img_0287 (1)








Conscious vs Subconscious Brutality: The Difference Between Trump Fans & Turbine Fans

Trump Derangement Syndrome: Advice From A Fellow TDS Victim

Defeating The Wind Scam With Statistics

Moulins Et Éoliennes

Firearms & Explosives vs Unwanted Wind Blight

Robin Brooks’ Big Mistake: Carsington Pastures Wind Farm

Aesthetics For Dummies: The Majesty Of Wind Turbines Debunked

The Good, The Bad & The Ugly In Scotland

Exploring The Ethics Of Defending The Moors With Force

Turbine Blight Between Leeds & Liverpool

Wind Energy Is Worse For The Environment Than Fracking

Dialectic In Action (Part 2)

Dialectic In Action

Christmas Peace & Goodwill

The Importance Of Hearing Opposing Opinions

Kirklees & Craven Councils: Sh*tting On Their Own Doorsteps!

The Guardian: Sinister Propaganda & Fake News

The Future Leader Of The Green Party

A Practical Solution: The Turbine Traffic Light Scheme

I Was Born On A Marilyn

The SNP: Making English Eco-Vandals Look Like Amateurs

Leeds To Scotland & Back Again

Doing Wind Badly (Part 2)

Doing Wind Badly (Part 1)

Doing Wind Well

10:10 Climate Action EXPOSED

Sustainable Development?

Worldwide Wind Scams – Daily Update

Toxic Turbines Around The Dark Peak

Bananas vs Watermelons: Internal vs External Loci of Control

Awkward Questions Answered

More Worldwide Wind Misery

Royd Moor, Spicer Hill & Hazelhead

Scammers, Malware & Trojan Horses

Wind Blight @ Park Mill Lane, Ossett

Turbine Torture Around The World

Wind Blight @ Harper Farm, New Farnley

Hegelian Dialectic & My Local Wind Turbine

Welcome To MindWind



Conscious vs Subconscious Brutality: The Difference Between Trump Fans & Turbine Fans


Before we get stuck into today’s main topic, let’s just have a quick run through what’s been going on the land of wind energy these last couple of weeks. We’ll kick off with a real-time status update: right here, right now (14:06pm Sunday 5th August 2018) the UK’s 8,879 wind turbines are between them generating just 0.70GW of power, compared with 7.91GW nuclear power (in the red!), and 9.63GW CCGT power. As you’d expect on a bright sunny day, solar power is performing very well, currently generating 7.30GW.


So there’s some context: what we’re talking about is a form of renewable energy that is currently meeting just 2.68% of our power needs! We’re talking about something pretty much superfluous: wind power is intermittent at best, but certainly over the last few months our wind turbines have been virtually useless. As such, their presence has done more harm than good, because even when bugger-all power is being generated, the blight remains.

The big news across the North of England and elsewhere in Europe has been a large number of moorland fires. Saddleworth Moor in particular saw vast tracts of moorland ablaze and nearby homes evacuated. A few miles northwest, a fire narrowly missed taking out the Hyndburn Wind Farm – one I’ve previously suggested might be best off being razed to the ground! Be careful what you wish for and all that…

There’s a pithy comment under the article:

“Were the turbines turned off while the fire crews battled with the fire ?
And if they were turned off, did the operators receive constraint payments, which are usually a higher rate than the payments they receive for the power produced plus the massive subsidies they receive?
And did the fire start as a result of a problem with the turbines? So many turbines ‘self igniting’ these days, that a wildfire such as this is bound to start with a turbine fire eventually.”

If nothing else, this comment (which wasn’t posted by me, honestly!) demonstrates that the public are no longer hoodwinked by the “clean, green energy” BS, and are more interested in simply following the money.

OK, so let’s move onto today’s main topic, a continuation of my previous piece which I have hesitated to promote. I’ve essentially applied my own logic and erred on the side of not imposing anything on anyone against their will and without their consent. My piece about Trump is therefore like a remote nature reserve, there for those prepared to make the effort to trudge away from the main highways and off onto a narrow, winding path of natural exploration.

Feel free to retrace the footsteps of my voyage: the paths are well sign-posted. But for those of you who’d rather simply look at the snapshots, well here are the salient features of the previous entry: I drew the parallel between what wind turbines do to my own psychological state, and what Mr Donald Trump does to the sanity of, well, millions of people.

