Fight to stop phone mast near Canvey primary schools (From Echo)

Can tell where the quote has been copied and pasted in - the Echo refers to the company as 02 (number) while the statement gives the correct O2 (letter).

I can see the point of the petition, there's one across the way from my house and it's not exactly pretty. But do they do the damage they are supposed to?

And no doubt they will all be moaning about their poor phone signal in the next breath.....

My Vodafone signal is shocking on the majority of Canvey. As I live only a few hundred yards from the proximity of this proposed phone mast I wouldn't have a problem if it boosted my signal.
Can't help but think any health implications, if they exist aren't any worse than actually having the phone in use next to your ear.

Where is the campaign group "Yes to phone mast"? The likely hood is these people wouldn't even notice it go up unless it was pointed out to them as they tend to have ones that wrap around lamp posts now.

i have just changed from vodaphone to T mobile as the Voda phone signal on the island is crap, some people are never happy

Same old same old moaning councillors, why are cllr in the photo when it's not their ward?
Funny old game is it not, no one available from the schools to comment but the petition is in their name.
Or is it anything to get your name in the paper? Surely not!!!

What a bunch of idiots, looks like they are from the film the hills have eyes.. Keep putting the masts up and lets get some proper signals. I would bet £1,000 that one or more of their families and relations including children and grandchildren use a mobile phone. Come on moaners STOP your moaning and shut up ! Now youve been told .. ha ha ha ha ha Even Norris from Corrie has a mobile phone and no one is worse than him at moaning !

TrifidV wrote:
Where is the campaign group "Yes to phone mast"? The likely hood is these people wouldn't even notice it go up unless it was pointed out to them as they tend to have ones that wrap around lamp posts now.

To be fair, I think I'd notice a 45-foot mast!

A lot of them are disguised as trees though!

I will agree the standard ones are unsightly, but what can you do? If you use a mobile phone, you have to expect the mast, in order to maintain the network. And I wonder how many of these people have mobiles? I wonder how many have accessed the petition, or an email about the petition, or a text about the petition, on a mobile?

I mentioned one near my house earlier - must admit it was put up about 18 months ago and now I hardly notice it.

PJR121 wrote:

TrifidV wrote: Where is the campaign group "Yes to phone mast"? The likely hood is these people wouldn't even notice it go up unless it was pointed out to them as they tend to have ones that wrap around lamp posts now.

To be fair, I think I'd notice a 45-foot mast! A lot of them are disguised as trees though! I will agree the standard ones are unsightly, but what can you do? If you use a mobile phone, you have to expect the mast, in order to maintain the network. And I wonder how many of these people have mobiles? I wonder how many have accessed the petition, or an email about the petition, or a text about the petition, on a mobile? I mentioned one near my house earlier - must admit it was put up about 18 months ago and now I hardly notice it.

I wonder how many are over 50!!! Nobody under 40 would be against this surely? More masts the better!

Wouldn't a petition demanding the town council disclose how much of a bill we've been landed with because of their bullying be a better idea?

Is there scientific proof that phone masts have a negative effect on the health of individuals within close proximity? I suspect not. In which case, this is a clear case of NIMBY-ism. I'm willing to bet that most (if not all) the people in that photo own mobile phones. O2 is in serious need of a mast in the South East area.

As PJR121 says, the masts can be disguised now.

I expect everyone in that picture uses a mobile phone, and probably most of the children at the school.

The signal from a phone stuck in your ear, will be stronger than that coming from a mast.

Despite the fact that a large number of children do own and use mobile phones daily, there is research into the possible detrimental effects ongoing.

This has so far culminated in the WHO issuing this report:
http://www.iarc.fr/e
n/media-centre/pr/20
11/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

At the end of the day it basically states that and I quote:
Sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity: The Working Group considers that a causal relationship has been established between exposure to the agent and human cancer. That is, a positive relationship has been observed between the exposure and cancer in studies in which chance, bias and confounding could be ruled out with reasonable confidence. A statement that there is sufficient evidence is followed by a separate sentence that identifies the target organ(s) or tissue(s) where an increased risk of cancer was observed in humans. Identification of a specific target organ or tissue does not preclude the possibility that the agent may cause cancer at other sites. +++ Quote closes.

Mobiles phones are classed as Class 2 EM radiation hazzards.

For more, download and read the PDF or check the article published in The Lancet Onkology, 1. July 2011 issue.

marshman wrote:
Wouldn't a petition demanding the town council disclose how much of a bill we've been landed with because of their bullying be a better idea?

First time for everything Marshman 'I AGREE WITH YOU!!

upset wrote:

marshman wrote:
Wouldn't a petition demanding the town council disclose how much of a bill we've been landed with because of their bullying be a better idea?

First time for everything Marshman 'I AGREE WITH YOU!!

I have just been on the Canvey Town Council website http://www.canveyisl
and-tc.gov.uk/news.h
tml
and no new news is posted since 16th April, has the pay out been censored by the INDIES, I thought the TC worked for the benefit of residents, surely a court case involving the illegal actions of the ruling party is news, dont you?

upset wrote:

marshman wrote:
Wouldn't a petition demanding the town council disclose how much of a bill we've been landed with because of their bullying be a better idea?

First time for everything Marshman 'I AGREE WITH YOU!!

I have just been on the Canvey Town Council website http://www.canveyisl
and-tc.gov.uk/news.h
tml
and no new news is posted since 16th April, has the pay out been censored by the INDIES, I thought the TC worked for the benefit of residents, surely a court case involving the illegal actions of the ruling party is news, dont you?

The TC website says it reports expenditure over £500, it's only up to February 2012 at present, should be interesting when it reports June 2012.

upset wrote:
The TC website says it reports expenditure over £500, it's only up to February 2012 at present, should be interesting when it reports June 2012.

I have just had a look at some of the costs listed on the website, makes interesting reading, especially the £29,568 listed as legal costs for December.
Is this to tell the TC to settle out of court and is there another invoice on it's way?

upset wrote:

upset wrote:
The TC website says it reports expenditure over £500, it's only up to February 2012 at present, should be interesting when it reports June 2012.

I have just had a look at some of the costs listed on the website, makes interesting reading, especially the £29,568 listed as legal costs for December.
Is this to tell the TC to settle out of court and is there another invoice on it's way?

No payments over £500 since Feb 2012, or is the present TC staff overworked and dont have time to keep accounts up to date?
Tell the INDIE leaders not to ask what's up or they will have another court case.

It;s just dawned on me, why is the TC responsible for the costs from the court case? It was only the INDIES who caused the pay out, those involved should foot the bill.
Item 9 of the TC Mission Statement objectives reads 'To be accountable, approachable and visible and to ensure that the resources at the Council’s disposal are used to the most effective degree possible and to the greatest possible benefit to the town ensuring cost effectiveness and value for money.'
The TC failed miserably in my view.

Remember one man's blogg brought a Council down, we can live in hope.

TC Media Policy says 'Council Members are reminded that they must not miss-use Council resources for
political or other inappropriate purposes. Should the Council receive a Freedom of
Information request on a topic on which there is correspondence (email or written)
from or with Members, normally that correspondence would have to be disclosed,
unless it was exempt. The fact that the disclosure of the correspondence may prove
embarrassing would not, of itself, prevent disclosure. In addition, care should be taken
when processing personal data. The Data Protection Act 1998 prevents the use of
personal information other than for the purposes for which it was supplied. Members
should bear this in mind when using any personal data which may be supplied to them
by their constituents.
Has the Echo editor asked about the cost of the court case.

I bet all these people use mobile phones and probably moan about poor quality of calls.

Shame on them all....

upset wrote:
TC Media Policy says 'Council Members are reminded that they must not miss-use Council resources for political or other inappropriate purposes. Should the Council receive a Freedom of Information request on a topic on which there is correspondence (email or written) from or with Members, normally that correspondence would have to be disclosed, unless it was exempt. The fact that the disclosure of the correspondence may prove embarrassing would not, of itself, prevent disclosure. In addition, care should be taken when processing personal data. The Data Protection Act 1998 prevents the use of personal information other than for the purposes for which it was supplied. Members should bear this in mind when using any personal data which may be supplied to them by their constituents. Has the Echo editor asked about the cost of the court case.

I think they'll deem the costs as 'commercially sensitive' and exempt from FOI requests. They could of course just refuse to make the figures public, there really isn't any great penalty for doing so.

Does seem a bit heavy handed gagging the whole council though and the one tory member is proving to be a weak and ineffective opposition. I mean really, what's the point in him being there?

If these signals are harmful, why do they have them on the roof at Southend Hospital ?

i bet all them in the pic have a mobile phone tho, LOL but all still quick to moan

"I think they'll deem the costs as 'commercially sensitive' and exempt from FOI requests. They could of course just refuse to make the figures public, there really isn't any great penalty for doing so."
.
Lets see, the average payout on something like this would be three years salary - so £45K x 3 = £135,000. Legal expenses for both sides around £30K x 2 = £60,000. Roughly £195,000 in total. So if the Insurance Company put a cap on the action of £200,000 you can see why they settled out of court.

I wonder if the Insurance company that paid out will seek to recover their costs from the Town Council?
.
Could be expensive.

Curbishly wrote:
"I think they'll deem the costs as 'commercially sensitive' and exempt from FOI requests. They could of course just refuse to make the figures public, there really isn't any great penalty for doing so."
.
Lets see, the average payout on something like this would be three years salary - so £45K x 3 = £135,000. Legal expenses for both sides around £30K x 2 = £60,000. Roughly £195,000 in total. So if the Insurance Company put a cap on the action of £200,000 you can see why they settled out of court.

I wonder if the Insurance company that paid out will seek to recover their costs from the Town Council?
.
Could be expensive.

Have you inside knowledge Curbishley? I thought the insurance was null end void?

Despite the fact that a large number of children do own and use mobile phones daily, there is research into the possible detrimental effects ongoing

the biggest danger to the lives of children using their mobile phones is probably the possibility of them getting hit by a car when they suddenly step out into the road without looking while they are texting, twitfaceing or playing games on them.

I notice that there is only one 'resident' in the picture, the rest of that bunch are councillors. So it is just another publicity stunt by the Indies with the usual suspects present, they must run a competition to see who can get their picture in the paper the most.

When the Island Yacht Club compound out on Canvey Point was proposed for a phone mast it was refused on the grounds of the senior citizen residents home. It would have looked like the mast of a boat.
There is a mast there now for use as a navigation aid for shipping (radio mast).
So two things, a perfectly safe, not intrusive place I would have thought for a phone mast refused so there should be no chance of this one near a school should there?

John T Pharro wrote:
When the Island Yacht Club compound out on Canvey Point was proposed for a phone mast it was refused on the grounds of the senior citizen residents home. It would have looked like the mast of a boat.
There is a mast there now for use as a navigation aid for shipping (radio mast).
So two things, a perfectly safe, not intrusive place I would have thought for a phone mast refused so there should be no chance of this one near a school should there?

John, remember all the petitioning that went on over the mobile phone masts right next door to leigh beck? Didn't make a ha'peth of difference.

Can't see them stopping this one.

Mind you whether or not the children are affected by this remains for the future to tell.

Right now I keep blaming too much tv turning off their brain cells!

APR wrote:
If these signals are harmful, why do they have them on the roof at Southend Hospital ?

A valid question indeed but you do realise that mobile phone companies pay handsomely for such services rendered.

But seriously, I don't know and far be it from me to make any accusations.

Steve H wrote:
I notice that there is only one 'resident' in the picture, the rest of that bunch are councillors. So it is just another publicity stunt by the Indies with the usual suspects present, they must run a competition to see who can get their picture in the paper the most.

There are 2 people that are residents, the rest are trouble makers and imbosils. Please can we have MORE masts so we can all get a better reception and signal... I would have one on my roof...

Sign of the times wrote:

John T Pharro wrote:
When the Island Yacht Club compound out on Canvey Point was proposed for a phone mast it was refused on the grounds of the senior citizen residents home. It would have looked like the mast of a boat.
There is a mast there now for use as a navigation aid for shipping (radio mast).
So two things, a perfectly safe, not intrusive place I would have thought for a phone mast refused so there should be no chance of this one near a school should there?

John, remember all the petitioning that went on over the mobile phone masts right next door to leigh beck? Didn't make a ha'peth of difference.

Can't see them stopping this one.

Mind you whether or not the children are affected by this remains for the future to tell.

Right now I keep blaming too much tv turning off their brain cells!

No I hadn't forgotten. As to your last point, will we ever know? From about 10 years on the children appear to have mobile phones clamped to their ears like a permanent fixture, so if they are brain damaged is it a phone mast nearby or having the phone clamped to their ear?

sadly the council turned down the application for one in Benfleet high road - we need more masts not less.

UK Fan wrote:

APR wrote:
If these signals are harmful, why do they have them on the roof at Southend Hospital ?

A valid question indeed but you do realise that mobile phone companies pay handsomely for such services rendered.

But seriously, I don't know and far be it from me to make any accusations.

They do indeed. You are probably at more risk fro the radar at the airport.

Better not let SAEN know that :)

I'm pretty sure that the (Orange/T-Mobile?) phone mast that is/was located within the grounds of Furtherwick Park/Castle View school hasn't had a detrimental effect on any of the pupils there and that has been installed for over a decade!

Just checked Google Earth and the design is quite similar to that of the proposed one for the pub car-park.

A plan??
Take down ALL the phone masts on canvey and see what the headlines read next week???
That will make them happy.........NOT