@raynardwilson hey @Marsh I really want to come on your show and talk about this ^^^ - the whole #legalactionagainst5g thing has been bonkers from the get go.

This is the attempt to force the British government to ban the deployment of #5G by the mighty power of judicial review.

The thorough defeat in court was not sufficient to cause the fine people at #legalactionagainst5g to abandon their futile efforts.

Remember, they had thousands in the bank, a famous barrister willing to represent them and a large community of mainly menopausal women on Facebook who were all convinced that their symptoms were actually caused by #5G .

Perhaps buoyed by "The Power of Positive Thinking", our legal friends appealed the refusal. This time before the court of the Honerable Mrs Justice Lang.

On 28th October 2021, this appeal was also refused:

https://mctoon27.files.wordpress.com/2022/12/co011112021-order-28.10.21.pdf

Something I don't understand, and perhaps an expert on #JudicialReview can help me here:

The judge refuses permission to apply for a Judicial Review but permits the introduction of a second witness statement. I'm not sufficiently versed in the law to understand why you might permit one but not the other. This and many other things remain ineffable mysteries to me.

The witnesses they were trying to introduce were Lorna Hackett and Suzanne Openshaw. This is odd because Lorna Hackett was, at the time, the main lawyer managing the case. Legal Action against 5G's lawyer was seeking to become a witness in her own case.

We already know what she allegedly witnessed - in the statement filed a few months earlier, Hacket claims to have been stricken by some deadly electromagnetic ray while in Mrs Rosalyn Rock's back garden.

It's the kind of gonzo-lawyering that even Hunter S. Thompson could never have imagined.

Once again, I am drawn towards the insanity of #legalactionagainst5g - you may remember that they are the activist group with a case in the administrative court right now. They are promising to shut down #5G in the UK with a #JudicialReview.

If that sounds implausible to you, that is because it is. It also sounded implausible to the Honourable Mrs Justice Foster (DBE), who refused the application for JR on the 6th of July 2021.

https://mctoon27.files.wordpress.com/2022/12/af-order-re-angell-churchill-and-others-co11112021.pdf

Her ruling is brief, cogent and a moment of sanity in this seemingly neverending case. Here's what the judge found:

* The claimants, in this case, are just upset that the government doesn't accept their interpretation of science. The government is not obliged to consider the opinions of random people. It is entitled to seek the opinion of expert agencies such as Public Health England.

* Random public members don't get to tell the government which experts to consult.

* It's not the court's job to overturn the opinion of technical experts.

* The claimants didn't argue why 5G should be treated differently from 4G, which is perfectly safe.

* Oh, and the administrative court already decided that the government is OK to deploy 5G thanks to a case called R Watts vs Secretary of State. That case was completely crazy too!

Quite a smackdown for Lorna Hackett, Philip Rule and Michael Mansfield QC. Did they consider this a sobering reminder that one cannot litigate the laws of physics? Of course, they didn't!

Now, the story of #legalactionagainst5g must continue: We are up to 6th July 2021 when the government filed this document - summary grounds for defence.

It really does make a mockery of the utter nonsense our the anti #5G campaigners were complaining about:

https://mctoon27.files.wordpress.com/2022/12/co11112021-summary-grounds-of-defence.pdf?force_download=true

Here are some of the main points:

* The claimants didn't bring this action promptly. The 5G roll-out had begun in 2020, why wait until 2020 to bring an action if they were so sure it was dangerous?

* There isn't any evidence that non-ionizing radiation is harmful.

* The claimants relied on expert evidence from individuals who were not remotely experts (Butler and Tresseder).

* The claimants claim to be suffering from a disease (EHS), that is entirely fictional or delusional.

* The government is entitled to rely on evidence provided by expert agencies such as ICNIRP, PHE (Public Health England), and is not obliged to consider evidence sent in by random members of the public.

In short, the government defence argues that nothing that Legal Action against 5G are claiming is "arguable", which is judicial review speak to say that absolutely nothing in their bundle passes the excessively low hurdle to bring a matter to judicial review.

It's another way of saying that their case is utterly bonkers, so out there as not to be even worth the court's time.

They point out that the administrative court had decided a similar case only a few months earlier. #RWatts (R Watts vs Secretary of State).

We can cover that in some future toots. In my next message on this subject we will cover the Administrative courts first major judgement in this matter.

One more update about #legalactionagainst5g - I want to reference somebody who has been doing excellent work covering this case; Michael Toon runs a Youtube Channel and blog that covers the bizarre world of internet conspiracism.

https://mctoon.net/aa5g/

He's prepared a case history from inception to the present day. You might also enjoy some of his video coverage of the story; this one is a great primer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2OfaWne0-w&t=290s

One more dose of #legalactionagainst5g for today:

This document was enclosed along with Legal Action Against 5G's letter to the government demanding an end to 5G:

https://www.scribd.com/document/615033882/Prof-Tom-Butler-Submission-on-5G

It's Professor Tom Butler's "A Review of the Health Risks of Radiofrequency Radiation Employed in 5G Technologyand the Implications for UK Policymaking"

Oddly enough, for a document purporting to be about health risks and UK policy, the author that the campaign selected was an expert in neither of these subjects.

Butler is a professor of Business IT at Cork University. His extensive list of publications mainly seems to cover subjects related to business software management and issues that affect IT teams of corporations.

Butler's document is an exercise in cherry-picking. I will dissect some of this claims in a later post.

Butler links 5G to just about every human illness: Cancer, foetal abnormalities, immunological disorders, altzheimer's disease. There seems to be almost nothing that Butler does not link to #5G.

Butler makes a special mention of a disease which will become important later in this story; EHS - Electrohypersensitivity, sometimes also called Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity.

Butler describes this disease as "Medically Recognised", but fails to mention that the WHO has recognized it as a form of nocebo-effect delusion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity

It's important though that he mentions this: Just about everybody involved in the case (including the lawyer Lorna Hackett) believes that they are sufferers of this disorder.

That will have some whacky consequences in the next parts of this story.

I want to talk about something completely crazy; the Legal Action against 5G court case that's currently bubbling through the Administrative Court. I've been following this case since it began in early 2020.

This case is an attempt to litigate against the scientific consensus about electromagnetic radiation safety; It's an attempt to use the courts to force the government to accept a very fringe minority view as if it were fact.

And I am sure you will not be surprised to learn it has been an utter failure to this date. But this failure has raised almost £200k in crowdfunding. It has also engaged the services of one of the UK's most prominent barristers.

Yes, this case is a criminal waste of money. To defend this farrago of nonsense, the government has engaged real lawyers for hundreds of hours to prove what is self-evidently true in a court. This has been a colossal waste of money.

Anybody with a high-school level of scientific education should have been able to predict the outcome of this case.

#legalactionagainst5g