Comment on the Expulsion of Andrew Bridgen MP from the Conservative Party

This may have reduced the number of Conservative MPs who are not

a) grotesquely stupid
b) shamelessly evil
c) shamelessly and grotesquely evil and stupid

to zero

According to the Beeb:

The Conservative Party has expelled MP Andrew Bridgen after he compared Covid-19 vaccines to the Holocaust and was found to have breached lobbying rules.

The member for North West Leicestershire had already lost the party whip, meaning he was sitting as an independent.

But the Tories have now stripped him of his party membership as well.

Mr Bridgen said his expulsion “confirms the culture of corruption, collusion and cover-ups”.


  1. Hugo Miller, 71 Curzon Avenue, Horsham, W. Sussex, RH12 2LA; 07768 595959

    Jeremy Quin MP Esq,
    House of Commons,
    Westminster. Your ref; JQ 47763 26. April 2023

    Dear Mr Quin,

    I arrived back from the US today, 26th April, just as your letter dated 6th April dropped into my mailbox, in response to my letter concerning Andrew Bridgen’s suspension from the Party.
    In it, you quote the Prime minister as saying that it is ‘‘ ‘Utterly unacceptable to make linkages’ between the Holocaust and the Covid-19 vaccine”.
    I find that a curious turn of phrase. In the first place, it is clear that Mr Bridgen was drawing no such inferences himself – he was merely quoting the stated opinion of a Jewish cardiologist to the effect, if I remember correctly, that the Covid vaccine roll-out has been the worst humanitarian disaster since the Holocaust. Does that in any case constitute a ‘linkage’ to the Holocaust? Are you seriously going to tell me that an MP may be suspended from the Conservative Party – and now expelled – simply for quoting the opinion of a doctor to an embarrassingly empty House?

    But more to the point, WHY should such a ‘linkage’ be regarded as unacceptable? Is it deemed offensive to Jews? In which case, was Mr Bridgen expelled for anti-Semitism? That would seem odd, since he was quoting words uttered by a Jew.

    Or was his comment deemed offensive to the Covid vaccine? In which case, was he expelled merely for reciting some of the government’s own statistics on the subject?

    I should have thought that, if Mr Bridgen’s allegations were so contentious, the House would have been packed with people only too eager to present the opposing view? But his colleagues, yourself included, were nowhere to be seen. The House was completely deserted!

    The pot has now been further stirred by Ms Penny Mordaunt MP, who, if my memory serves me (I watched this on American television), read from a pre-scripted speech accusing Mr Bridgen of ‘peddling false propaganda which probably has its origins in the Kremlin’.

    Again, the substance of Mr Bridgen’s speech consisted almost entirely of the government’s own statistics. Is Ms Mordaunt implying that government’s own statistics are, to quote a phrase, ‘Russian Disinformation’. If not, what DID she mean by this extraordinary phrase, and what were her factual grounds for making such a strange allegation?

    Finally, you never replied to my earlier question as to why the Chamber was so utterly and completely deserted while Mr Bridgen was speaking back in March. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that a boycott was ordered in advance. Do you have a better explanation?

    I am grateful to you for correcting my earlier interpretation of the actions of Andrew Mitchell, and pointing out that his actions were not as they might have appeared. It can indeed be seen in the video recording that the opposition members were already picking up their belongings and preparing to leave before Mr Mitchell approached them. So thank you for clearing up that misunderstanding. But the question remains – WHY were they, and he, so eager to get out before any of Mr Bridgen’s words might reach their ears?
    This whole scenario is now so very peculiar that people are bound to suspect that there has been something untoward going on here – a suspiciously deserted House; an MP suspended and then expelled for reasons that do not withstand scrutiny; and now allegations that he is working for the Russians!

    So to re-cap my questions;
    1) Why was the Chamber evacuated during Mr Bridgen’s speech, and why did it remain deserted throughout?
    2) What was the PRECISE reason for his suspension and subsequent expulsion? Was it because of alleged anti-Semitic remarks, or was it because he dared to make comments critical of the Covid vaccines?
    3) Where is the evidence that Mr Bridgen was propagating Russian ‘dis-information’?

    Yours, Hugo Miller

    • Somebody who compares Covid-19 vaccines to the ‘Holocaust’ is clearly wrong, even if he is a cardiologist. I can also see why the authorities would be offended by the clumsy comparison, as in their eyes it implies they have been killing people by industrial design and on purpose. From that argument, I can see the argument for boycotting and expelling him from the Conservative Party: he’s basically accusing them of mass murder. Does he have the evidence to support the big talk?

