Author: admin

For many years campaigners have been frustrated by constant push back with the ‘an ICNIRP certificate is sufficient’ fob off from schools and councils. We were given this line at Eton College, we get it in court, we get it from LPAs when challenging mast applications. Decision takers defer lazily to the NPPF which they believe allows a self-certified piece of paper to waive all site specific health concerns.

Recent legal action has only made it more clear that there is an inconsistent understanding of the Public Right to Know where exclusion zones are, and that the correct assessments have been undertaken where risk might be present or vulnerable groups might receive exposure.

Karen and Neils new case brings to the court all of the experience gathered so far to request that the ECHR consider ‘objectors rights’ and the requirements enshrined in EECC law that risks are evidenced and taken into account by councils and decision takers. The UK government had rejected the prior case submission as ‘without merit’.

Councils have been consequently left adrift. Are they or are they not an EECC competent authority? (we have had judgements either way) What if anything do they have to do, or not do, about risk to those with metal implants and other susceptibilities? (we have had judgements either way).

Professor Paolo Vecchia, then Chairman of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP), made clear in a presentation to the EM Radiation Research Trust Conference at the Royal Society, London, in September 2008 that the ICNIRP Guidelines were not intended to be:

“a mandatory prescription for safety”
“the ‘last word’ on the issue”
“or defensive walls for industry or others”

Vecchia’s statement confirms that compliance with the ICNIRP Guidelines was never intended to provide a complete guarantee of safety, end the consideration of other relevant evidence, or serve as a defensive barrier against further public-health scrutiny.

The 1999/519/EC recommendation and EECC 2018 outline that there are functions beyond adopting it,  risk assessment belongs to the local authorities …. but it is way more convenient having all councils and the population believe there is no risk by using their mantra.

McDougall and Churchill v United Kingdom – telecommunications, public-health procedure and access to a court.

The public announcement released by Karen and Neil appears below. Scroll through the window to read it in full. (at the bottom is a document to help with objections)

---

Gofundme link to support Karen and Neils efforts on UK legal challenges.

On 25 August 2026, Neil McDougall and Karen Churchill sent their joint application against the United Kingdom to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Below you can scroll the summary :

---

The Court Application

Read sections E-G, from p5.

p12 refers to evidence which you can access in the full 440pp bundle here.

Annex. 20pp.

This also contains all references for use in campaign material.

“Site-specific public-health and environmental assessment required” in the following document you can obtain key points to make in submissions to LPAs requiring them to undertake a transparent, site-specific assessment: