Jump to content

Talk:Andrew Bridgen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sexual assault allegations

[edit]

Given that these allegations have been dropped, and it's been reported that 'the complainant admitted that no offence occurred', does anything about it even belong in the article? If there's no more to that story, I'd say it should be removed, as it raises potential BLP issues. Anyone else have any thoughts? Robofish (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest it should remain in as readers may come to the page wondering 'whatever happened to those sexual assault allegations against my local MP?' Perhaps wait a week and then replace the extensive coverage given with a single line such as, "In June 2011 sexual assault allegations were made against Bridgen and subsequently withdrawn", along with references. Just an opinion. Wavehunter (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my view reference to the event should certainly remain, although there may be scope for making it more concise per the above suggestion. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Wavehunter and Rangoon11 - for now. One thing that I was just now thinking about how to do - but didn't come to any satisfactory answer - is to put the point that "the complainant admitted that no offence had occurred" right up front, rather than at the end, so that no one reading this for the first time things, even for a moment, that this is important.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Perhaps something along the lines of: "False allegations of sexual assault were levelled against Bridgen in June 2011, but withdrawn several days later." I am sure other and better forms of words can be found. I just checked Andrew Bridgen's own website and he has chosen not to hide news of the allegations, instead highlighting that they were dropped. --Wavehunter (talk) 15:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think we should revisit this a year from now as well, to see if there are any ongoing repercussions for his career. It might well be that, as this was all proven to be false, it will not be mentioned in future news stories about him, which would perhaps argue for removing it entirely as a blip of no consequence. If it continues to dog his career for years, I think we have to keep it in - but responsibly, as per Wavehunter's excellent edit.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed also.Rangoon11 (talk) 21:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

High profile MP?

[edit]

I don't know where this uncited description came from as I couldn't find it. This item in the Guardian describes him as an active backbencher with a relatively low profile since he won his Midlands seat in May but as it refers to discredited allegations & is dated 2011 I won't use it. JRPG (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the Daily Mail

[edit]

According to WP:Suggested_sources#Current_news one should "generally avoid British tabloids such as the Daily Mail, Daily Express, The Mirror and The Sun." According to WP:BLPSOURCES, Material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism. When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. Bridgen seems a most unlikely target of plot & I think we should remove it unless we can find a better source. JRPG (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Woodsman2013. You asked on my talk page why I removed content from the article so I assume you missed this message -please also see wp:BLP. The Mail provided what seems to be unique information & not just a different approach to the same story. I have no problems whatsoever with whatever is written in the article so long as it uses wp:reliable sources and is wp:npov. This mentions Farage and Brigen & if you use this to support your edit I've no problem. Hope that helps. JRPG (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Campaigns -second paragraph. "Bridgen lead........."? Culduthel (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Andrew Bridgen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sicking the knife into Theresa May

[edit]

For the record here, and until it become's publically confirmed, Brigden is behind the lurid comments and violent innuendo widely reported in the press regarding bringing down Theresa May.

https://twitter.com/NickBoles/status/1053988818863513600?s=19 Dave (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom

[edit]

https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/warum-so-viele-tories-johnsons-corona-massnahmen-ablehnen-17685871.html

"Von manchem Exzentriker ist der Weg nicht weit zum rechts-chauvinistischen Rand der Fraktion, der zuverlässig von Andrew Bridgen vertreten wird. Am Dienstag präsentierte er sich als Hobby-Epidemiologe und warnte davor, dass eine Eindämmung der Omikron-Variante nur weitere, gefährlichere Mutationen begünstige."

(rough translation: on Tuesday, he acted as a hobby Epidemiologist and warned / pretended that a containment of the Omicron variant would forward further, more dangerous variants.)

Is his COVID-"position" notg mentionable ? --109.91.228.213 (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He was one of many Tory MP who rebelled against their own government. Local news reported it here: https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/local-news/leicestershire-mp-claims-getting-covid-6352834 --FDent (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)--[reply]

More on vaccines

[edit]

Here is a good source which could be used to expand what he's said about vaccines. The speech he made in December is probably worth mentioning. SmartSE (talk) 12:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2023

[edit]

I encourage you to allow edits that go into more detail other than "COVID MISINFROMATION".