      It reminds me a little of Dr. Vernon Coleman, also Jewish, who is a medical doctor and broadcasts useful material on the subject but has a tendency to exaggerate and go into insane rants in which he ‘over-prosecutes’ his points, alleging purposeful agency behind things when there isn’t necessarily the evidence to support it.

      One problem the various shades of dissent have is that we lack competent, sensible people.

      Even just sane people would do, the way things are going. I do wonder if the Vernon Colemans and Andrew Bridgens, and the lesser figures who are equally misguided in their language and arguments, are deliberately thrown up to divert dissent into discreditable territory. It’s easy to discredit somebody who makes bad arguments.

    • I hope Mr Brigden is in consultation with Reform Party about securing his seat into the next general election. Brigden is a good man and being used as a a scapegoat because he spoke the truth about Covid and it’s eugenic impact on humanity. On many occasions he has shown the Conservative Party for what it is – an inept, irrelevant, shadow of its former glory. May Mr Brigden enjoy electoral success for continuing to speak truth and representing the wishes of the British people. As for the Conservative Party, nothing will redeem this bloated self entitled, leftist, corrupt and rotten institution from oblivion. God save Brigden, King, the British people and the UK from Conservatives & Labour alike.

  2. I wouldn’t accept one of those vaccines if you put a gun to my head, but wasn’t it rather clumsy of him to start invoking the ‘Holocaust’? Note that he didn’t actually compare it to the Holocaust, he said that ‘this’ (I’m not sure specifically what ‘this’ was) “…is the biggest crime since the Holocaust” – quoting a conversation he’d had with an unnamed consultant cardiologist. Doesn’t such blown-up rhetoric make you a little suspicious of Mr Bridgen?

    Let me proceed here to do the thing that Mr Bridgen is accused of doing but did not do, which is to compare the mass implementation of the Covid-19 vaccine with the Holocaust and see what we find.

    If we are to believe the ‘intentionalist’ Holocaust narrative – which is now the mainstream narrative – Jews and others were rounded up by the Third Reich and forced into extermination camps against their will. That does not compare with the Covid-19 vaccines, which were voluntary and for which the authorities allowed plenty of opportunities for refusal. There were incidences of coercion, such as the owner of the plumbing firm who insisted all his plumbers should be vaccinated, but even then I doubt he enforced that too rigidly in reality and any employees who were put in that situation would surely have a case in employment law against the employer.

    Like it or not, in the end anyone of appreciable age (say, 14 or above) and compos mentis who took the vaccine mostly did so of his or her own accord. There was no duress. It was voluntary. Anyone who has become ill as a result has made themselves ill, and only has themselves to blame. They should not have been so stupid. Anyone who has died as a result of the vaccine, has died of stupidity. It’s terrible and awful, but they died because they were stupid. I’m just being factual about it.

    The reverse angle is how the climate of emotional pressure, soft coercion and propaganda affected (and, in some cases, effected) those, like myself, who were inclined to scepticism. The authorities did stoke up a climate of persecution against those, such as myself, who refused the vaccine and refused to wear face masks. This was on a medical and public health pretext, just as the Holocaust (if it happened as claimed) was instituted on certain official pretexts, but I’ve not been exterminated or imprisoned. I’m still here and I still have the unimpeded liberty to remain sceptical and to voice my misgivings in public. The police are not going to take me away. There are no bespectacled public health officials tut-tutting and threatening me with fines.

    Whatever view may be taken about the Holocaust (personally, I am a moderate sceptic about it), references, allusions and comparisons to the Holocaust in a way that suggests they are comparable events does not seem right to me. I agree that our democratic rulers are evil and stupid (as are the majority of the public who go along with their instructions), but there is a need for people on the dissident side to be more competent and less stupid.

    • I am confused. Are you arguing that he was “clearly wrong” to compare Covid-19 to the Holocaust (your first post)? Or that he “he didn’t actually compare it to the Holocaust” (your second post).
      I am further confused by the fact that Bridgen makes no reference to this in his speech. I thought he had, but apparently it cropped up in a tweet of his. According to the BBC (sorry, they were the easiest to look up!), he described ‘it’ (the vaccines?) as “the biggest crime since the Holocaust”.
      If that is what was said, that is not a comparison, according to my definition of the word. Because of the vagueness of the language, it is difficult to be certain, but I don’t think Bridgen was suggesting that the vaccines were in any way comparable to the Holocaust, except for the fact that they each killed a large number of people. That is a statement of mathematical fact. Bridgen was making no suggestion of moral equivalence between the two – not to my ears anyway.
      To describe Bridgen as having “crossed a line” by making such a statement (as the Chief Whip did) is preposterous. It is clearly just an excuse to get rid of him.
      As it happens, I believe Bridgen’s words will turn out to be an under-statement of the truth. I believe the Covid-19 vaccine programme will possibly amount to an even greater crime than the Holocaust. Time alone will tell whether this is the case. I am hearing all manner of reports of fertility issues in both men and women after submitting to the vaccine; of deficient placentas and a drop in live births of thirteen to twenty per-cent in European countries. We hear stories from undertakers about cadavers riddled with massive blood clots. We have a sudden epidemic of fit young people suddenly dropping dead for no clear reason. The biggest cause of death in Canada seems to be “Cause Unknown”. And we all know about the twelve hundred-or-so ‘excess deaths’ each week that nobody seems interested in. What lends credibility to these stories is that they are generally suppressed by the media and by ‘Big Tech’. I keep recalling the old proverb “You cut a man’s tongue out not to silence him, but because you are frightened of what he might say”.
      I have even heard it postulated that what we are witnessing is in fact a deliberate attempt to rid the planet of some of the ‘useless eaters’ so despised by the W.E.F and their Davos friends. I have no idea whether or not that is so, but considering the lunatic asylum we are living in, anything is possible.

      • I’m not sure if the object was to remove the useless eaters. The really useless eaters appear to have avoided the needle. Ditto the very intelligent. The real victims will have been the reliable tax-paying sheep.

        • There is one difficulty with the theory that Covid has been a Chinese plot to clear out western populations to make way for the invading hordes from the East, and that is that the Chinese were vaccinated also.
          Regrettably, I myself succumbed to two Pfizer injections right at the outset (because of my age). That was in a more innocent age, when it was just a vaccine, and before it became a political project (or rather, before I realised that it was).
          Fortunately I survived unscathed (so far!).
          You seem to be suggesting that the main ‘hit’ will be financial. I wish I could share your optimism!

          • @Hugo Miller

            Who said it was a Chinese plot? Who would be stupid enough to believe that? Are there really people who are that stupid?

            If it really was a Chinese plot, then China is run by crazy people.

            • I agree with Ron Unz that it was an American bioweapon attack on China and Iran that got out of hand. The Chinese Government had no reason to do anything so evil. Since the Chinese, unlike the Americans, are not insane, I do not blame them in any degree.

              • @alanbickley

                I don’t believe it was a military attack or a high-level political conspiracy in the sense you refer to. I think there was an actual flu pandemic in China that was seized on by the Western Enemy Class as an opportunity to implement their politico-medical agenda. They’ve been dying to do it for ages. Not necessarily out of malice in all cases (though some will harbour sinister motives). It may well be that most of the people involved have genuinely beneficient motives, which of course is frequently what drives evil and wrongful acts.

                They had nationally-contained trial runs before (BSE, foot and mouth disease) and there was an attempt back in around 2010 to do exactly what they did in 2020, but back then it didn’t take off. I think it failed in 2010 because of the power of national governments and because social media had not yet become popular and there was still a culture of inquiry in legacy media.

                What laid the basis for the Covid-19 hysteria and made it socially and politically possible was the new power of a supranational medial establishment and the supplanting of a traditional free press and broadcasting by New Media, which has degraded standards in legacy media.

                I would doubt whether there was even an actual discrete, isolable virus. I think it’s probable that it was just a collection of ordinary illnesses that were shoehorned into the term ‘Covid-19’, much like medical terms as diverse as schizophrenia and AIDS are – probably – umbrella terms for collections of different manifest symptoms for which medicine has yet to find a coherent explanation. Scientists simply convinced themselves that they had identified a common isolable cause for the illnesses clinicians were seeing, and since they all agreed on what they were observing, they took that to mean that they were correct (which is a fallacy that falsification doctrine is susceptible to where scientists are not humane and reflective).

        • @alanbickley

          Useless eater =/= Stupid (though it depends on how you define ‘useless eater’). I think you may have in mind the general notion of the idler, whereas the original meaning of the term in the Third Reich was someone of medical debility. The more general term does not necessarily equate to a subpar intellect or a lack of intelligence.

          My impression, though this is anecdotal, is that the physically weak, the hypochondriacs, the middle-aged with medical issues, and the elderly, took the vaccine without question. The most enthusiastic were those of a bossy disposition, who enthused about the general dictatorial environment and couldn’t wait to receive their jab.

