Are you aware that in  April 2017, the Digital Economy Bill received Royal Assent from both Houses of Parliament, and became the Digital Economy Act?

 Amongst other things, the Digital Economy Act reformed the ‘electronic communications code’ by introducing a range of measures to make it easier for network operators to rollout infrastructure (such as phone masts, exchanges and cabinets) on public and private land. 

The reforms to the electronic communications code in the Digital Economy Act are wide ranging and are of particular significance for network operators, landowners and occupiers. 

 Statement on the reformed Electronic Communications Code.

The Code regulates the legal relationship between landowners/occupiers and Code Operators, conferring rights on certain providers of electronic communications networks and systems of conduits (designated by Ofcom as ‘Code Operators’) to install and maintain electronic communications apparatus (including masts, exchanges, cabinets and cables) on public land. The Code also enables operators to apply for a court order to install and maintain apparatus on private land, if they have been unable to reach agreement with the landowner/occupier. 

A bit of background 

At the start of 2015, the Coalition Government tabled amendments to the Infrastructure Bill which, had they been enacted, would have included substantive reforms to the Code10 based on the Law Commission recommendations. These amendments were subsequently withdrawn in the face of stakeholder concerns, to allow further consultation and research to take place. DCMS subsequently published its own Consultation Document in February 2015. 

 The formal consultation period ran for 9 weeks ending on 30 April 2015.

 Following this, DCMS undertook further consultation with all stakeholders, and commissioned independent economic research into the impact of a range of reform options in the market. 

 In May 2016, the Government announced that the Code would be reformed in the forthcoming Digital Economy Bill, “offering major reforms to the rights that communications providers have to access land.”

Ofcom worked with a wide spectrum of stakeholders in developing its initial draft of the Code of Practice. This included representatives from the fixed and mobile operator community, communications infrastructure providers and representatives from the National Farmers Union (NFU), the Country Land & Business Association (CLA), the British Property Federation (BPF) and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers (CAAV).

 On 28 July 2016 Ofcom held an initial scoping meeting with stakeholders setting out its approach to the Code of Practice drafting process, and invited different stakeholder communities to nominate representatives to serve on a Code of Practice Drafting Group. The membership of this group was subsequently confirmed in September 2016. It was composed of eight specialist practitioners, representing landowners, communications network operators and infrastructure providers.

Was anyone consulted about this process? 

Did any members of the lay public  have a say in this process?

So the British Property Federation spoke on behalf of the public without so much as a consultation? 

This process involved some of the companies  who have been instrumental in pushing this Smart city/5G agenda such as Ariqiva who had control of what was stated in the final documents, such as :Arqiva further stated that drawings should only be provided by exception, where the particular site circumstances necessitate greater control, otherwise there was a risk of undermining the Government’s objective to facilitate future rollout.

Arqiva have even had influence on the wording to protect themselves by coercing Ofcom to change “must” to “should” and “shall” to “ought”.  In other words, giving them an option rather than an obligation.

Ofcom Statement

Under the ECC, Ofcom can grant powers to certain companies to allow them to roll out communications infrastructure, such as phone masts, more easily. Companies with these powers are able to construct and maintain electronic communications equipment on public land, and apply to a court for permission to carry out work on private land if agreement cannot be reached with the landowner.

The code itself remains non-binding (i.e. there is no statutory obligation on operators or landowners to comply with its provisions)


Statement issued by MobileUK, the Country Land and Business Association, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and DCMS


Industry, the landowner community, representative bodies and Government have come together to reaffirm commitments to the ECC and the Ofcom Code of Practice.

MobileUK, the Country Land and Business Association, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport have issued a joint statement:

The reformed Electronic Communications Code (ECC) came into force in December 2017 with the aim of boosting coverage and connectivity across the UK, through a package of measures which Government expects to deliver significant cost reductions to the sector, while ensuring that landowners receive a fair payment for allowing their land to be used.

Since the new legislation was introduced, there have been problems with negotiations progressing. While some initial uncertainty is to be expected, Government, regulators, the telecoms sector, independent infrastructure providers and the landowner community, recognise the importance of all parties working collaboratively together, both during this transition period and moving forwards.

We are therefore coming together to reaffirm the commitments made to each other in Ofcom’s Code of Practice, and to reiterate our support for the Government’s ambition to be a leading global economy underpinned by world class full fibre network and 5G infrastructure. It is essential that parties engage professionally in open and constructive communications. The future needs of customers and the economy are too important for it to be otherwise.

Minister for Digital Margot James said:

It’s great to see industry and landowners committing to the Electronic Communications Code and backing our ambitions to improve connectivity and ensure Britain is fit for the future. From improving our existing networks to using the next generation of technology, collaboration is vital when it comes to building our digital infrastructure.

The Electronic Communications Code was replaced on 28 December 2017 with a brand new Code, designed to support the rollout of a  telecommunications network throughout the UK,the government has reformed the existing Code and introduced the new Digital Economy Act 2017.

  1. The new Code expands on the rights already granted to telecom operators.
  2. The new automatic rights for operators to upgrade, assign and share the use of apparatus.
  3. Any attempt to prevent or limit this right (for instance by imposing additional payments to the landowners in return for another operator sharing the site) will be void – so landowners cannot even benefit financially from multiple operators sharing their site.Aside from the lack of financial benefit, landowners will also face various practical challenges if operators choose to exercise these rights.  This could include problems with roof overloading if extensive additional kit is installed, security issues with maintenance personnel trying to access parts of their properties and, generally, a feeling of a lack of control over who is occupying their property.


    This links into a wider point about the financial benefit (or lack thereof) for landowners in providing sites to telecom operators.  Compensation and consideration payable by telecoms operators to landowners will now be calculated by reference to the open market value of the land from the perspective of the landowner only.  The value of the land to the operator, which could be quite substantial if it is a strategically important site, is wholly disregarded.

    In practice, this is likely to reduce the rental stream from telecoms agreements, as many of the sites that are the subject of telecoms agreements (typically roof space) will have little intrinsic value to landowners.

    Under the existing Code, landowners are required to give operators just 28 days’ notice if they want to terminate a Code agreement.  The new Code requires a much longer notice period – operators must be given 18 months’ notice just to terminate a Code agreement.

    In addition, in the new Code termination is not the same as removal, and landowners must serve a further notice specifying a “reasonable” period for removal of the apparatus from the site in question.

Barrier Busting

http://Barrier Busting The Government will ensure that it takes a broad view of deployment related matters in order to identify and address the barriers that could stand in the way of the government’s 5G aims. That is why we have set up a new cross-Whitehall task force, led by DCMS, to drive changes to make it easier for digital infrastructure to be rolled out. In respect of the planning system, the Government has been working with industry to assess whether further changes are needed in order to meet the challenges of 5G deployment. 

For the purposes of this code a “code right”, in relation to an operator and any land, is a right for the statutory purposes—

(a)to install electronic communications apparatus on, under or over the land,

(b)to keep installed electronic communications apparatus which is on, under or over the land,

(c)to inspect, maintain, adjust, alter, repair, upgrade or operate electronic communications apparatus which is on, under or over the land,

(d)to carry out any works on the land for or in connection with the installation of electronic communications apparatus on, under or over the land or elsewhere,

(e)to carry out any works on the land for or in connection with the maintenance, adjustment, alteration, repair, upgrading or operation of electronic communications apparatus which is on, under or over the land or elsewhere,

(f)to enter the land to inspect, maintain, adjust, alter, repair, upgrade or operate any electronic communications apparatus which is on, under or over the land or elsewhere,

(g)to connect to a power supply,

(h)to interfere with or obstruct a means of access to or from the land (whether or not any electronic communications apparatus is on, under or over the land), or

(i)to lop or cut back, or require another person to lop or cut back, any tree or other vegetation that interferes or will or may interfere with electronic communications apparatus.

The operator may apply to the court for an order under this paragraph if—

(a)the relevant person does not, before the end of 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is given, agree to confer or be otherwise bound by the code right, or

(b)at any time after the notice is given, the relevant person gives notice in writing to the operator that the person does not agree to confer or be otherwise bound by the code right.

(4)An order under this paragraph is one which imposes on the operator and the relevant person an agreement between them which—

(a)confers the code right on the operator, or

(b)provides for the code right to bind the relevant person.

21(1)Subject to sub-paragraph (5), the court may make an order under paragraph 20 if (and only if) the court thinks that both of the following conditions are met.

(2)The first condition is that the prejudice caused to the relevant person by the order is capable of being adequately compensated by money.

(3)The second condition is that the public benefit likely to result from the making of the order outweighs the prejudice to the relevant person.

(4)In deciding whether the second condition is met, the court must have regard to the public interest in access to a choice of high quality electronic communications services.

(5)The court may not make an order under paragraph 20 if it thinks that the relevant person intends to redevelop all or part of the land to which the code right would relate, or any neighbouring land, and could not reasonably do so if the order were made.

Hi, I am a resident of Hastings and I am conducting research on the effects of phone masts on the health of children, I notice that there is a T Mobile phone mast in very close proximity to the school and wonder if you would answer some questions for me please?

Many people living near masts are experiencing increasing health problems at levels as low as 0.05 volts per metre, especially sleep disruption, headaches, tiredness, behaviour changes in children, epilepsy, nosebleeds, skin complaints.

There is a long-running, ongoing, dispute between the UK Information Commissioner, Ofcom and T-Mobile about whether the full Sitefinder database should be downloadable.

T-Mobile still is not supplying updated information and have joined Ofcom in court as a representative of the rest of the mobile industry.
In the meantime, Ofcom has been holding discussions with operators, which have now resulted in a resumption of voluntary provision of this data. 3, O2, Orange, Vodafone, Airwave and Network Rail all supply data to Ofcom at approximately three month intervals (T-Mobile has refused to do so since 2005).

Members of the public who have written to the Department of Health in England in relation to RF exposure have reported a variety of distressing symptoms including dizziness, fatigue, chronic headache, irregular heart beat, nausea and vertigo, and loss of memory and concentration.
These and the other symptoms are reported to result from exposure to a range of EMFs, including RF fields, encountered in everyday life.
Similar symptoms were reported to IEGMP at open meetings. Many people also consider that there are serious long-term risks associated with such exposures. In Sweden electromagnetic hypersensitivity has been addressed nationally, accepted as a physical impairment, and a scheme in a place to improve home and working conditions for people who consider themselves to be sufferers.

Can you please tell me how many, if any, have children been diagnosed with cancers? I would like to compare it to other schools with no phone masts near by.

Mrs Carey

The following 48 page pdf is a document discussing the future of street lighting and how it relates to the IoT and Smart Agenda.

Brian Buntz of the Internet of Things Institute provides a useful metaphor: ‘Lamp posts may well follow a trajectory similar to that of mobile phones. It wasn’t so long ago that mobile phones were suited for one purpose only – making calls. Now, making a phone call has become almost secondary to all of a smart phone’s other capabilities. Similarly, while the lamp posts of yesteryear provided only illumination, modern-day lamp post can serve as multi-functional smart-city nodes, capable of monitoring everything from crime to parking to weather.

This report will discuss the progression of smart lighting infrastructure from the adoption of LED bulbs, to the creation of a distributed smart city platform. It will investigate a number of applications that can be hosted through street lights, detailing use cases, benefits and potential business models, as well as providing examples of real-life case-studies wherever possible.

The humble lamp post may well become the most valuable real-estate in the city for future deployment of smart city services. Many pieces of the smart lighting puzzle are available including low cost, low-power LED lighting, multiple methods of connectivity, multiple sensors and the applications to support them, however, the true potential of the smart lighting infrastructure remains relatively underrated. This report will discuss the progression of smart lighting infrastructure from the adoption of LED bulbs, to the creation of a distributed smart city platform. It will investigate a number of applications that can be hosted through street lights, detailing use cases, benefits and potential business models, as well as providing examples of real-life case-studies wherever possible.


Having taken note of this huge market potential, several traditional lighting vendors are creating their own intelligent lighting systems, and numerous innovative start-ups are emerging in the field.



Philips is a global smart public lighting vendor, with its CityTouch management platform deployed in cities around the world including London, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro and Los Angeles. Philips supplies lights, control units for power lines or wireless networks, and a lighting control system.


Echelon is a vendor of generic control platforms, therefore does not supply luminaires, but rather the control systems that work with them. Echelon developed the LonWorks standard, which is used for the automation of various functional within buildings and cities, for example, lighting. By 2010, approximately 90 million devices were installed with LonWorks technology.


Telensa is a specialist provider of street lighting control systems. Similarly to Echelon, Telensa does not supply luminaires, instead providing its own wireless technology and PLANet Central Management System that allows management of lighting infrastructure. The company is also active in parking and vehicle tracking applications.

Silver Spring

Silver Spring has predominantly been involved in smart meter deployments, however it has recently acquired Streetlight.Vision, a provider of CMS systems for street lighting. Their CMS system can control lights using either power lines or wireless communication networks, and is widely deployed across Europe and Asia.

GE Lighting

GE provides all components of a smart street lighting system, including luminaires, control nodes, wireless mesh networks and central management systems. Its proprietary platform for managing public street lights is called LightGrid.


Osram is a spin-off of Siemens and supplies luminaires as well as full lighting solutions including a management platform called Street Light Control (SLC) which is based on Echelon’s LonWorks technology. Osram’s street lighting solutions have been deployed around the world in cities like Milan.


Cisco offers a Smart+Connected Lighting solution which combines with its Smart+Connected Multi-Sensor Node to create a light-sensory network (LSN). As well as acting as a lighting control system, the resultant platform is capable of gathering a wide variety of data from the environment including levels of humidity, CO2 and O2, particulate matter, motion, video and sound. The solution has been piloted in cities including Amsterdam and Nice.

Cities all over the world are already adopting intelligent street lighting systems. However, they are now starting to see the wider potential of the humble lamp post. Both traditional lamp posts and more advanced smart lighting installations have the potential to act as a smart city platform, enabling a range of other smart city applications through the integration of data collection devices such as sensors and cameras. Lighting infrastructure is being used as a basis for solutions in many areas, however, this report will discuss applications in the following areas: • Environment monitoring • Transport optimisation (traffic management and parking) • Public safety • Electric vehicle charging • Wi-Fi and internet provision • Digital signage and public communication.



The deployment of smart street lighting infrastructure and the integration of the additional solutions described throughout this report often involve multiple vendors, numerous independent systems and complex technological interactions. This creates a number of barriers to the successful use of smart lighting infrastructure as the technological foundation of a smart city.

Cooperation of multiple stakeholders

Looking more widely at the actors involved in deploying these solutions, implementations will inevitably require the cooperation of different industries with diverse skills, competencies and working methods. In addition to manufacturers of lighting infrastructure, hardware vendors, software providers and connectivity service providers will all come together. Furthermore, business agreements will need to be negotiated with each of these providers based on the value of the service provided.


Through the addition of multiple solutions to smart lighting infrastructure, there is a real possibility that systems will become overwhelmingly complex. A lack of integrated standards, mismatched interfaces and multiple proprietary systems that are unable to accommodate third-party applications could make connected lighting systems too difficult to implement. Additional solutions will need to be easy for the city or operator to manage and will need to be easily accessible and intuitive for end-users in order to be successful. To mitigate this complexity risk, cities are deploying additional solutions in a modular, incremental fashion, ensuring they see value from one solution before adding another.

Lifespan of Lighting Infrastructure Smart lighting infrastructure is likely be in operation for at least 20 years, therefore the embedded systems need to be adaptable over long periods of time and need to be able to support new applications. Cities are having to plan ahead in order to be prepared for options that are not currently available. For example, ensuring bandwidth is left available for unknown future applications. By planning ahead, cities will be able to leverage their smart lighting infrastructure to roll out an entire smart city blueprint over a period of time.

In order to do this, cities require that software system used by smart lighting solutions needs to be remotely upgradable and based on open standards so that third-party solutions can be added over extended periods. Cities do not have the resources or money to upgrade software systems every couple of years, and are increasingly wary of vendor lock-in. Similarly, the applications developed will need to be compatible with the range of software programs that operate a city-wide lighting network.


These networked street lighting systems greatly increase energy savings, with the 50% energy savings realised by switching to LEDs increasing to 80% when integrated with a central management system .

In response to this compelling business case, a number of traditional lighting vendors and innovative start-ups have brought solutions to market.

While the energy and cost saving benefits are driving adoption, cities are increasingly seeing the wider potential of smart street lighting infrastructure. With an even and widespread distribution across urban areas, readily available power and integrated connectivity, smart street lighting is being used to form the technology foundation of a city. Through the addition of data collection devices such as sensors and cameras, street lighting infrastructure is being used as a platform to host a variety of applications.

Applications include:

Environmental monitoring

Transportation applications

Public safety and security

Public Wi-Fi and internet provision

Electric vehicle (EV) charging

Digital Signage

Infrastructure barriers: Lastly, with the integration of multiple applications into smart lighting infrastructure, there is a real risk that the systems will become overwhelmingly complex and too difficult to implement. To mitigate this risk, it is recommended that cities deploy additional solutions in an incremental fashion, ensuring value is being delivered before adding another solution.Despite these barriers, there is huge potential for smart lighting infrastructure to service as a multi-functional smart city platform, capable of monitoring everything from crime, to parking, to weather. Streetlights are ubiquitous in urban areas, can provide power to data collection devices and are increasingly enabled with connectivity capabilities.

The promise of this approach is not so much in the generation of new data, but in the streetlight’s ability to converge previously disparate systems, and enable the development of solutions and services that combine data from a variety of sources to improve services and generate new revenue streams. While business cases for many applications still require strengthening, it is almost certain that lamp posts will be used for more than illumination in years to come.

Full 48 Page pdf





In this interview I have replied to an interview given by a SUN party candidate who was backed by Mark Steele and made statements that were not true. In doing this interview, I intended to set the record straight, once and for all so as to get on with running the campaign for 5G awareness whilst informing the public of what actually happened during the early days of the campaign.

Cisco is  the leading telecommunications leader in the world, a company whose beginnings blossomed in 1984 when a husband and wife team working at a University, stole the software to begin the monopoly on commercial routers.

Since the early days they have become the owners of many other companies, and have shares in many areas of financial profitability. They are particularly  invested in start up companies that will kick start the next progression of the Internet as we know it, namely the Internet of Things.Cisco’s telecommunications technology was one of the biggest tech breakthroughs of the 20th century.

A well known commentary by Tom Wheeler of the FCC, can be seen to have been repeating this report by  Cisco created in 2011 in which Cisco talk of the ‘The Internet of Things How the Next Evolution of the Internet Is Changing Everything’.

According to the Cisco Internet Business Solutions Group (IBSG), IoT is simply the point in time when more “things or objects” were connected to the Internet than people.

The White paper above talks of the benefits to humanity with this progression of the internet, for the elderly, who can wear a device that monitors their vital signs and alerts health care professionals to any dangerous changes.

Many other benefits are constantly banded about, driverless cars that stop crashes happening, breakthroughs in mobile connectivity and download speeds,lampposts that will alert you to a parking space and many advances that will help our lives to become easier.

The FTC, in its January 2015 report “Internet of Things: Privacy & Security in a Connected World,” acknowledges that there is still no widely accepted definition of the IoT and offers its own interpretation: “devices or sensors-other than computers, smartphones, or tablets-that connect, communicate or transmit information with or between each other through the Internet.”

Agenda 21, the United Nations’ nefarious plan for world domination though social engineering at the local level calls this “smart growth.”

The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was set up to review progress in the implementation of Agenda 21 and other UNCED documents. The Commission meets every year and more than 1,000 N.G.Os are accredited to participate in the Commission’s work.

Earth Summit Agenda 21 is a 40 page document to control the world.Section IV states that one of the ‘ Means of Implementation’ is technology.

This is our Smart City future. The driving force behind Agenda 21 is a form of government central planning called “smart growth.”

The United Nations has recently created a new document which is an update of and an extension to Agenda 21. This new document is called, “Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development“. It entails control of additional parts of our lives that are not included in Agenda 21.

This agenda is being played out by local councils and govt agencies with the help of small companies and large corporations, all in it for a slice of the  ‘Smart’ pie.

Horizon2020 is the EU funding body  that has over 2300 UK organisations,agencies govt bodies and education centres on its payroll.

Whilst companies like Cisco, use their power and far reaching claws to involve many on local and govt levels to further this agenda being part of  the ‘technology’ behind the hidden hand.

The City Council, along with the University of Manchester, Cisco, BT, Siemens and many other organisations, contributed to the now ended IoT-focused demonstrator CityVerve

Newcastle City Council partner with Cisco.…/the-city-with-the-smarte…

They partnered with  Newcastle to show the Great Exhibition of the North.Cisco is working with several partners in Newcastle to help create ‘smart places’.

Salford City Council

Southend on sea Council



To name but a few, so which public procurement process was followed to allow this company to partner with so many local councils? It seems that in claiming that these are ‘pilot’ studies and partnerships that the procurement process is by-passed.

Cisco were involved in many areas when terror related events have been reported.

The Chairman of innovateUK is Phil Smith a former CEO of Cisco.

InnovateUK are the agency pushing the 5G agenda and who are also working with the Defence supplies UK.
Last years testbeds had Cisco as one of its lead collaborators.…

InnovateUK also sponsored the UK-Israeli test hub technology Conference in January 2018.

Phil Smith is also director of IQE Plc, a manufacture of Smart technology.

Las Vegas had partnered with Cisco last year and were testing 5G using connected cameras for a number of platforms including crowd control, security, and lighting amongst other things.…/las-vegas-announces-smart-city-pla…/
A document online discussed testing in small pilot areas in real life environments. A short time later we were faced with the Las Vegas Mandalay hotel incident.
Mandalay Hotel was also the venue for security conferences held yearly.

Cisco also signed up with the French Govt in 2015 to push and test for smart city innovations in Paris, just months before the Paris attacks.

They also signed up with Berlin just prior to the attacks in Berlin.

The Brussels attack that happened in March 2016 came just months after the Brussels Digital Commissioner called a meeting with the ten largest telecommunication groups to speed up the implementation of 5G.…/899d3540-b87d-11e5-b151-8e15c9a029fb
It is obvious that 5G testing has been ongoing either weeks or months prior, in all the incidences of terror related attacks and Cisco has been one of the many companies deeply involved.







Vodafone “leading the roll out of 5G across the UK, starting with Greater Manchester. A further six cities – Birmingham, Bristol, Cardiff, Glasgow, Liverpool and London – will shortly receive full 5G too. Next year, we will bring 5G to the Scottish Highlands, Cornwall and the Lake District, among other locations,” says Nick Jeffery.

Pivotal achieves 1.3 Gbps in Echo 5G field trial

Pivotal Commware
HBF enables software-defined antennas to increase spectrum efficiency by focusing radio signals where they’re needed most, like spotlights in a theater. (Pivotal Commware)

Alasdair Philips is one of the UK,s leading voices on Electro-Magnetic fields  and RF, he has run Powerwatch which has been researching the links between electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and health risks for about 30 years, and is completely independent of government and industry.

He is a member of BEMRI

The Bio-Electromagnetic Research Initiative (BEMRI) has been formed to create a research portal, for the scientific community and interested members of the lay public, which helps to rapidly disseminate international research findings, best practice measures and scientific hypotheses on matters related to electromagnetic (EM) phenomena.

He is also an advisor to Radiation Research Trust and was once the news letter editor for Electronics and Computing for peace. He has also been involved in investigations into the misuse of electromagnetic weapons by the military.

Alasdair Philips is a scientist who has been involved in research in this area for the past 50 years.

He also is involved in two companies that supply equipment to test EMR and RF and protective shielding items.

Here is Alasdair Philips being interviewed by Dr Mercola on YT.

In June 2018, he had a study published in the peer reviewed Journal of Environmental and Public Health, in which he studied the rise of brain tumours between 1995 to 2015 and concluded that one possible factor is the widespread use of cell phones.

Alasdair Philips has chaired and presented at international conferences on these topics.

EMFields was established to provide high quality measurement equipment and screening products to protect people from the ever-increasing levels of Electromagnetic radiation, or electrosmog, in our environment designed by Alasdair  Philips.

Alasdair Philips is also one of the 230 scientists and doctors who have signed a moratorium to stop the 5G roll out.

And yet when reports came out from Mark Steele in Gateshead that the lamposts were emitting 5G, Mark was contacted by Alasdair Philips.

This is part of an email that was sent to me when I asked this organisation their views on the  lamposts emitting 5G.

I have been in contact with Mark Steele and also offered to visit Gateshead with a range of more professional test equipment than he used. He used a very basic “broad band” [isotropic] meter that would pick up any signal within 50MHz – 3.5GHz coming from all directions. He would need equipment that includes a Log Per [Directional] antenna and indeed covers a wider range of frequencies. Did you see the video clip of waving his meter pointing towards a street light he claimed was producing 4,000 millivolts,  but  afraid not possible coming from the small transmitter where he was pointing his meter. [Not suitable meter for the particular task]

Along with another member of our group, have phoned him several times to offer my services freely if he could arrange for me to carry out a  free survey for members of the public of whom he has contact who are suffering heath issues that is suggested are coming from these lamp post transmitters that he claims are 5G.   Mark may be correct about 5G, but until proper measurements are carried out I cannot make comment. We would like to take measurements at Gateshead,  though  must ensure we have with  contact someone like Mark and  most importantly independent folk who suffer the effects of ELF pollution living in close proximity to  these transmitters.

We find it very strange he has not taken us up on our offer. I told him it could help him with his very worthy campaign and we certainly need more people like Mark to bring about  awareness.

Steele had become hostile to Alasdair during this communication process and had told Alasdair that he, “did not know what he was talking about” when it was pointed out that Steele’s  equipment was insufficient.

Given the fact that Alasdair Philips designed such equipment and  that he was one of the UK,s most prominent anti EMF proponents, that accusation was staggering to me.

I then arranged for a member of the public to meet with the research group. They tested the lamposts that were shown in his videos and here is that report.

Report on Gateshead Lampposts to investigate alleged 5G signals

In May 2018 Bemri visited Gateshead at locations where it had been suggested 5G transmitters’ were mounted on lamp posts and were operating and producing around 4,000 m/V. [4 mV/m] These were said to be found at locations such as the shopping arcade [by bus stop] at Whickham from video recordings by a certain third party. The instrument used by the third party was an isotropic RF meter that records signals received from all directions not simply the direction the meter is pointing.

We used professional Gigahertz RF test meters and spectrum analyzer and the strongest signal recorded at this location was 1.4V/m emitted from an array of mobile phone transmitters located a few hundred yards down the opposite side of the Main Rd from the shopping arcade. After testing around a five mile radius from Whickham readings ranged from 0.25 V/m to 6.5 V/m.

It could be seen from the video recordings of the said third party RF meter readings consistently ranged around a 4V/m mark wherever any measurements were taken, even from the inside of a car travelling along a main carriageway, which is really not possible unless perhaps a Smart phone was nearby or used to video the RF meter readings. Trying to monitor signals from the inside of a car [especially moving vehicles] is a rather pointless exercise.

A Smart phone easily produces readings around levels shown in these video recordings, even when it’s not in transmission mode. All RF meters monitor frequencies from sources with the highest power density, not lower, or accumulation of other signals.

We could not find 5G signals coming from street lighting at any location we surveyed.

Bemri is an independent self funded research group strongly apposed to 5G and other electromagnetic pollution, of which long proven causes harm to all biological systems.

Now, after hearing supporters of Steele claim that Alasdair Philips was no expert and that he was a charlatan, I decided to provide the evidence to prove that this was not the case.

The charlatan is Mark Steele, a man who is getting main stream media coverage, claiming that these lamposts were 5G, when experts in this field have shown them  not to be.

A man who is supposedly fighting this issue with his answer being a new political party.

A man who calls anyone who mentions these facts, a 5G denier.

Despite the fact that I am running a 5G mass action campaign that has shared leaflets to people to campaign in over 160 areas around the UK, and despite the fact that I have this website updated on many aspects of the dangers of 5G, I am also called a 5G denier.

So an expert with 50 years experience, peer reviewed  studies on the link between mobile phones and EMF, respected as one of the UK,s leading spokesmen against the dangers of EMF and RF, who has even built equipment to test it, is named a charlatan whilst Steele, who is self proclaimed weapons expert who has worked on secret nuclear programmes, makes himself the expert on 5G whilst ignoring the facts.

The facts being, Gateshead lamposts were NOT transmitting 5G in the first place.

Controlled Opposition, with a political party for you to join.