The name of the game is not 'defame'

This is not an article specifically about the thirteen thousand or so people on Twitter who constantly claim they are going to "sue me for defamation" (and, who knows, maybe also thcweam and thcweam until they're thick! Oops, too late...) - although it does peripherally involve them - but rather, it is a commentary on truther-hero-saviour du jour, Mr. Andrew Bridgen MP.

Newer readers, or those outside the UK, may not be aware of the jubilance being displayed in certain sections of the conspiraverse today, that Mr. Bridgen is going to take another MP, Matt Hancock, to court on a defamation claim.

Matt Hancock was instrumental in forging and applying some of the most hideous aspects of the "Covid" chapter (which Bridgen was all for at the time), earning him the nickname (at least, one of the more printable ones) of 'Midazolam Matt', for his role in barbarically euthanising the nation's elderly through over-application of the drug.

Hancock has therefore - and quite rightly - become a figure of utter revulsion amongst the dissident community, and there has long since been a deep and widespread desire to see him properly punished and held to account.

Unfortunately, however, cynical bad actors in this dark pantomime have exploited the deep loathing many possess for Hancock to line their own pockets, by promising they will deliver justice to this despicable creature, as long as the public gives them lots of money (remember the endless ridiculous saga that promised to "arrest Matt Hancock"?).

And that is what Bridgen's "defamation case" is about, too - exploiting public antipathy towards Hancock for personal gain - although it has far more sinister implications than merely making this already very wealthy man even richer.

Nearly a year ago, when Bridgen first announced his intentions to sue Hancock, I wrote him an open letter (co-signed by Vote Freedom Project's Jonathan Tilt), questioning his motives, and laying out why a defamation claim - even if won - would not be the triumph for the dissident community Bridgen was framing it as.

If you have not already read my letter, please take a few moments to do so - and then please watch this short video clip of Bridgen explaining that he has received and read the letter, but has no intention of replying.

In this letter, I volunteered my belief that Bridgen was exploiting general public ignorance of the law, and that most people (having never been sued for defamation) don't know what this means or what the real implications of it are.

It is therefore imperative that anyone supporting Mr. Bridgen's case, or any defamation case, really familiarises themselves with what this actually means.

In the first instance, 'defamation' is not a criminal matter, it is civil. That means, Hancock is not being accused of committing any crime, and that, even if he loses the case, he will not be going to prison, nor will he hold a criminal record.

So what does happen if he loses?

Well, as for anyone who loses a defamation case, he will be ordered to pay Bridgen some money and will get a telling-off from the judge, probably including orders to apologise to Bridgen and not make similar remarks again (for reference, see what happened to Bridgen's former party pal, Laurence Fox, when he lost his recent libel trial).

And, well, that's about it. That's what successfully "suing someone for defamation" means. That they get an expensive slap on the wrist. Not that they go to prison, lose their job, or are prevented from going on with their lives more or less as normal. See what the long-term consequences are for national newspapers who are successfully sued for defamation - effectively, there aren't any.

Newspapers printing defamatory lies is a bit like pharmaceutical products retailing dangerous products - it's more lucrative for them to peddle untruths and then later pay any punitive fines, than it is to do the right thing in the first place. When you're very wealthy, as newspapers and pharma companies are, you can afford to dupe people and then pay any slap-on-the-wrist fine later, having already made your money via your deception. That's why even when Pfizer was fined a staggering £2.3 billion for fraud, it didn't put them out of business.

So, even if Hancock is successfully sued, then this exorbitantly wealthy celebrity will simply pay the fine, give a token, meaningless "apology", and then it will be back to business as usual - for him at least.

But what about the rest of us?

Think about it: what is Bridgen actually suing Hancock for?

Not for criminal activity.

Not for his conduct throughout Covid.

Merely for calling another MP mean names on Twitter. That is the exact essence of Bridgen's case: that Hancock called him some hurty words on social media, and that that should not be allowed.

So, if the judge agrees with Bridgen, and rules that it is indeed defamatory to call politicians names online, then a terrifying case law precedent will have been set, whereby criticising politicians (or potentially anyone) online is now a legal offence.

And the best bit for the dark Masonic charlatans staging this show trial?

You paid for it!

Supposed political dissidents and champions of uncensored expression have openly bankrolled a court case looking to get free speech shut down. The entirety of Bridgen's case is based on his assertion that Hancock should not be allowed to exercise his free speech and state his opinions of other politicians online.

