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.