Legal warning over phone mast decisions
Well this is interesting, the England's Parliamentary Party. Does anyone know anything about them?
Sandi
Legal warning over phone mast decisions
Jun 2 2006
Chester Chronicle
A POLITICAL group has warned councillors they could be indicted for corporate manslaughter.
England's Parliamentary Party (EPP) collaborated with a pressure group called Masts Away from Schools Homes and Hospitals (MASHH), in a letter to the leader of Chester City Council, Paul Roberts (Lib Dem, Farndon).
The correspondence said if anyone was found to have been killed by radiation from a phone mast, criminal charges could be brought.
It said: 'England's Parliamentary Party is totally opposed to the location of these masts in populated areas and, hereby, formally puts you on notice that you may, as part of the decision-making process, be indicted for corporate manslaughter should a fatality occur resulting from illness deemed to be attributable to the emissions from these masts.
'You owe a duty of care to the people within the boundaries of this council and your decisions with regard to the location of telecommunications masts could breach that duty of care.
'As a result of that breach, should it cause a person's death, the law of negligence must be applied; if so, whether that breach of duty is so bad as to amount, when viewed objectively, to gross negligence, it will warrant a criminal conviction.'
Malcolm Harle, of MASHH, said his group was formed after residents fought against the siting of a mast in Westminster Park, close to a nursery.
He said: 'We are very concerned with the health implications but the Government at national and local level aren't listening. We realised pretty early on we needed political help.'
Cllr Roberts said: 'They are making some disgraceful threats without a shred of legal justification. In any planning decision, we listen to the best advice from Government and other professionals and we will always follow that advice.'
--------
MASHH see http://www.mashh.com
In a toxicological sense the environmental pollution by electromagnetic fields is cause (trigger and or part of chains of events) of damage to health. The chains of events would not happen if the link caused directly and or indirectly by the effects of the electromagnetic fields to the human being as a whole would lack. The health damage can be reversible (example: headache from a mobile phone) and irreversible (example: changes of DNA) can lead to or contribute to death (examples: Ena Bambrough in Newcastle (2001), suicides (known to have happened in France), cancer (changes of DNA)). In these cases indeed the operators of wireless systems, the owners of the systems, the owners of premises, the authorities are responsible. They consciously have added to the environmental pollution by electromagnetic fields, causing the link. They had information and could have decided to prevent the pollution by choosing the alternative of a wired system.
Frans
Sandi
Legal warning over phone mast decisions
Jun 2 2006
Chester Chronicle
A POLITICAL group has warned councillors they could be indicted for corporate manslaughter.
England's Parliamentary Party (EPP) collaborated with a pressure group called Masts Away from Schools Homes and Hospitals (MASHH), in a letter to the leader of Chester City Council, Paul Roberts (Lib Dem, Farndon).
The correspondence said if anyone was found to have been killed by radiation from a phone mast, criminal charges could be brought.
It said: 'England's Parliamentary Party is totally opposed to the location of these masts in populated areas and, hereby, formally puts you on notice that you may, as part of the decision-making process, be indicted for corporate manslaughter should a fatality occur resulting from illness deemed to be attributable to the emissions from these masts.
'You owe a duty of care to the people within the boundaries of this council and your decisions with regard to the location of telecommunications masts could breach that duty of care.
'As a result of that breach, should it cause a person's death, the law of negligence must be applied; if so, whether that breach of duty is so bad as to amount, when viewed objectively, to gross negligence, it will warrant a criminal conviction.'
Malcolm Harle, of MASHH, said his group was formed after residents fought against the siting of a mast in Westminster Park, close to a nursery.
He said: 'We are very concerned with the health implications but the Government at national and local level aren't listening. We realised pretty early on we needed political help.'
Cllr Roberts said: 'They are making some disgraceful threats without a shred of legal justification. In any planning decision, we listen to the best advice from Government and other professionals and we will always follow that advice.'
--------
MASHH see http://www.mashh.com
In a toxicological sense the environmental pollution by electromagnetic fields is cause (trigger and or part of chains of events) of damage to health. The chains of events would not happen if the link caused directly and or indirectly by the effects of the electromagnetic fields to the human being as a whole would lack. The health damage can be reversible (example: headache from a mobile phone) and irreversible (example: changes of DNA) can lead to or contribute to death (examples: Ena Bambrough in Newcastle (2001), suicides (known to have happened in France), cancer (changes of DNA)). In these cases indeed the operators of wireless systems, the owners of the systems, the owners of premises, the authorities are responsible. They consciously have added to the environmental pollution by electromagnetic fields, causing the link. They had information and could have decided to prevent the pollution by choosing the alternative of a wired system.
Frans
rudkla - 3. Jun, 22:42
