Ex-Tory MP Andrew Bridgen has suggested that he will withdraw his legal action against Matt Hancock if the former health secretary apologises.
Mr Bridgen, who was stripped of the Tory whip after appearing to compare Covid-19 vaccines with the Holocaust, said this week that he was suing Mr Hancock after he hit out at the MP over the remarks.
The MP tweeted on Thursday to confirm that he was planning to sue Mr Hancock over the row, saying that he “had a legal letter before action from Bad Law Team on my behalf regarding defamation on Monday”.
In an interview with GB News on Saturday, Mr Bridgen told the broadcaster that he was open to receiving an apology from the former Cabinet minister.
He said: “My lawyers have written to him with a very detailed letter laying out the case for defamation.
“The ball is very much in Matt Hancock’s court, he can apologise, he can make a payment which will go to those that have been vaccine harmed or we can take this further.
“It’s very much up to him.
“I can’t really comment on it a lot more than that because otherwise, my lawyers will go bonkers.”
Mr Bridgen, who has denied he is antisemitic while also defending his language about the safety of coronavirus vaccines, is having his legal action supported by the Reclaim Party and the Bad Law Project.
The project, which is linked to Reclaim Party leader Laurence Fox, claims to oppose “political ideology disguised as law”.
“There are three stipulations there in the letter. It’s up to Matt Hancock now what he does. It’ll take him some time to digest that letter,” Mr Bridgen said.
“He had it last Monday. Let’s see what he comes back with. But I’m quite happy to pursue the case if that’s what he wants to do.”
Mr Hancock has so far refused to back down.
A spokesperson this week said: “What Matt said was obviously not libellous and he stands by his comments.
“Rather than wasting his time and money on an absurd libel case he will undoubtedly lose, let’s hope Bridgen does the right thing and apologises for the hurt he’s caused and keeps his offensive view to himself in future.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel