Every time a self-styled "freedom fighter" or "truth teller" loses their case in court - which they virtually always do - these results are met with howls of recrimination from their supporters that the courts are corrupt.

And... I mean... yeah.

Obviously.

The police are corrupt, the NHS is corrupt, the media certainly is, so the judiciary - being part of that same big club - inevitably is too.

Yet despite asserting to believe the legal system in this country is wholly corrupt, "truth seekers" have handed ex-MP, and alleged conspiracy convert, Andrew Bridgen, nearly £200,000 to fight Matt Hancock in court: to "sue him for defamation".

Well, why?

If the courts are - as people on our side correctly and repeatedly assert - so corrupt, then surely Bridgen cannot win?

Aha, say his supporters, but what if he does win?

Oh right, so we're trusting the courts now, are we? Putting our faith in them to deliver justice and truth? But only if and when they deliver verdicts we like?

We can't have it both ways.

If the courts deliver a victory for Bridgen, then we must necessarily assume this is consistent with their being corrupt, or else forfeit our belief in corruption.

If Bridgen wins, and we support this verdict as evidence of justice prevailing, then we cannot in good conscience assert that corruption reigns in every other prominent truther trial (Richard D. Hall, Tommy Robinson, etc.).

In short, we cannot scream "corruption!" when trials don't go our way, and "truth has triumphed!" when they do.

It's not a serious position.

Equally, we cannot affect outrage that Lucy Connolly has been jailed for a Tweet (allegedly), whilst vigorously supporting Andrew Bridgen to use the judiciary to punish Matt Hancock for the very same thing.

To be clear, Andrew Bridgen is taking Matt Hancock to court for calling him an antisemite on Twitter. Pretty comparable to Lucy Connolly being taken to court for writing a racially-related Tweet.

I don't think anybody should be penalised by the judiciary for Tweeting, and yes, that includes Matt Hancock.

Matt Hancock should certainly be penalised by the judiciary for a whole host of other things, but not for sending a hostile Tweet.

It's imperatively important that we are able to maintain a consistent moral standard over these matters, and not become partisan, ideological, and tribal, because it totally rubbishes our position.

If (as their supporters insist) the courts were corrupt when delivering the verdicts on Richard D. Hall and Tommy Robinson, then they'll be corrupt when they deliver the verdict on Andrew Bridgen (whatever it is).

Equally, it's it's wrong to judicially penalise Lucy Connolly for a Tweet, then it's wrong to do the same to Matt Hancock.

I am drawing attention to these discrepancies because I am now more suspicious than ever about the Bridgen v. Hancock debacle, noting as I did in my last article that Bridgen and Lucy Connolly use the same deeply dodgy platform to fundraise, and I've drawn my conclusions about what that platform really represents.

The Bridgen "defamation" suit has been rumbling on for over two years now, and even though Bridgen and Hancock have been to court twice (with one occasion requiring Bridgen to give Hancock £40,000), they still appear no closer to reaching a verdict.

That this is being dragged out for so long, the will-he-won't-he win drama, the press attention and plot twists, is making this high-octane courtroom thriller seem just a little too scripted and slick. It all looks, in fact, rather like the "free Deirdre Barlow" campaign.

That is to say, a fictitious televised legal storyline, presented to us by the press as real.

That's not to say these two individuals aren't really attending court - as established, the courts are corrupt, so they will obligingly participate in these performative little rituals - but that it is a show trial devised by the establishment to serve some sort of agenda.

When Bridgen first launched his bid to sue Hancock for defamation, in early 2023, when many people where still gripped by Covid mania and eagerly awaiting their seventh booster (I think they're on ten now), I thought that agenda was merely to show once again how "stupid and crazy" anti-vaxxers are, by having Bridgen, once again, publicly humiliated by losing the case, and his supporters fined by the conspiracy tax, with all the money they'd put behind Bridgen going straight to Matt Hancock.

However, the longer this has gone on, with still no verdict in sight, I'm starting to consider a different outcome.

It has long since been known that there will be a (strategised, scripted) "great reveal" of some of the harms the Covid injection has done. It's right there in the modelling documents Covid was based on.

