BARBARA'S BOUND PROTEST HALTS PHONE MAST WORK
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=132683&command=displayContent&sourceNode=132377&contentPK=12998691
In this story councellor John Mugglestone says all has been done to oppose the mast and a case against 3 would have been lost for sure. Not true. Rio 1992 and art. 174 European Treaty say that if there are strong indications (even if scientific proof is not 100%) that environmental pollution threatens health, then officials HAVE TO take measures to reduce the risks. There are strong indications (all the epdidemiologica research finds negative health effects for those in the vicinity of masts - see http://www.stopumts.nl and there is a huge body of evidence by testimonials; half of the laboratory research shows negative effects on health, so the only question is why the other half does not represent true life, what are the missing parameters) that the environmental pollution by radiofrequency radiation has negative effects on health. There is no jurisprudence yet based on this principle anchored in international law, except for one case in Haaksbergen, The Netherlands. There, in summary proceedings the case against Vodafone was won and now the long procedure has started.
Frans
--------
All credit to mother-of-two Barbara Potter who tied herself to the base station of a mast in Nether Hall Road, Leicester, before workmen arrived with the mast on a truck. Despite a petition of 78 signatures against the mast, a spokesman for 3, is reported to warn that ultimately, the mast would go up as they have planning permission for that site.
This is an act of honour from a brave woman on a crusade against this bullying approach of forcing mast installations on people who do not want them in their area.
--------
While I acknowledge the honour and bravery of this woman and totally understand her motivation, I do worry that this approach will ultimately achieve nothing, or that local people might find themselves in trouble with the law. Operators and their lawyers have no regard for ordinary people.
Her community should contact the local MP and flood him/her with letters asking for changes in planning procedures. It is the Government they need to put pressure on, not the council. This Government is putting pressure on councils to pass these applications by threatening to withhold part of the financial budget for councils who refuse too many applications which are overturned at appeal. What would communites do if essential services were cut or council tax was increased? Protest? Having said that, communites could try to talk to elected councillors to see if it is possible to work together and find a way to keep these masts at bay, or they could contact Mast Sanity for advice on how to object to planning applications now it is so restricted. Some communities are also staging peaceful protests at regular intervals to make the media, and therefore MPs and Government, aware of their feelings about masts in communities.
To me it does not seem fair that those who are protecting their families or their basic human rights should end up in trouble with the law, so I have presented the lawful ways to try to achieve what they want.
Sandi
In this story councellor John Mugglestone says all has been done to oppose the mast and a case against 3 would have been lost for sure. Not true. Rio 1992 and art. 174 European Treaty say that if there are strong indications (even if scientific proof is not 100%) that environmental pollution threatens health, then officials HAVE TO take measures to reduce the risks. There are strong indications (all the epdidemiologica research finds negative health effects for those in the vicinity of masts - see http://www.stopumts.nl and there is a huge body of evidence by testimonials; half of the laboratory research shows negative effects on health, so the only question is why the other half does not represent true life, what are the missing parameters) that the environmental pollution by radiofrequency radiation has negative effects on health. There is no jurisprudence yet based on this principle anchored in international law, except for one case in Haaksbergen, The Netherlands. There, in summary proceedings the case against Vodafone was won and now the long procedure has started.
Frans
--------
All credit to mother-of-two Barbara Potter who tied herself to the base station of a mast in Nether Hall Road, Leicester, before workmen arrived with the mast on a truck. Despite a petition of 78 signatures against the mast, a spokesman for 3, is reported to warn that ultimately, the mast would go up as they have planning permission for that site.
This is an act of honour from a brave woman on a crusade against this bullying approach of forcing mast installations on people who do not want them in their area.
--------
While I acknowledge the honour and bravery of this woman and totally understand her motivation, I do worry that this approach will ultimately achieve nothing, or that local people might find themselves in trouble with the law. Operators and their lawyers have no regard for ordinary people.
Her community should contact the local MP and flood him/her with letters asking for changes in planning procedures. It is the Government they need to put pressure on, not the council. This Government is putting pressure on councils to pass these applications by threatening to withhold part of the financial budget for councils who refuse too many applications which are overturned at appeal. What would communites do if essential services were cut or council tax was increased? Protest? Having said that, communites could try to talk to elected councillors to see if it is possible to work together and find a way to keep these masts at bay, or they could contact Mast Sanity for advice on how to object to planning applications now it is so restricted. Some communities are also staging peaceful protests at regular intervals to make the media, and therefore MPs and Government, aware of their feelings about masts in communities.
To me it does not seem fair that those who are protecting their families or their basic human rights should end up in trouble with the law, so I have presented the lawful ways to try to achieve what they want.
Sandi
Starmail - 13. Aug, 11:33