          However, I would resist the idea that there is some sort of organised sinister agenda behind it all. No doubt some of those in power have sinister motives, but I don’t believe this was in the case on an organised level in the sense of meetings and committees, or even an unspoken understanding; and, the sinister motives I refer to will be to do with wanting to exercise power over others and enjoying bossing other people about.

          I think what we witnessed was essentially just mass stupidity, and in some quarters, outright, bat-nuts hysteria.

      • @Hugo Miller

        I appreciate, and have already noted in my own comment, that on a strict reading of what he said, he was not ‘comparing’ Covid-19 vaccines with the Holocaust, but that’s not really the point. He brought up the Holocaust in discourse about Covid-19 vaccines, and these people are not honest and will not take care to confine their ripostes to strictly the point you were making or trying to make – and he knows that.

        As I explain above, bringing the Holocaust into it is factually incorrect and pointless anyway.

        Why don’t we have competent and intelligent people on the dissident side? Do they deliberately throw up these ninnies to speak for us in order to discredit us?

        • I still don’t see what the fuss is about. So he used the word ‘Holocaust’? So what? The point he was making was that the vaccines cause injury and death in a substantial number of those to whom it is administered. And that point has been obiterated in the manufactured row about the use of the word ‘Holocaust’, which seems to be exercising so many people’s minds. And of course it gave the Conservative Party the ideal pretext to get rid of him.
          Talking of the Holocaust, I believe you have resevations about the conventional narrative. I have a feeling that ‘Holocaust denial’ has now been made illegal in this country, and that term includes not only denying it but also diminishing it (I am a bit rusty on the language).
          If I have stated the legal principles correctly, we now have no idea what is legal and what is not. If you were to say the Holocaust never happened, you would be breaking the law (assuming I have stated it correctly). But if I said there were not six million murdered but five million, would I be breaking the law? Four million? Three million? 5,999,999? Where lies the numerical threshold between what is lawful speech and what is not?

          • I think sceptical doubts about the events in question remain legal in theory. They are just very dangerous to express, and I prefer that they should not be expressed more than passingly on this Blog – that, by the way, is a gentle hint to Tom, not to you.

          • @Hugo Miller

            I agree that the fuss over the word ‘Holocaust’ is silly, but that is not the point I was making, as I’m sure you will appreciate. I am questioning the competence and intelligence of those who claim to speak for dissidents but use such clumsy/clunky arguments.

            The warning to myself below must only reinforce the point. Why did Andrew Bridgen bring up the topic at all?

          • @Hugo Miller

            I don’t believe ‘Holocaust scepticism’ or even denial of the Holocaust is actually against the law anywhere in the United Kingdom. I think the prosecutions that have taken place – thinking here mainly of Alison Chabloz – involve behaviour where the Holocaust is denied in conjunction with expressions of what the law would define as ‘hate’ or ‘malicious communication’ and similar.

            No doubt the motivation behind this is to make expressions of doubt/scepticism/denial functionally illegal by indirect means, but I think any criminal prosecution would be in difficulty unless it could be shown conclusively that the doubt/scepticism/denial was motivated by hate or malice against Jews or some similar political agenda.

            I am not proposing to discuss the subject of the Holocaust here, as it is not relevant. I only mention that I have moderate scepticism about it because I don’t wish to give the impression that, in criticising Andrew Bridgen, I side with the people who now persecute him. I certainly don’t side with them.

    • If you think people weren’t given the choice to either have the vaccine or loose their livelihood you are utterly deluded. Your assertion (and argument ) is utter tripe.

      • @Kevin Riches

        You clearly haven’t read my comment. You’ve scanned it and misunderstood the argument. Even if somebody was threatened with taking the vaccine or losing their job, that means they still took the vaccine voluntarily. That is simple logic and a statement of fact. As I say in the comment you criticise, some were put under something close to duress, but it remains the case that nobody was forced to take it.

        Furthermore, you overlook the important point that the government deliberately allowed various exclusions that meant anybody who did not want to take it could just refuse on vague undefined ‘medical grounds’. It was never compulsory or mandatory.

        If you want to continue saying that I talk tripe, then we should meet up in person and we can then see who is full of it. I think it’s you. I think that, like most people, you are full of illogical, emotional, sentimental nonsense and simply cannot think for yourself.

        In short, you are an idiot. Probably you are one of the majority who fell for it all and you’ve had the vaccines – triple jabbed? – and you wore the face mask and so on, and you now realise you were duped and recognise that you are a fool. It hurts your ego and it makes you feel better to have a go at me, even though I’m just stating facts.