For example, I suggested that we include the findings of the Freedom of information request here: This involved tweeting an article, authored by Prof. Joshua Guetzkow from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and republished by ZeroHedge[1], regarding CDC analysis of VAERS safety signals that shows that the number of serious adverse events reported in less than two years for mRNA COVID-19 vaccines is 5.5 times larger than all serious reports for vaccines given to adults in the US since 2009 (~73,000 vs. ~13,000).[2]

The person who suggested this article be protected, did so because apparently only epidemiologists can make Freedom of Information requests and therefore this one is invalid, despite the results found.

https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/association-between-vaccines-and 2A02:C7F:1467:2500:18E5:7547:388E:F721 (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "CDC Finally Releases VAERS Safety Monitoring Analyses For COVID Vaccines". ZoreHedge. 2023-01-09. Retrieved 2023-01-11.
  2. ^ "CDC Finally Released Its VAERS Safety Monitoring Analyses for COVID Vaccines via FOIA. And now it's clear why they tried to hide them". CDC. 2023-01-04. Retrieved 2023-01-11.
Neither of the sources are presented are reliable sources. If you can find a reliable source providing more information about what he tweeted then we could consider expanding. SmartSE (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The irony of blocking down all edits, that go into nuanced detail about how it was a cardiologist that compared the human rights abuses to the holocaust, not Andrew, and removing all details relating to the substack article which show's the CDC's own analysis of safety signals show they are neither safe or effective, and just now having a line that says "for spreading misinformation about COVID vaccines.[13]" Is the PERFECT EXAMPLE OF STREISAND EFFECT. By the way, I hope all those midwits with their heads in the sands and decieded to revert all the edits that highlighted the details have all had their latest booster shots! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:1467:2500:18e5:7547:388e:f721 (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential reference for his second marriage

[edit]

[1] seems a good reference, but I cannot remove the refneeded while the article is semi-protected. 152.77.249.68 (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, but that doesn't support the info about his divorce or him getting married to her in 2017. We could remove that info and replace it with "as of 2019 Bridgen was married to ..." and cite that if we can't find any better sources. SmartSE (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The Wives of Westminster: glamorous lifestyle blog or political platform?". The Guardian. 6 May 2019. Retrieved 20 September 2019.

Deletion of £25000 loan

[edit]

I added information on a £25000 interest-free loan to Bridgen from a Brexit donor, sourced by an article in Byline Times. It was reverted: "07:50, 27 April 2023 DeFacto →Family legal dispute: per WP:UNDUE, it's not covered in mainstream sources". Fair enough for source, Byline Times isn't mainstream. But WP:UNDUE is all about significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. I've added Parliament's own Register of Interests, a hyper-reliable source; and this is not about a viewpoint but a fact. So deletion of the revised, now properly-sourced, fact, is not justified; I don't see that that requires discussion, but it was requested.

I'd add a comment about my interpretation of WP:BRD, to see if it's generally agreed with, or against consensus: if an addition is reverted and I simply think it should be included I'll discuss it, not simply reinstate (edit-war) it. But if something is deleted for a specified reason such as "not covered in mainstream sources" I might re-add, now supported by a proper reliable source, invalidating the reason to delete; I don't see this as edit-warring, the removal was justified by a reason which no longer applies. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 12:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pol098, the 'fact' you are trying to add has undue weight with, apparently, only one obscure source reporting it. If it was worthy of mention it would surely be covered more widely. The fact that it may be a fact is irrelevant per WP:NOTEVERYTHING.
Wiki is a collegial work, and content is only included on a consensual basis. Here is the place to persuade editors of your case for inclusion. The question that needs answering is what value do you think that 'fact' adds to this article? -- DeFacto (talk). 12:55, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DeFacto:: Why the repeated mention of 'fact' in scare quotes? It's in the register of members' interests, declared by Bridgen, a fact rather than a 'fact'. To be pedantically accurate the text should perhaps say that Bridgen declared receiving such a loan, not that he accepted it, though this seems a pointless distinction. Significant donors (who?) and donations (how much?) are usually relevant for a politician. The need for the loan from an ally suggests financial difficulties, always relevant for an MP, following the lost legal case and concomitant legal expenses. What they add (in italics): he lost the case and had to pay £800,000 in legal expenses, leaving him in need of an interest-free loan to cover accommodation costs. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pol098, it's an orphan 'fact' for which you provide no context or relevance - it is not notable (i.e. it has undue weight). Your speculation is personal synthesis. If any of your speculations are notable (have due weight) then you will find them covered in the mainstream sources, and if you do, they may be worthy of inclusion. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case anyone comes here, this is the paragraph in question:

In the same month the register of MPs' interests showed that Bridgen accepted a private £25,000 interest-free loan to cover "accommodation costs of my constituency home" from Jeremy Hosking,[1] who had made many large donations supporting Brexit in previous years.[2]

  1. ^ "Register of Interests for Andrew Bridgen". UK Parliament. Retrieved 27 April 2023. Updated fortightly.
  2. ^ Lavin, Sascha (11 October 2022). "'Just Helping a Mate': Conservative MP Given £25,000 Loan to Cover Housing Costs by Big Brexit Donor". Byline Times.

Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 14:12, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DeFacto, the inserted paragraph is WP:UNDUE at this point in time. Without some kind of factual relevance (not just speculation) the story is just 'man takes out loan'. I have no problem with the sources. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 15:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]

Rather than further edit warring, I propose restoring the old lead phrasing which was after criticising the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines and comparing their implementation to the Holocaust.I don't see any reason not to specify what the actual issue was, rather than generalise it as the current version does. SmartSE (talk) 21:05, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:56, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartse, are we sure that's why he was expelled from the party? I don't think we are. The way I read the supplied source is that he was expelled on the recomendation of a disciplinary panel who were looking at complaints about lobbying, which is why I made this edit, which was summarily reverted by Nomoskedasticity without even the courtesy of a specific explanation, let alone a new source that might have supported it. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with the previous lead is that he did not compare the vaccine rollout to the Holocaust; he quoted someone who purportedly did. That is the kind of detail we can't get into in the lead, and we really have to be careful with a controversial BLP, especially when he subsequently deleted the comments. I think controversial comments covers it, and we get into the details in the body. Lard Almighty (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that he quoted the cardiologist in the lead. I think that's as far as we can go per WP:BLP. We can't put those words in his mouth directly; he just quoted them. I think saying he was expelled after his comments is fine. The BBC source specifically states this as the reason. Lard Almighty (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lard Almighty, as, per WP:HEADLINE, neither headlines nor subheadlines are ever considered to be reliable sources, could you please quote for us which part(s) of the remaining reliable parts the BBC source you think supports that reason. All that I can see in the cited BBC source on the reason for the expulsion is A Conservative Party spokesman said Mr Bridgen was expelled 'following the recommendation of a disciplinary panel. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The very first paragraph. It uses the word "after", as we do in the article. After is not the same as "because of". Lard Almighty (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The subheadline in bold? The first real para starts "The member for North West Leicestershire had already lost the party whip...". Did you read WP:HEADLINE? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:07, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a sub headline. It's the lead paragraph which is often bolded in balls publications' MOS. Why would they repeat the headline in a sub headline? A sub headline adds information, it didn't repeat it. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, we shouldn't be using that kind of editorialisation to mislead readers just because the media does. We need to be honest with our readers and either give the reason for expulsion, and if it isn't clear, as with that BBC source, either say it's unknown, or look for it in other sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Every source I've read uses very similar wording to this:
  • Politico Former Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen has been expelled from the party after he compared coronavirus vaccines to the Holocaust.
  • ITV News Andrew Bridgen has been expelled from the Conservative Party after his criticism of the Covid-19 vaccine, it has been confirmed.
  • Guardian Andrew Bridgen, the formerly Conservative MP who lost the Tory whip after comparing the use of Covid vaccines to the Holocaust, has been expelled permanently from the party.
  • Evening Standard Andrew Bridgen has been expelled from the Conservative party after comparing the Covid vaccination rollout to the Holocaust.
  • City AM MP Andrew Bridgen has been expelled from the Conservative Party over a controversial tweet saying the the delay in releasing safety data on Covid-19 vaccines was the worst crime since the Holocaust.
  • BBC (and no this isn't a headline) 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.
They are not saying because of but they are linking the holocaust tweet directly with the decision.
Bridgen's statement certainly implies that he was expelled over the Holocaust tweet too (from Guardian above): In a statement, Bridgen said his expulsion “only confirms the culture of corruption, collusion and cover-ups which plagues our political system”. He said: “I have been a vocal critic of the vaccine rollout and the party have been sure to make an example of me. I am grateful for my newfound freedom and will continue to fight for justice for all those harmed, injured and bereaved due to governmental incompetence.”
I'm going to remove quoting a cardiologist in a now-deleted tweet who from the lead as this seems to be downplaying his actions in a way that none of the sources do. SmartSE (talk) 08:41, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These are not his words and we shouldn't imply that they are.Lard Almighty (talk) 09:12, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change was good. Need to mirror sources and be correct. Bon courage (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sources say he was quoting someone. These are not his original words and we shouldn't imply that they are. To do so is a BLP violation. Lard Almighty (talk) 09:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basically this comes down to understanding English (are you a native speaker?). "As others have said, you are an idiot" is an endorsement, adoption of others' words, or 'quoting with approval'. Every secondary source understands this idiom as does every clueful editor here; this is why the secondary sources say what they do. Trying to twist this into some kind of off-hand "quotation" is basically just POV pushing of the worst kind, now compounded with edit warring. Give it a rest. Bon courage (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. You can post controversial things without necessarily agreeing with them. There is no indication one way or another that he did or did not endorse those words. He may well have been posting them to be provocative and create controversy. Native English speakers call that playing the devil's advocate. I personally doubt he was doing that, but it can't be discounted and to suggest that he agreed with the comments without more explicit endorsement on his part verges on WP:OR. The one source in the article uses the words "posting a tweet describing the Covid vaccine roll-out as "the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust". I think that would be a good compromise between the current and previous wording. It makes it clear that he tweeted it without explicitly implying that they were his words. Lard Almighty (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lard Almighty: I think you've derailed us a bit here (no doubt unintentionally). You wrote that he was quoting someone else. But that's not what the sources say. He refers to someone else's statement, but he embraces it as his own: “As one consultant cardiologist said to me this is the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust.” There's no reason at all to imagine that he was posting this tweet with anything other than agreement/approval of the idea it communicates. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomoskedasticity, that's nothing but pure unsupported speculation, and as such should certainly not exist in a BLP context. I support Lard Almighty's text. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nomoskedasticity, Fair enough. I think you're right that starting the tweet with the word "as" does suggest some level of agreement. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would personally not go into these specific details in first paragraph of the lede, and either leave those details for the body, or go into the specifics in the second or a third paragraph of the lede (which would allow more precision rather than having an awkwardly long and precise sentence at the beginning of the biography) Tristario (talk) 00:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with changes/restorations proposed above by @Smartse. Their edits to the lead reflect a good summary of the sources linked above. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:04, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lard Almighty, I find this rather disrespectful of the consensus-forming process. Why couldn't you wait for a uninvolved close to determine if there was a consensus first? -- DeFacto (talk). 14:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We really don't need a formal "close" process here -- this is obvious, and so expressing concern about it only amounts to a delaying tactic. It's (long past) time to let go... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reclaim Party

