Are London's ULEZ Cameras Equipped with Radar and Lidar Neuro Strike Weaponry?
This time last week, I never dreamed that I would be making a post with the above title.
However, last Wednesday I received an email from a certain Nicholas Martin asking me to look at two attached documents and to help get information out into the public domain.
The first document was a flyer for an event taking place on Wednesday May 14, 2025:
The second document had the file name “GIFT SEND GO PAGE A” and contained the following information:
Somewhat bemused, I requested a copy of the Yunex documentation mentioned in the GIFT SEND GO document, as well as a copy of the FOIA correspondence (which apparently can be found on whatdotheyknow.com). Both were duly forthcoming. In fact, two Yunex documents were sent, and can be downloaded below.
Unpersuaded by the claims being made, I went back and forth half a dozen times over email with Martin, who copied in Mark Steele. Steele also sent me a couple of emails.
Keep in mind that they initiated this time-consuming sequence of correspondence. When I did not reply on Friday, Martin wrote to me again on Sunday.
To cut a long story short, I am posting below a single email that I sent to Martin and Steele last night, to which I have not received a satisfactory reply, only abuse (“ignorant,” “idiot,” “promulgator of criminal disinformation […] to facilitate mass murder”).
The reason I am doing so is that I believe this is a public interest story. These two gentlemen, with the help of former MP Andrew Bridgen, are seeking to persuade the public to part with £10,000 to fund a legal case against the Information Office and Transport for London (TfL). The money goes straight to a GIFT SEND GO account and is non-returnable. Based on the evidence they have sent me, I do not believe they have any realistic prospect of winning such a case, even if one is initiated. Therefore, it is important that this information is in the public domain ahead of their fundraising event in two days’ time.
Email to Nicholas Martin, May 12, 2025
Nicholas,
My current understanding of the issues we have been discussing is as follows.
ULEZ/Yunex/Fusion
ULEZ cameras are provided by Yunex Traffic UK.
The Yunex Traffic FUSION document you sent me makes no mention of ULEZ.
According to TfL, “there is no ‘fusion type technology’ utilised as part of the ULEZ scheme [...].”
The flyer for your event on Wednesday May 14, 2025, mentions “exposing ULEZ equipment” in its header.
That “exposure,” as per your GIFT SEND GO document, involves demonstrating that “harmful ‘Fusion’ technology” has been installed by TfL. That document does not mention ULEZ.
Therefore, in terms of raising £10,000 with which to take TfL to court, based on the above documents, you have not provided the public with any evidence implicating ULEZ.
One Scheme or Many?
As per information drawn to your attention by TfL, shown on this webpage, ULEZ is one of several Road User Charging schemes. Others include the Congestion Charge, the Low Emission Zone, and the Tunnels User Charging Scheme. According to TfL, all such schemes use ANPR cameras.
The Yunex Traffic FUSION document states that FUSION represents “a major advance in dynamic traffic control.” It is "an adaptive traffic control system." It is is not about ANPR.
Therefore, there is no prima facie reason to believe that FUSION technology has been deployed in ULEZ cameras.
The FOIA Requests
TfL in the FOIA documentation you sent me claims that ULEZ does not use “Fusion” technology in its ANPR but hints that another scheme (such as “an adaptive traffic control system”?) might.
By focusing on ULEZ, Steele’s FOIA requests were not framed in a way that might force disclosure of what is happening in the other scheme.
Steele claims in his reply to me that he deliberately worded his FOIA requests in terms of “Guns” rather than “cameras,” because this “carries far more significance in LAW.”
This does not address the above point, however. The FOIA requests as framed were never likely to lead anywhere, unless there really are “guns” in the ULEZ cameras (and this is eventually exposed through a court of law).
Steele adds “I had already deduced that this was the FUSION Weapon system called Neuro strike.”
This puts the cart before the horse. What is “Neuro strike”? One feels a certain sympathy for the TfL responder insistently being told that ULEZ cameras are “guns” (weaponry) without any supporting evidence being provided.
Third Party Evidence
When I pressed you on some of the above, you introduced new evidence in the form of the “COMPONENTS” document you sent me. You have not indicated to me whether that document is publicly available or has been explicitly linked to your intended legal action.
With no reason from official sources to suspect that FUSION technology has been deployed in ULEZ cameras (I will deal with the term “mesoscopic” below), the “COMPONENTS” document is all-important.
You write that “when the Ulez equipment was taken down it was found to have the components in it which are set out in the components file.”
However, no chain of custody is provided. If you are serious about winning a legal case, or indeed persuading the public, you will need to demonstrate that the images provided do indeed show hardware that was removed from a ULEZ camera. Otherwise, that imagery could have come from anywhere.
What Does “Fusion” Mean?
According to your GIFT SEND GO document, “Fusion technology is a combination of radar (a known carcinogen) and Lidar (in this case near infra red laser light) in conjunction with visible spectrum light equipment.”
You have written to me about “what Fusion means in this context – the use of radar and lidar conjointly – do you understand?”
This to me looks like a misrepresentation of the word “Fusion.” According to the Yunex Traffic FUSION document, “FUSION allows for all modes of transport to be detected, modelled and optimised,” including pedestrians and cyclists. “Fusion” here is about integrating different modes of transport, not radar and Lidar.
It is known that ANPR systems can be enhanced through radar (to detect vehicle speed) and Lidar (to read number plates in low lighting). This already takes place. There is nothing exceptional about it.
Radar/Lidar
You have sent me Yunex’s 123-page Heimdall Detector document. You say this deals with radar, not Lidar.
As evidence of Lidar, if I have understood you correctly, you write “If you do an image search on Google for Ulez equipment you can come up with the below and it shows the laser diodes”
When I do an online search for “what ANPR cameras look like,” I get the following:
https://blog.howdeninsurance.co.uk/anpr-cameras/
https://www.mistralsolutions.com/homeland-security/products/anpr-cameras/
It is known that ANPR cameras can include diodes as part of their technology. For example, according to Illuminar, “IR illuminators play a pivotal role in ANPR systems by providing a source of infrared light that is invisible to the human eye but crucial for capturing high-quality images in low-light or nighttime conditions.”
According to Steele in his email to me, Tfl states that “ULEZ camera are equipped with infrared LED lighting, to capture imagery in low light conditions.” He brands this “an ignoranat reponse [sic.] as highly lighted urban areas of London do not require more than the ambient light emission, a wilful crafted false statement that only a person ignorant of the technology or gullible would accept as true.”
However, are all ULEZ areas constantly “highly lighted,” even at night time? Why is it “gullible” to believe that infrared LED lighting helps with ANPR in low lighting?
How Dangerous Is The Technology?
According to your GIFT SEND GO document, “People, either in cars or as pedestrians, when waiting at traffic lights, will be subjected to laser light from laser diodes (there are laser danger warnings inside the relevant equipment) and also to radar radiation. The near infra red laser light can cause cataracts (as detailed by an ICNIRP paper) and radar, as is well known by governments all over the world, can cause cancer. ICNIRP is a body relied in by national and local government.”
Yunex’s Heimdall Detector document, which you sent me, states “The Heimdall detector hardware is a radar device. This product does emit RF signals which are below the statuary [sic.] requirements.”
So far, you have not provided any evidence that the radar radiation is dangerous, beyond claiming that it is “well known” that it causes cancer.
In terms of near infra red radiation, evidence must again be precisely specified. But even if it is, it can already be applied to (enhanced) ANPR technology. There is no need to make “Fusion” technology out to be some kind of special threat.
“Mesoscopic”
You have insisted on raising this term with me in every communication so far.
For example: “The Yunex doc refers to mesocopic technology. How on earth do you think it would be possible to conduct tomography surveillance at a mesoscopic level, David, without the necessary technology. You can’t do mesocopic tomography with a visible light camera can you? Obviously not.”
According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, tomography is “a method of producing a three-dimensional image of the internal structures of a solid object (such as the human body or the earth) by the observation and recording of the differences in the effects on the passage of waves of energy impinging on those structures.”
However, tomography has nothing to do with with the “advanced mesoscopic simulation methodology” boasted of in the Yunex Traffic FUSION document, in which “multiple mesoscopic simulations” are harnessed “to model all detected and forecast road users across the entire road network.”
A simple online search for “mesoscopic simulation” reveals that it refers to a “‘middle’ mode of simulation lying between microsimulation of individual vehicles and macro assignment of traffic flows.” Or again: “mesoscopic models fill the gap between the aggregate level approach of macroscopic models and the individual interactions of the microscopic ones.” Or to cite a 2010 peer-reviewed paper: “a mesoscopic traffic simulation model [...] allows modeling of the operation dynamics of large-scale transit systems taking into account the stochasticity due to interactions with road traffic.”
Thus, in the context of traffic management, "mesoscopic" has nothing to do with tomography.
