a wrongthinker.

Wrongthink is to truth the antichrist according to groupthink, yet in fact those accused of wrongthink often are champions of the truth, more often than not in these tyrannical times, the only sound opponents to the freedom-destroying groupthinkers.

And just to add with regards to another poster, quoting FullFact as a legitimate source of truth on ATS is basically the Devil.

Yes. Fullfact can be taken seriously as it is a fact checker. In particular a left wing fact checker. They are laughable.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Then present other sources as to why anything in my link may be fake.

It's related to the matter discussed.

Did he, or did he not, get done for breaching Parliamentary lobbying rules?

Are you engaging in denialism of reality?

Or what?

Let me repeat this to you

You are trying to relate something else to this case as if Bridgen is getting paid to lobby for the anti-vaccination campaign. Clearly this isn't the case and because it isn't then it is not relevant to the conversation we have.

Do you have any evidence that Bridgen is getting paid to have the position he has on the Covid vaccines?

No, because I didn't say that. I merely pointed out that he previously was held to be in breach of Parliamentary lobbying rules.

You claimed that those allegations were "unsubstantiated". I posted links that showed they were substantiated And that he unsuccessfuly appealed those findings.

That was my only point.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Then present other sources as to why anything in my link may be fake.

It's related to the matter discussed.

Did he, or did he not, get done for breaching Parliamentary lobbying rules?

Are you engaging in denialism of reality?

Or what?

Let me repeat this to you

You are trying to relate something else to this case as if Bridgen is getting paid to lobby for the anti-vaccination campaign. Clearly this isn't the case and because it isn't then it is not relevant to the conversation we have.

Do you have any evidence that Bridgen is getting paid to have the position he has on the Covid vaccines?

No, because I didn't say that. I merely pointed out that he previously was held to be in breach of Parliamentary lobbying rules.

You claimed that those allegations were "unsubstantiated". I posted links that showed they were substantiated And that he unsuccessfuly appealed those findings.

That was my only point.

No. You are trying the guilt by association technique which is a fallacy. You are trying to make connections between unrelated matters and irrelevant to this conversation.

Do you have any evidence that Bridgen is getting paid to have the position he has on the Covid vaccines? No you don't.

Editing. have you used the full-fact truth checkers today?

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

In other words, another intentional thread diversion to avoid and dilute the content of the OP?

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Then present other sources as to why anything in my link may be fake.

It's related to the matter discussed.

Did he, or did he not, get done for breaching Parliamentary lobbying rules?

Are you engaging in denialism of reality?

Or what?

Let me repeat this to you

You are trying to relate something else to this case as if Bridgen is getting paid to lobby for the anti-vaccination campaign. Clearly this isn't the case and because it isn't then it is not relevant to the conversation we have.

Do you have any evidence that Bridgen is getting paid to have the position he has on the Covid vaccines?

No, because I didn't say that. I merely pointed out that he previously was held to be in breach of Parliamentary lobbying rules.

You claimed that those allegations were "unsubstantiated". I posted links that showed they were substantiated And that he unsuccessfuly appealed those findings.

That was my only point.

No. You are trying the guilt by association technique which is a fallacy. You are trying to make connections between unrelated matters and irrelevant to this conversation.

Do you have any evidence that Bridgen is getting paid to have the position he has on the Covid vaccines? No you don't.

Which is actually the most rediculous position. Who would be paying people to go against them? Pharma and its 100s of billions is paying everyone to be for them including entire governments. This is where it pays to have common sense.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

In other words, another intentional thread diversion to avoid and dilute the content of the OP?

The guilt by association technique. I am sure they learn this technique in the School of Law when they have no other valid arguments.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

Then present other sources as to why anything in my link may be fake.

It's related to the matter discussed.

Did he, or did he not, get done for breaching Parliamentary lobbying rules?

Are you engaging in denialism of reality?

Or what?

Let me repeat this to you

You are trying to relate something else to this case as if Bridgen is getting paid to lobby for the anti-vaccination campaign. Clearly this isn't the case and because it isn't then it is not relevant to the conversation we have.

Do you have any evidence that Bridgen is getting paid to have the position he has on the Covid vaccines?

No, because I didn't say that. I merely pointed out that he previously was held to be in breach of Parliamentary lobbying rules.

You claimed that those allegations were "unsubstantiated". I posted links that showed they were substantiated And that he unsuccessfuly appealed those findings.

That was my only point.

No. You are trying the guilt by association technique which is a fallacy. You are trying to make connections between unrelated matters and irrelevant to this conversation.

Do you have any evidence that Bridgen is getting paid to have the position he has on the Covid vaccines? No you don't.

Which is actually the most rediculous position. Who would be paying people to go against them? Pharma and its 100s of billions is paying everyone to be for them including entire governments. This is where it pays to have common sense.

You can't just take seriously these arguments. There are countless times the same member is trying to go off topic.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Common sense is free, although it does take bravery to pull at your chains and the system sure does make them comfortable. Why fight for freedom when you can relax into slavery.



Ignorance is bliss...... seemingly.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

No, I haven't used the Full Fact Checkers thing. That was another poster.

My simple point was that your claim that Bridgen breached anti lobbying rules is unsubstantiated, is, in fact, substantiated. Why else would his appeal against that, have been rejected?

A simple, and discrete, point.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Breaching those anti-lobbying rules has nothing to do with this thread, nor does that breach suggest any conflict of interest when it comes to vaccines. Can the same be said for people like Sunak or Bojo? Coincidence that Sunak released his tax returns and they showed a doubling in income from 2019 to 2022?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

No, I haven't used the Full Fact Checkers thing. That was another poster.

My simple point was that your claim that Bridgen breached anti lobbying rules is unsubstantiated, is, in fact, substantiated. Why else would his appeal against that, have been rejected?

A simple, and discrete, point.

You are confusing your arguments again. You have implied that Bridgen is somehow getting paid to say what he says in parliament which is unsubstantiated and try to make connections that don't exist. And as for the other matter I am not convinced or trust the establishment for anything they claim.

Did you learn this technique in the School of Law? Because the guilt association is a fallacy.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I simply pointed out that he has been found to have breached Parliamentary lobbying rules. This has been substantiated. I will leave you to it to argue otherwise but I believe it is best to not entertain your contrary arguments anymore.

It is, what it is.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I simply pointed out that he has been found to have breached Parliamentary lobbying rules. This has been substantiated. I will leave you to it to argue otherwise but I believe it is best to not entertain your contrary arguments anymore.

It is, what it is.

We all see in this thread that you try the guilt by association technique but it doesn't work at all. Andrew Bridgen is very brave for standing up against this medical tyranny.

BREAKING


twitter.com...

Yet again @YouTube have removed one of my parliamentary speeches.

This is the Hansard extract of what YouTube don't want you to see.

The reporting of events in parliament should be unrestricted, not subject to the censorship of the MSM

One more video taken down as it seems.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

I made my point.

I will leave you to it.

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

You watch his interview when he basically said number 10 offered him anything he wanted to shut up. The UK has some of the best payed politicians in the world. This stinks of rotten fish.!!!

a reply to: purplemer

OK.

Where in his interview did he say that?

Please post it..

a reply to: Asmodeus3

The video has been restored... enjoy.

originally posted by: Encia22
a reply to: Asmodeus3

The video has been restored... enjoy.

The point I am making is that two of his videos have been taken down recently and for no reason. YouTube has been exposed twice now. Obviously they don't care as they are backed up be the evil forces here on Earth.

A good tactic would be for people to leave YouTube and never use the platform again. There has to be public awareness as the platform should be dismantled.