BBC Puts Corrective Subtitles Under MP's Parliament Speech
The BBC ran several live counter arguments on the bottom of the screen during Andrew Bridgen's speech, some saying 'COVID-19 vaccines used in the UK are safe.'
The BBC's Parliament channel put messages on the screen defending COVID-19 vaccines as MP Andrew Bridgen spoke in a Parliamentary debate on excess deaths.
On Friday, the former Conservative and now Reclaim MP Andrew Bridgen made a series of claims in the House of Commons that there was a "clear stepwise increase in mortality following the vaccine rollout."
Mr. Bridgen used an adjournment debate to attempt to draw links between a recorded rise in excess deaths in the UK and Covid vaccinations.
RELATED STORIES
Over 500 Excess Heart Deaths a Week in England Since COVID-19 Began
6/22/2023
Excess Deaths in Young Canadians Jump to 27 Percent
5/24/2023
In the live-streaming of Bridgen's address on its BBC Parliament Channel, the BBC put several slogans onscreen throughout his speech.
Some of them included that "the NHS says COVID-19 vaccines used in the UK are safe and the best protection from getting seriously ill with the disease."
Another included that "the NHS says measles and mumps are rising in England due to a drop in the number of children being given the MMR vaccines."
In response, writing on X (formally known as Twitter) Mr. Bridgen said that "this partisan commentary during my speech on Friday is nothing short of appalling from a supposedly neutral broadcaster. "
Mr. Bridgen was kicked out of the Conservative Party and joined Laurence Fox's Reclaim Party earlier this year.
In March, he was ousted after he posted an article on Twitter, commenting, "As one consultant cardiologist said to me, this is the biggest crime against humanity since the Holocaust.”
Excess Deaths
During his excess deaths speech, Mr. Bridgen criticised authorities such as the Office for National Statistics (ONS) saying that "there's a total failure to collect, nevermind publish, data on deaths that are referred for investigation to the coroner."
"Surely the ONS should be desperately keen to investigate deaths in young men," he said.
"Why else have an independent body charged with examining mortality data? Surely the ONS has the responsibility to collect data from the coroners to produce timely information," he added.
He said that there are "substantially more excess deaths and in younger people and this complete and eerie silence."
Mr. Bridgen claimed that the "trial data showed that one in 800 injected people had a serious adverse event, meaning they were hospitalised or had a life-changing or life-threatening condition."
"The risk of this was twice as high as the chance of preventing a COVID-19 hospitalisation," he said.
The Epoch Times has not been able to independently verify this claim.
A spokeswoman for the ONS told The Epoch Times by email that it "is not correct that deaths that are referred to a coroner are not included in ONS mortality statistics."
"ONS mortality statistics are compiled from information supplied when deaths are certified and registered as part of civil registration. This includes those which have been referred to a coroner once that process is complete," she added.
'Does Not Necessarily Disagree With Him'
During the debate, Junior Health Minister Maria Caulfield said that "she does not necessarily disagree with him."
"But I think we need to have a robust conversation on this and not to assume that one side necessarily has all the answers," she added.
Ms. Caulfield acknowledged there has been an increase in excess deaths in the last year, but added, “His analysis is something I will disagree with because the causes that he refers to are simply… do not bear to the statistics that we have.”
Laurence Fox told The Epoch Times, "It’s hugely important that we start to unpick the disastrous failed public health experiment of the past three years, learn the lessons and make sure that it never ever happens again."
An Ofcom spokesperson told The Epoch Times by email: “The Ofcom Broadcasting Code contains a number of rules to protect audiences from harm. Broadcasters have editorial freedom to decide how they achieve compliance with those rules."
The BBC did not respond to The Epoch Times's request for comment.
PA Media contributed to this report.
Owen Evans is a UK-based journalist covering a wide range of national stories, with a particular interest in civil liberties and free speech.
No matter what Ofcom says - and who has any respect left for them nowadays, anyway?! - the BBC broke it's own guidelines of being "committed to achieving due impartiality in all output" and has no place putting forward its own views during a Parliamentary debate, the purpose of which was for Andrew Bridgen to present his findings and for a discussion to take place. How on earth was the BBC supposedly able to analyse and dismiss Andrew's research and compiled data before they had even been presented or debated? The BBC only succeeded in making themselves look even more sinister than usual. It was pure propaganda at its most transparent.