And if Hancock can't, then you won't be allowed to, either.

Free speech for all (including those we despise), or for none. That's how it works.

Bear in mind, too, that if this was a legitimate case, Andrew Bridgen's very wealthy friends would have funded it for him. His "mate" Jeremy Hosking has already given him millions for the other legal imbroglio he's involved in (it's complicated, but basically it involves turnips), and Hosking is also stumping up the considerable money for Laurence Fox's recent libel losses. So why wouldn't this multi-multi millionaire (net worth: £375 million) cover the (much smaller) sum Bridgen is seeking, too?

In addition, defamation cases don't cost £250k (the amount Bridgen is looking to extort, I mean "raise", from the public), they typically cost between £2k and £20k, so Bridgen (who earns over £80k a year, plus expenses, plus many generous "gifts") could easily have funded it himself.

However, he isn't, because this is all a sophisticated piece of mockery and illusion, where the dissident class is being manipulated and laughed at by false messiahs, who are literally goading you into paying for your own silencing and oppression by duping you into bankrolling an anti-free speech trial.

On the other hand, if Bridgen loses the case (which is also a distinct possibility), all that money the public has given him goes straight into the pockets of Matt Hancock.

So it really is lose-lose, and believe me, Bridgen knows it.

Threats of defamation have become one of the worst weapons in this cultural war, because rich people who know what it means, constantly use it to bait, frighten, and manipulate poorer people who don't.

So please allow me to quote from a lawyer's website:

"Whilst thousands of defamation claims are threatened every week, very few of them reach the courts.  Indeed, typically, only about 200 defamation claims are issued each year in England and Wales.  Very few of these, perhaps a dozen or so, eventually reach trial."

So, if there are roughly 12 defamation trials a year, in a country of 67 million people, then your chances of ever being taken to court on a defamation charge are approximately 0.00001%.

Believe me that those threatening you with defamation charges online know this very well, and they are simply trying to bully you into silence by throwing around legal jargon and hoping you won't understand it.

Also, and this really is key: as the only thing you can receive from winning a defamation claim is money, then obviously, there is absolutely no point in suing someone without it. If you lack sufficient wealth in terms of money or assets, then nobody will ever sue you for defamation, as there is no point.

High-profile celebrities like to sue each other a lot because they have a lot of money. Everyday people don't, and thus don't.

So that's why the defamation psy-op is so particularly sinister and egregious - it is tasked with making you believe you'll be summoned to court and ordered to pay money to rich celebrities for criticising them online, and this simply is not true.

If you have no money, you definitely won't, and even if you do have money, it's still highly unlikely, for the reasons covered earlier.

So never trust anyone who throws a baseless defamation claim at you online (if they had a real claim, you'd be receiving a lawyer's letter, not a Tweet), and be very sceptical of the whole "defamation" issue in general, as it is veering closer and closer to endangering free speech.

Nobody really believes that Andrew Bridgen's reputation has been catastrophically harmed by Hancock calling him some very mild names (a "dangerous and disgusting anti-semite" being about as PG-13 as it gets in "internet insult" land), people are just pretending they do because they don't like Matt Hancock, not fully appreciating the implications.

Those being, if Andrew Bridgen wins his defamation case, then he will have delivered a colossal blow to free speech and our right to call murderous scum politicians whatever we like (it could literally make this sentence an offence).

If Bridgen loses, however, Hancock will, very literally and publicly, be laughing all the way to the bank. Not only will Bridgen likely be called on to pay damages and cover his legal costs, but Hancock could also seek to be compensated for the loss of earnings he has suffered whilst dealing with this case, and as Matt Hancock is on record charging £10,000 a day for his services, the final sum he receives from Bridgen could run into the millions.

If you are therefore supporting Bridgen in his endeavours, please reconsider this urgently, as - as the title of this piece alludes to - in this particular game, the only winning move is not to play.

Thanks for reading! This article was originally published at miriaf.co.uk, which is entirely reader-supported, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, meaning your support is what powers this site to keep going. If you enjoyed this article, and would like to read more in the future, please consider…

1. Subscribing monthly here or via Patreon

2. Making a one-off contribution via BuyMeACoffee

3. Contributing in either way via bank transfer to Nat West, account number 30835984, sort code 54-10-27, account name FINCH MA

Your support is what allows these articles to keep being created and is enormously appreciated. Thank you. 

Find Miri AF on Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter (posting as Informed Consent Matters)