back to article Play stupid games, win stupid prizes: UK man gets 3 years for torching 4G phone mast over 5G fears

A Merseyside man has been sentenced to three years in jail by a beak in Liverpool Crown Court after torching a Vodafone-owned phone mast. Michael Whitty, a 47-year-old from Knowsley, set fire to the base station of the mast on April 5 of this year, after becoming convinced that 5G was directly linked to the COVID-19 epidemic, …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    He isn't all bad.

    Not much sympathy. Torching 4g over 5g fears is as stupid as thinking organic matter can be beamed digitally.

    But.. Eh, he's not all bad. He targeted Vodafone!

    1. jonathan keith Silver badge

      Re: He isn't all bad.

      Just goes to show that, very occasionally, someone can be right for *all* the wrong reasons...

    2. leexgx

      Re: He isn't all bad.

      What's with the backwards up vote and down votes on these posts (I guess truthers don't actually like being told that they're actually wrong)

      GHz is below Thz (be scared of light bulbs and emm the sun)

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: He isn't all bad.

        Tell me about it, I posted a joke at Vodafone's expense and 11 thumbs down

        Bloke after me virtually repeats it / agrees... 12 thumbs up

        Woosh

        1. Clunking Fist Bronze badge

          Re: He isn't all bad.

          How many Reg readers on the Vodafone board..?

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: He isn't all bad.

          i think it's because you're deriding star trek, perhaps.

          1. Tigra 07 Silver badge
            Devil

            Re: He isn't all bad.

            "Beam me up Scotty! But don't use the transporter on 5G mode. Haven't you heard those things cause Autism and Corona?!"

          2. First Light Bronze badge

            Re: He isn't all bad.

            That's as close as you can get to sacrilege on here.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: He isn't all bad.

      30 thumbs down and NOT ONE has explained why

      I dub these people cowardly trolls. Go on, downvote all you want, but you're fucking morons.

      1. Peter2 Silver badge

        Re: He isn't all bad.

        Never complain about downvotes. Unless your pointing out something constructive that people are wrong about it's just waving a red rag at a bull.

  2. lglethal Silver badge
    Facepalm

    It's a shame...

    It's a shame they cant or wont give these muppets some additional appropriate extra punishments. Add on that he's banned from the internet (since hes proven that hes a gullible idiot that can be talked into doing violent stupidity, removing him from the internet is for his own protection) or owning a phone that can use data for the next 10 years (since he was quite happy to take away other peoples data access). Maybe he would then actually get on and do something with his life.

    1. Dan 55 Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: It's a shame...

      The wrong person is in prison, it should be Zuck, Jack, or Sundar. But they get to continually target yet more nonsense at yet more muppets until they finally do something stupid like this one has ("Like this nonsense? Here's more!") and pocket billions in ad revenue for it. That's legal.

      1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: It's a shame...

        Gullibility is no excuse.

        Yes there should be sanctions against networks that allow this garbage to propagate and the Z-listers as accessories before the fact.

        But what do we do about the schools that are failing to teach critical thinking?

        1. Tim99 Silver badge
          Childcatcher

          Re: It's a shame...

          Er, governments really don’t want their populations to be capable of critical thinking - Particularly those that rely on populist propaganda to stay in power...

        2. Teiwaz Silver badge

          Re: It's a shame...

          But what do we do about the schools that are failing to teach critical thinking?

          I'm about this guys age, and much as I deplored the standard of teaching of that era, there's that old adage about leading a horse to water but being unable to force it to consume.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: It's a shame...

            Salted food usually works...

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Gullibility is no excuse.

          and definitely not at 47! :)

          1. This post has been deleted by its author

            1. Dr Dan Holdsworth

              Re: Gullibility is no excuse.

              No, until old-age senility is setting in, one's age is not a mitigating factor in believing any old tripe spouted on the internet. Radio waves do not produce viruses. Vaccines are heavily tested and actually do work rather well, despite what all the anti-vaxers would have you believe (and said anti-vaxers have forgotten about the death and disability toll of the diseases the vaccines are there to prevent).

              Even being stupid is no excuse for criminal damage.

              1. Scott Wheeler

                Re: Gullibility is no excuse.

                I believe the theory is that 5G is used to control the virus rather than to produce it, and that the virus is produced in labs in China controlled by Bill Gates / Soros / Barack Obama / the US Democratic party / probably Prince Andrew as well by now.

                No, I have no idea what "control" would constitute in this context. But I'd love to know how to fit a low-GHz aerial in to a virus.

                1. The Oncoming Scorn Silver badge
                  Coat

                  Re: Gullibility is no excuse.

                  IMIPAK - Induced Molecular Instability Projector and Key.

                  IMIPAG - Induced Molecular Instability Projector and 5G.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Gullibility is no excuse.

              Age is not an excuse. You might find some of us on the wrong side of 50 know more than you young pups.

            3. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Gullibility is no excuse.

              Well, I'm 45, and by this age, there's a bit of rigidity stuck in and it's a bit harder to learn completely new stuff than it was when I was a child. If you add a bit of mistrust of anything different to what you're used to into that, I can see that taking the easy route of letting someone else do the thinking for you must be quite tempting...

              As a not particularly good example, it's taken me a lot longer to learn to unicycle than my 11 year old offspring, despite the fact I can still handle a two wheeled bike much better than the offspring...

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Gullibility is no excuse.

                I buy into a theory, that kids learn certain things (like riding a unicycle) faster, because they don't (yet) have a LONG-TERM and GENERAL experience of how many various things CAN go wrong. It's not that it paralyses us, old farts, it just that this... inhibition cripples us (and for good reason) while the youngsters "just do it". Recklessly, with potentially painful (or even deadly consequences), but even in failure, their broken bones mend fast, while ours... Perhaps this, in some sense, also applies to "daring-do" thoughts, i.e. we avoid mental challenges ;)

              2. Peter2 Silver badge

                Re: Gullibility is no excuse.

                Just point out that the first use of the SHF band was centimetric radar in WW2, which pumped out up to 30kw, which is thirty thousand watts of power. And this wasn't noticeably dangerous for people around them so how the heck is minuscule 5g levels of power supposed to be dangerous?

                This tends to upset the trolls.

                1. AlbertH

                  Re: Gullibility is no excuse.

                  It's quite funny to point out to the numpties that they get much more irradiated by going outside on a sunny day.....

                  I kept my office / workshop entirely clear of interference by PHBs, HR muppets or anyone else I didn't want to see by putting up a "Radiation" sign on the door and a colourful warning about "Radiation Testing in Progress". I really can recommend this approach for all engineers who just want to quietly get on with their jobs!

            4. Stuart 22

              Re: Gullibility is no excuse.

              "Older people understand newer technology less than youngsters"

              Oooh I dunno. A smaller percentage of older and maybe wiser folks subscribe to Zuck's infamous networks.

              1. Tigra 07 Silver badge
                Pint

                Re: Gullibility is no excuse.

                Yes, but internet availability is also lower amongst the elderly, than it is the youngsters. I see a lot of people didn't like the original comment. Not much i can do about that. I used a specific example about technology. I didn't insunate or state older people weren't smart or wise. Ever tried teach your parents or grandparents to use technology?

                1. Stuart 22

                  Re: Gullibility is no excuse.

                  " Ever tried teach your parents or grandparents to use technology?"

                  Bit difficult 'cos they are all dead. But I do try teach my kids and grandkids ... some of whom do make some unwise decisions over new tech imho.

                  But then what do I know? I mean its not as though we invented or helped develop this computery/interwebby stuff - Oh, I forgot, we did ;-)

                2. Getmo

                  Re: Gullibility is no excuse.

                  Considering my dad is the one who taught me computers, started his own semiconductor company, and his dad bought him some of the first computers, can't say I relate with what you're saying. Usually old people teach me the old technology, and I teach them the new. Who knows, maybe that experience is totally unique to me.

                  Of course, I understand what you're saying, my mother is like that, but she's Polish. And she leans into it hard, will give up learning anything new before she even starts. Her father however, is an actual engineer, he even worked on Atari. I still go to him for math/algorithm problems n such, I suck at that stuff but his brain is still sharp.

                  I believe you're picking on the wrong factor here. It's not old people you struggle with teaching, it's non-technical people. Young people may be a little more "technical" only because they have to be, otherwise how else would they post pictures of their butts to instagram? They don't actually "know" anything about computers. I'm pretty sure my grandpa doesn't know how to post pictures of his butt to tik-tok, and he helped design Atari.

                  1. Goat Boy

                    Re: Gullibility is no excuse.

                    Have you actually checked on tik-tok though? ;¬)

                3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

                  Re: Gullibility is no excuse.

                  "Ever tried teach your parents or grandparents to use technology?"

                  Given that I'm 75 that would be a tad difficult. But I have friends and relatives older then I who are quite familiar with technology.

                  The real problem is with younger people who have absolutely no sense of time. The worst are those who are convinced that because they grew up with their Spectra and similar 8-bit toys that they somehow invented all that stuff. They didn't. It was invented by people in my age group, some a bit younger, some a good deal older. We were using computers longer than they've been drawing breath.

                4. DiViDeD Silver badge

                  Re: Gullibility is no excuse.

                  Ever tried teach your parents or grandparents to use technology?

                  Ever discovered that your father and two of your uncles were deeply involved in the invention and development of the technology in the first place?

                  If I'd ever tried to teach my dad to use technology I'd have felt the back of his hand.

            5. Jamie Jones Silver badge

              Re: Gullibility is no excuse.

              30/40 plus???? Old?????