        Now, Kevin, don’t forget to wear your mask when you’re out and about! You never know what you might catch or pass on.

        • You are correct in the narrow sense that nearly all of us had some means of avoiding the vaccines, and many of us would have found a way out even with more compulsion than was used. However, the State is in a different position from some plainly dodgy cold caller. It has vast means of persuasion, and there is a default position among people that the State is a source of disinterested truth. The authorities are supposed to be in a position to know the truth of any matter they take into consideration. They are supposed to have some of our interests in mind. If the authorities lock arms and insist that black is white, there is a natural tendency for people to believe them. I nearly believed the lies and got vaccinated. I was inclined for about a week to believe the lies about how dangerous the Virus was. If even I nearly got taken in, I feel sorry for those who were taken in.

          Everyone in a position of authority who repeated the lies, and used even soft power to get people vaccinated, is as much a tyrant and traitor as if the police had been able to hold us down while the doctors fussed with their needles. They must be held to strict account.

  3. Well, if what Andrew Bridgen is alleged to have done was bad, how much worse was Boris Johnson partying, in a direct and deliberate violation of a law he himself had made?

    The Tory party is finally seen to have lost its marbles. Even Sean Gabb will probably terminate his membership now!

    I don’t know who Vernon Coleman is, but Dr John Campbell is someone who seems to know what he is talking about, and how far he can go. And… our friend Hugo is on the right lines.

    In my view, anyone in or paid by government that acts or has acted dishonestly towards the people they are supposed to serve deserves to be dismissed. With loss of pension rights, and criminal prosecution if appropriate.

    Tom Rogers is wrong when he says “anyone of appreciable age (say, 14 or above) and compos mentis who took the vaccine mostly did so of his or her own accord.” 40,000 care home workers who refused to take the vaccine were sacked. Sajid Javid only backed down from a vaccine mandate on NHS staff when he realized that sacking 80,000 or more staff would destroy the NHS.

    Alan Bickley is, I think, unfounded when he ascribes the pandemic to a US bioweapon attack. We know that the Chinese were working on a defence against such attacks. And it’s not inconceivable that they spread the omicron variant deliberately, in order to assuage the pandemic. But how the original virus arose, and why the February 2020 version was more lethal than the original one (boy, am I glad I caught the virus in January!), are matters I will not comment on without more evidence.

    • I understand that Dr Gabb allowed his membership to lapse just after the start of the first Lockdown. I visited him a few days in his care home, where he swore he would never vote for these people again. Many old and confused people forget who the current Prime Minister is. Dr Gabb is trying to forget.

      • The last I heard from Dr. Gabb was a statement issued from a hideout in Deal in his capacity as Chief of Staff of the Paramilitary Command of the English Revolutionary-Libertarian-Nationalist Front. I’m afraid the voice-over sounded effeminate and I immediately thought back to the famous Brass Eye sketch with Gerry Adams and the helium and couldn’t take it seriously.

    • I don’t know the truth of this claim. However, it would make sense of the immediate and coordinated hysteria when the Virus got out of hand. I can imagine urgent telephone calls between Washington and London, followed by meetings with scientists from Porton Down and discussions of worst-case scenarios.

    • @Neil Lock

      I’m afraid I disagree Neil.

      The reality is that even if you were threatened with loss of your job, you still took the vaccine voluntarily. It was still your decision, taken as a responsible adult. You could have refused.

      Imagine somebody said to you: “Kill Dr. Gabb by poisoning his afternoon tea with these cyanide capsules, and be quick about it or we’ll kill your granddad.” Would you kill Dr. Gabb or would you refuse on the principle that murder is wrong? I would hope the latter, especially as the law would not grant you a defence of duress since nobody would be forcing you to Dr. Gabb, it’s merely a threat.

      What I state here is simply logical and factual. I appreciate you may not like it, but liking or disliking it is neither here nor there to the facts.

      Naturally, I sympathise with anybody threatened with loss of their job. Who doesn’t? Don’t mistake my logical approach to this for a lack of humanity and sympathy. People have to support their families, and obviously anybody who was threatened in this way should be at the front of the queue for any help or treatment needed.

      However, it remains the case that most of the public have behaved in a stupid and arrogant manner, including people who were threatened in the way you described, and this stupidity and arrogance may have endangered public health.

      if you willingly and voluntarily do something, then you are responsible for that thing. The only exceptions I will allow are people who were aged under 14 and those who were not compos mentis. Otherwise, you make your choice and you take the consequences, else we don’t – and can’t – live in a free society.

Leave a Reply