5G Judicial Review 2020
5G Judicial Review 2020
This case is raising funds for its stretch target. Your pledge will be collected within the next 24-48 hours (and it only takes two minutes to pledge!)
Latest: May 26, 2020
A great video to understand concerns re 5G and RFR generally
if you are interested in how 5G affects our bodies, this video is a must see. It is a brilliant over-view of the nature of our bodies and brings to life the reasons for concern about electromagnetic …Read more
5G is well known to pose a serious risk to human health. We are not talking here about Covid-19, but about links that have been proven beyond reasonable doubt.
This page is against wireless 5G, radiofrequency radiation (“RFR”) and electromagnetic fields (“EMFs”) generally due to their impact on the health of humans, animals and plants.
Many people are sensitive to RFR and EMFs and suffer illness, distress and financial loss due to inability to work. The balance of scientific evidence is now clear that RFR/EMFs are harmful to humans.
The UK government insist on using ICNIRP’s guidelines to set limits of radiation for public health. ICNIRP’s guidelines are not fit for purpose as, among other things, they only recognise harm from heating of the body and are set for short term exposure – 6 minutes in fact. Many people suffer harm without any heating of their bodies.
5G is the fifth generation of RFR technology used in the mobile telecoms industry and follows 1G – 4G. It dwarfs RFR from 1G – 4G because millions more masts, antennae, small cells, picocells etc have to be placed at short distances apart all around the country in order to develop the infrastructure to deliver the data speed promised by 5G.
The current electrosmog from 1G – 4G will become significantly worse and it is likely to result in more harm to humans, animals, trees and pollinators.
Many people have tried to engage with the government and its agencies, including Public Health England, over the last few years in an attempt to persuade them that their existing policies are harmful to human, animal and plant health. The government rejects such approaches and insists on its adherence to ICNIRP’s guidelines. It has removed health concerns from the National Planning Policy Framework, thereby removing the ability of its citizens from raising such concerns at local council level. Its Electronic Communications Code has limited the rights of its citizens to object to equipment being put on their land. It has permitted the proliferation of RFR gadgets used by babies and children without constraint.
These policies are likely to result in harm to UK residents. There are likely to be many breaches of English law but a few may be breaches to duties to safeguard public health, breaches of the environmental legislation, breaches of human rights and breaches of the public sector equality duty. The public sector equality duty is relevant because the government, in promoting these harmful policies, is likely to be doing so without considering people who are electrohypersensitive and who are, thereby, disabled under the terms of the Equality Act.
What are we trying to achieve?
I am trying:
- to obtain a change of government policy to stop the harm to UK residents, which would include:
- an immediate halt to the roll out of 5G infrastructure until it is proven to be safe;
- Direct all such businesses and persons to turn off all equipment which propagate wireless 5G signals including without limitation masts, antennae, wifi (including in schools), small cells;
- Direct all products which use 5G wireless technology to be recalled as they are not safe;
- Direct that the manufacture of all products using 5G wireless technology be halted.
- Require the government to ensure that the industry lays cabling for the purposes of upgrades in technology rather than relying on wireless technology generating RFR and EMFs;
- Require the government to examine all equipment and gadgets generating RFR and to take steps to ensure that such equipment does not cause harm to humans.
What's at stake?
The government and media state that there is no harm to humans from 5G. This is wrong. The majority of scientific evidence show that there is harm. The burden for illnesses which may result from 5G and other RFR will fall on the NHS and ultimately on the taxpayer. This too is wrong. The government are tasked with safeguarding the health of the nation and they are now being called to account for their failure to honour their duty to do so.
Many people who are electrohypersensitive have a limited involvement in public life or are excluded from public life because RFR in public spaces is so prevalent that they feel ill in such environments. Some are prisoners in their own homes, unable to go out and they struggle to live a normal life. A change in policy will, at the very least, see safe corridors being formed for such persons so that they too can participate in public life by enjoying public spaces and public venues.
UK residents are unaware of the harm that is being caused to themselves, their children and babies who are exposed to RFR to the extent that they are in today’s world. This case will, hopefully, change the government’s stance and ensure that they are aware of the potential harm so that they can either agree to participate in an RFR environment or they can live in their homes and public spaces free from RFR.
More about this important case:
Who am I?
I am a solicitor. I became involved in understanding the harmful health impact of 5G when a member of my community alerted me to an application to put a mast on the building opposite her apartment. She was electrohypersensitive.
I started to investigate the nature of 5G including reading articles, scientific literature, the appeal by 240 scientists from around the world to pause the rollout of 5G pending proper health studies into its impact and discussed the position with various scientists, doctors and weapons experts. I spoke to many others who have written to their MPs, local councils, government departments, the Prime Minister, telecoms and infrastructure companies, Ofcom and others about the harm to humans, animals, trees, pollinators etc with no success.
I have come to the conclusion that taking legal action is the only way to bring this issue into a public forum and to examine the government and Public Health England’s stance on this matter.
I may be a claimant in this matter but if there are others who are more suited to be claimants in these claims, then they will proceed as claimants using the funds which I have raised on this page.
What is the next step in the case?
With the help of Tim Buley QC of Landmark Chambers, as a first step, the High Court will be asked to review the stance taken by the Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Care and Public Health England. The claim will be for judicial review of their policy of using ICNIRP’s guidelines to set the limits of public exposure which I and many other scientists say is too high, thereby, causing harm to humans.
I need Tim Buley QC to review the case, draft the application for judicial review, appear at any hearing relating to the application, prepare the case for a hearing and appear in court to present our case. I will be the solicitor acting in the case through LCS Practice Ltd and will charge just less than half of my normal hourly rate for work done. My normal hourly rate is £450 per hour plus VAT and I will charge £200 plus VAT per hour.
How much are we raising and why?
I am raising £150,000 to cover the legal and other costs and contingencies mentioned above including costs for the other side in the event of failure of the judicial review application - the Aarhus Convention cap of up to £10,000 will be claimed. I need your support: please contribute and share this page now.
Under the terms of this fundraising platform, if you give over £1,000, if there are unused funds after litigation, some of your pledge will be returned on a pro rata basis. If you give less than £1,000, unused funds will not be returned to you but used in accordance with the platform's terms on unused funds. Please review the other terms of the platform to be sure that you understand their policy regarding pledges.
You will see an initial target of £50,000 which should get to the end of any hearing relating to the application for judicial review and it includes the court fee and the Aarhus Convention cap of up to £10,000 for the other side's costs if the application is unsuccessful. Any unused funds and the balance to £150,000 (the stretch target) will be used as necessary for this litigation.
Thanks so much for supporting this endeavour. Please donate what you can and share this page on social media, via WhatsApp and email to spread the word!
May 26, 2020
A great video to understand concerns re 5G and RFR generally
if you are interested in how 5G affects our bodies, this video is a must see. It is a brilliant over-view of the nature of our bodies and brings to life the reasons for concern about electromagnetic fields caused by telecoms equipment and infrastructure including mobiles, laptops, ipads, airpods, Bluetooth speakers and the like.
If you are not yet persuaded about concerns being expressed, do watch this as it is informative.
It explains in easy to understand terms the electrical nature of our bodies. It also highlights the dangers of holding mobile phones on our bodies as this breaches the terms of the phone companies which is buried deep in their terms and conditions.
I hope you enjoy it as much as I did - it is 1.5 hours so do put aside some time.
May 20, 2020
Funding update and international lawyers fighting 5G and RFR
We now have £38,933 on the crowdjustice site. This is a fantastic endeavour and I encourage you all to continue to spread the word far and wide.
I thought that it may interest you to know that yesterday, there was an inaugural online meeting of lawyers around the world, all working on fighting the roll out of 5G and the satellites which will dowse the earth with radiofrequency radiation. There were at least 30 lawyers in the session. There is a tremendous movement to help each other during these times.
There is a momentum which is building which is exciting and encouraging. We do need to get to £150,000 so please continue to help as much as you can.
May 17, 2020
Query about solicitor's costs
Some of you have asked why I am charging £200 per hour for the solicitor's work which needs to be done in this case. Others have suggested that I should reduce the charge more or donate my time at no cost to do the soliciting work on this case.
But any person thinking of taking action of this type will have to instruct one or more solicitors. It is unlikely that any solicitor suitable for this case will work at no cost and more likely that they will charge much more than £200 per hour plus VAT.
The £150,000 target is set as low as possible given that there will be barrister costs (we will have 2), expert witnesses, Claimant witnesses, preparation of evidence and, ultimately between 2 - 4 weeks in court with costs if the case is not successful. The government will have their own expert and other witnesses and a tremendous amount of work will have to be done in relation to their evidence and witness information. This case may take between 6 months and 2 years, depending on the court schedule, preparation time and delays in the system.
As I am a lawyer, I will be doing the solicitor’s work and have been transparent about what that may cost. I am doing it as cheaply as possible for the solicitor's work involved for a case such as this.
May 17, 2020
Our crowdfunding in the news
Do see the news article below referring to our crowdfunding appeal.
May 12, 2020
If you have problems donating to this page
I understand that some people are having trouble donating to this page.
If you are having trouble, please email email@example.com who will help you to trouble shoot the problem asap.
May 11, 2020
Video explaining the dangers of 5G
Some people have asked for a video explaining the dangers of 5G. Below is a video prepared by Professor Tom Butler on the Understanding of the Health Risks of Wireless Technologies (which includes 5G). I had organised a talk by Prof Butler which was postponed by the lockdown, but Prof Butler has kindly prepared his lecture which is below.
As many people are at home trying to work or do schoolwork, they will be using wifi for their laptops, ipads and mobiles in addition to the fields from telecoms masts. Electromagnetic radiation is created from the use of 3G, 4G and now 5G. This radiation, while invisible and unfelt, has damaging effects on humans, plants etc. The levels used by telecoms companies as approved by the government are too high and result in a number of physical and mental symptoms and illnesses.
Masts and antennae are proliferating across the country at an exponential rate. We are being bathed in an EMF soup.
Prof Butler explains why the current levels are too high and the impact on our health and that of our children and he questions how our government and Public Health England can deem these technologies to be safe. Do watch if you can.
May 10, 2020
Information for those new to the RFR/EMF issues
Some of you are new to the debate on the health impact of 5G. So, to help you I have set out below various links to documents which I and others have prepared which sets out the health issues of radiofrequency radiation issues generally which includes 5G.
I sent these documents to the Secretary of State for the UK Department of Health and Social Care and to Public Health England with a letter before action (which I have not included here). But these materials will help you to understand why this case is so important. If you are just becoming acquainted with these issues, do just read my note to start.
I am prepared to do all I can to help in this endeavour and to put my shoulder to the wheel, but I cannot do this without you. So, do continue to share this fundraising site far and wide.
Many thanks for your support which is deeply appreciated.
Schedules to my note
Article on clear evidence of risks to children from smartphones and wifi
Full Ecolog study for T Mobile (now owned by BT plc and part of EE) in 2000
Appendices to Ecolog study
NASA paper on harm from EMFs
There are no public comments on this case page.