Furthermore I made the case that what really causes the low-level torture is a sense of fear and dread that manifests itself in the form of temper tantrums, namecalling, aggression, violence and what looks to all the world like raw hatred. In reality, what is commonly being experienced is called an “amygdala hijack” – the intuitive fight-or-flight response that kicks in before rational thinking can take place.

People react to Trump and/or turbines out of fear that something they hold dear is under attack somehow. It’s hard, almost impossible at times, but the trick is to find some mental space away from the perceived threat; in which we can critically examine the source of our unease, understand how and why it is a threat to our lives, and what we can do to prevent it causing any harm to our well-being.

In doing this with regard to wind turbines, I’ve drawn the conclusion that it’s the brutality that is largely the problem; and therefore maybe it’s Trump’s own brutality that might be causing similar issues to his opponents. So for the remainder of this piece, I’d like to explore the notion of brutality, and how one of the biggest differences between Trump fans and their turbine fans is their relationship with brutality.

In short, my thesis is this: Trump fans are CONSCIOUSLY brutal, deliberately and openly using brutality to forward their agenda, well aware of its impacts; whereas turbine fans are SUBCONSCIOUSLY brutal, often without any idea whatsoever of how their actions are coming across, blissfully unaware of their impacts.

There is a term for the conscious, deliberate use of brutality, especially in architecture: brutalism. The origins of brutalist architecture are worthy of further research, but the fundamental factor is the origin of the term: “béton brut” (unfinished concrete), derived from the Latin word “brutus” meaning “raw”, “rough”, and therefore by extension “insensitive”.

The pioneers of brutalism considered its austere starkness as an expression of seriousness; utilitarian and functional rather than indulgent or wasteful. Others disagree strongly: believe it or not, one of the most vociferous critics of brutalism is the Prince of Wales. Many others have criticised it for its psychological impact on those who are routinely subjected to its oppressive, intimidating presence.

Although I firmly believe that generally speaking brutalist housing breeds brutal behaviour, I do still appreciate that certain brutalist buildings can in fact have a positive impact on a neighbourhood: the so-called “Dalek” (aka Bridgewater Place) is an interesting, if not universally popular, presence on the Leeds skyline. What do you think?


Once you understand that brutalism involves consciously using the aesthetics of rawness to make a statement, you begin to realise that there is a subtle but all-important difference between the brutal impact of a Trump tweet and the brutal imposition of an unwanted wind farm on a community.

Trump’s tweeting, and indeed his whole style of communication, is based on conscious, deliberate, premeditated and stylised rawness. Its effects are intended to impose raw (ie uncensored/unfiltered) language on whoever his barbs may be aimed at. It is often argued that the unintended consequence of these public truth-darts is a high amount of collateral damage caused in the process, offence and even fear caused to those caught up in the crossfire of any excessive or unnecessary brutality. There are several conservative voices in the USA (eg Ben Shapiro) who, whilst broadly supporting the President’s agenda, are critical of the self-inflicted reputation damage caused by the brutality of his communications.

The wind industry and its supporters would undoubtedly deny there was any intent to impose brutality on the public, however, the net effect of their actions is the same as one of Trump’s tweets, if not a million times worse, because it’s the actual earth being brutalised, not just people’s egos. Certainly, thousands of rural communities all over the world now believe, with considerable justification, that the wind turbines imposed on them, against their will and without their consent, were an act of brutality.

When you point this out to wind supporters, that the true impact of their policies, has been to brutalise rural communities across the globe, you are literally NEVER met with compassion, empathy, understanding or any sense of responsibility for the effect of their actions. Rather, the communities are further ridiculed, namecalled, victim-blamed and belittled, derided as backwards, insular “NIMBYs”.

I don’t know about you, but I see a clear moral and psychological distinction between Trump’s use of brutalism as a rhetorical tool and the casual brutality of wind supporters. I see Trump using it tactically, deliberately, absolutely and clearly with the intent to inflict psychological damage to his opponents, he’d be the first to admit it. Trumpism IS brutalism: but it does what it says on the tin, and the clearly-stated targets of the brutality are the inhabitants of “the swamp”, not (from what I’ve seen so far) the general public, nor indeed the Earth. I certainly don’t feel under any threat from Trumpian Brutalism whatsoever, but maybe it’s just me.