              Funnily enough, I disagree (and not just because I am "30/40 plus" myself!)

              I'm generalising completely for the rest of ths post, but here goes:

              Those in their 40's grew up as this technology did. Many people here remember low level coding, and the importance of efficiency.. It was often a success to save one byte!

              We grappled with its potentials and restrictions, and generally understand how it works. Even the non-techies at this age have some idea, because they lived through the evolution:

              1) No mobile -> Mobile with games and texting -> mobile with internet -> smartphones.

              2) Visit library -> use school computer -> get own computer -> get information on cd rom -> dialup services -> dial up internet -> broadband -> wifi

              In comparison, to many under 30 -- even the "techies", it's all a black box. Sure, they know how to operate the things, but have absolutely no clue about the technology or principles behind the tech. It's just there. Like air.

              And that's even before mentioning the under 30's tendancy to be so embroiled by the tech, they know more about some Z-list celebrity than anything that's actually important.

              Stick a 25 year old and a 45 year old in an old garage, and see which one is the best "MacGyver" (google it!)

            6. hoopsa

              Re: Gullibility is no excuse.

              But he's also old enough to remember very similar nonsense coming out about 3G and 4G in their time. So you'd think he'd know better this time round.

        4. John McCallum

          Re: It's a shame...

          This dummy is 47 so at least 30 years too late

        5. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: It's a shame...

          > But what do we do about the schools that are failing to teach critical thinking?

          Please stop blaming schools/teachers. He's stupid now, he was stupid at school. His teachers probably were amazed they got him to the point he knows what firelighters are, let alone teach him critical thinking.

      2. dvhamme

        Re: It's a shame...

        Agree with the sentiment that selecting content based on interests is a potential spiral of dumb, but it's very hard to implement a meaningful separation of interesting and dangerous content without falling into the pitfalls of censorship.

        1. Dan 55 Silver badge

          Re: It's a shame...

          There's total freedom of speech, there's censorship, and then there's holding social networks to the same standards that the vast majority of other publishers willingly follow themselves. Considering the many problems social networks cause I really don't have a problem holding them to those same standards.

    2. Psmo Silver badge
      Coat

      Re: It's a shame...

      While it's not a bad idea to give the incompentents extra time to pass their 'skills' onto the prison population, I would against rewarding competence in criminal endeavours.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @ Iglethat & "since hes proven that hes a gullible idiot"

      So you know something from your own scientific investigations into the subject? (URL to your publication) or are you just believing what you have been told? same as the mast-burner

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: @ Iglethat & "since hes proven that hes a gullible idiot"

        >>(URL to your publication)

        Uh-oh "research it". The perennial cry of the YouTube/TalkRadio obsessed conspiracy-theory enthusiast who's grasp of science is pseudo at best.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @ Iglethat & "since hes proven that hes a gullible idiot"

          @"Uh-oh "research it". The perennial cry of the YouTube/TalkRadio obsessed conspiracy-theory enthusiast who's grasp of science is pseudo at best."

          Yeah, because lead in petrol, asbestos, CFCs and all the other, who cares it works, ideas didn't create continuing problems decades later not to mention deaths.

          You would imagine that we would have learned a little caution by now but there you go, caution and scientific detachment disappears when enough money changes hands.

          1. veti Silver badge

            Re: @ Iglethat & "since hes proven that hes a gullible idiot"

            I would, but I'm too busy researching the flat earth theory that someone told me to last year. I've got as far as demonstrating curvature, but I'm sure you'll agree that's no reason to give in to the "round earth" conspiracy right away.

            When people say "research it", what I hear is "I am too ignorant to understand the difference between Google and research".

            1. John Arthur
              Devil

              Re: @ Iglethat & "since hes proven that hes a gullible idiot"

              If you carry on researching the flat earth theory you may find it is a sphere of infinite radius!

              1. Citizen99

                Re: @ Iglethat & "since hes proven that hes a gullible idiot"

                Actually, it's turtles all the way down.

            2. JassMan

              Re: @ Iglethat & "since hes proven that hes a gullible idiot"

              @veti

              Not much research required, just answer 2 simple questions.

              1. If any object with gravity more than 10% of earth could exist why are all planets and stars visibly round? ie. not displayed as the edge of a disc.

              2. list the countries the countries you can fly to where everyone and every thing is visibly leaning (Pisa excepted) because gravity always acts on the centre of gravity and for a disc that is the centre.

              1. Scott 53

                Re: @ Iglethat & "since hes proven that hes a gullible idiot"

                just answer 2 simple questions

                You are attempting to reason people out of a position when they haven't reasoned themselves into it. This will not end well.

              2. veti Silver badge

                Re: @ Iglethat & "since hes proven that hes a gullible idiot"

                I personally haven't seen a lot of stars as any more than points of light. Planets I have seen, and there is no conclusive evidence that they're round. They seem to change shape, much like the moon.

                As for the proposition that gravity always acts on the CoG, perhaps you can suggest how I could verify that experimentally. (Keep in mind that "always" is a big claim, and the finding must be valid at very large scale.)

                1. David Nash
                  Boffin

                  Re: @ Iglethat & "since hes proven that hes a gullible idiot"

                  The only planets that change shape, "much like the moon" are Venus and Mercury, because they are between us and the sun, also "much like the moon". The shapes seen are explained by the fact that they are round "much like the moon".

                  The other planets we can see (yes I have several telescopes and have verified this) are always seen as round, because they are.

                2. Getmo

                  Re: @ Iglethat & "since hes proven that hes a gullible idiot"

                  It's called a telescope. Galileo had one.

                  As for gravity. Sir Newton wrote a book called 'principia mathematica'. It seems quite popular. Especially among those who create the magic flying vehicles you see near airports.

                  1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
                    Headmaster

                    Re: @ Iglethat & "since hes proven that hes a gullible idiot"

                    "Sir Newton "

                    Sir Isaac or Sir Isaac Newton, but NEVER Sir Newton.

                    A knight may be known as Sir <first name> or Sir <first name, last name> or possibly even Sir <full name> but NEVER EVER as Sir <last name>

                    1. Getmo
                      Pint

                      Re: @ Iglethat & "since hes proven that hes a gullible idiot"

                      Ah, my American is showing again. Duly noted, thank you for the thorough explanation! -->

              3. Scott Wheeler

                Re: @ Iglethat & "since hes proven that hes a gullible idiot"

                I think the flat Earth response to point 1 is that the Earth is not a planet, and planets and stars are close and small. As to point 2 - some of them don't believe in gravity, and think that the flat Earth is in uniform acceleration, so "down" is in the same direction everywhere.

                1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                  Re: @ Iglethat & "since hes proven that hes a gullible idiot"

                  "some of them don't believe in gravity, and think that the flat Earth is in uniform acceleration, so "down" is in the same direction everywhere."

                  I don't think it's that well reasoned out. They just think it's "natural", or maybe "magic"

              4. Jamie Jones Silver badge
                Happy

                Re: @ Iglethat & "since hes proven that hes a gullible idiot"

                I know what a flat-earher would say to that!

                1) They are round. They just aren't spheres. They are flat disks. They are just all pointing towards us.

                2) They aren't leaning, because Earth is flat! Checkmate, scientists!

          2. Lunatic Looking For Asylum
            Pint

            Re: @ Iglethat & "since hes proven that hes a gullible idiot"

            You would imagine that we would have learned a little caution by now but there you go, caution and scientific detachment disappears when enough money changes hands.

            ------

            Have a beer for this....

          3. Jamie Jones Silver badge

            Re: @ Iglethat & "since hes proven that hes a gullible idiot"

            OK, Mr anonymous. Please explain how the disabling of a 4G mast removes the "harmful effects" of 5G?

      2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: @ Iglethat & "since hes proven that hes a gullible idiot"

        I probably do know a bit about it. I'm a biologist by training and a techie by adoption. My first venture from science to IT was in the mobile industry. And you?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: @ Iglethat & "since hes proven that hes a gullible idiot"

          "I probably do know a bit about it" and yet you couldn't find work in your own field.

          Pure biology science over the last 30 years has created more "qualified" biologists than the job market in the UK could absorb resulting in many having to find work in unrelated positions such as sales in Carphone Warehouse or McDonalds. Now if were good enough for enviromental/water treatment/alcohol/pharma/medicine or some other related discipline that the UK was willing to invest in then your could have stayed in your field and avoided semi-skilled work.

          For my part I studied all the sciences along with Pure/applied and higher maths to at least 'A' level and chose Electronic Engineering at degree before switching to computing . In between I worked with my older IchemE siblings at their own company where I was involved in many biological and chemical engineering projects.

          I do see your point though, that determining the effect of EM upon the human body requires a high level understanding of both physics and biology/medicine to actually have a chance at knowing what you are talking about but since this is the networking subgroup then it is to be expected that most of the opinions are going to be based upon things other than actual knowledge or training.

    4. Teiwaz Silver badge

      Re: It's a shame...

      Add on that he's banned from the internet

      Difficult to do that when Government and Commercial services are now increasingly only available through digital channels.

      1. Stoneshop Silver badge
        Devil

        Re: It's a shame...

        Difficult to do that when Government and Commercial services are now increasingly only available through digital channels.

        Internet access available only via a limited connection that only resolves .gov.uk addresses.

        (and never mind the javascript, fonts and trackers pulled in from various sources, plus the clod chunks that appear to be inevitable in today's Internet environment)

    5. TheMeerkat Bronze badge

      Re: It's a shame...

      He should have stuck to destroying monuments. That seems to be allowed and applauded these days. I guess because nobody makes money from statures?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Trollface

        Re: It's a shame...

        > I guess because nobody makes money from statures

        Ronnie Corbett did okay.

    6. Cuddles Silver badge

      Re: It's a shame...

      "Maybe he would then actually get on and do something with his life."

      Sadly unlikely. While much of the focus has been on the anti-5G element, the BBC report provides a few more details - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-52966950

      "Whitty, who had 29 previous convictions, including for assault and for possession of a firearm"

      This isn't one of those rare conspiracy nuts who finally decided to get out of the basement and actually take action, he's just a run-of-the-mill petty thug who happened to use 5G as an excuse for his latest stupid crime. Perhaps better education, treatment and rehabilitation could have helped earlier in his life, but by the time a person is in their late 40s with 30 criminal convictions (and no doubt plenty more not prosecuted or let off with warnings), it's a bit late to be thinking up unusual punishments in the hopes they'll suddenly turn their life around.

  3. Version 1.0 Silver badge
    Unhappy

    He used the wrong excuse

    /joke

    Three years in jail for burning the wrong mast - OK sure, it was stupid but maybe he should have just told the court that he was doing it to check his eyesight?

    The mast was just a little issue really when compared to burning an entire country by being stupid and worrying more about your popularity than peoples lives.

    1. Sorry that handle is already taken. Silver badge
      FAIL

      Re: He used the wrong excuse

      So you let this guy off because someone else did something worse?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: He used the wrong excuse

        @" because someone else did something worse", do you mean legal precedent and matching the severity of the punishment against previous punishments?

        I don't think they should have let him off but since criminal damage carries a heavier punishment than say killing someone via drunk/aggressive/reckless driving in the UK then it might be said that his punishment is par for the course.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: He used the wrong excuse

      Three years in jail for burning the wrong mast

      Yes, three years may seem a little harsh for the crime of being a stupid fuckwit, but unfortunately longish stretches like this are necessary 'pour décourager les autres' (apologies to Voltaire for the manglement.)

      1. ibmalone Silver badge

        Re: He used the wrong excuse

        Well, the original post was a joke, but it's interesting how "pour en-(ou de-)courager les autres" never lands on the peripatetic amateur ophthalmologists. (Who were also meant to be discouraged from their activities.)

        1. ibmalone Silver badge

          Re: He used the wrong excuse

          Some fans of blind-driving in the house tonight I see! Mind that wall.

          (Or maybe they were trying for the upvote, I guess the buttons are quite close if your vision is blurry.)

          1. ibmalone Silver badge

            Re: He used the wrong excuse

            It's the one on the left. Maybe try squinting a bit? There's a title attribute if you're using a screen reader.

            1. ibmalone Silver badge

              Re: He used the wrong excuse

              No, the left, same as the side you're supposed to drive on.

              Wait, I think I see the issue now.

      2. Arthur the cat Silver badge
        Trollface

        Re: He used the wrong excuse

        three years may seem a little harsh for the crime of being a stupid fuckwit

        Nope!

      3. ridley

        Re: He used the wrong excuse

        I am quite surprised at the length of sentence. I used to go out with someone who nicked £150,000 from a charity and got way less time.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: He used the wrong excuse

          How much do you think a 4G mast costs to replace? And the inconvenience to customers who rely on it? And the loss of customers moving to another network while it's out of service? And of course personal risk to the emergency services that had to attend the blaze?

          But see also the comment below about the severity of arson as a crime.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: He used the wrong excuse

        Not long enough, in my opinion, considering he probably put emergency calls and lives at risk. Ten years seems a nice round figure to me.

        1. Will Godfrey Silver badge

          Re: He used the wrong excuse

          For anyone who doesn't know, arson is regarded as so serious that it has a top limit of life imprisonment.

          1. Andre Carneiro

            Re: He used the wrong excuse

            That's fascinating, I had no idea!

            I suppose the rationale being that arson may put multiple lives at risk.

      5. Danny Boyd Bronze badge

        Re: He used the wrong excuse

        His crime is not being a stupid fuckwit. His crime is arson.Committing arson because of being a stupid fuckwit doesn't change that.

        1. Craig 2
          Joke

          Re: He used the wrong excuse

          True, the crime of being a stupid fuckwit carries a life sentence...

      6. leexgx

        Re: He used the wrong excuse

        The thing was if it was just matter of setting the mast on fire he probably would of been put in the loony bin, but he had plans on how to take a mast out (he put some effort into planning to set something very specific on fire)

        Anyone who thinks radio waves spreads virus should be on a watch list

        1. The Oncoming Scorn Silver badge
          Coat

          Re: He used the wrong excuse

          Just for shit's n giggles, I renamed my two guest SSID's to Provider1_Covid19_5GTestt_LocalArea & Provider2_Covid19_5GTest_LocalArea.

          I'm terribly sorry & now realise my honest mistake, I should have named them to Provider_Covid19_5GTest_NextCity3HoursToTheNorth.

      7. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: He used the wrong excuse

        "Yes, three years may seem a little harsh for the crime of being a stupid fuckwit,"

        But not harsh enough for sabotaging critical national infrastructure in a time of national crisis.

      8. AlbertH

        Re: He used the wrong excuse

        Not at all. Stupidity often has "capital" consequences (though not frequently enough).

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: He used the wrong excuse

      17 downvotes! I guess there's a lot of Anti 5G people here.

      1. leexgx

        Re: He used the wrong excuse

        Yep (anti radio waves)

        1. Teiwaz Silver badge

          Re: He used the wrong excuse

          Yep (anti radio waves)

          Just anti-radio here

          Never found a station that wasn't almost immediately annoying.

          Either after one track or as soon as whatever gormless idiots doing dj (or whatever) open their baeks.

          1. Clunking Fist Bronze badge

            Re: He used the wrong excuse

            Teiwaz, and the quality of radio advertising leaves a bit to be desired. Spotify (etc) is a success for a reason.

          2. Jamie Jones Silver badge

            Re: He used the wrong excuse

            It will be better next year.. No more European radiowaves coming here, pinching our airspace etc.

    4. James Anderson Silver badge

      Re: He used the wrong excuse

      Not unless he had a couple of you children to throw in -- otherwise it lacks credbility.

  4. TVU Silver badge

    "Whitty pled guilty on May 18 via video link from HMP Altcourse — a Category B prison in the Fazakerley area of Liverpool — where he was warned a custodial sentence was inevitable"

    Good, and I hope this case is widely publicised so that other ill-educated conspiracy theory vegetables get the message that they will go to prison if they set fire to phone masts and thereby recklessly endanger lives.

    1. BFG

      The problem is, this just reinforces the conspiracy in the heads of the feeble minded.

      "See! Deep State is trying to silence us by locking us way."

      These imbeciles do not reason or accept empirical evidence. They will see conspiracy in everything.

      Sadly, there is no vaccination against stupid.

      1. Anonymous Coward Silver badge
        Joke

        I heard that an injection of bleach protects against stupid....

      2. Mike Moyle Silver badge

        "Sadly, there is no vaccination against stupid."

        And, if there was, they wouldn't get it, so...

        1. iron Silver badge

          Its ok they don't need to inject it, just wash their food in it and drink it like the loyal Trumpettes.

        2. DryBones

          Oh, it's all in wording. You need to say "Injection of bleach CURES stupid."

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            21 Amazing Alternative Uses for Bleach! #17 Will Astound You!

      3. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Perhaps the judge should have pointed out that the entire rumour is a cunning government plot to get the gullible to self-identify so the NHS doesn't waste resources treating them when they go down with coronavirus.

    2. JetSetJim Silver badge

      As with all sentencing - longer durations do not necessarily imply deterrence against the crime.

    3. Teiwaz Silver badge

      Good, and I hope this case is widely publicised so that other ill-educated conspiracy theory vegetables get the message that they will go to prison if they set fire to phone masts and thereby recklessly endanger lives.

      Means little to the rag merchants, bloggers, video bloggers, amateur publishers and 'conspiracy gurus' egging them on.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      That should be "pleaded guilty".

  5. Bertieboy

    Three years free board and lodging courtesy of HMG - bad but it could have been worse, I seem to remember that in previous times, sabotage of vital infrastructure in times of emergency could carry a suspended sentence (assuming the police/army failed to shoot him at the time).

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "a suspended sentence"

      Is that what they used to call hanging in those days?

      1. J. Cook Silver badge
        Go

        Re: "a suspended sentence"

        Possibly.

        I'm more fond of the phrase "A short drop and a sudden stop" as popularized by a certain mouse-eared movie about pirates in a tropical island...

        1. Teiwaz Silver badge

          Re: "a suspended sentence"

          popularized by a certain mouse-eared movie

          I'd rather hang the mouse.

          high pitched unfunny vermin*.

          * Harsh? It's my inner child striking back over countless cartoon time disappointments.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      why vital?

      people are not currently supposed to be roaming and most people in the UK already have landlines.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        That may be true

        But there are a significant number who no longer have landlines - especially were the associated "broadband" does not offer a (needed) speed advantage than mobile data.

        I have a land line, but it is only used when "Microsoft", "insurance claim providers" and others call offering me "help". I have never given the number to anyone and never use it to make calls as the costs are much higher than the "unlimited minutes" on my mobile contract - if it was available through my ISP, I would opt for a "data only" line.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: That may be true

          I would question your significant number of houses without a landline, do you have any evidence to back up your claim?

          1. Arthur the cat Silver badge

            Re: That may be true

            One swift Google later:

            From Statista, 22% of households don't have a landline, 3% have an incoming only landline.

            1. Martin-73 Silver badge

              Re: That may be true

              I'd lump them in with the mast burners. Landlines are cheap, and actually work when the power goes out (from experience, cellular coverage drops to zero if the power cut is more than a blown fuse at the local substation)

              And if connection to the Internet is THAT vital, you'd want a backup provider, via a diverse route, right?

              1. Richard 12 Silver badge
                Boffin

                Re: That may be true

                Mobile phone masts have local backup power that is legally required to last a certain number of hours. I forget the exact spec.

                Same as local loop for landlines. Fibre to the cabinet has sometimes required the cabinet to be moved so the batteries fit.

                Of course, there's nothing saying that the backup power has to support 4G/5G or Internet DSLAMs, only "voice", whatever that means.

                So you're just as likely to lose Internet either way.

                In many places mobile is more reliable than landline, because it only takes one tree or flooded duct to take out all landlines on a cabinet, while most urban areas have quite big overlaps.

                Also you can take a walk down the street looking for signal. Can't do that with a landline.

                1. Martin-73 Silver badge

                  Re: That may be true

                  To respond to your comments in order

                  They are required to have backup, yes. But who maintains those SLA* batteries? Virgin's in their cabinets tend to die within 10 mins of a local power failure, because they've not been replaced since install. Wouldn't be surprised if cellular was the same

                  FTTC still uses the central exchange battery for power to the voice part of the circuit. As the cabinets age, agreed, the same arguments may apply re: local batteries, but the central exchange batteries will be better maintained, fo sho. (internet wasn't my point here, it was the ability to send and receive phonecalls, especially 999/112 type calls)

                  Fair point re: taking out the feed to the cabinet/DP. Indeed, that is an issue. (unlikely to happen at the same time as a power outage unless there's a MASSIVE storm, so you'll have a backup in the form of that mobile :) )

                  Finally... if the landline's working, you don't have to seek signal. But yes, if the local tower is out, you can drive a few miles to get a signal to dial 999

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                "actually work when the power goes out"

                They may do for now, but what about when everyone is moved on to IP phones (which has already started)? It's then going to rely on power for the equipment and the kit you have at home (the termination hardware is required to have a battery, but they can't force it to be maintained).

              3. hoola Bronze badge

                Re: That may be true

                Also, as far as I am aware, landline don't suffer from outages when the network is overloaded.

                1. Richard 12 Silver badge
                  Facepalm

                  Re: That may be true

                  Landlines absolutely do suffer outages when overloaded. Each cabinet can only handle a certain number of simultaneous calls.

                  If everyone on your street tried to make a phonecall at the same time, some of them would not get a dial tone.

                  The difference is that landlines are fixed, so it's simple to work out the installed diversity and thus ensure it's very unlikely to be a problem.

                  Mobiles, well, are mobile so it's much harder to work out what capacity a given mast needs to have. A concert could add 50,000 phones over the course of an hour. Landlines definitely can't be added that quickly.

                  1. Martin-73 Silver badge
                    Headmaster

                    Re: That may be true

                    I'm not sure where you're getting your info, but the cabinets are not the source of anything... unless you're on one of those fibre concentrators from the early 80s. They merely take the local cables and bundle them into huge (up to 2400 pair) cables back to the exchange. Each line HAS a linecard ... everyone could pick up the phone and get dialtone. Now actually MAKING a call (especially from a rural exchange) may have caused issues a few years back, as there would have been only so many junctions/trunks back to the main serving exchange. But that's not the case anymore.

                    Interestingly the scenario you describe WOULD have happened with the strowger system, in the event of everyone on a particular uniselector rack picked up the phone, only a certain number (usually 10 per pair of shelves if i recall) would get dialtone. But that has absolutely zero to do with the cabinet, which is merely a junction box

              4. ICL1900-G3

                Landlines

                We have FTTP and good mobile reception. The only use our landline got was for phishing calls. It has now gone and we don't miss it.

            2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: That may be true

              "From Statista, 22% of households don't have a landline, 3% have an incoming only landline."

              I'm not sure that's an especially useful number though. There is an implied assumption that 22% of households rely on a mobile phone instead of a landline. Landline households peaked at "only" 95%, so there's at least 5% who may not have had a phone at all. There's also been a change in demographics where there are many more single person households so a landline is of less relevance. I strongly suspect that multiple-person households which are families rather than unrelated "flat mates"will be more likely to have a landline than not.

              Oh yeah, stats from the same source you used, but over a longer time period and giving a different impression.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: That may be true

            Simple demographics - basically no-one under the age of 30 would have a landline. So that's at least 16% of UK households. I reckon in the 30 to 45 age group it depends on whether renting or owning. That might amount to another 15% of households.

            On a comprehensive sample of my relatives who I contact regularly by phone tthere are only 3 who I would consider phoning on their landline - and all 3 are over the age of 70.

            And no pedantry about 'broadband' being a landline

            1. leexgx

              Re: That may be true

              Without a land line you can't have broadband (unless your on virgin or real fibre)

              1. JetSetJim Silver badge

                Re: That may be true

                Incorrect. LTE dongles embedded in routers are quite a popular choice. Coverage limitations and data allowances may apply, but you can get all you can eat contacts, and I've done 90mbps on my phone speed tests.

                1. Glen 1 Silver badge

                  Re: That may be true

                  I know of areas in Birmingham (UK's 2nd largest city - shush Mancunians) where a 4G enabled router is 5x faster than Openreach's finest efforts. Empirically.

                  1. Martin-73 Silver badge

                    Re: That may be true

                    My question with regard to that, given how my routing looks when using O2's LTE/4G offerings... what's the status of cellular broadband with regards to carrier grade (sic) NAT, and stupid IP address assignments (in the 10.x.x.x block?)

                    1. Glen 1 Silver badge

                      Re: That may be true

                      Am on Vodafone with my 4G, my LAN IP is in the 10.X.X.X block.

                      1. Martin-73 Silver badge

                        Re: That may be true

                        Yes, I've heard of occasions where that becomes an issue when the WAN side is also in the 10.x.x.x block...

                2. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: That may be true

                  incidentally, should I be looking at any particular... providers? Or is it still a rule that "we pretend that we believe that you use your mobile phone x 5 to do all those things at once"?

                  (I'm asking, since even basic virgin media broadband, while speed is more than sufficient (100), has steadily crept up to around 40 quid per month, and I wouldn't mind swapping it for something cheaper, even with a bit of fuss.

                  ...

                  now, if only I could level that hill between me and the nearest phone mast :(

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                3. AlbertH

                  Re: That may be true

                  90mbps is just 1 / 400th of the REAL broadband speed I get in Singapore. I find it hard to believe that the poor saps in the UK who have to put up with 5 - 8 mbps call it "broadband". I suppose it's a bit quicker than their old 28k dial-up..... "Broadband" it's NOT!

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: That may be true

                running on fttc here and get 19Mbit downstream and 1.1 Mbit upstream, as a result it's quicker for me to copy a video file to my mobile, plonk the mobile on an upstairs windowsill and upload from that taking advantage of it's vastly faster speeds (87Mbit down 29Mbit up)

              3. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: That may be true

                When we wanted a public wifi point in a the office last year, instead of providing a wifi router and connecting it to the RJ45 jack already there on the wall and cabled down to the basement, the guy just turned up with a small 5G wifi box and plonked it on to the window ledge. We now have decent wifi speed and no landline!

                1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                  Re: That may be true

                  Wow! I didn't realise there was a 5G network last year!

        2. martinusher Silver badge

          Re: That may be true

          The architcture of mobile communications is built on the idea that you don't need to rely on any one mast. So even if the 'two firelighters and a pair of cotton gloves' had destroyed the mast it wouldn't -- shouldn't -- knock out service for anyone. It might inconvenience people because they're Instagram's a tad slow but that's about it.

          I have a real issue with the forces of law 'n order hyping things up for the ignoranti. Sure, torching masts is stupid, it displays a very special breed of gullability and stupidity, but the people involved need help with their mental issues, not being stuck in jail for years. (After all, apart from them being likely to get infected with Covid-19 in a guranteed 5G free environment what will it do?)

          1. Glen 1 Silver badge
            Trollface

            Re: That may be true

            "it displays a very special breed of gullability and stupidity, but the people involved need help with their mental issues, not being stuck in jail for years."

            something something Brexit

          2. JetSetJim Silver badge

            Re: That may be true

            > The architcture of mobile communications is built on the idea that you don't need to rely on any one mast.

            True up to a point, however if you were out in the boonies, it's probably not true. What would be the point in having two masts covering every single location in the country(*). For sure you need overlap to provide continuity of service, but having call-holiding levels of coverage from multiple cells everywhere is rather wasteful.

            The architecture of a mobile network is to ensure that as you move, you can maintain contact with the network to hold a call. Knock one out (and burning a site down will knock out several, in general, as they usually host 3 cells each pointing in different directions) and you risk continuity of coverage in that area.

            (*) where required to by regulator coverage requirements

      2. John Robson Silver badge

        Re: why vital?

        Whilst I technically have a landline there hasn't been anything plugged into it for many years.

        In fact the "master socket" is currently located in the garage.

        I'm sure I'm not alone, but am equally sure that a significant number of people have forgotten what phone numbers are for... Everything is done by contact searching nowadays.

        Gone are the days when we used to know dozens of people's numbers by heart.

        1. Stoneshop Silver badge

          Re: why vital?

          Gone are the days when we used to know dozens of people's numbers by heart.

          How about still knowing our own telephone number 57 years on from when I was three years old? Okay, it had a nice ring^Wrhythm to it making it easy to memorise, but still.

          1. Scott 26

            Re: why vital?

            pretty easy when you grew up in a small town in the 70s: 2-double-1

            Friends were 6-3, but they were on a party line so you could potentially get the whole damn road on a single call... instant and specific tele-conferencing.

            1. Stoneshop Silver badge

              Re: why vital?

              pretty easy when you grew up in a small town in the 70s: 2-double-1

              Where we lived is currently the third-largest city in the Netherlands, and while I don't know the actual number of phone lines back then, the local subscriber number was already six digits.

          2. Jamie Jones Silver badge

            Re: why vital?

            I still remember my first girlfriends (parents) phone number... I don't know ANY of the numbers of girlfriends since.

        2. Glen 1 Silver badge

          Re: why vital?

          I still remember my childhood home landline number, as it was drilled into to me a)what it is b)how to make a reverse charge call in case of emergencies.

          These days, I know *my* number, because I need to ring it when I misplace it....

          1. stungebag

            Re: why vital?

            My wired landline is an old ex-BT handset I bought on eBay. It says my number is Bridge of Cally 250.

            Apparently Bridge of Cally is nearly 450 miles away.

            1. Stoneshop Silver badge

              Bridge of Cally is nearly 450 miles away.

              That's an impressively long extension cord you're using there.

      3. leexgx

        Re: why vital?

        Landlines/hardware connections aren't fully immune from this crap (some FTTC/FTTP cabs have been set on fire as well)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: why vital?

          and were these fttc/fttp burnings proven to be due to RF extremists? or are you just referring to communication gear's flammability in passing?

          1. Glen 1 Silver badge

            Re: why vital?

            More like local ne'er do wells finding such thing funny. Or possibly an electrical fault?

          2. james_smith Silver badge

            Re: why vital?

            were these fttc/fttp burnings proven to be due to RF extremists?

            Judging by the amount of Openreach engineers getting abuse from 5G conspiracy nuts while working on the boxes it's a reasonable assumption that the burnings are also the work of the same idiots.

      4. Stoneshop Silver badge
        Holmes

        not currently supposed to be roaming

        So tearing down mobile infra is OK for the moment?

        Right, then you'll be helping getting it back in working order once this stuff is sufficiently over that we can be out and about again?

      5. Avatar of They
        WTF?

        Re: why vital?

        The same masts support the Police, Fire brigade, Ambulances, District Nurses, Delivery drivers, GP surgeries, on call rotas for many industries, and dialling home for a load of things from gas and electricity meters to weather stations and wind turbines.

    3. 2+2=5 Silver badge
      Joke

      > Three years free board and lodging

      I feel sorry for his future cell mate - 23 hours a day having to listen to his nonsense.

  6. goldcd

    3 years?

    Maybe could be sentenced to an OU physics degree.

    1. Greybearded old scrote
      Joke

      Re: 3 years?

      Oh, steady on!

    2. lglethal Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: 3 years?

      But dont we want him to learn something?

    3. Wellyboot Silver badge

      Re: 3 years?

      Force him to dress like a 1975 OU physics lecturer on release or is that too cruel?

      1. Aussie Doc Bronze badge
        Windows

        Re: 3 years?

        Oi! What's wrong with the way I dress?

    4. _Charles_

      Re: 3 years?

      with his grades linked to his parole

  7. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Sigh...

    It always surprises me that there remains this calibre of stupid in the wild. This Scouse muppet, the flat Earthers and such like - can't we just throw them in the Mersey and wave the off as they float off into oblivion?

    1. Greybearded old scrote

      Re: Sigh...

      Sail the Flat Earthers south until they fall off the edge, that's what I say.

    2. Mike Moyle Silver badge

      Re: Sigh...

      "(C)an't we just throw them in the Mersey and wave the off as they float off into oblivion?"

      What, you don't have laws against intentionally polluting the waters over there?

    3. iron Silver badge

      Re: Sigh...

      Sadly the Mersey is so silted up and there are so many idiots it wouldn't be long before they could walk safely away on the backs of their drowned comrades.

    4. J. Cook Silver badge

      Re: Sigh...

      Sadly, unlike genius, stupidity has no known limits.

    5. Marlborough

      Re: Sigh...

      He's not actually a Scouser - he's from Knowsley, not Liverpool.

    6. AlbertH

      Re: Sigh...

      They should be dumped on Rockall, along with XR morons, and the BLM clowns who're making the cities statue-free

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    nutters

    These nutters would REALLY be upset if the lived in my neighborhood.

    A 5G tower was just erected in the middle of the playground of our local elementary school.

    I did take a photo of the workers on a boom lift putting the final touches on the tower which caught their attention.

    They were probably thinking I was some sort of 5G protester but in reality I only snapped a quick photo as I was walking past with the dogs because I thought it odd that the workers were attempting to disguise the 5G mast as a tree that is not native to these parts of the world.

    (I wonder if these 5G protesters gave any thought to the harmful toxins that might be given off by the burning of these masts or the accelerants they used?)

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @ "harmful toxins"

      Given the existing pollution of the environment in the UK burning a mast is merely another drop in the ocean.

    2. J. Cook Silver badge
      Boffin

      Re: nutters

      It's really bad when they try to disguise it as a pine tree... in the middle of the ('effin) desert. I could see it working in the northern area of my state (arizona, US) where we do have pine trees, and even tall ones, though...

      (technically, the other disguise they use (palm trees) aren't native to my area either, but the tree species that are don't grow that tall...)

    3. Ashentaine
      Flame

      Re: nutters

      >(I wonder if these 5G protesters gave any thought to the harmful toxins that might be given off by the burning of these masts or the accelerants they used?)

      Given that people once (and occasionally still do) protested the excessive emissions caused by SUV's with the method of setting them on fire in car dealership lots, creating a massive polluting cloud of burning rubber, plastic and fuel in the process... no, they probably haven't.

    4. matjaggard

      Re: nutters

      Actually, if you DO believe that the radiation might damage children's brains (I don't), on top of a school is exactly the right place for a mast. All kids these days use phones and the transmitter by your head is the one you need to worry about more. The transmission power used is varied to be sufficient to get the signal to the mast, so the closer you are, the lower the power. In addition, the mast itself will have a pattern such that the lowest power is downwards and the highest power is aimed in the distance.

      Oddly you don't see many tin hat types campaigning for masts on schools though.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: nutters

        > This kind of logic is a Danger to Society. Report to the nearest re-education centre.

      2. AlbertH
        Childcatcher

        Re: nutters

        My company - whilst installing some 4G infrastructure - were given the job of installing wi-fi into a school. The lads put the access points up in the appointed places, and ran the Ethernet cables into an equipment cupboard at the end of the main corridor. On their third day there, they were met by all the teachers (and a number of incensed parents) complaining that they were all suffering from various maladies including headaches, ingrowing toenails, hair loss and even curdled milk in the staff room....

        They were all very embarrassed when they were shown that the Ethernet cables that ran along the walls to the cupboard weren't actually connected to anything......

    5. Lee D Silver badge

      Re: nutters

      Used to work in a primary school.

      Installed a wifi access point in reception so that parents could jump on to check the school website or whatever.

      Got yelled at by a parent about "Did I know that I'm frying young children's brains?!?!?!?".

      Then watched her get in and put her kid in her 4x4, not do up her own seatbelt, pin a smartphone to her ear and drive off one-handed past all the other kids while jabbering away on it.

      1. ricardian

        Re: nutters

        The BBC put in a temporary 5G link last year

        https://www.orcadian.co.uk/parents-protest-over-5g/

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If the offender is indeed insane -

    - then why is he being punished rather than treated.

    You can't have it both ways, either he is a nutter than needs to be secured for his own and public safety or he is a rational criminal who needs locking up.

    On the subject of data access and those that insist their roaming "needs" should override those who are against it, when can I come around to run my ethernet though your house?

    1. Filippo

      Re: If the offender is indeed insane -

      He's nuts because he believes that 5G causes COVID, but he's also a criminal because he committed arson. He tried to cover his traces, so he knew he was doing something illegal; he's not nuts in that way. Unless you're actually incapable of understanding that you're committing a crime, your being nuts won't prevent you from getting locked-up.

      Also, if you're against a public work on the basis of nothing more than sheer delusion, damn right you should be overridden. You running ethernet through my house would not be a delusion.

      And in any case, in *any* case, you can't burn stuff you don't like down. If you know for a fact that a building is dumping poison, you still go through the courts, or the newspapers, or your local politicians, and if everyone tells you that you're nuts, you suck it up and live with it or move house. There is literally no circumstance where burning it down is acceptable.

      1. Stoneshop Silver badge
        Pirate

        Re: If the offender is indeed insane -

        you still go through the courts, or the newspapers, or your local politicians,

        Going through your local politicians may quite often require a hazmat suit. Which are in short supply at the moment, so you can't readily take that course of action.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If the offender is indeed insane -

        "And in any case, in *any* case, you can't burn stuff you don't like down"

        What about throwing statues of slavers into the Harbour?

        1. Stoneshop Silver badge
          Boffin

          you can't burn stuff you don't like down

          What about throwing statues of slavers into the Harbour?

          Metal statues tend to not burn very well[1]. Especially not when thrown in the water[2].

          [1] excepting those made of magnesium, which is not very common.

          [2] excepting those made of sodium, potassium and the other alkali metals, which is not very common either.

      3. TheMeerkat Bronze badge

        Re: If the offender is indeed insane -

        Look at Black Lives Matter criminals who destroy property with immunity.

        If they can do it because they believe passionately that they are right, why this guy ca’t do they same if he believes the mast endanger people’s health?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: If the offender is indeed insane -

          What about whatboutery!!!!?

        2. Glen 1 Silver badge

          Re: If the offender is indeed insane -

          "Look at Black Lives Matter criminals who destroy property with immunity"

          Not getting caught is not the same as immunity. See this

          I'll look at the police who murder people with impunity.... who supposed to be the ones protecting the public. Oh wait.

    2. HighTension
      Happy

      Re: If the offender is indeed insane -

      Anytime - I'll charge you £250 pcm per metre of cable inside my house for 5e. Cat6 or higher £300 per month. Setup fee £15k, as I need a new heating system, fridge freezer and oven.That's clearly not going to be of much use if you don't live in North Herts, but you can't always get what you want.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If the offender is indeed insane -

        @ high tension

        Cool you can take it out of what is owed everyone else who has their opinion ignored or shouted down by those who profit from increasing their potential exposure against their wishes.

        1. HighTension

          Re: If the offender is indeed insane -

          Really? Can you give me a peer-reviewed paper (or preferably more), and then maybe a review of other studies, that clearly demonstrates a deleterious effect from "5G radiation". I think you'll find it hard to come up with anything credible

          What most miss it that 5G, by and large, will be using the same bands as 4G when not in dense urban environments. When it is used in dense urban areas, that's where the higher frequency bands come into play - short range, very low power - in fact made even lower by the ability to use active phased array antennas to send the power where needed rather than spaffing kilowatts in all directions from the dreaded "mast on top of a primary school" in the hope it will get to a subscriber - in all ways it's much less exposure for everyone - people near the access points and the users themselves.

          Newer encoding techniques mean even in the "traditional" scenario with more remote base stations (NB, still on the same bands as 4G), you'll get a better connection with *less* power radiating into your head.

          This is all just Physics and Information Theory - it's all out there to read for free, but if you choose to ignore decades experimental results and all the studies confounding EMF sensitivity (ie people would respond to a fake flashing light on a fake router almost 100% of the time and a real WiFi signal <0.1% of the time) please feel free to go and live in the wilderness and eat roadkill rather than moaning about the very tech you're using to comment here.

          And what the hell your comparison with running ethernet via my house is, I have no idea - I'd love it if I could get gigabit here and share it with others. Are you using a psychic connection to el Reg by any chance?

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    3 years for a terrorist offence ?

    Seems very lenient.

    "British Z-list dipshits” And so does this.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

      There is no evidence that creating terror was his intention, the hateful posts here are a bit concerning though, almost as if someone was being paid to promote hatred of those that are against EM proliferation

      1. HighTension

        Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

        I think you'll find that there is no such thing as "EM Proliferation". If anything, you are probably exposed to far less EMF than you were 20 years ago with only 2G phones, DECT stilll in nappies and far more local overhead cables than now. Modern electronics and software means we need far less power in watts to reach each other than we ever did. We can even communicate "below the noise floor" thanks to experimentation by both amateurs and the military. 5G is another leap in that direction, especially with microcells - instead of your phone ramping up to 5 or 10 watts to reach the cell over the hill, you'll be running microwatts to get to your nearest lamp post or traffic light. Your brain therefore should avoid the roasting that you are probably already suffering every time you call your co-conspiracy-theorist mates.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

          Clearly there is such a thing as "EM proliferation" or you would not have understood what I was referring to.

          Also your assumption that I am a conspiracy theorist shows that you misunderstood my post, so to make things easier for you here are the points in what I hope are an easier format.

          1. There is no evidence that this individual committed his act in the hope of creating terror, if you can find some then post it

          2. Too many of post here against this individual are hateful, meaning full of hate. Especially so if the perpetrator is deluded.

          I would add that since the mast in question was owned by Vodaphone, whom I personally see as serial thieves, then I am clearly less concerned than those that see his actions as targeting their source of income. Where I see hatred and branding shown in this thread then I will question it, as too often this kind of promoted hate has been a method used to manipulate the ignorant.

          As to the effects of lifelong exposure to these particular radiations, this logically can not be known by anyone until scientifically sufficient subjects that have lived with these radiation for all their life are both dead and cleared of significant impact.

          So for my part your statements and claims of knowing what you are talking about are unbelievable. This does not mean that I know either but at least I am willing to live and let live whilst waiting for impartial validation by people who have the skills and the evidence to back up their statements.

          If you wanted my support then you would be better not pretending to have information that is clearly not available yet.

          Lastly: Where a group acts to remove debate via vitriol and attempts to shout down the need for scientific investigation then they cannot blame people for seeing them as wanting to prevent the actual facts being known.

          1. leexgx

            Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

            Yep my profits, no mobile signal I don't get money for jobs that I won't be getting

            Vodafone is very aggressive at overlapping coverage so probably have to take down 3 masts per area just to cause a problem

            Non ionising radio waves is below light (ghz range) its Thz range (light and above the visible spectrum) that can be more harmful

            You should be more worried about light bulbs and the sun then a mobile mast (at best a mobile mast might heat you up if you hug it or closer then 1 meter to it in front of the cell, phones power output is very low as well)

          2. HighTension

            Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

            Quote: As to the effects of lifelong exposure to these particular radiations, this logically can not be known by anyone until scientifically sufficient subjects that have lived with these radiation for all their life are both dead and cleared of significant impact.

            And this will never be know precisely because 100% of people die at some point of many other "causes" that are in some cases educated guesses and in others "old age". Can you tell me the precise day *you* will die and from what cause? Can you give the precise sequence of events that lead to the death of those you have known who have departed? I understand the yearning for certainty, to be able to know exactly what we should seek and what we should avoid - but our universe just doesn't work like that. In fact, I think it would take the value out of all human happiness and joy if we could predict our lives with complete certainty - we have to evaluate risks and choose to accept, ignore or avoid them, and there by the grace of God go we...

            Quote: So for my part your statements and claims of knowing what you are talking about are unbelievable. This does not mean that I know either but at least I am willing to live and let live whilst waiting for impartial validation by people who have the skills and the evidence to back up their statements.

            I don't understand what you mean by "impartial". I get the feeling you think that means someone who agrees with you. I'll give you a clue - if a majority of well informed and qualified people using or trusting in the scientific method (not that it's always perfect - but it's sure as hell better than most other ways of predicting outcomes) disagree with you - regardless of political views or state affiliation - there stands a very high possibility that you may be mistaken and misguided. It's not certain, but highly probable.

            There's a 0.00000000001% chance I'll step on a stonefish and die next time I go on holiday. I will still choose to take that holiday as the benefit outweighs the risk. I'll leave the exercise of evaluating the benefits of ubiquitous, high speed, low-latency IP connectivity versus the risks for others.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

              @High tension and his grace of god

              I am all for acceptable risk based upon facts, I can then weight up the pros and cons and make my own decision limiting the impact of my decision like a good citizen to only myself i.e. the person who chose that route. Which is unlike the mobile phone situation where one side insists upon having what they want without regard for any impact upon those that do not. Like the ethernet cable you say that you can be bought off and that is fundamentally my issue with the people pushing for more proliferation, they do not care so long as they get their pound of flesh even if it is at someone else's expense. Where I want an honest unbiased opinion instead I am flooded by only biased ones with any that go against them being branded as we have seen here.

              Science does not yet have the facts, all that is available instead is IMHO vested opinions, biased science and the desire to cash in overriding the desires of the demonised portion of society.

              It really doesn't matter which side is correct if they are also wrong and this campaign of cash now regardless of cost, ignoring those that disagree is plain wrong just like it was every other time this happened.

              Society is made up of everyone not just those that agree with you and if you insist upon ignoring and excluding them then you are going to see more of the behaviour discussed here. Whilst the companies that profit from this technology will be happy you can guaranty that someone is going to die if things continue as they are even if your view is correct is it worth any person's life? do your really hate anyone who disagrees with your belief that much?

              1. cbars Silver badge

                Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

                Science doesn't deal in facts, buddy, that's the domain of belief systems... but it's arguably the best invention humanity has ever made.

                I both guarantee someone will die if things carry on this way, and also if they don't carry on this way.

                Finally, I disagree with your premise (belief) that nothing is worth a human life; I believe some are worth more than others, and certainly some are worth more *to* others. (Thought experiment, is it worth bankrupting a country to help an 80 year old rapist live in prison for another 2 months... no? OK, so now we can argue about where the line is on a case by case basis)

                Anyway, back to the point: my honest, unbiased opinion is that you are either too tired, drunk, or uneducated to be here - as without addressing the merits of your argument it appears that your understanding of what science actually is, and how society judges value, is either misarticulated or lacking entirely.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

                  @cbars

                  "I disagree with your premise (belief) that nothing is worth a human life" so what is your price for your own? I ask as those that do not value life equally put a much higher value on their own than others, allowing for all the monsters in history who were happy to rid the world of what they considered to be less value than themselves only for the world to be a better place with their absence.

                  "unbiased opinion is that you are either too tired, drunk, or uneducated to be here", show me the notification of any of your requirements to read the register beyond your own rant, after all they let you post too.

          3. AndyFl

            Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

            I'm sorry but you don't understand the basics of wireless and energy. Radio signals are non-ionising in that the photons don't have enough energy to have any effect on chemical bonds, to do that you need around 2ev of energy which you get from ultra-violet light which can cause skin cancer.

