Update on 5G Court Case Filed Against UK Gov’t

By B.N. Frank

Activist Post

Opposition to 5G has been and continues to be worldwide due to numerous issues associated with the controversial technology.  This has limited, slowed, and/or stopped deployment, including near airports in the U.S. (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) and India (see 1, 2) due to dangerous interference issues with aviation equipment.  Additionally, since 2017, doctors and scientists have been asking for moratoriums on Earth and in space due to biological and environmental health risks (see 1, 2, 3, 4) and the majority of scientists oppose deployment.  Since 2018 there have been reports of people and animals experiencing symptoms and illnesses after it was activated (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).  In 2019, telecom executives gave U.S. congressional testimony that they had NO independent scientific evidence that 5G is safe.  Some researchers have also warned that activation may be contributing to COVID-19 infections as well as hundreds of thousands if not millions of bird deaths.  After 3 years, UK activists who filed a lawsuit against the government in re 5G deployment have finally had their days in court.

From RF Info:

Action against 5G hearing February 2023

Official report from AA5G: link TBC

The Judicial Review was finally heard this week, after 3 years of hard work. The courtroom had to be changed due to the high number of public in attendance. It was an amazing turnout of maybe 60-70 public on both days. There was not one spare seat in Court 73. Notwithstanding any result, huge thanks must go to the claimants Karen and Vicky for 3 years of stirling work, courage and fortitude, and to the legal team for staying the course and rising to the difficult challenge.

The original grounds presented for Judicial Review were initially rejected, but on appeal last year two grounds were permitted to proceed to hearing. The legal case background can be seen here.

There are differing opinions, lay and expert, about how the case was constructed and the particular points of focus, but setting these aside we can report as follows:

The two grounds permitted to proceed are:

1. The failure to provide adequate or effective information to the public about the risks and how, if it be possible, it might be possible for individuals to avoid or minimise the risks;

2. (a) The failure to provide adequate and sufficient reasons for not establishing 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; and/or (b) failure to meet the requirements of transparency and openness required of a public body.

These grounds advance a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998 by omissions and failings in violation of the positive obligations to protect human life, health and dignity, required to be met by Articles 2, 3 and/or 8 of the European Convention on Human ia They were rebuked by the Judge for a lack of procedural rigour.

[…]

Via https://www.activistpost.com/2023/02/update-on-5g-court-case-filed-against-uk-govt.html