[edit]

Apparently he joined the Reclaim Party today 10 May 2023 2A00:23C6:148A:9B01:D0E2:D4FE:96BE:A1A1 (talk) 09:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Bridgen's work to expose the miscarriage of justice in the case of the Postmasters.

[edit]

Why is there no section in the article on Mr Bridgen's campaign to expose the injustice done to the Postmasters? As with Covid (in spite of Wikipedia clinging to the false establishment narrative) Mr Bridgen was proved correct about the Postmasters. 2A02:C7C:E183:AC00:85B7:90E4:2D13:A52 (talk) 08:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide some reliable sources describing what you call "his campaign to expose the injustice done to the postmasters"? -- DeFacto (talk). 15:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you consider Hansard (the official record of proceedings of the Parliament of the United Kingdom) to be a reliable source - it contains Mr Bridgen's work in defence of the falsely accused sub Postmasters over many years. Sadly the existing article seems to contain a lot of stuff from unreliable sources - "mainstream media" hit pieces and smears. PaulvMarks (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hansard is WP:PRIMARY. Not useable to add the narrative you would like. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, reliability is not determined by whether what a source writes agrees with your opinion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hansard records facts, what Members of Parliament have said over the years. The media writes opinions - often gossip, and gossip with an agenda. I find it disturbing that Wikipedia prefers opinions to facts. This is not just a matter of politics - in previous cases I have accurately, and in context, wrote out what philosophers have written - which contradicts what articles in Wikipedia say they believed. Only to be told that "primary sources" (i.e. the facts) are not acceptable. The same is the case for general history - actual historical records are rejected by Wikipedia, but secondary sources (what this or that historian said) are accepted. It is all rather odd. As for this case - one of the things that Mr Bridgen is best known for is his campaign on behalf of the sub postmasters, yet the article says nothing about this - and, instead, has a lot of waffle and hearsay. By the way I am a member of a political party which is putting up a candidate AGAINST Mr Bridgen. PaulvMarks (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually plenty of reliable sources that cover his actions in support of the postmasters going back to when he was first elected in 2010, so it's certainly worth a line or two, but not a whole section. Lard Almighty (talk) 04:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed - starting with Hansard (the official record of Parliament) - but Wikipedia is not interested in giving the man a fair article, they have an agenda. "Produce reliable sources" is, in this context, just another way of saying "go away". After all Mr Bridgen is not a friend of Pfizer or of the bureaucracy. As some of the founders of Wikipedia have sadly pointed out - Wikipedia has been taken over by establishment narratives, people who question those narratives are "spreaders of disinformation", "conspiracy theorists", "radicalised", "far right" and-so-on. By the way this does not mean that Mr Bridgen does not go over-the-top sometimes (he does - he is too quick to pick up counter narrative theories without checking as much as he should) - but he deserves a better article than the one produced. PaulvMarks (talk) 13:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're really not helping! Lard Almighty (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
some of the founders of Wikipedia You mean Larry Sanger, who has started about three failed encyclopedias since then. They probably failed because they are not credible, because he have tinfoil hatters, charlatans and wackjobs too much credibility. If you want a non-mainstream encyclopedia that is not taken seriously, that is where you should go. Not here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Andrew_Bridgen&oldid=1256334016"