            Below the energy level of UV light the most that could happen is you get a bit of warming of tissue like standing in sunlight and being warmed by infra-red.

            If you don't want to be laughed at then I suggest that you educate yourself on the topic with ***proper*** peer reviewed papers - try looking at Google Scholar to find them. If you want to understand the scientific process then go and watch the YouTube channel "potholer54". He has some very good explanations. Not all ideas are worth a lot of effort and consideration if they aren't backed up with any evidence to support them. One example is saying "the moon is made of cheese" - nobody will take you seriously unless you have some pretty good evidence! Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

            By the way, we have had a lot of experience with the long term effects of wireless signals, even in the multi GHz region. I've been involved in design and testing of wireless systems for 35 years and have seen lots of stuff pre-dating my entry into the industry. I've had to go through the ICNIRP guidelines many times when producing safety declarations.

            On the other hand you could just listen to people like David Icke who have some strange ideas (to put it mildly) with no experimental evidence to support them.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              @andyFI

              Here let me fix that for you

              Radio frequency signals are traditionally non-ionising and have less energy than the frequencies higher up the EM spectrum in that single "photons" don't have enough energy to have any effect on chemical bonds ignoring completely how humans can see in a band between these two extremes and that resonance can magnify rotating effects so as to ramp up their magnitude the longer they are applied.

              Not all ideas are worth of my consideration, where the evidence can only be obtained only after a lifetime then I reject the idea that evidence is possible or worth waiting for, lessons from similar scientific reaching such as lead in petrol, CRCs and asbestos etc are isolated incidents unrepresentative of science as whole and can be ignored completely or risk me having to find work in some other subject where what qualification I hold would be even more irrelevant.

              By the way, we (royal?) have had a lot of experience with the long term effects of signals, admittedly not in this band or this modulation, I have been involved with wireless systems for 35 years and I am not dead yet so clearly there is nothing for anyone to fear, I have to work within some guidelines that were written before this technology existed but hey they were all just hoops they made us jump though.

              I will not make any comment regarding any medical conditions of which I suffer such as need for IVF if I ever found a woman who was willing to stay still long enough nor reference to the higher incidents of insanity associated with my field.

              Hey this writing nonsense is easy and I feel good about myself, if only other people would take me more seriously in real life.

              Do not take this hateful post seriously as I have not but I did enjoy spouting something I am not in any way qualified to to have an opinion about.

              1. cbars Silver badge
                Facepalm

                Re: @andyFI

                Amaaaazing!!!! Resonance!? Well, my god, you're right!!!

                How could we have been so blind?

                *shouts over shoulder*

                You guys, we forgot resonance!

                Asbestos, CFCs (which...you've....misspelled....)... don't forget knives, we now know knives kill people too, even though "ug" said they didn't - see, another controversy *proving* that "scientists" are stupid idiots whose theories get disproved radically and in the complete opposite direction, all the time.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: @andyFI

                  spelt CFC wrong? as in chlorofluorocarbons, perhaps you are not reading it right, yet again

                  1. Glen 1 Silver badge

                    Re: @andyFI

                    Unless a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) is hazardous to the environment, then yes, you spelled CFCs incorrectly.

              2. AndyFl

                Re: @andyFI

                Resonance will not increase the energy of individual photons, it will just increase the number of them so they won't break chemical bonds directly other than as a result of heating.

                The rest of your post is just insulting and I won't comment further.

          4. Clunking Fist Bronze badge

            Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

            "Too many of post here against this individual are hateful, meaning full of hate."

            You say that as if setting a cell tower alight is a loving gesture.

          5. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

            "Clearly there is such a thing as "EM proliferation" or you would not have understood what I was referring to."

            Hilarious. Do you believe in ghosts and fairies too? You've heard of them, right? Therefore you must believe in them.

          6. H in The Hague Silver badge

            Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

            "As to the effects of lifelong exposure to these particular radiations, this logically can not be known by anyone until scientifically sufficient subjects that have lived with these radiation for all their life are both dead and cleared of significant impact."

            Slinger/signallers who instruct tower crane operators, etc. have been using handheld transmitters close to their head for decades and I'm not aware of any adverse consequences. And those units operate at a constant power when transmitting.

            Modern mobile phones have a variable power (lower power if close to a base station, higher power when further removed) which they try to minimise to make the battery last longer. So the exposure may well be lower. Furthermore the wavelengths used by 5G have long been in use (4G, TV, PMSE, etc.). That previous use didn't cause COVID so the use of these frequencies for mobile telephony won't either. (Quite apart from the fact that there is no causal link between EM radiation and viruses.)

        2. druck Silver badge

          Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

          f anything, you are probably exposed to far less EMF than you were 20 years ago

          Vastly less, analogue TV used to have radiated powers in MW. Those same frequencies are being used at a fraction of the power for digital TV and 4G signals.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

            Actually not. The power quoted for a transmitter is peak power, and analogue TV varied a lot. Digital signals tend to be a lot more constant at a lower level, but the average power is much the same.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

        Hateful posts?

        The fact this unholy alliance of extremist right-wingers, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy-theory- spreaders and fake-potion-peddlers is gaining ground here means action is required to combat this scourge. With truth and science.

        Foisting one's (baseless) belief system on others through violence or intimidation or infrastructure damage? Terrorist.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

          @" Foisting one's (baseless) belief system on others through violence or intimidation or infrastructure damage? Terrorist."

          No a terrorist is someone who promotes terror in others so as to achieve a (usually) political goal.

          This chap burned Vodaphones property because he believed that it was a health risk, whilst fire can be very dangerous in this instance it was contained without lost of life or injury being mentioned in the article.

          If you are going to brand someone one then you might consider learning what your brand actually means

          as to your list of people who support this then I say let evolution take its course

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

            Someone needs to go read the definitions of terrorism from the 2006 Terrorism Act.

            Violent act in persuance of a political, religious or ideological cause.

            Damage to property and disruption to electronic systems are included in the list of violent acts.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

              Again there has to be the intent to cause terror without which the acts alone are meaningless

              Damage to property- you crashed your car does automatically this make you a terrorist? disrupt electronic system by shutting down your computer, you do not seem to be getting the point.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

                You've misunderstood the legal definition of terror.

                BTW, the guy's a violent offender with a long string of convictions including firearms offences, battery and assaulting a police officer.

                1. Anonymous Coward
                  Anonymous Coward

                  Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

                  "BTW, the guy's a violent offender with a long string of convictions including firearms offences, battery and assaulting a police officer."

                  Then clearly this was a preventable crime and a damning indictment of the courts, police and mental health workers, that is if what you say is true rather than just something you made up.

                  Post where you got the information or it didn't happen, same for your definition since this court didnt brand him thus

                  1. Hawkeye Pierce

                    Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

                    No need to post where this information came from regarding his large number of convictions for a larger number of offences including assault of a police officer and possession of a firearm...

                    ... As The Register had kindly done it for you in a link to the local paper's reporting on the case right there at the top of the article.

                    You know it's almost as if you have an instant knee-jerk reaction to anything that anyone posts which you disagree with and rather than question yourself and maybe do all of ten seconds research, you just immediately discount it with no reason other than you don't want to believe it.

                    And on a different topic to those commenting on the length of his sentence, I would imagine his past convictions would have had a large part to play on this.

                  2. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

                    "Post where you got the information or it didn't happen, same for your definition since this court didnt brand him thus"

                    RTFA and then follow the link helpfully included there-in by the El Reg journo.

                    1. Anonymous Coward
                      Anonymous Coward

                      Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

                      I must admit that I didn't see the link but I perhaps the up vote of that post in this thread should have tipped me off.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

                If you crash your car on purpose, you are certainly guilty of many possible crimes depending on the motivation the court finds most plausible in your case. Please feel free to ram your nearest mobile mast tomorrow and tell us how it goes, won't you?

        2. Teiwaz Silver badge

          Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

          There was fear involved in the offense.

          But the fear was his own.

          Gov and Police are increasingly trying to add 'Terrorism' on to offences for (I dunno, the publicity, higher sentences or just to ramp up fear on the rest of the population).

          Come to think about it, baseless labelling of offences as 'terror related' is terrorism, as it alarms and unsettles the public.

        3. Clunking Fist Bronze badge

          Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

          "Foisting one's (baseless) belief system on others through ... or intimidation or ...? Terrorist."

          So most left-wing activists, then?

        4. TheMeerkat Bronze badge

          Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

          You mean like Black Lives Matter and Antifa did over last weekend?

      3. Schultz Silver badge
        Trollface

        EM proliferation

        I suggest you move off into the outer solar system if you want to live in an EM-poor neighborhood. Every time you feel the warmth of the sun, you are bathed in atrocious quantities of EM radiation -- no cellphone tower can give you that kind of EM overdose!

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: EM proliferation

          But naturally occuring EM isn't like manmade EM. It's better for your health. Like organic food versus inorganic food. [sic]

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: EM proliferation

            @"But naturally occuring EM" or more correctly radiation that we have evolved to live and even benefit from against the man made radiation that we have neither adapted to or have scientific knowledge sufficient to gauge the impact of.

            As to food, there is some evidence to support the premise that how and where you grow food has an impact on how nutritious and beneficial it is for human consumption.

            1. Stoneshop Silver badge
              Boffin

              Re: EM proliferation

              @"But naturally occuring EM" or more correctly radiation that we have evolved to live and even benefit from against the man made radiation that we have neither adapted to or have scientific knowledge sufficient to gauge the impact of.

              Once again: power levels.

              Never mind that the 'naturally occurring' EM radiation, especially the segment from about 700THz up isn't quite so beneficial to a lot of multicellular life forms, especially Brits, although they may not encounter this radiation in their default habitat.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: EM proliferation

                power levels versus resonance and susceptibility, I am not saying which is the situation but your wave your belief like a fact when no one can know yet

                1. HighTension

                  Re: EM proliferation

                  Oh FFS, are you a troll or simply an imbecile? We *can not* by definition be 100% certain that B will always follow A, that the sun will rise tomorrow, that the LHC won't suck the solar system into its own black hole, that we won't all die within 1 year of COVID, that god does or doesn't exist, that it's safe to eat red meat, white meat, eggs, milk, carrots, alfalfa, or carburettors.

                  There is no, I repeat *no* way to say "this thing is 100% safe, for everyone, under every possible circumstance. We simply cannot be because to be 100% certain of that we'd have to know the entire future, and every possible future. The only thing we can do is:

                  a) observe the universe and form a conjecture

                  b) formally state that conjecture and propose one or more methods of testing it

                  c) test the above

                  d) ask others to retest the conjectures with the same methods to confirm or otherwise

                  e) the above with other documented methods

                  f) rinse and repeat until a pattern emerges

                  Even if we repeat b-f a trillion times and all the results point to the conjecture being correct, we can never say it's certain. Newton's laws of motion were seen as certain until Einstein came along.

                  It's just the same thing to try to say "This type of phone signal is 100% safe, forever" - we can never prove that conclusively, but we can say "on the basis of all experience so far, it is far more likely that 5G is safe than it is unsafe for general exposure".

                  If you find this difficult, please tell me how homeopathy and herbal medicine has never lead to any deaths worldwide (because it's natural!).

                  1. Anonymous Coward
                    Anonymous Coward

                    Re: EM proliferation

                    indeed you make my point for me, I have not been saying that this tech is safe or otherwise but others who present themselves as experts and scientist have when they should not.

                    1. Schultz Silver badge
                      Facepalm

                      "...others [...] present themselves as experts and scientist have when they should not."

                      I am a scientist and I work with high-energy infrared, visible and ultraviolet lasers (1.5 exaHertz to 1.5 TeraHertz), measure molecular spectra in the GigaHertz to TeraHertz regime, and I use electronic devices emitting frequencies below GigaHertz on a daily basis -- like most modern humans you might encounter. I teach quantum mechanics and understand the science behind matter-light interaction pretty well (of course within the limits of our current scientific models). I published extensively on bio-molecular photochemistry -- that's the part where EM radiation destroys molecules and therefore might kill you.

                      Now, after having presented myself as a scientist, let me tell you that 5G technology will not harm you, except in fringe cases where you might hurt yourself when your drive your car into a cellphone tower. If you want to learn more, I suggest you enroll in some University program and study the matter.

                      Good enough?

      4. Rich 11 Silver badge

        Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

        those that are against EM proliferation

        Are these the people who only come out at night?

        1. Mike Moyle Silver badge

          Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

          Great! Now I've got THIS stuck in my head!

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHSPVNbF5lY

          1. Stoneshop Silver badge
            Trollface

            Great! Now I've got THIS stuck in my head!

            There could be worse earworms.

            You'd also be less keen having a rusty nail stuck in your temple.

          2. Glen 1 Silver badge

            Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

            I thought the link was going to be this one.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2LTL8KgKv8

      5. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

        Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

        The rest of us know that expensive infrastructure - even Voodoofone's - is a common good and that damaging it is damage to everyone who depends on it. You seem to be in a minority of one.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

          Whats is good for vodaphone IMHO is only a benefit to others by accident.

          As to being a minority of one, that is not a fear for me since I do not need the validation of the rest of the flock to feel normal.

          1. Stoneshop Silver badge
            FAIL

            Re: 3 years for a terrorist offence ?

            Whats is good for vodaphone IMHO is only a benefit to others by accident.

            Oh really? It's only good for Voda because people see benefit in using their infra, sufficiently so that they are paying for access to that infra. No benefit to people -> no paying users -> Voda (and other providers) go bust.

            Trolling attempt: feeble, barely passable.

            Reasoning capability: none detected.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Z-list dipshits

    bravo!

  12. cantankerous swineherd Silver badge

    commentards for the punitive state out in force.

    1. Poncey McPonceface
      Flame

      not punitive

      Arson (criminal damage by fire) – UK Sentencing Council

      There's a 3x3 matrix on the page: 3 degrees of harm on one axis, 3 degrees of culpability on the other.

      Our friend's actions here were pre-meditated (not done on impulse), there was some degree of planning, and they used accelerants, and they intended to cause serious damage. That's high culpability by the parameters on that page. The category of harm appears to be level 1 (the highest): serious physical harm caused / serious consequential economic or social impact of offence / high value of damage caused …

      Looks like they could have gotten 8 years!

      3 years appears non-punitive and within the parameters proper sentencing guidelines.

  13. Flywheel Silver badge
    Trollface

    British Justice

    A kinda connected issue here, but once again it seems that the British Justice System is coming down harder on crimes against property compared with crimes against the person. i would imagine that once the Authorities catch up with the current bunch of statue-topplers the perps will banged up for a considerable time, whereas whacking and robbing granny will earn you a stiff talking to and maybe a fine (if you can afford it).

    And yes, he was right to be sentenced.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Terrahawks Attack!

    Propagation of THz irradiation energy through aqueous layers: Demolition of actin filaments in living cells

    https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-65955-5

    1. Schultz Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: Terrahawks Attack!

      Just to put things into perspective, the demolition of actin filaments in living cells described in [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-65955-5] required pulsed THz radiation with 64 MW/cm**2 intensities. (80-microJoule pulses with 5 ps duration, collimated to 4 mm diameter at some 500 Hz repetition rate.) The authors themselves discuss that the resulting mechanical shock-wave affects the actin filaments, not the THz pulses themselves.

      Then the authors (it's a medical journal) show their ignorance of basic physical knowledge with statements such as: "In the near future, THz waves will become a popular tool used in daily life. However, focused THz radiation might exceed the 80 μJ/cm2 energy threshold, changing actin structure. Therefore, the biological effects of THz radiation via shockwaves must be considered when defining safety standards." When parsing this statement, be aware that they used a >>$10**7 Free Electron Laser, which is pretty much the only tool we have to generate such intense but short THz pulses. Longer pulses are easier to generate (5G!), but you can't reach MW powers. It should be obvious to the physically educated reader, that generating 64 MW/cm**2 focused EM energy is not trivial; your microwave reaches some 600 W and represents the optimized tool to cook proteins.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I work in IT and has a colleague who believes this sh%%

    And i can guarantee that when we do a big roll out for it and there's overtime to be made he will throw all his flat earth principles out of the window for the extra dosh.

  16. Duffaboy
    Trollface

    I bet his Great, Great, Great Grandfather thought

    That you would suffocate if you rode on a steam train.

    1. AndrueC Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: I bet his Great, Great, Great Grandfather thought

      ..but his Great, Great, Great Grandfather is dead so that proves he was right.

  17. Symon Silver badge
    Headmaster

    "sentenced to three years in jail by a beak"

    Where I live, "up before the beak" means the magistrates court. This bloke wasn't there, as they can only give out six month sentences. Other courts have a jury, so the 'up before the beak' wouldn't really work, as the jury decide guilt or otherwise. Sorry, IGMC...

  18. Fading Silver badge
    Coat

    All this outcry at 5G....

    Just wait until they turn it up to 10.

    1. Symon Silver badge
      Pint

      Re: All this outcry at 5G....

      Our G goes up to 11...

      1. Rich 11 Silver badge

        Re: All this outcry at 5G....

        My 802.11 goes up to N.

  19. This post has been deleted by a moderator

  20. batfink Silver badge

    He had it all wrong

    This poor misguided fool was clearly the victim of the conspiracy theory about 5G & Covid. That theory is obviously wrong.

    What the REAL 5G story here is that 5G radiation is deadly to the Lizard People. Therefore, in order to defend themselves, and cover this up, they've put about this fake story about a disease called "Covid-19", and also the conspiracy theory that it's connected to the 5G rollout.

    Why do you think that the vast majority of people (ie the humans) have been unaffected? Why else is Trump sending his minions around the world trying to block the 5G rollout? Why are a number of Tory backbenchers in the UK trying to push the PM into agreeing? (Judging by the current displays of dimness, clearly the PM can't be a Lizard Person himself). Why are there all these obviously implausible anti-5G theories being pushed across the world?

    The Truth is out there folks! Trust me!

    1. Rich 11 Silver badge
      Black Helicopters

      Re: He had it all wrong

      (Judging by the current displays of dimness, clearly the PM can't be a Lizard Person himself).

      That's what the Lizard People want you to think.

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Here's your sign!

    "Unfortunately, Whitty's research didn't extend as far as checking what type of mast he was torching. A Vodafone representative told The Reg that the targeted mast was, in fact, serving bog-standard 4G."

    As they say in the southeastern US, "Here's your sign!"

  22. AndrueC Silver badge
    Joke

    There's a transmitter at Banbury (this one) with an electronics box alongside which has a list of contact numbers for all the providers whose kit uses it. Is it so very wrong of me to think that it would be funny if someone added '999 and ask for the fire service' to the list?

  23. MachDiamond Silver badge

    New standards on the way

    Are people being bred so stupid that it's going to come that they'll be required to have an IQ test to get and maintain an "oxygen license" once you are past a certain age (16 ought to do it). If you fail, you don't get any more oxygen.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020