Friends of the Earth have brutalised my natural habitat way more than Mr Trump could even dream of.

In contrast to Trump’s conscious brutalism, wind supporters seem to apply the same principles and practices without even realising they’re doing it! Furthermore, most of them would claim to be opposed to all forms of brutality, despite dishing out the most horrible and dehumanising names anyone could even dream of.

Trump’s brash, abrasive brand of brutalism is in keeping with the architecture he grew up with, and has indeed constructed: the concrete jungle of the Big Apple. Honestly brutal. He’s been an A-list celebrity acting like this for over thirty years – that’s what people wanted and that’s what they’ve got.

The wind supporters’ subconscious brutality is different though. Instead of being honest and upfront about its impacts, they minimise and downplay any objections, instead generally seeming to be indifferent, glib and apathetic to how the dark shadows of their “majestic” wind turbines torment those who have to suffer their blight. Essentially, their brutality is more passive-aggressive rather than directly aggressive, a subconscious rather than conscious means of displaying contempt for those upon whom they impose their brutality.

What makes the brutality of wind supporters especially dangerous is that it simply isn’t acknowledged or recognised, let alone in any way managed, focused or directed. Indeed this subconscious brutality is positively denied, under a hefty weight of virtue-signalling and greenwash.

Whereas the conscious use of brutalism can (and should) be applied to a specific situation for a specific outcome, and this should always be acknowledged upfront, just as Trump does, subconscious brutality instead runs rampant and unchecked, ruining the lives of innocent people, and revealing itself in the casual dismissal, by so-called “progressive” people, of the harm caused by inappropriate wind blight. Truly progressive people would CARE!

Now there are a lot of committed environmentalists out there who do care, and who do consciously use brutalism as part of their campaigning. I’d even give my old sparring partners 10:10 Climate Change the benefit of the doubt regarding the ill-fated Splattergate video, and accept that this was an attempt to deploy brutalism as an artistic tool. Despite the backlash, at least the video was honest about the intentions and ideals of its creators. The trouble was, the victims of brutality in the video were children, whose only crime was asking too many awkward questions of their teacher!

Of course, it might well be that following all the complaints about children’s heads being blown off, a more softly-softly approach to advertising 10:10’s aims was needed. All this just goes to prove, however, that there IS a brutal streak running deep through the hearts of wind supporters, and because it lacks any real target or direction, it ends up splattering EVERYONE!

I just wish the brutality of wind supporters was out in the open, the way it is with Trump supporters. I also wish they’d aim their brutality in a more specific direction than hamfistedly trashing the world’s countryside.

All in all, maybe the world would be a better place without anyone practising brutalism at all. Maybe Trump should consider dropping the brutal tweets; I’m sure if he could, he would. I’m confident at least that he’s made the calculated decision that a certain degree of rawness is actually what the majority of Americans want and need right now. He is like an artist, consciously and deliberately applying the principles of brutalism to whatever extent he feels they are the most appropriate aesthetic with which to present the substance of his communications.

I’m less confident that the wind supporters have even half as much awareness and control over their brutality, because most of the time they’re not even aware they’re being brutal! That’s why I’ve felt the need to call it out.

And that’s why I have so much more respect for the Green candidate with whom I corresponded, who admitted that the proposed turbines at Rooley Moor would “disfigure the moors”, but reckoned the climate change crisis was so urgent we needed them anyway. The bandage on the arm analogy I described it as – of course it’s ugly, but it’s needed to fix the problem. That is an intellectually honest and entirely logical argument I can only respect, even if I begged to differ on the actual effectiveness of wind turbines to save the planet from climate change.

Simply acknowledging that wind turbines have an inherently brutalist aesthetic, as the Green Party guy did, and understanding and respecting people’s natural emotional reactions to brutalism, especially in the otherwise soothing countryside, would go a long way to persuading the sceptical public that wind turbines aren’t just a get-rich-quick scam.

Ironically, if anyone seems to intuit the brutality of wind turbines, it’s Mr Trump himself: “Ugly industrial wind farms are ruining the beauty of parts of the country… and have inefficient unreliable energy to boot.”


As crazy as it might sound, Donald Trump cares more about the beauty of nature than Friends of the Earth do!

Mental, but TRUE.

Brutalism breeds brutality, so if you’re going to inflict brutalism on the world, be upfront about the reasons you think it is the best approach. