Copy of Bev Bush's letter to Mr. Gieve.
13th April 2005
Dear Mr Gieve,
I write to you with very serious concerns about Tetra and I have noted that you have been in a position where you could stop this invasion of emissions from Airwave O2 Tetra into our homes.
At present, in close proximity to our home, is a mast that includes antennae and equipment from MMO2, T-mobile, Hutchison 3G and the awful Tetra (O2 Airwave) which we felt the ill effects very shortly after it went up.
We have suffered from many health problems already including vertigo, headaches, vision disturbance, pains in ligaments and tendons which we attribute to the mast and we have had persistent insomnia.
We have spent a lot of money of our own desperately trying to shield our homes from this non-ionising radiation and we are at the end of our tether.
We call for the removal of this mast to a more suitable location. If this is not done, we will wait for proof of the effects of mobile technology on health and property value, which we are sure will come to light in the future. We know there will be proof because we are the living proof of this great risky exposure of humans to a technology that has not been proven safe and should never been allowed to develop and establish itself in such a manner without first total proof of it’s safety.
I have kept records of this notice letter and Mast Sanity and S.C.R.A.M also have a copy.
If you are responsible for setting up Tetra , then it is on your conscience that since Tetra was set up in Ainsdale, the well being of my family and neighbours has been ruined and our enjoyment of our homes has gone.
We no longer like being in our home because we feel unsafe there.
The evidence against Tetra and proof that it is harmful to health is shown by many situations all over Britain where people are suffering because of it.
We are networking as a group and are aware of the misery Tetra is causing across the country.
We call for the removal of Tetra from our doorstep.
Mrs. Angela B. Bush
Copy of Bush's second letter to Mr. Gieve.
----- Original Message -----
Cc: john pugh ; JOHN PUGH ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2005 10:47 AM
Subject: In hope for a better future
13th April 2005
Dear Mr Gieve,
I would like you to know that since the introduction of the Tetra Airwave mast 70 yds from our home in Nov 2002 (when approval was made) we have never felt happy in our home. We do not want to live so close to something that has not been proven safe.
In the last year and a half my health has degenerated and this last month the pains in my joints are much worse to the point that they are affecting my ability to work or enjoy life with my family. I believe my immune system is weakened and all I know is that I was full of life and energy before the decision was made to place these masts so near to my home. I would like you to know that our seasonal holiday has been ruined by ill health, constant worry and conversation about whether we can find the means to move away and also we are financially stretched to the limit because we've spent all our savings on screening material to protect us from the noxious emmissions from your masts.
In the last few months our 17 year old son has been complaining of vertigo and I fear for him too as these were the first symptoms of effects of the mast that were apparent in me.
The recent Reflex report AGAIN confirms that microwave emmisssions mess up DNA strands.
I recently acquired a com metre from Powerwatch and discovered to my horror that for several years I have been sleeping with 2.5 volts running constantly through my brain, courtesy of MM02, Hutchinson 3g, T-mobile and in the last year, Tetra.
We have now spent all our savings and more on sheilding material and we're still getting readings from the mast.
I know that you are not concerned for my welfare or all those other poor souls who are being equally blasted by the emissions from an industry that puts profit before health and safety.
Don't tell me it's within thermal guidelines, it's the BIOLOGICAL effects that count.
Would any of you like to be the guinea pig instead ?
Once this danger is proven (and it will be) we will be asking those responsible and the mobile phone companies represented on Ainsdale Telephone exchange roof to account for the damage that has been done to our health and well being in the years that we have had to live under the shadow of your masts. That is, MMO2, Tetra Airwave, Hutchinson and T-mobile. Also, in adddition, further down the road there is Vodaphone 3G.
Our children have to live with this and also my daughter goes to school that has a mast on the roof. No-one should have this invasion into their home without power to do anything about it. This should not be allowed until we KNOW what the dangers to health are.
Now I know why in the last few years I have suffered from unexplained severe vertigo for 4 months, constant waking up every night at 4 am. Pains in my feet, sore eyes, degeneration of vision, thirst, (which has prompted the doctor to send me for tests for diabetes 3 times, only to find I haven't got diabetes!)
The readings in my sister's home are worse and she is very poorly indeed.
I'm absolutely determined that this injustice should not prevail.
Think about it and be prepared.
This is not a matter of trivia, it will become a severe problem eventually for us all and some sensible solutions to the siting of masts must be sought NOW.
I must stress that the anger expressed in this email is aimed at those who have a part in agreeing to place masts where they can cause harm to people.
Next year my family and many local people want the Tetra mast REMOVED from our door step and we will do everything within our power to fight for it's removal to an appropriate site away from our homes.
We will also fight to prevent any company from placing any more masts on the Ainsdale telephone exchange roof. We will not rest until you take away this Tetra mast which has not just ruined our well being but is ruining our lives !
Mr. P. Bush
Dear Sir John Gieve,
It is known throughout the UK that the Tetra system is dangerous, inefficient and has been introduced before proper research has been carried out. The police and emergency organisations and the population of this country have been put at serious risk, and in fact are guinea pigs in a dangerous experiment which will cost far more lives than it will save. The claims of efficiency and protection are blatant lies. Furthermore the introduction of Tetra was legally flawed.
The tender process was a sham and the EU censured the British Government for it actions. No other tenders but theTetra system were admitted. To hide that fact, the Government decided to put in place a procedure based on what other tenders might have been. This was called a ‘Should Cost’ model and it included a 17.5 % profit figure and a provision of £170 million against possible compensation. This compensation provision shows that the dangers, though totally ignored, were fully known even then. It could legitimately be argued therefore, that the whole Tetra debacle is illegal as well as criminally unsafe.
Despite this, the police are being blackmailed into using it even though hundreds of officers are suffering ill health. Two young and fit officers have died already from a very rare oesophagal cancer, located exactly in the position of the Tetra handset. The link is obvious and unavoidable. One officer who was told to take it home for practice, found his young son playing with the handset. The child tragically went into epileptic seizure. This was all the more appalling because his son had no history of epilepsy. There are numerous shocking cases like this, but officers have been threatened with dismissal if they speak out, so they keep silent to save their careers and pensions.
Ordinary people forced to live in the shadow of Tetra masts without their consent and often without their knowledge, are already suffering serious ill health, yet their concerns are being totally ignored. The Report on Tetra by M/W expert Barry Trower, which was commissioned by the Police Federation, warned of the dangers.
Omega see under: http://omega.twoday.net/stories/626200/
As a result, the Report was promptly suppressed and no action was taken. This blatant dereliction of duty of care to citizens and our emergency services, is scandalous, and many feel there should be a custodial sentence for those responsible, as it could be claimed that they are guilty of deliberate corporate manslaughter.
As part of the Telecom Industry / Government Alliance, Airwave consistently lies about the success and coverage of the Tetra roll-out. But mast campaigners nationwide, know the truth. They will not be voting for a government that is prepared to risk the lives of its citizens and especially its children, for sheer greed and profit. The Government must be forced to replace Tetra with the safer, more efficient and cheaper Tetrapole system, before it is too late and more lives are lost.
Jennifer Godschall Johnson
Below - Sir George Young's reply to my email in which I also hammered him for not staying or voting for the Spring and Stunell Bills and not signing up to Hesford's EDM. I said campaigners in his constituency would be considering his lack of support, and asked him to explain and put in writing whether he would be more active on our behalf when the next bill happens. He replied immediately - so think it might have had some effect - though wouldn't bank on it. Jenny
Many thanks for the email; I was a supporter of the Richard Spring Bill and stayed in the House of Commons a few Fridays ago, until it was clear that there would not be a vote on the Andrew Stunnell Bill. (I do not sign EDM's as, in my view, they have become a greatly devalued form of political currency with hundreds of them on the order paper.)
I have sent you details of my Party's proposals on the planning aspect of mobile phone masts, which represent an enormous improvement on the present regime and which I hope will command support from the manmy voters who regard this is a key issue in the current campaign.
Best wishes, George Young
FYI. I have just sent the following to my MP Sir George Young and I included the PR on the Welsh Children visiting the Chief Constable about the Tetra mast.
There is a deafening, conspiratorial silence on the Mast issue, and although it appears on all the manifestos - no politicians and none of the leaders are putting this up front on the election band wagon. So, I thought I would point this out to Sir G, and see if I get back a response. Would it be an idea if we all did something similar? To save time and effort, if anyone wants to use this letter, appropriately altered obviously, as a template - that's fine. Should this, or something along these lines, be sent to Charles Kennedy? If so, we could add something about Nokia Davies. What about tempting the lesser parties like UKIP to put this up front? It doesn't matter who they are as long as they start talking about it as an election issue. Those parties who aren't going to get elected have nothing to lose and everything to gain, by talking the issue up. Anyway, this is just a suggestion which I thought we could all use without too much effort. Jenny
Dear Sir George,
Thank you so much for replying to my email concerning Tetra and your comments on the Telecom Bills and EDM's.
