Imagine being a politician who boasts about plans to remove free speech protections from university academics. Now imagine that you are the Secretary of State for Education. Labour’s Bridget Phillipson doesn’t have to. She is both. On Friday morning, with a stroke of her pen (and a one-line statutory instrument) she revoked the order bringing into force the most important sections of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, including the much fought-for statutory tort. She also said that she is seriously contemplating repealing the legislation in its entirety.
For those of us who lobbied the Conservatives during the last Parliament to increase the legal protection of free speech and academic freedom on campuses, this is undoubtedly a kick in the teeth. What is more, the Government’s message to genuine liberals within the academy could not be clearer. It is that our concerns are not shared in Whitehall and that, notwithstanding our many evidence-based complaints and campaigns, there is nothing wrong with professors and lecturers being scared into silence over socially salient issues or being dismissed from their posts for daring to possess honest but unfashionable views. The fact that the Education Secretary could not even be bothered to come to the dispatch box of the House of Commons to explain or be questioned about her actions – she produced only a brief written statement and then, sometime later, a sloppily-drafted letter to MPs – serves only to underline her personal contempt for the issues.
To make matters worse, the reasons given by the Education Secretary in support of her decisions are so obviously bad ones. For a start, she says she is “concerned that [the Act] will expose higher education providers to costly legal action”. But even a vague awareness of recent developments within the higher education law world would suggest that the opposite will in fact be true. We could well be heading into an age of quite epic “lawfare”.
The defenders of free speech and academic freedom both within and without academia have never been keener to defend the rights of individuals who they perceive to be unjustly attacked for expressing lawful opinions and questioning received wisdom, and Friday’s events will do nothing to diminish that. Furthermore, almost all the duties which the Higher Education Act wanted to impose on universities and colleges already exist as part of other statutes. What the 2023 law did was to try and introduce a free and speedy complaints process designed to resolve free speech and academic freedom complaints in an efficient and effective manner. Unfortunately, in the absence of such a system, not only will the courts – and in particular the Employment Tribunal – continue to be the battle ground for such disputes to be resolved, and then at torturous length, but, as the pro-freedom jurisprudence slowly but steadily grows, that process will also become a cripplingly and unsustainably expensive one for infringing institutions to endure. With no alternative resolution scheme in place, the upcoming battle between the Open University and its one-time Law Lecturer Almut Gadow, in which she argues that employment law protection is modulated in academics’ favour by existing free speech law, stands as a model for the resource-draining litigation all universities will routinely come to face.
The Secretary of State also claimed “that many in the higher education sector feel that the Act is [too] burdensome”. This is a curious position for her to adopt. Considering that the real innovation of the Higher Education Act was in introducing a new enforcement mechanism for what are already existing duties, one might think that the only reason why universities would find its contents onerous is if, as things stand, their level of compliance with the law is low. In other words, the fact the 2023 Act has been perceived by so many institutions as bringing with it unwanted hassle is expressive of the underlying need for its existence in the first place. In the end, then, all roads it seems will lead us, rather than to what was meant to be a newly beefed-up Office for Students, to court.
Julius Grower is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Oxford.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Why? Because the notion of RFI causing injury has about as solid a basis in reality as the notion of carbon dioxide causing climate change. It might therefore be weaponised by people who seek power by “Alarming the Populace with an Imaginary Hobgoblin”. Fortunately, RFI-phobia has not yet caught on, though doubtless researchers from competing cults will be paid to “model” the bio-electrical system.
(On the related matter of alleged psychological harm caused by change in habits of interpersonal communication, especially adolescents, I do not express an opinion.)
Most 5G alarmists are crackpots who are ignorant of proper scientific analysis and a sensible approach to risk. Treat all such alarmism with a big pinch of scepticism (this is the Daily Sceptic after all).
There are many links to conflicting scientific analysis in this article. I think you will find that systematic reviews and meta-analyses are hefty pieces of work.
CirrusFlyer, well yes a good number of activists who have an online and social media presence are (deliberately) quite objectionable. This has been engineered to besmirch the reputation of anyone raising awareness. It’s a well known tactic and it always surprises me that no one realises!
And do you have any evidence to support that contention?
I think Dd2 is referring to the idea of “the best way to control the opposition is to lead it” (attributed to Lenin?) which makes complete sense from the point of view of the powers that be.
