Connect with us

COVID-19

Inside one British MP’s quest to hold the government accountable for its COVID response

Published

9 months ago

9 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

British MP Andrew Bridgen’s efforts to hold the British authorities to account for their COVID-related actions, and to compel them to reveal the truth about them, have been met with derision and dismissal from the establishment.

The British Member of Parliament Andrew Bridgen continues to pressure the U.K. authorities on the impact of their COVID policies.

In a letter of March 2, Bridgen pressed the government’s Office of National Statistics to clarify their record of deaths arising from the mRNA injections – which the unelected British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak continues to describe as “safe and effective.”

Bridgen says the data at present “lacks detail” – and that the ONS has previously declined to help. Writing to the ONS chief, Professor Sir Ian Diamond, Bridgen said, “Your staff was asked to produce a detailed report and they refused to do so. We are requesting [you] re-do the analysis [to] provide definitive insight as to whether or not the COVID vaccines are ‘safe and effective.’”

Yet the U.K.’s prime minister continues to say they are.

Bridgen’s actions over the injections and the wider policy platform taken in response to the pandemic have seen him charge the government and the prime minister with responsibility.

The now-independent MP confronted Sunak over the “safe and effective” claim – and his complicity in the COVID regime which advanced it – at Prime Minister’s Questions on January 30.

“And will he use this opportunity to correct that safe and effective statement, or will he choose the same line as Tony Blair, sit back, do nothing, and let the misery just continue to pile up?”

Sunak replied,“Let me be unequivocal from this dispatch box that COVID vaccines are safe.”

This was followed by an angry confrontation in February between Sunak and the vaccine-injured John Watts. During their discussion, Watts claimed he had been “silenced.” Sunak refused to answer whether he still found the “vaccines” safe and effective as he had claimed.

Bridgen’s latest efforts to compel the authorities to reveal the full truth of the human cost of their actions in response to COVID now suggest that government figures may face criminal charges.

As reported by the U.K.’s Exposé News on March 6, Bridgen has also contacted London’s Metropolitan Police, requesting an audience to discuss criminal charges presumed to be against serving and former members of the British government.

Bridgen’s letter to Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley says, “Very disturbing new and damning evidence has recently come to light, which will be revealed at the meeting.”

Describing the case, to which the Metropolitan Police are yet to respond, Bridgen said, “This is a matter of paramount importance for the well-being and safety of the British public,” asserting that he “and others” have found “a litany of failures and cover-ups that can no longer be ignored.”

Yet Bridgen claims his attempts to raise these issues via other channels have been “dismissed or ignored.”

The gravity of his allegations is made clear in the letter, which was dated February 20, listing, “Very serious criminal offenses, to name but a few: Misconduct in Public Office, Misfeasance in Public Office, Gross Negligent Manslaughter, Corporate Manslaughter, Fraud, Murder, and Grievous Bodily Harm,” alongside “conspiracy to commit and aiding and abetting the aforementioned crimes.”

Bridgen included a list of witnesses he intended to call to testify in the meeting, whose expertise and experiences he said would “fully support the assertions being made.”

Among those named were Drs. Mike Yeadon, Aseem Malhotra, and David Cartland, with the funeral director John O’Looney joining lawyers, a journalist, and an unnamed government whistleblower on the panel.

Bridgen claims a “very senior minister” approached him in February, whispering a horrifying warning in his ear.

“It is his word against mine, but he came up and said ‘You can speak out all you want to, Andrew – you’re vaccinated. You’re going to be dead of cancer soon.’”

Bridgen continued, “What sort of person would say that to anybody?”

Bridgen was expelled from the ruling Conservative Party in April last year, over a controversy created over his description of the impact of the so-called “vaccines.

The now-independent MP was vilified as an anti-semite for quoting a doctor on the devastating impact of the mRNA injections. He wrote in a tweet on January 11, 2023, quoting a tweet from an Israeli heart specialist, which was cited as the reason for his expulsion:

As one consultant cardiologist said to me this is the biggest crime against humanity since the holocaust.

In an article for the U.K.’s Conservative Woman on January 19, 2023, Daniel Miller reported the comments of the U.K.’s lockdown-era Health Secretary Matt Hancock, who said Bridgen’s remarks exampled “disgusting and dangerous anti-Semitic, anti-vax, anti-scientific conspiracy theories.”

Miller rejoined with a summary of the reasoning behind the government rhetoric of “paramoralisation”:

The essence of Hancock’s objections is that Bridgen’s integrity threatens to expose his own corruption. Because he can’t say this openly, he presents his complaints in pseudo-moral terms intended to stigmatize, defame and confuse.

Bridgen protested at the time that his expulsion was undertaken “under false pretenses,”  claiming his treatment was a challenge to the freedom of speech, and specifically protected under parliamentary privilege.

“Above all else this is an issue of freedom of speech,” Bridgen said.

“No elected Member of Parliament should ever be penalized for speaking on behalf of their constituents and those who have no such voice or platform.”

He cited his opposition to the injections alongside that to globalist policies as a reason for his expulsion:

As a vocal critic of the vaccine rollout amongst other issues such as net zero, illegal immigration, and political corruption the [Conservative] Party has been sure to make an example of me.

With Bridgen’s campaign to reveal the truth about the lockdown policies, and the impact of the “100 percent safe and effective” injections, a direct threat is emerging to a regime which Miller said in 2021 can only survive if it is protected by lies.

The fact that Bridgen’s statement contained no anti-Semitic content at all has already been pointed out by dozens of writers and scientists, including many Jews.

But so what? This rhetoric is being used not because it corresponds to the truth but as a weapon to defend corruption and lies. It is only on this basis that the current regime survives. It is also for this reason that Julian Assange remains a prisoner in Belmarsh.

Bridgen’s efforts to hold the British authorities to account for their actions, and to compel them to reveal the truth about them, have been met with derision and dismissal from the establishment.

To the vaccine injured and bereaved – and to the many critics of globalism – he is proving himself a fearless champion.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
Daily Caller / 9 hours ago

LNG Farce Sums Up Four Years Of Ridiculous Biden Energy Policy

armed forces / 9 hours ago

Canada among NATO members that could face penalties for lack of military spending

National / 9 hours ago

Canadian gov’t budget report targets charitable status of pro-life groups, churches

COVID-19

Former Trudeau minister faces censure for ‘deliberately lying’ about Emergencies Act invocation

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Christina Maas of Reclaim The Net

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for ‘deliberately lying’ about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act.

Trudeau’s former public safety minister, Marco Mendicino, finds himself at the center of controversy as the Canadian Parliament debates whether to formally censure him for “deliberately lying” about the justification for invoking the Emergencies Act and freezing the bank accounts of civil liberties supporters during the 2022 Freedom Convoy protests.

Conservative MP Glen Motz, a vocal critic, emphasized the importance of accountability, stating, “Parliament deserves to receive clear and definitive answers to questions. We must be entitled to the truth.”

The Emergencies Act, invoked on February 14, 2022, granted sweeping powers to law enforcement, enabling them to arrest demonstrators, conduct searches, and freeze the financial assets of those involved in or supported, the trucker-led protests. However, questions surrounding the legality of its invocation have lingered, with opposition parties and legal experts criticizing the move as excessive and unwarranted.

On Thursday, Mendicino faced calls for censure after Blacklock’s Reporter revealed formal accusations of contempt of Parliament against him. The former minister, who was removed from cabinet in 2023, stands accused of misleading both MPs and the public by falsely claiming that the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act was based on law enforcement advice. A final report on the matter contradicts his testimony, stating, “The Special Joint Committee was intentionally misled.”

Mendicino’s repeated assertions at the time, including statements like, “We invoked the Emergencies Act after we received advice from law enforcement,” have been flatly contradicted by all other evidence. Despite this, he has yet to publicly challenge the allegations.

The controversy deepened as documents and testimony revealed discrepancies in the government’s handling of the crisis. While Attorney General Arif Virani acknowledged the existence of a written legal opinion regarding the Act’s invocation, he cited solicitor-client privilege to justify its confidentiality. Opposition MPs, including New Democrat Matthew Green, questioned the lack of transparency. “So you are both the client and the solicitor?” Green asked, to which Virani responded, “I wear different hats.”

The invocation of the Act has since been ruled unconstitutional by a federal court, a decision the Trudeau government is appealing. Critics argue that the lack of transparency and apparent misuse of power set a dangerous precedent. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms echoed these concerns, emphasizing that emergency powers must be exercised only under exceptional circumstances and with a clear legal basis.

Reprinted with permission from Reclaim The Net.

Continue Reading

COVID-19

Australian doctor who criticized COVID jabs has his suspension reversed

Published on December 20, 2024

By

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

‘I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country,’ said COVID critic Dr. William Bay.

A long-awaited decision regarding the suspension of the medical registration of Dr William Bay by the Medical Board of Australia has been handed down by the Queensland Supreme Court. Justice Thomas Bradley overturned the suspension, finding that Bay had been subject to “bias and failure to afford fair process” over complaints unrelated to his clinical practice.

The case was important because it reversed the brutal censorship of medical practitioners, which had forced many doctors into silence during the COVID crisis to avoid losing their livelihoods.

Bay and his supporters were jubilant after the decision. “The judgement in the matter of Bay versus AHPRA (Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency) and the state of Queensland has just been handed down, and we have … absolute and complete victory,” he proclaimed outside the court. “I am free, I am no longer suspended. I can prescribe Ivermectin, and most importantly – and this is what AHPRA is most afraid of – I can criticize the vaccines freely … as a medical practitioner of this country.”

Bay went on: “The vaccines are bad, the vaccines are no good, and people should be afforded the right to informed consent to choose these so-called vaccines. Doctors like me will be speaking out because we have nothing to fear.”

Bay added that the judge ruled not only to reinstate his registration, but also set aside the investigation into him, deeming it invalid. He also forced AHPRA to pay the legal costs. “Everything is victorious for myself, and I praise God,” he said.

The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA), which partners the Medical Board of Australia, is a body kept at arm’s length from the government to prevent legal and political accountability. It was able to decide which doctors could be deregistered for allegedly not following the government line. If asked questions about its decisions AHPRA would reply that it was not a Commonwealth agency so there was no obligation to respond.

The national board of AHPRA is composed of two social workers, one accountant, one physiotherapist, one mathematician and three lawyers. Even the Australian Medical Association, which also aggressively threatened dissenting doctors during COVID, has objected to its role. Vice-president Dr Chris Moy described the powers given to AHPRA as being “in the realms of incoherent zealotry”.

This was the apparatus that Bay took on, and his victory is a significant step towards allowing medical practitioners to voice their concerns about Covid and the vaccines. Until now, most doctors, at least those still in a job, have had to keep any differing views to themselves. As Bay suggests, that meant they abrogated their duty to ensure patients gave informed consent.

Justice Bradley said the AHPRA board’s regulatory role did not “include protection of government and regulatory agencies from political criticism.” To that extent the decision seems to allow freedom of speech for medical practitioners. But AHPRA still has the power to deregister doctors without any accountability. And if there is one lesson from Covid it is that bureaucrats in the Executive branch have little respect for legal or ethical principles.

It is to be hoped that Australian medicos who felt forced into silence now begin to speak out about the vaccines, the mandating of which has coincided with a dramatic rise in all-cause mortality in heavily vaccinated countries around the world, including Australia. This may prove psychologically difficult, though, because those doctors would then have to explain why they have changed their position, a discussion they will no doubt prefer to avoid.

The Bay decision has implications for the way the three arms of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary, function in Australia. There are supposed to be checks and balances, but the COVID crisis revealed that, when put under stress, the separation of powers does not work well, or at all.

During the crisis the legislature routinely passed off its responsibilities to the executive branch, which removed any voter influence because bureaucrats are not elected. The former premier of Victoria, Daniel Andrews, went a step further by illegitimately giving himself and the Health Minister positions in the executive branch, when all they were entitled to was roles in the legislature as members of the party in power. This appalling move resulted in the biggest political protests ever seen in Melbourne, yet the legislation passed anyway.

The legislature’s abrogation of responsibility left the judiciary as the only branch of government able to address the abuse of Australia’s foundational political institutions. To date, the judges have disappointed. But the Bay decision may be a sign of better things to come.

READ: Just 24% of Americans plan to receive the newest COVID shot: poll

Continue Reading

Trending

X