I am still not sure whether you are personally convinced or not by the Industry / Government arguments of health and safety regarding Mobile Phone and Mast technology. Whatever your views, there is no doubt whatsoever that this is a major issue right accross the country, and it must be addressed.
Although included in the manifestos of all three main parties, so far we have heard no politician speak publicly on this subject as an election issue. Clearly all parties want the significant revenue that the Industry brings in, and are so much under the thumb of the Telecom Operators that they are willing to risk the health of the nation and abuse both human and democratic rights on their behalf. This is shameful politics.
I hope you will consider speaking to your leader Mr Howard, and advise him that arguably millions of middle-aged, middle class,law abiding people ie typical core Conservative voters, could be turning to the Liberal Democrats unless he takes a strong, public line on this, now. He has made Immigration and Asylum key issues, but there is a far greater risk to the safety and well being to the whole of society, right on our doorsteps. Of course he is not alone in cleverly keeping quiet about the fact that the public is being abused by Telecom Companies. If the Conservative Party really wants to stand out from the others, making this a front page priority could be the answer. A public promise in media interviews to radically change the system in favour of people rather than these bully boy multinationals, could bring the Party back into power, as you would gain at a single stroke, millions of votes across the UK.
People have every reason to fear for their health, and for the health of their children. Every day they see their enviroment blighted and damaged. They are outraged at the biased abuse of the Legal system, the Ombudsman and Planning policies. They know that their properties are being devalued, and now, they are having to withdraw their children from their schools. This is becoming a minefield - AND NO-ONE IS HONESTLY ADDRESSING IT. The pledges in manifestos can be broken unless they are made openly and with a great flourish of publicity. The Conservative Government should honour the rights of the people, not lie low and hope that this will go away - because I can assure you, Sir George - it won't.
We are affiliated to national campaigns on a global level - the truth is now an unstoppable tide, and all the money and power of the Telecoms and their umbilically connected governments, won't stop it. That is a promise. I sincerely hope you will do all in your power to pass this message on to Mr Howard and obtain his commitment to protect rather than abuse the people of this country.
I enclose below, a Mast Sanity Press Release, one of many, which you might find of interest.
Omega see under: http://omega.twoday.net/stories/627194/
Jennifer (Godschall Johnson)
The other part of the key. Please take part and encourage as many others as possible to take part. Your message need not be long, but should be firm, polite and incisive.
You are invited to communicate your displeasure at the introduction of Tetra which was largely under the control and guidance of Sir John Gieve, Permanent Secretary to the Home Office. You will know what you want him to hear from you.
He oversaw the introduction, tendering and its subsequent failure, a device called a 'should-cost' model to ensure that BT got the contract and then supervised the setting up of measures to ensure that the police would overcome their reluctance and accept Tetra.
Since then, he has been the responsible Home Office official who briefed Ministers like Hazel Blears, John Prescott, Mireille Levy, Caroline Flint et al and gave them information distorted by bias from the Home Office and O2 Airwave, as it now is, in order to continue to justify taking no action where the public, MPs, medical authorities and morally-sound scientists were expressing doubts about Tetra.
Tetra is causing problems. It is not proving to be as good as senior officials claim. People are experiencing hardship as a result of it being in their communities and this has caused 900 protest groups around the country to oppose Tetra by whatever means they can.
Sir John needs to be reminded of the responsibility he has and the continuing responsibility for upholding truth and fairness.
By expressing your views to him NOW you can be assured that in future the confidence he has in a deeply flawed system is shaken sufficiently for him to look hard at his own conscience.
If you were to write to him several times over the next 18 hours and copy your views to your MP, the Press will at last be made aware, as will those in the corridors of power that we, the people, are not to be suppressed by their indifference to us.
Send as many e-mails as you can to
with copies to your MP, using this formula:
Good luck and let us hope that future generations thank you for taking part in this activity.
Below please find a press release from Mast Sanity that deserves maximum exposure.
Yours very sincerely,
for Tetrawatch and us all.
In order to give you some background to the man, here is an extract from the ^4th Public Accounts Committee Report to the House of Commons.
I will add no comment but the full text is available online.
16. May I return to the cost of the Airwave project? It says in this report that local solutions would have been cheaper, although you would argue not as good. Do you have any idea what the extra cost was of the Airwave project versus a local procurement?
(Mr Gieve) The figure quoted in the report is £300 million, which was a comparison with a review conducted for ACPO. As you say, that would not have been a comparable system in terms of functionality.
