I’m sure we all know what this really means, especially if they crop up everywhere - question is has anyone actually seen any of these yet?
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-11789373/Motorists-need-watch-blank-red-road-sign-know-means.html
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-11789373/Motorists-need-watch-blank-red-road-sign-know-means.html
This is Money
Motorists need to watch out for this blank red road sign
Drivers may be confused by a blank circular sign with a red border and unless you're a motorist who recently passed their theory test you might need a reminder.
🤔3
From Thanet Residents Association: Thank you to everyone who objected to the mast upgrade at Dane Valley, Thanet which was near several schools and dense residential area. Its shows what coordination and commitment from a few people can achieve. Just imagine what we could achieve if we all pulled together… no wonder the dark entities are crapping it!
👍8👏3❤2
Forwarded from Resurgence News
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
The ‘Lockdown files’ are a psycop to push us into the WHO Pandemic Treaty and STRIP us of freedoms!
The Telegraph has received funding from Bill Gates and is NOT to be trusted.
The REAL story should focus on the midazolam murders of many in NHS hospitals!
The Telegraph has received funding from Bill Gates and is NOT to be trusted.
The REAL story should focus on the midazolam murders of many in NHS hospitals!
👏15
This could scupper the UK telco 5G stranglehold. Please share and donate urgently. The skeleton argument is very strong and also leans on a new Supreme Court precedent in U.K.
5G MASTS - OBJECTOR RIGHTS
Neil was trained in town planning, and pursued a NHS career specialising in mental health care development. Since 20l9 he's worked with objectors to secure their rights in 5G mast planning cases.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/5g-objector-rights/
5G MASTS - OBJECTOR RIGHTS
Neil was trained in town planning, and pursued a NHS career specialising in mental health care development. Since 20l9 he's worked with objectors to secure their rights in 5G mast planning cases.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/5g-objector-rights/
CrowdJustice
5G MASTS - OBJECTOR RIGHTS
Neil was trained in town planning, and pursued a NHS career specialising in mental health care development. Since 20l9 he's worked with objectors to secure their rights in 5G mast planning cases.
👍5
I wonder what the stats are - would be very interesting to find out 🤔:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2023/03/06/most-britons-would-their-area-become-15-minute-nei
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/articles-reports/2023/03/06/most-britons-would-their-area-become-15-minute-nei
yougov.co.uk
Most Britons would like their area to become a ‘15-minute neighbourhood’ | YouGov
Banks and GP surgeries are the most desired amenities that are currently not available within 15 minutes walk for Britons
🤬13👍1
Councils are starting to have discussions about ‘net zero’ and ‘carbon neutral’ discussions - we must keep an eye out as to what they are saying and planning on doing: https://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/news/23367544.swindon-council-debate-net-zero-emission-plans-meeting/
👍5
Quick update:
The Smart City leaflet is nearly ready and video will be published to support the leaflet. The aim of the video is for people to learn more about what a Smart City is and how it will change their lives etc.
Another team are working on a Notice of liability to serve councillors for 15min cities rules..
Hopefully all will be posted on here in the next week or so✨
The Smart City leaflet is nearly ready and video will be published to support the leaflet. The aim of the video is for people to learn more about what a Smart City is and how it will change their lives etc.
Another team are working on a Notice of liability to serve councillors for 15min cities rules..
Hopefully all will be posted on here in the next week or so✨
🔥7👍4🤣1
Just in from Mansfield’s Team:
*
The Administrative Court of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court has handed down the Court’s judgment on our judicial review hearing. It is our duty to inform supporters that the Honourable Mrs Justice Stacey’s judgment was not in our favour. We need properly to review the judgment before offering detailed commentary and opinions.
We were granted permission on the basis that there is a potential failure in the duty to communicate risk*.
We were not permitted to challenge ‘contested scientific matters’, which amounted to a plethora of peer-reviewed science we presented that remained unexamined and unacknowledged. We were not able to challenge the Government’s interpretation of scientific evidence. We were not permitted to argue that the Government had failed to review scientific evidence. We were not permitted to argue that the Government had failed to undertake a proper assessment of 5G risks. Overall, we were not permitted to question the Government’s approach to regulation of 5G and we were not permitted to challenge the Government’s adoption of the ICNIRP guideline.
Our argument was that the Government was not entitled to tell the public there was no risk from 5G namely that it was safe (see judgment point 77 below). Adopting a ‘guideline’ which describes ‘expectations of safety’, whose authors confess their guideline is based on incomplete research of multiple possible health outcomes does not translate to ‘5G is safe’. The description ‘5G is safe’ even without the qualification ‘within the guideline’ was never employed in the ICNIRP’s literature upon which the Government claimed it had based its advice to the public.
‘5G is safe’ is blatantly at best a misleading oversimplification even when argued from the extremely narrow grounds we were granted when our peer-reviewed science and expert reports confirming biological and health effects remain in the wings.