And lo and behold, it's been in the mainstream press this week that the known deadly dangers of the injection were covered up.

As momentum builds on this story, and it will, the public will be baying for accountability and justice, delivered by a people's hero they can depend upon to tell them the truth.

Enter stage left, Hero Bridgen, who defeats the dastardly Hancock in court. This gives the people a sense of victory, a sense of having finally been vindicated, and this is very powerful - and very dangerous.

Right at the moment people feel, "the system is finally on our side. There's finally someone speaking out for us. We're finally winning!", all their vigilance and critical thinking faculties are disabled. We saw that very clearly with the MAGA/MAHA mayhem in America.

It was always obvious Trump, Kennedy and co were just more slick performative politicians who were lying to get elected, and would then break all their promises once in power. But because they were telling people what they wanted to hear, vigilance and scepticism were suspended, and many people really believed their valiant saviour heroes had finally arrived.

Of course, they hadn't in the US, and they won't in the shape of Andrew Bridgen, even if he does successfully sue Matt Hancock for defamation.

In reality, how does this help us?

It's more than five years since the words 'Covid' and 'lockdown' first entered the national lexicon. Innumerable lives and livelihoods have been left in ruins since then, with many lives lost altogether - something Andrew Bridgen is directly accountable for, having voted both for the calamitous lockdowns, and even for people to be injected with lethal bioweapons by force.

The damage has long since been done.

So does fining Hancock for saying naughty words on Twitter really meaningfully help with any of this?

Is that really justice?

Even throwing Hancock in prison (which, to re-emphasise as I have many times, a defamation case - being civil, and not criminal - doesn't seek to do) wouldn't help remedy the millions of shattered lives left in the wake of tyrannical government overreach. It's too little, too late. (And why just Hancock?! Why should the rest of the Johnson administration, including Johnson himself, get off scot-free?)

What would help?

A proper compensation programme for the vaccine injured and bereaved, for a start, not the paltry £120,000 lifetime sum the government currently pays out - and even then, only if you are regarded as "at least 60% disabled" by the vaccine.

"Only" 59% disabled?

Tough! Nothing for you.

I know Bridgen claims if he wins his case, he will donate the damages to a vaccine injury charity. But a few thousand pounds divvied out between the tens of thousands suffering severe vaccine injury really isn't going to go very far - and it would have been far more expedient to just donate the money he raised straight to a charity in the first place, rather than risking gambling with it (gambling with other people's money) and giving it all to Hancock, as will happen if he loses (as mentioned, he's already had to give Hancock £40,000 of it).

But moreover, it would have been far preferable to prevent these people from becoming vaccine-injured in the first place, by speaking out against the vaccine when it mattered, not after the fact when millions had already taken it.

There was no meaningful difference between Andrew Bridgen and Matt Hancock at the time when lockdowns and vaccine mandates were being put into place, these two Tory MPs voted just the same way.

It's critical to remember, when assessing the Covid chapter, that the despotic rules and restrictions didn't "just happen" because the media said so, nor were they imposed upon us by Bill Gates or Anthony Fauci.

Rather, 650 specific people - our so-called elected representatives in parliament - were given the decisive say on whether to vote for or against lockdowns and mandates. Most voted for them, which is why we got them.

Matt Hancock and Andrew Bridgen were two of these specific people.

That Bridgen is playing the saviour hero now, after performing his instrumental role in plunging the country into dire misery and mass death, doesn't really matter. If Hancock gets a slap on the wrist for his part in it, that doesn't really matter either.

The damage is done. Because of what 650 specific people - including these two characters - voted for.

One of them now suing the other in court for bad words is just Punch 'n' Judy politics to mollify the masses, reassuring them that their concerns have been heard, and (if Bridgen wins) "justice has prevailed".

Which means, ultimately, that you can trust the system.

The latest iteration of "heroes and saviours" may previously have called for you to be injected by force, and in some cases, even injected you themselves, but hey! Now they're on your side. Now you can trust them.