17. Do you accept the £300 million figure? (Mr Gieve) Yes.
18. Would you not argue that it is quite a lot of money extra to pay for the improvements?
(Mr Gieve) It is a lot of money but we think that it is worth paying for the improvements.
19. Various police authorities thought it was not worth paying. According to paragraph 1.21 of the report several police authorities said they had anobligation to pursue best value and that this radio system did not meet their requirements under local best value. Were they wrong?
(Mr Gieve) They were right in thinking they could have bought something else more cheaply which would have met some of the requirements locally, but not all. You have to understand this was also part of the negotiation with the Home Office on funding this project.
20. Which you solved by bunging all the local police forces money specifically for the Airwave project. You resolved the project by stuffing their mouths with gold.
(Mr Gieve) We resolved it by saying we would pay the costs in the first three years.
21. One of the original ways in which you structured the deal was that local police authorities were going to buy the equipment separately and that was going to encourage them not to over-order their equipment. By paying them directly now and helping them with the initial startup costs are you not watering down that mechanism?
(Mr Gieve) I do not think so. The thinking behind leaving a competitive market in some of the equipment was to get some contestability within the market. If you have more than one person oVering terminals, that in itself would be the main constraint on the price rising. The second point is that we were not paying for the full cost of this. This is a 19-year contract and we oVered to pay £500 million in the three years of the last spending review, that is up to 2003–04. They still have a very big interest in the costs.
22. I am not a technology expert, so you will have to forgive me if I get this wrong. According to paragraph 1.14 you did conduct a review in 1998 of mobile phone technology developments. You tried to identify whether future developments in mobile phone technology would make the system you were buying obsolete. You concluded that was not the case. Do you still stand by that? Have you updated that review? Mobile phone technology has moved on a lot.
(Mr Gieve) This was the examination by Professor Benjamin who reported in 1999. We have not updated that since then. Equally, we have no new reason to think this is going to be outmoded technology.
23. To the complete layman, apart from the encryption, what is the diVerence between this system and giving all your police fficers mobile phones?
(Mr Asque) The difference between the technologies is that this technology was designed to meet a requirement which is subtly different from people using a mobile phone. This requirement for emergency services calls for a high level of integrity in the signal, but especially a very fast call setup. For example, making an emergency call is almost instant in this technology, whereas we all know with a mobile phone, where you have to dial through, it does take an awful long time to make that connection. The technology facilitates that very fast call setup. That is one of the main differences between the TETRA technology and the mobile phone technologies and this includes the ones which are developed now
[Jon Trickett Cont]
45. The fact is that something well over £100 million additional costs per annum are now being incurred so that police officers can speak to each other at best marginally more efficiently than they could in the past.
(Mr Gieve) No, “marginally” is not true.
46. Would you agree with my estimate that the comparative figure in terms of police officers is somewhere between an additional 2,500 to 3,500 police officers?
(Mr Gieve) I cannot do that in my head.
47. ffou have not done that calculation.
(Mr Gieve) I have the cost of a police officer somewhere in my papers. In any business you have to decide whether you put money into equipment or manpower and the police have to decide this on all sorts of fronts: about this equipment, about vehicles, about planes and everything else. ffou could make the same calculation about any of their equipment budgets. It is a matter of judgement. You say this is just so they can communicate across borders better. That is not the whole point. We hope Airwave is going to produce and we think it is, there are signs of that already, very much better communication within police force areas and that is what we are hearing from Lancashire and North Yorkshire. That is an improvement in efficiency.
48. I am going to ask you about that in a minute because some of the figures beggar belief and some of the defence which has been mounted in favour of this beggars belief. From my point of view the two priorities which communities I represent have are: the public being able to speak to the police, which is a very diffcult problem even on 999 calls, it is difficult for people to get through; secondly, the police being able to attend incidents which are occurring in villages and towns. I would have thought that the priority would have been for additional police officers. I see that you disagree with me in relation to that.
(Mr Gieve) No, I do not; we are employing more police officers. We have a record number already and we have plans to increase them.
49. The fact is that you could have employed even more police officers had you not decided to go down what appears to me to be a fairly disastrous track. May I move in a different direction for a second or two? When you found you only had a single bidder for this very costly system, one of the things which the department did was to try to calculate what it would cost for the public sector to provide a similar kind of equipment. I think you cooked the books. You added £ 170 million for the alleged risk which the private sector were taking and you were losing. You added a further £70 million for a contingency sum. Presumably £240 million was added to the cost of the public sector price in order to get it higher than the price which the private sector was bidding. Would you agree with the way in which I have expressed that?
(Mr Gieve) No.
(Mr Webb) We had the private sector comparator undertaken by an independent authority, in fact Charterhouse and Masons Communications undertook that on our behalf. They did that in line with the Treasury guideline for calculating these terms. All of the things included were part of the guideline.
50. I have a note in front of me saying that the risks which the private sector were allegedly taking if they were to be the supplier were valued at £170 million. It does not say that your consultant advised you on the contingency sum, it says that PITO decided to have this contingency sum, that is a further £70 million. You added a quarter of a million pounds to the price of a public sector provider. Is that figure correct?
(Mr Webb) Yes, those figures are correct.
51. Did your consultants, who themselves are in the private sector and may have an interest in trying to load the dice against the public sector, advise PITO to add £70 million for unknown contingencies? Was that the figure they recommended?
(Mr Webb) Yes, it was.
52. Did they identify the £ 170 million of risk which the private sector were allegedly taking and you were divesting yourselves of? Did they recommend that figure as well?
(Mr Webb) Yes, they did. Bearing in mind this was new technology, it had not been done before, it was the largest IT project ever undertaken by the Police Service, risks were identified, particularly in the area of the acquisition of sites, which we have already seen have materialised. There was significant risk in terms of the figures which were being used in this activity and that is why they were included.
53. With the Chairman’s permission, could we ask for some further information on how these prices which are one quarter of a billion pounds in two global sums like this were calculated? That information would be helpful.
(Mr Gieve) Yes; certainly .4
54. Part of this report reads as though you have written it, frankly. It does not read as a report which was written jointly by yourselves and the C&AG. Paragraph 1.23 says “PITO regards the system as an enabler that can reduce the frequency with which police officers have to return to the station and the length of time they spend on tasks such as making telephone calls or receiving briefings”. It goes on to say “. .. not all forces were convinced” of this. May I ask the C&AG what independent evaluation they made of these claims?
(Mr Colman) They are claims about the future and you will see that we word this paragraph very carefully to say these are PITO’s opinions as to benefits which should flow from the introduction of this system. The system was not in operation when we were doing this work, so it was not therefore possible to verify that these savings would be achieved.
55. Have we identified how much time police officers use making telephone calls which is now going to be saved by making radio calls? Somehow they are going to be more brief than the telephone calls the police are currently making. If PITO has made that claim, which sounds bizarre, since I cannot understand why a telephone call takes longer than a (Page ends)
Advice Line 08704 322 377
Press Office 01962 864 388
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 11/4/05
RICHARD OF CORNWALL LEADS TETRA RESISTANCE
The days of knights and dragons have returned to Cornwall with a vengeance as the county rises up against TETRA the controversial police communications network being rolled out by O2 Airwave.
Punters placing bets on which single issue candidate may triumph in next month’s general election should look no further than the Labour marginal of Falmouth and Camborne where fifty-four year old grandfather, Richard Smith is standing for the newly formed Removal of TETRA Masts in Cornwall party.
Mr. Smith decided to take action after O2 Airwave erected an unlawful TETRA mast in his community despite the application being turned down by Parish, District and County Council. The company’s record of flouting planning decisions and applying for permission retrospectively is well documented, as are the worrying symptoms experienced by people living near the masts. Problems with TETRA are not confined to the general public. Health and safety concerns have been expressed on behalf of police officers, who are forced to use the equipment.
The TETRA controversy is the latest element in the growing resistance to the relentless march of phone masts across the UK. National campaign organisation Mast Sanity, which already has around nine hundred groups registered, says their advice line receives hundreds of calls each month. People, desperately worried about the proliferation of 3G masts and TETRA, are shocked to discover just how much freedom from planning controls the telecom operators have and how few powers local communities have to resist them. “ The public and the police are being used as guinea pigs. The Government tells people that this untested technology is safe and refuses to sort out the planning chaos,” says Mast Sanity Advice Co-ordinator, Sandi Lawrence.
This is the first time that TETRA or phone masts have prompted a single-issue election stand. Whether it will be a case of “Mr. Smith Goes To Westminster” is a hard one to call. Richard Smith is hoping his stand will inspire others and hopes to pick up the floating votes. “It’s going to be a hard month, but I’m up for it – on your behalf and for all families. Let’s take them on,” he says. Whether or not this Cornish “knight” turns out to be a dragon-slayer, the sitting MP Candy Atherton defending a slender majority of four and a half thousand, would be ill-advised to toe the official Labour Party line on TETRA.
From Mast Network