Fighting local authorities and companies – a good model

Fighting local authorities and companies – a good model


This is correspondence with Bournemouth, England

Subject: RE: Response to 5G enquiry dated 24.07.19

Dear Councillor Ruth Spencer,


I thank you for your communication dated 29 July 2019 which to my email sent to Councillor Margaret Phipps. I am grateful for your time and involvement with this crucial subject. You will understand that my time on this matter is motivated out of my deep concerns for the serious health and surveillance risks presented by the roll-out of 5G. Our work which is of serious importance to the local population and elsewhere should be conducted in a spirit of ‘we are all in it together’ because, if we get this wrong we will see that incalculable harm is done to the wildlife, young children, the elderly, then to ourselves. This is likely to be of a serious nature that will attract huge compensation claims from the victims who are still alive, probably parallel to that experienced by the tobacco industry.


I previously asked the following questions with your reply in blue and I respond to your answers below points a-d:-


a) When were the dates that Vodaphone and EE received permission to radiate 5G onto the population of the Bournemouth Poole and Christchurch areas?

As mentioned in our previous correspondence, The Council cannot stop commercial operators from deploying 5G locally.

The key responsibility for the Council is as the statutory Local Planning Authority. Where a mobile network operator (MNO) requires planning approval from the Local Planning Authority for the installation of 5G antennae, as part of the planning application a certificate is required to confirm that the proposed equipment will be compliant with ICNIRP guidelines. Some small cells may be allowed under Permitted Development.

All Planning Applications may be viewed on the Council’s planning portals.

b) Please detail all BCP and previous independent Council communications where fair and reasonable attempts were made to seek informed Public consent for the local roll-out of 5G.

As per the response to (a)

c) Why was permission given to Vodaphone and EE prior to ICNIRP publication of their guidelines this coming Autumn 2019?

Please see my response to (a)

d) Please give the detail regarding which level of Government the local 5G roll-out to Vodaphone and EE was approved or agreed and the names of the individuals involved.

You may find this link to Ofcom helpful. This is the regulatory body which awards Mobile Network Operators spectrum that enables them to operate all wireless certificate is required to confirm that the proposed equipment will be compliant with ICNIRP guidelines. Some small cells may be allowed under Permitted Development. s communications networks.

Here OFCOM merely states, in summary, it issues licenses for the use of radio spectrum. It then rapidly distances OFCOM from planning considerations stating that planning devolves on to local. This is an example of why using links to answer questions is mostly futile.

Please refer to point (b), you did not answer the question or perhaps you can explain why you referred to your response in point (a)

I am no further deciphering or understanding the BCP Council powers to delay or prevent the roll-out of 5G. You state that ‘The Council cannot stop commercial operators from deploying 5G locally’. Then in the next paragraph, you state ‘Where a mobile network operator (MNO) requires planning approval from the Local Planning Authority for the installation of 5G as part of the planning application a certificate is required to confirm that the proposed equipment will be compliant with ICNIRP guidelines. Some small cells may be allowed under Permitted DevelopmentAre you stating that the planning application for installation of 5G antennas cannot be refused which is consistent with the statement ‘The Council cannot stop commercial operators from deploying 5G locally.’ Please allow me to ask a simple question free from the return of any cryptic links.

Currently, is the BCP empowered to put a moratorium on the roll-out of 5G? a yes or no will suffice. Before you answer please take into consideration the following:-

1) You ended your email with the following: Regarding your question on why BCP Council is not joining the 5G moratorium on 5G, The Council is satisfied that it is adhering to its responsibility as the Local Planning Authority by following Planning Policy. Public Health England takes the lead on all health matters relating to 5G. You can contact them here

Your stated reason for not joining the 5G moratorium partly seems to be because of your satisfaction with PHE, who you say take the lead in health matters. Council satisfaction with the PHE suggests you have a choice by having an option to be dissatisfied, this is a choice you wouldn’t have if you couldn’t stop commercial operators from deploying 5G locally. I do note your reference to PHE as a matter of record. Please note that PHE/ICNIRP have been discredited for their reliance on out of date information, which means that any reliance on them is negligent, given that Councillors are also on notice of the dangers of 5G radiation. In the grant of any approval as part of the planning process is the Council not suppose to exercise probity and follow guidelines which include issues of public health and pollution.

2) Please visit the following website of the ‘SomersetLive’ dated 15 July 2019

The heading and exert as follows:-

Glastonbury Town Council wants help to understand 5G after “historic” decision to oppose roll-out……….

Town Council is calling on residents to help them understand the implications of 5G technology.

The council wants to form a working group of individuals with an interest or expertise in 5G, who can work with it to identify the advantages and disadvantages of the technology.

Last month the introduction of 5G in the town was opposed by councillors due to the lack of knowledge regarding the associated health risks.

At the Glastonbury Town Council meeting on Tuesday, June 11, a motion proposed by to protect the public and environment from exposure to harm, councillor Mike Smyth and seconded by councillor Jon Cousins read: “This council has a social responsibility albeit unpredictable in the current state of scientific knowledge, and therefore opposes the roll-out of 5G in the Parish of Glastonbury – based on the precautionary principle – until further information is revealed from a newly convened 5G advisory committee.”

The Glastonbury Councillors clearly saw that there was scope to oppose 5G on safety grounds.

I call upon the BCP Council to also exercise social responsibility and oppose the 5G roll-out within the spirit of the precautionary principle hence ensuring protection to the local public from exposure to harm. This should be executed on the basis of an overwhelming amount of qualified scientific opinion and evidence throughout the World by those on the payroll of captive Government agencies and insiders.


The following paragraph can be found on your BCP Council website.