Especially when they rise to power in government, once that panto villain, Dame Starmer, has been dispatched with, and the true saviours of the country, Reform, come to the rescue...

Because all this, you see, is increasingly looking to me like one big, long PR exercise for Reform.

It's been clear for some time that the establishment desires a "populist right-wing" government in this country, just as they have installed one in the USA, and that they aren't going to wait until 2029 to get it.

Starmer was tasked with being as "incompetent" and detestable as possible, in order to make his position completely untenable, and so when the predictable, engineered crisis comes along (Ukrainian rent boys burning down his houses - soap opera much?), he is forced to step down and - so completely decimated is the country's faith in not just Starmer, but the Labour Party as a whole - that a snap General Election is called.

Over the past five years, Labour and the Tories have been made intentionally unelectable, in order to ensure Reform sweeps to power with a supermajority.

It is most instructive to note that Jeremy Hosking, bankroller of Andrew Bridgen and owner of the Democracy 3.0 platform (which is a trading name of his Reclaim The Media company), where both Bridgen and Lucy Connolly do their fundraising, has donated huge sums to the Reform party - £2.4 million, no less.

(And I know it's easy to get confused - confusion probably sowed purposely - and ask, "hang on, don't you mean Reclaim?". Yes, Hosking has donated to them too - is their sole financier, in fact - but he's also lavished plenty of money on Reform.)

So can we presume that Andrew Bridgen and Lucy Connolly are being styled by Jeremy Hosking as political martyrs, showing the literal need for 'Reform'?

Since I wrote my last piece on Connolly, further indicting information, making it pretty irrefutable she is some sort of intelligence plant, has come to light, in the shape of her phenomenally prolific Twitter activity over an eight-month period, leading up to the Tweet that supposedly resulted in her imprisonment.

Connolly, we are told, was a busy working mother, running a home, caring for a 12-year-old daughter, and running a childminding business, caring for multiple small children.

Yet in the eight-month period leading up to August 2024, she somehow found the time to Tweet, on average, 100 times a day. If we minus 8 hours for sleep, this means she Tweeted around six times per hour, every waking hour, for eight months.

Is that plausible?

Or even possible?

Normal Twitter use for an active user would be around 3-7 Tweets a day.

100 a day, every day, over months, is simply not something we would see from an individual, much less a busy one.

Rather, 100 Tweets a day over a consistent, long-term period is the behaviour of a significant business or high-profile brand, where multiple people are manning the account.

Indeed, that level of Tweeting is so extreme, it outpaces at least 99.9% of all Twitter users.

We can plausibly hypothesise from this, then, that "Lucy Connolly" was able to Tweet so much because she is a "brand": a fabricated, scripted creation of the intelligence agencies, sending out very carefully curated Tweets, designed to appeal to a very particular demographic, and to raise her profile as much as possible leading up to her "arrest".

So many people have said to me, "but I know Lucy is real, because I interacted with her on Twitter!".

But please think again.

Was it really "her" you interacted with?

Are you sure?

You certainly interacted with an account bearing her name.

But in reality, you have no idea who you were actually talking to.

Further, doesn't it appear very odd that she had the time, not just to Tweet so often, but to personally interact with quite so many people, all whilst ostensibly juggling a hectic family and working life as well?

And that she built up such a prodigious reputation amongst so many dissident groups and people, despite having an account that was only active for nine months?

What's especially interesting - and revealing - about Lucy's prolific activity on Twitter, and fairly meteoric rise to online infamy, is how sharply it contrasts with the social media usage of the platform she is using to fundraise, Democracy 3.0.

As I detailed in my last article, Democracy 3.0 have barely made an online footprint at all, with just a small smattering of followers across three social media platforms (just 26 on Instagram), with both Facebook and Twitter inactive for nearly a year.

This is simply not the promotional behaviour of a legitimate crowdfunding platform, especially one that is not only backed by the multi-millionaire, Jeremy Hosking, but that also has a social media expert on its board of directors.

Edward Francis Pugh, a former Brexit Party MEP known as 'Jake', is a director of Democracy 3.0, and also a director of Hello Social Club.

Hello Social Club describes itself as: "a specialist social media agency, creating social media strategies and campaigns, using both organic and paid.

We add value to our clients by delivering their business objectives through their social media channels and in doing so, monetise their channels.

Campaigns are calibrated by channel, allowing us to create customised audiences to ensure the message reaches the target customer. Ultimately, campaigns are designed to deliver an objective-specific ‘return-on-investment’ (ROI)."

While Hello Social Club has clearly put none of its expertise into promoting Democracy 3.0 overtly, via Democracy 3.0's own social media channels, has it facilitated the platform covertly, by developing and promoting the Lucy Connolly brand?

Was Hello Social Club the establishment operation behind the Lucy Connolly Twitter account, using its ample resources and knowhow to build a brand - "bored, boozy housewife speaks some straight-talking home-truths"?

Was it this company busy generating a prolific output for "her", and a public profile that has - not only led to a highly visible fundraiser which has raised more than £120,000 in less than a week - but that has also created a totemic political martyr for our times?

Quite the "return on investment", I'd say.

People believing they had "talked to Lucy on Twitter" may, very feasibly, never have talked to her at all, but to Edward Francis "Jake" Pugh (or perhaps, more accurately, to one of his many minions manning the account).

Social media - as an expert social media company like Hello Social would know only too well - can easily weaponise the effectively anonymous nature of accounts to create false relationships and false intimacy: it can make fabricated creations seem very real (see "catfishing").

We can easily be hoodwinked into believing we "know" someone on Twitter, because an account with their name 'liked' something we said or Retweeted us or did a clapping emoji under out post.

And the "Lucy" account really went the extra mile in this regard = not only Tweeting endlessly, but also interacting and intersecting with as many different "dissident" groups as possible, in order to ensure maximal outrage - and innumerable people leaping passionately to her defence - when "she got arrested for her views"...

Something that, we will be assured, could never happen under a Reform government.

It's classic problem-reaction-solution, and essentially, I believe, just an elaborate publicity stunt for Reform.

Remember, Lucy Connolly is fundraising on a platform owned by one of Reform's biggest donors.

It's not a coincidence.

Nor is it a coincidence that Andrew Bridgen uses the very same platform (in addition to owing Jeremy Hosking some four million pounds), so that if and when he "defeats Matt Hancock in court", that can be used as more "evidence" that the good guys are winning, the rotten old order is being smashed, and the true heroes and saviours are rising to power!

This is all scripted, staged political theatre to "manufacture our consent" for the impending Reform government.

For at least the last hundred years, Western democracies have been sculpted and managed by this form of political manoeuvring - essentially, the continual manipulation and psyoping of the populace to get them to consent to what the ruling classes want.

So when people say "elections are rigged", yes, they are, but not typically by means of shredding or adding votes.

Rather, they are rigged by the establishment staging high-profile media events (psyops) designed to manicure the mass mind and sculpt their voting behaviour as the ruling classes desire.

Jeremy Hosking is hosting Lucy Connolly's fundraiser for the same reason he's donated £2.4 million to Reform. It's all political manoeuvring to get his desired government in to place.

Same reason he's bankrolling Bridgen and hosting his fundraiser.

Hosking wants Reform.

Is Hosking going to get what he wants?

That really does ultimately depend on us: "they" wouldn't spend such a colossal amount of time and money endlessly psyoping us if we weren't powerful and significant.

They do it because they need our permission. They need our consent. And, for their sly black magic theatrical illusions to be effective, they need us to believe what they're conjuring up on our screens is real.

We retain the power to reject the illusion, to switch off the screens, and to walk out of the political, judicial, and media theatre, back into the real world.

Thanks for reading! This site is entirely reader-powered, with no paywalls, adverts, or wealthy corporate backers, making it truly independent. Your support is therefore crucial to ensuring this site's continued existence. If you'd like to make a contribution to help this site keep going, please consider...

1. Subscribing monthly via Patreon or Substack (where paid subscribers can comment on posts)

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 (please use your email address as a reference if you'd like me to acknowledge receipt).

Your support is what allows this site to continue to exist and is enormously appreciated. Thank you.