Legal Action Against 5G (in the UK)

Bron: actionagainst5g.org/
april 2021

Michael Mansfield QC is leading our legal team challenging the UK Government over its failure to take notice of the health risks and public concern related to 5G.

One of the most venerated barristers of our time, Michael Mansfield has led legal teams in high profile cases of civil liberty and miscarriages of justice. He has represented the families of Grenfell Tower, Lockerbie, the Ballymurphy Massacre and Stephen Lawrence.

He was recently described as “the king of human rights work” by The Legal 500 and as a Leading Silk in civil liberties and human rights.

Why people are concerned

People in the UK are becoming increasingly alarmed as they learn of the serious implications of the 5G roll-out: to their own health, the environment and all biological life.

No one wants a mast emitting high levels of radiation outside their home, their child’s school or their place of work. The ‘benefits’ claimed by the telecoms industry come at a very high price.

5G radiation will be sent from advanced antennas, in phased arrays, that transmit microwaves in narrow beams, a technology originally developed for military purposes. This will massively increase the exposure to radiation from those beams. Those beams will be nearly everywhere.

The wireless telecoms industry intend to outfit nearly every lamp post or utility post around the country with wireless small cell antennas beaming hazardous radiation next to, or into, our homes, schools, work places and everywhere, 24/7 as well as intensifying 4G throughout the countryside.

Why a legal case?

Our legal case is headed by Michael Mansfield QC, renowned for upholding human rights, supported by a robust and committed legal team.

Nothing other than a legal challenge will force a government to take notice; this is the only way to ensure the government engages with the issue.

We bring this case because we lack confidence in Public Health England. PHE has dismissed multiple warnings from both government and independent scientists including many Scientific Committees for Health and the evidence of thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers. Instead it accepts outdated opinions from unreliable and unaccountable agencies.

Since 2000, when The Stewart Report recommended the government apply the precautionary principle to radio frequency radiation, the government has failed in its duty to protect health.

Our concerns include the imposition of radiation on the population without consent and the serious matter of privacy, surveillance and social control.

No safety testing for 5G

5G will result in unprecedented exposure to a particular type of phased radiation at frequencies that have never been used in consumer applications before.

Experts warn that the effects of the combined exposure with existing radiation from GSM, 3G, WiFi, 4G will cause serious damage to health. There is already a substantial body of evidence demonstrating that existing radio frequency exposures are harmful to health.

Whilst research on the new modulation and use of higher frequencies is sparse, there are publications which suggest harmful effects to human and animal health.

Industry has not produced a single study to show that 5G is safe or undertaken any risk assessment for effects on humans, wildlife and the environment for this laser-like beam forming technology.

5G will increase the microwave and millimetre wave radiation in our environment and it will use new frequencies that have not been evaluated for safety.

Since the effects of 5G on all biological life have not been tested, and there have been no safety studies into short or long-term health effects, no-one can say that 5G is safe.

Reassurance of safety is currently based on the long obsolete view point that radio frequency (RF) radiation can only cause harm above thermal, tissue heating, levels of exposure. This concept has been invalidated by hundreds of peer-reviewed published scientific papers.

Insurance underwriters such as Lloyds of London and Swiss Re have weighed up the risk; Swiss Re class it as a future ‘high-impact risk.’

In their information to shareholders, telecommunications companies warn about potential loss of share value due to future litigation related to health risks.

Consequence of 5G implementation

The consequence of inaction will allow irreparable harm to all life, most particularly the unborn, children, the elderly, anyone with underlying health conditions and people with metal implants.

There will be a fundamental difference in our lives and we will lose our privacy as surveillance and social control by industry and governments becomes ubiquitous with tracking and monitoring leading to behaviour modification.

We might ask ourselves whether we wish to have our lives become the property of any corporation for control and profit. Are we to be obedient to the interests of others, with choices reduced and decisions determined by an algorithm? Or do we value our right to self determination without coercion, and free from harm?

Solid evidence

Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that electro-magnetic radiation affects living organisms at levels well below most international and national guidelines.

Proven effects include increased cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes of the reproductive system, learning and memory deficits, neurological disorders, and negative impacts on general well-being in humans.

Damage goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plants and animals.

The deployment on this scale of pulsed microwave radiation is reckless.

Zie de link bovenaan voor verdere informatie.
Hieronder de begeleidende e-mail.