For high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific research on biological detriment from RF radiation (RFR, not ‘RFI’) including clear evidence of cancer see papers and compilations at: National Toxicology Program, Ramazzini Cancer Research Institute, Environmental Health Trust (founder Dr Devra Davis, member of Nobel winning team and former scientific adviser to US govt), PHIREmedical, Physicians for Safe Technology, Bioinitiative Org. ICBE-EMF have explained in detail the flaws in the official science, and independent RF scientists have repeatedly pointed out the issues with ICNIRP and the FCC who set the ‘guidelines’ blindly followed by the UK government. See also the referenced Lancet article on planetary electrosmog showing that the belief that RFR is non-harmful is scientifically outdated.
If you are worried about RFI damaging your person then find a deep mine to live in, away from the relentless blasts coming from our star and outer space.
On the damaging effects of smartphone addiction and the ever-growing need for instant and passive gratification turning children and adolescents into brainless, dependent automatons – yes, the parents need to step in to sort that out – without interference from the state.
And as for the brainless, dependent adult automatons… Well, I don’t know what to do about that. Perhaps the seemingly inevitable power cuts the UK is heading for will help in this matter.
I think that’ll help us all in a strange kind of way… disconnect
Many are concerned with smartphone addiction, especially when it affects youngsters learning, from not learning social norms to being unable to concentrate.
Jonathan Haidt suggests involving all parents at a school, and getting non-smartphones for the under 13 or 14, so their own children aren’t isolated from electronic social circles. It’s the one-to-many social media that is the problem, while emails are one-to-one, so are possible.
I did hear that a government was considering giving schools the power, subject to parental consultation, to do this, so children couldn’t invoke the HRA.
Perhaps treated the same was as voting, sex, marriage, drugs and alcohol? All restricted until the individual is old enough?
.
A comprehensive article thank you. Why is it that as soon as 5G is mentioned the hecklers pop out of the woodwork? There are now nearly 30 thousand studies mentioning electromagnetic frequencies (wi-fi and all of the G’s, not just 5G) and human animal and plant health. Over 74 % of studies show harm to health, yet time and time again this huge body of evidence is ignored. All I can say is that the human species suffers from an excess of Cognitive dissonance. To those commentating in a derogatory way, I’d advise looking up the term and taking a look at the 30K or more studies on the orsaa.org database. Then and only then tell me that you want your children to get addicted to a screen who’s content is solely due to the transmission of harmful frequencies.
Hope you’re not referring to anyone here as hecklers!
Let’s not give the authorities any more reasons to “protect” us from non-existent threats, please.
I recognise the hugely compelling and potentially damaging world of social media etc. I make my children aware of the risks and stand ready to help them make sense of it all. I certainly do not want the state trying to “protect” them nor to “help” me in that endeavour.
I do not worry about their brains or any other part of their bodies being fried by very, very weak electromagnetic radiation because it isn’t happening.
I do tell them all about natural sources of electromagnetic radiation which are many thousands of times more powerful. See what happens to your naked skin when the sun is in the sky on a summer’s day? I advise them merely to moderate exposure, because I don’t like the ingredients of sunscreen smeared all over my skin, and certainly not their more fragile skins.
Having said all this, The Invisible Rainbow has been recommended to me by two people I respect greatly on other matters. I shall see if it changes my mind.
Fwiw I found The Invisible Rainbow a bit patchy – useful in parts, woowoo in others. Inconclusive but net, net – worth the time invested.
But surely there has been one lesson from last 5 yrs: if you are mocked for employing the precautionary principle on a health matter, every alarm bell in your body should ring.
leaving one with a Q on 5G: why on earth would anyone advise against caution?
The Precautionary Principle is what you do before any investigation is made.
Those invoking the Precautionary Principle for Climate have ended up with a Climate Emergency, just because the BBC say so, and NET Zero policies, that are expected to cost each UK family over £300,000.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/10/25/press-release-net-zero-could-cost-300000-per-household
And there is plenty of evidence that it is the Sun that controls the Earth’s Climate, but Meteorologists know little Solar Physics, and so we continue with a fantasy theory.
The “Climate Emergency” is based on computer modelling. The Precautionary Principle is based on the fact that many studies show harmful effects of non-ionising radiation, though they are not 100% conclusive, but studies rarely are as study desgn, execution and funding source may skew results.