On Avoiding Ad Hominem
Resort to ad hominem (making it about the author rather than the argument) is a sure sign that the argument is being lost.
You have repeatedly resorted to ad hominem, e.g. “as you are an expert on modern EMF radiation 5th generation warfare [...]”
When did I ever claim that? In fact, I reject the term “5GW” in Chapter 1 of my Covid book. And, even if I were an “expert” (a term I detest, because it implies undue deference), it is not about me. If you want the public to part with £10,000, there are certain things that you need to demonstrate convincingly to the public, not me.
Your patronising tone is unhelpful. For example, “I know you are an extremely intelligent academic concerned about truth in society, so I just wanted to ask you if you now fully understand the technical aspects of the equipment we discussed [...] Please would you let me know that you can see this now and that the penny has dropped.”
Lack of Adequate Evidence
For the reasons listed above, I do not see any concrete basis to your legal action, and I would be interested to know why Andrew Bridgen is supporting it.
You are correct that I have cited Steele (once) in my work. I have argued that there is a convincing theoretical case to be made that advanced weapons are being installed for deployment against the public.
However, this is different from claiming to have hard evidence of this, as you are doing. In my recent presentation for the second Omniwar symposium, for instance, I was careful to distinguish between known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns.
In contrast, you are claiming to have knowledge strong enough to win a court case (“TfL and the Greater London Authority have lost in the courts already”) that a weapons system has been deployed in ULEZ cameras. As Steele puts it in his email to me, “I suppose if your [sic.] going to murder a lot of people you are going to have to deploy equipment that can do the job correctly.”
I dispute that you have such evidence. It is not because I don’t believe such a thing to be possible, or because I am parroting official narratives. Rather, based on what you have sent me so far, I am simply not seeing a convincing case.
Money
I am, therefore, concerned by the public money which is at stake.
For example, when I search for “what happens if a gift send go target is not achieved?” the AI-generated result returns: “On GiveSendGo, if a fundraising goal is not achieved, the funds raised are still available to the campaign creator. Unlike some platforms that have all-or-nothing campaigns where the money is returned to donors if the goal is not met, GiveSendGo allows the creator to keep the funds raised even if the goal is not reached.”
Miri Ann Finch has written previously about Bridgen’s suspect money-making schemes. Therefore, it is suspicious to see his name involved here.
Conclusion
Remembering that you were the one who first initiated this dialogue, and that you subsequently sustained it, after I did not reply for 48 hours on a weekend, by writing to me to make sure “that the penny has dropped,” I hope you will appreciate that I have simply asked critical questions, requested additional documentation, and, following careful appraisal, have found your position to be unconvincing.
In my opinion, if you really want to persuade the public to give you £10,000+, you need to do much better than this.
David
Coda
Within an hour of this article being published, I received an email from Martin asking me to “send the email you sent to me, to Mark, so he can respond to it as you have so invited him to do, in your phrase quoted below,” i.e, ““I will await Mark Steele's reply, however, before publishing anything. It is only fair that you both have the opportunity to respond to my criticisms first.”
Should they go on to claim that I did not offer a fair right of reply to Steele, keep in mind Martin’s words in his previous email: "I am sure Mark who I have ccd in, might want to make some comments as he is the litigant in person for both court cases." Steele did have the email, and all he sent was abuse.
As a subscriber to my Substack with email notifications turned on, Martin will have known about the publication of this article.
Hi David ,I have come across Mark Steele ,if it's the same guy, before , a Geordie with a very aggressive manner with a history of shooting someone ( apparently by mistake )in the past .He had some kind of communication business . Years ago he was talking about certain lampposts in Gateshead being highly dangerous.When a serious gentleman with equipment that could measure EMF s offered to help him he rebuffed him . Think he's working for the bad guys . Nothing gets past you it's wonderful that such a clever guy with the utmost integrity is working for the good of humanity .
What a mess. This feels like a 'dog's breakfast' of concerns. The flyer seems poorly worded. Then there is technical confusion. The abuse is wholly unnecessary, disappointing and a red flag.
Andrew Bridgen strangely appears on the scene amidst more cash raising. The whole thing seems rushed and last minute, amateurish even, especially considering the need for high precision accuracy and robust hard evidence.
I'm sensing 'Camp 2' confusion, distraction, potential email entrapment and entanglement. Or is this just an unfortunate case of bad communication? 'Lost in Translation' perhaps?
(This follows on from the recent Sabrina Wallace fallout too).