The most the Government can say is that they do not know what the likelihood of harm is. Notably, but not exclusively, ICNIRP Appendix B on IMMUNE SYSTEM AND HAEMATOLOGY cannot possibly found a basis for assertions of safety for the many who are immunocompromised. Absence of confirmation of harms to immunity seen in animals due to research not yet scientifically conducted in humans is not proof of safety.
No account has been taken for ICNIRP’s exclusion of risks to the public with metal implants and medical devices, which amounts to setting aside a vast percentage of the population, notably all children with dental brackets and those with pacemakers.
To say 5G is safe, one would have to prove 5G is safe but the fact is that 5G has not been scientifically tested for safety in real life exposure conditions. Denying the evidence does not refute it or make it go away. Only very recently have two studies been published by Lennart Hardell et al, clearly evidencing harms to those living under 5G antennae placed on their apartment building, both published after our initial evidence bundle was prepared leaving these too remaining in the wings.
The Government’s core premise that 5G is fundamentally the same as 4G, presented by the defendants, was accepted by Judge Stacey which again reflected a dismissal of clear irrefutable facts which were well evidenced.
We argued that unchallenged evidence of serious harm to a range of individuals arising from and only from, presence within RF fields of electromagnetic radiation, especially 5G, is a risk that requires a public health warning.
The point of this case might be questioned by some given, after several applications and appeals, the increasing narrowness of the allowable legal arguments, but something of great importance has emerged.
*
The Administrative Court of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court has handed down the Court’s judgment on our judicial review hearing. It is our duty to inform supporters that the Honourable Mrs Justice Stacey’s judgment was not in our favour. We need properly to review the judgment before offering detailed commentary and opinions.
We were granted permission on the basis that there is a potential failure in the duty to communicate risk*.
We were not permitted to challenge ‘contested scientific matters’, which amounted to a plethora of peer-reviewed science we presented that remained unexamined and unacknowledged. We were not able to challenge the Government’s interpretation of scientific evidence. We were not permitted to argue that the Government had failed to review scientific evidence. We were not permitted to argue that the Government had failed to undertake a proper assessment of 5G risks. Overall, we were not permitted to question the Government’s approach to regulation of 5G and we were not permitted to challenge the Government’s adoption of the ICNIRP guideline.
Our argument was that the Government was not entitled to tell the public there was no risk from 5G namely that it was safe (see judgment point 77 below). Adopting a ‘guideline’ which describes ‘expectations of safety’, whose authors confess their guideline is based on incomplete research of multiple possible health outcomes does not translate to ‘5G is safe’. The description ‘5G is safe’ even without the qualification ‘within the guideline’ was never employed in the ICNIRP’s literature upon which the Government claimed it had based its advice to the public.
‘5G is safe’ is blatantly at best a misleading oversimplification even when argued from the extremely narrow grounds we were granted when our peer-reviewed science and expert reports confirming biological and health effects remain in the wings.
The most the Government can say is that they do not know what the likelihood of harm is. Notably, but not exclusively, ICNIRP Appendix B on IMMUNE SYSTEM AND HAEMATOLOGY cannot possibly found a basis for assertions of safety for the many who are immunocompromised. Absence of confirmation of harms to immunity seen in animals due to research not yet scientifically conducted in humans is not proof of safety.
No account has been taken for ICNIRP’s exclusion of risks to the public with metal implants and medical devices, which amounts to setting aside a vast percentage of the population, notably all children with dental brackets and those with pacemakers.
To say 5G is safe, one would have to prove 5G is safe but the fact is that 5G has not been scientifically tested for safety in real life exposure conditions. Denying the evidence does not refute it or make it go away. Only very recently have two studies been published by Lennart Hardell et al, clearly evidencing harms to those living under 5G antennae placed on their apartment building, both published after our initial evidence bundle was prepared leaving these too remaining in the wings.
The Government’s core premise that 5G is fundamentally the same as 4G, presented by the defendants, was accepted by Judge Stacey which again reflected a dismissal of clear irrefutable facts which were well evidenced.
We argued that unchallenged evidence of serious harm to a range of individuals arising from and only from, presence within RF fields of electromagnetic radiation, especially 5G, is a risk that requires a public health warning.
The point of this case might be questioned by some given, after several applications and appeals, the increasing narrowness of the allowable legal arguments, but something of great importance has emerged.
👍5👎1
Forwarded from Resurgence News
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Andrew Bridgen in parliament earlier today delivering a speech to an almost EMPTY hall, the rest scuttled off like RATS as he started speaking!
The figures he gives are astounding - all out of taxpayers' pockets.
DISGUSTING!
The figures he gives are astounding - all out of taxpayers' pockets.
DISGUSTING!
👍10❤1😢1
Forwarded from Doglerone
live stream can be found at https://www.facebook.com/LoquaciousLive and https://youtube.com/@loquaciouslive2023 7:30 Tonight
❤1👍1