ES UK Electrosensitivity UK

Legal Action Against 5G led by Michael Mansfield QC
have recently lodged their case against the government

JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS LODGED IN THE HIGH COURT

The Defendants are

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE: First Defendant

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT,
FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS: Second Defendant

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DIGITAL CULTURE MEDIA AND SPORT: Third Defendant

The Claimants are represented by Michael Mansfield QC, Philip Rule and
Lorna Hackett of Hackett & Dabbs LLP


The case concerns an important issue of public safety. It raises the risk to which members of the public, including particular vulnerable individuals, and children, are being exposed without having consented to or agreed to expose themselves to that risk; and without an adequate and proper consideration undertaken by the relevant safeguarding authorities of the creation of those man-made public health risks.

We provided documents containing evidence from a multitude of respected and eminent experts concerning the health effects of the technology used by 5G, and the attendant risks to the public and individuals, upon which the Defendants declined to act.

The Defendants cannot lawfully continue to ignore or overlook the evidence that indicates the existence of a risk that has not been quantified. To date there has been a failure to engage with this body of evidence, and an inappropriate attempt to delegate any assessment of risk to an external body – a body against which membership legitimate criticism of industry finance and conflict of interest is levelled.

The issues include:

1. the absence of due investigation of the nature and extent of the risks to the safety of individuals, and human health by the relevant United Kingdom authorities;
2. the absence of appropriate measures, systems and safeguarding steps to address the identified risks or potential risks; and
3. a failure to adopt and apply a precautionary principle, or informed foresight, to the exposure of non-consenting children and adults to a risk of harm.
4. The law provides a framework that demonstrates the unlawfulness of the inaction and errors of the executive bodies we have challenged.
5. Holding to account the executive or legislative authorities to comply with the law and legal duties is undoubtedly a proper and essential function for the Court, especially in the context of protection of individuals from harm that includes loss of life or serious injury.

The grounds are:

The Defendants are in breach of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 resulting from omissions and failings in violation of the positive obligations required to be met by Articles 2, 3 and/or 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Defendants have failed to consider the best interests of children when considering formulating, updating or reviewing the appropriate approach to 5G policy and risk assessment for exposed children. In the alternative, they have failed to make this a primary consideration.

The Defendants are in breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty (“PSED”) (s149 EA 2010). There has been no equality assessment, within the meaning and terms of the PSED, to properly inform and be considered in decisions as to the risk posed by RFR and affecting for example approval of 5G generally and/or of permissible locations of 5G and/or of the policy to adopt ICNIRP guidelines.

The SSHSC is in breach of his statutory duty under s2A of the National Health Service Act 2006, either resulting from (a) unlawful delegation or abdication of the statutory function to an external private organisation; and/or (b) irrationally failing to take appropriate steps under this power and/or failing to exercise a discretion in accordance with the statutory purpose.

The Defendants have failed to take into account as a relevant consideration, and give due and proper consideration to, all the evidence, information and concerns which we have raised with them.

The Defendants have failed to provide adequate and sufficient reasons for the decision not to establish a process to investigate and establish the adverse health effects and risks of adverse health effects from 5G technology and/or for discounting the risks presented by the evidence available.

THIS IS A LANDMARK CASE

The Claimants wish to thank all the many members of the public who have supported them including those that have written messages of encouragement, some of which have been heart wrenching, on the Crowd Justice site; who watch our updates on progress and the thousands who have given donations in support of this legal action. It is for those who have written letters, signed petitions and campaigned, the scientists, doctors and engineers that have put their names to appeals and all the many who have supported our work. It is for those who remain puzzled or uninformed but feel unwell or develop any of the many symptoms that are associated with or worsened by radiation. And it is for our shared environment that does not have a say but for which we, as responsible citizens, are custodians.

Meanwhile our work continues in earnest, and we wish to thank all of you for your continuing support. We will issue further information as this matter progresses.

Further information can be found at actionagainst5g.org/ and please continue to support our legal team at www.crowdjustice.com/case/legalactionagainst5g/.

Donations by post will be gratefully received and can be sent to PO Box 13199, SW6 6ZU.

The account details are: Account name: Ms Victoria Angell Sort code: 30-94-81 Account No: 28059168
The above account is used purely in connection with the LAA5G campaign, to facilitate donations by BACS and cheque.

Zie ook:
wearetheevidence.org/lawsuit-filed-against-uk-government-to-stop-5g-deployment/ .



Lees verder in de categorie Juridische Informatie | Terug naar homepage | Lees de introductie