Public Health England (PHE) continues to monitor the health-related evidence applicable to radio waves, including in relation to and is committed to updating its advice as required. In 2018 ICNIRP produced new draft guidelines for public consultation and final guidelines are anticipated to be published in the autumn of 2019’

We note that the ICNIRP have not yet published their new and final draft guidelines and it is understood that PHE consistently these guidelines. I also understand that you have stated unambiguously that Vodaphone and EE will be rolling out 5G later this year and early next year in the BCParea. Has the BCP Council passed their planning application and issued a certificate prior to the final guidelines from the ICNIRP being issued? As I interpret this to be the case then it must become a matter of record for future reference.

Before openly supporting and encouraging the roll-out of 5G I would urge you to consider the following in the light of what has been previously stated.

Will you consider yourself to be in breach of the Nuremberg code if you commence irradiating 5G, as you state, instigating in the LansdowneTestbed exercise also known as the Lansdowne project. Remember after World War Two of the common responsibility those being prosecuted were ‘I was only following orders’ I understand they were all convicted. In respect to the Lansdowne Testbed area can you confirm that it will be 5G that is rolled out in your experiment. I ask because I have read that 5G initially will be a marketing tool and what we will receive is termed beamforming (more intense 4G)from 4G Antennas. Please note I understand that 5G will need separate antennas. You can focus more on this point at the following website:- This link will also give information about a safe alternative to 5G that you must consider if you have the welfare of your constituents as your main priority. I think I speak on behalf of all of us who have concerns about 5G and associated ‘internet of things’ when I say that we all want and prosperity however there is no progress in harmful products that have not stood up to comprehensive scrutiny from independent sources. Given the health consequences to all biological forms, this would be economic folly, lost working days owing to health issues would be one of the countless examples and simply because you feel you may want to please your own masters who in turn think and fear a lost opportunity. Would this be a reason to fly blind with so many probable negative consequences at stake? Is it good enough for Councillors to meekly surrender to what they believe to be inevitable and not be active in protecting the health of the local population by making a stand on our behalf to delay the 5G roll-out pending sufficient informed information and consent? This has been done in Glastonbury and Frome so give me a reason why BCP Councillors cannot vote accordingly especially when alternatives are offered.

All the public in due course will be fully informed of the dangers attributed to 5G and associated EMF devices as the awareness will rise exponentially in the near future. Arguably this will increase the stress levels amongst the public in the knowledge of being irradiated. This brings into question the possibility that the exposure to 5G by the placement of small cells every hundred metres or so could be classed as a criminal or civil assault. This could mean that the public may be within the law have a right to defend themselves which means removing, blocking or jamming the offending culprit. Article 1 of the First Protocol Protection of property which entitles an individual to peaceful enjoyment of their property, for which EMF emissions from public land may be argued to interfere with that peaceful enjoyment. Looking at the provisions of S6 of the HRA 1998 seems to provide no exemption to the Council in such circumstances

If it does become the case that 5G emissions are causing health concerns through sickness and or fatalities, the Council may become liable under the Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 and this seems to provide no exemption to the Council in such circumstances.

Contamination of my home with 5G may cause damage to my home if it becomes a health risk to me and thus render my home uninhabitable. Irradiating me with wireless non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation against my consent would be an application of force against my person and cause fear of bodily injury and could be classed as a civil trespass and/or a criminal assault.

Any level of exposure of man-made non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation can be diagnosed by my medical practitioner as an adverse health effect pursuant to the WHO’s International Classification of Diseases ICD-10, code W90 thus rendering any safety limit as set by the government safety standards obsolete as to protecting my health. As needed, I may see my doctor for advice on the 5G issue.

If 5G technology is deployed within your constituency, I expect that you as an elected representative will exercise due diligence to certify that all parties deploying 5G technologies have sufficient insurance cover to compensate for damage or harm caused by the emission of wireless non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation. Please note that this could be a since underwriters such as Lloyds of London do not insure for such harm and damage.

I urge you, as an elected official of my local Council, to act in the public interest by addressing the potential cumulative harms of densification (the crowding of small cells into a limited area to enable 5G) and insisting that public safety regulatory authorities need to prove that such densification of 5G technology is safe and that any deployment of 5G, Artificial Intelligence (AI), and/or the Internet of Things (IoT), is regulated appropriately to ensure that the national security and the safety and privacy of the public and myself is not compromised.

You need to protect the public from other harmful wireless technologies such as Wi-Fi in schools, “smart” meters on dwellings, and the like, and to replace those technologies with safe and efficient wired technologies, such as Ethernet and/or fibre optics, as the end-nodes of internet delivery systems to dwellings, schools and commercial buildings. Forward-thinking cities are already doing this.

I implore you, as an elected official of my local Council, to act in the public interest by protecting the public and myself from being persecuted by the passing of laws that restrict the Courts, law enforcement agencies, municipal councils and local governments from taking action to protect the public from harm to health and damage, caused by 5G and other wireless technologies.

I am genuinely concerned for your welfare, the general public and mine, and this is a situation of the utmost urgency. As I have studied the relevant facts and am thus aware of the danger, I experience fear and I take the risk of harm and damage to me, very seriously.

I implore you as a civic leader, and as an elected representative to become educated on this important topic, and show me by your decisions, actions and omissions that you are taking precautionary steps to address the risk of harm to me and all the people within your constituency.

As an elected official you are deemed accountable if you do not take appropriate action to attempt to abate, or prevent such harm, to me or the public. Therefore you attract liability in either the civil or criminal jurisdiction.

As awareness of the potential harm of 5G irradiation increases people are rising up and I implore you to take leadership and be a champion for the health and safety of all of us. If you do, many voters, legislators and I will wholeheartedly support and campaign for you.

Kind regards

Nick Greenwood

Comments are closed.