Glad you are open to having your mind changed as this is important. Natural EM radiation isn’t comparable with manmade RFR – it is pulsed, we did not evolve with it, it penetrates the body, it oxidises cells deep in the body and damages DNA. Sunlight isn’t ‘stronger’, it’s entirely different and it is puzzling that people make that mistake; possibly that is because Big Wireless likes to perpetuate that myth. For reliable up-to-date science from genuinely independent experts the best resources are ehtrust.org, PHIREmedical.org, and bioinitiative.org. See also the NTP study on cell phones and heart tumours. The recent COSMOS study from the revolving door group (WHO/ICNIRP), widely reported in mainstream media has been thoroughly critiqued and exposed as flawed here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024003933?via%3Dihub whilst the exposure guidelines which are laughably invalid are discussed by experts here: https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9 and there is also an excellent referenced overview in The Lancet here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-3/fulltext. We are not short of evidence, we are short of mainstream media and governments reporting on the evidence, and picking only the ‘tobacco science’ to make their lucrative reassurances.
Can somebody please grasp the difference between g for generation and G for Gigahertz, they are totally different.
The next thing to grasp is the difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation. Below a certain frequency in the X-ray range, the photons from radio transmitters do not have sufficient energy to break chemical bonds, their only measureable effect on body tissue is thermal and the only part of the body that is vulnerable is the crystalline lens in the eye due to its lack of blood supply to carry away the heat.
There have been attempts to blame radio signals for many problems. Double blind testing has revealed no correlation with any of the reports and the field strength involved.
I’ve been resisting explaining things because I’ve found I don’t have the patience and I now find the fight too stressful. So I just remind myself that the truth needs no maintenance. But well done for banging the drum for sense, Tyrbiter… It seems people really need stuff to get frightened about, and clamour for more “protection”…
Most current 4G masts are up high. My understanding is that the 5G masts will be: lower down, much more numerous and quite high-powered in order to facilitate the data needed to aid driverless cars etc.
The downsides of living near power cables is well known but not widely publicised. There is a reasonable chance the 5G could provide a long term harm to health. I would be cautious and be one of the last to market.
If you want capacity then you need density which means lower power to reduce the frequency reuse distance. Cellular planning 101.
I have tried in the past but there are too many closed minds.
If they have home broadband then there are almost certainly being bathed constantly in 5Ghz radiation as well as 2.4 GHz.
If they have a mobile phone, I guess they have survived the scares about 1G, 2G, 3G and 4G phone masts sufficiently well to start worrying about the 5th generation, and best of luck spotting the masts for that.
Double blind testing has done no such thing. Harm has been known, and covered up with ‘tobacco science,’ for decades. There are around 2000 peer reviewed studies showing harm, listed on physicians’ and scientists’ websites such as ehtrust.org, PHIREmedical.org, bioinitiative.org and others. The 10 year authoritative, conclusive NTP program found ‘clear evidence’ of tumours. It is irrelevant and narrow to dismiss the known harms because of non-ionising radiation and chemical bonds. The damage to DNA occurs nonetheless, through oxidation, VGCCs and other biological effects.
The number of studies leaning in one direction or other is not sufficient proof of anything, just as it is claimed human caused climate change is true because 97% of climate scientists agreed with this assertion.
The electromagnetic spectrum is shown below and 5G falls below sunlight in the non-ionizing wave lengths. However, 5G is in the microwave part of the spectrum and if given enough energy and concentration it will heat anything with water in it. In addition to microwave, anyone working with radio/TV transmitter towers have to take precautions when in close proximity to these powerful transmitters, close meaning within feet, which include limiting the time near the transmitters or having the transmitter turned off.
Transmitter power is measured in Watts and it is this that is dangerous if high enough and a person is close enough. The higher the wattage the longer the range.
Crystal Palace is the joint most powerful transmitter in the country at 200kW and has a range as far out as Reading.
For 5G Antenna transmission power is anywhere between 250mW for a Small Cell, and 120W for the largest 5G MIMO arrays. A typical 2G, 3G, or 4G antenna has got a transmission power of 20W. The range is low compared to Crystal Palace. Also when there is good coverage the individual mobile phone will transmit at lower power.
The issue of ‘screen time’ damaging children’s cognitive abilities has nothing to do with radio waves and everything to do with the time spent focused on a screen giving endless dopamine ‘hits’.
Massive basic flaws here. Thermal effects are one thing but the point is that a huge body of authoritative research from genuinely independent experts shows that harmful biological effects occur even at low levels of manmade RFR. Natural EM radiation isn’t comparable with manmade RFR – it is pulsed, we did not evolve with it, it penetrates the body, it oxidises cells deep in the body and damages DNA. See compilations of peer reviewed science showing biological harm at ehtrust.org, PHIREmedical.org, and bioinitiative.org. See also the NTP study on cell phones and heart tumours. The recent COSMOS study claiming safety is flawed as detailed here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412024003933?via%3Dihub whilst the exposure guidelines which are laughably invalid are discussed by experts here: https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-022-00900-9 and there is also an excellent referenced overview in The Lancet here: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(18)30221-3/fulltext. We are not short of evidence, we are short of mainstream media and governments reporting on the evidence, and picking only the ‘tobacco science’ to make their lucrative reassurances and postpone the debate indefinitely, with deniers making flawed arguments about sunlight, thermal effects and non-ionising radiation which are irrelevant to the problem in hand.
The Lancet supports Man Made Climate Change narratives, Covid Lockdowns and mass vaccination using mRNA type therapies. You use the pejorative term ‘denier’ which is emotive and a shameful attempt to create an equivalence between someone sceptical of your views and a Holocaust denier.
However, I will read your links and also ask radio experts that I know.
My opinion as an electronic engineer;
1.) Whether it’s 5G or 4G, I do have some concerns about an RF transmitter capable of outputting a few Watts of power operating right next to your brain.
2.) Taking into account the enormous amount of money involved (telecom companies), I am doubtful that an objective study could be carried out at the moment.
3.) Taking into account the fact that very few people would be willing to give up their phones, I also doubt that any warning or advice about adverse effects would make a difference on people’s behaviour.
Given the abundance of clear evidence that manmade electromagnetic radiation, which is not comparable with natural forms (sunlight does not pass through walls or bodies for example), is biologically harmful (neurological, endocrine, carcinogenic and other harms have all been repeatedly proven) the denying comments below are either ignorant or biased. Note the lack of evidence also from the deniers. Non-ionising radiation may not directly break bonds, but research shows that it oxidises cells and damages DNA so it is irrational to dismiss harms based on the outdated ‘but it’s non-ionising’ mantra. For high quality research on biological detriment including clear evidence of cancer see papers and compilations at: National Toxicology Program, Ramazzini Cancer Research Institute, Environmental Health Trust, Phire Medical, Physicians for Safe Technology. ICBE-EMF have explained in detail the flaws in the official science, and independent RF scientists have repeatedly pointed out the issues with ICNIRP and the FCC who set the ‘guidelines’ blindly followed by the UK government. Note ICNIRP look only at thermal effects and, amazingly, do not review the thousands of studies showing biological harm. Children are at particular risk and it is time the UK government and schools did their duty of care and set regulations for ethernet only at schools, as has been officially advised in other countries such as France, Russia, Israel, and Cyprus. Children are currently part of an experiment – this technology has not been around long – and it is dangerous and wrong to put them at risk in this way.
“sunlight does not pass through walls”
Phew. Thankfully we can all Stay At Home.
The problems referred to by the author are easily avoided by wearing a tinfoil hat, which prevents the microwave radiation from reaching the brain…
However she is being rather silly in trying to avoid wifi radiation by not having wifi or a smart meter in her home. Her home will still be bathed in microwave radiation, both natural and from her neighbours’ wifi systems.
Therein lies the problem. We are irradiated involountarily – without consent. However not having wifi or smart devices at home still reduces the radiation.
“Other Countries Are Taking the Health Risks of 5G and Wireless Radiation Seriously. Why Isn’t the U.K.?”
Because it’s a non-problem hyped up by people with no understanding of EM radiation and its biological effect.
Years ago the same sort of lunatics insisted that overhead HT wires caused leukaemia. They don’t.
Yes, they do, and industry/government claims to the contrary have been exposed as flawed. Are people like you paid by industry to comment this way on articles exposing harms from RFR and EMFs? Your evidence-free, ad hominem approach does not reflect well on you. https://www.powerwatch.org.uk/news/20140207-powerlines-childhood-leukaemia.asp
Why does the author amalgamate the non-risk 5G with risks from masts, WiFi and mobiles, thus diminishing the potential risk of the latter? The possible wireless radiation risks were discussed decades ago, chiefly by NZ and German scientists (easy internet search). To convince the readership, the author may consider concentrating on side effects on those residing close to masts, especially on the masts’ “beam corridors”, or using obsessively mobiles. Alasdair Philips is a priceless source of information on the topic.
The author did not mention 5G. The title is given by the editor. The article is mainly about the covering up of the science showing harm from RFR generally.
The people don’t take things seriously. For example many leave their wifi routers on all night. You can easily wire any device to be cable only doesn’t cost much you can buy adapters on Amazon which will use the power cables in your houise to transmit data and then you can connect an Ethernet cable and their are adapters available for smaller devices. It isn’t my intention to lecture but you can’t just assume that because something is invisible and it doesn’t produce immediate noticeable sensory effects then it is perfectly safe. This is an assumption based on absolutely nothing.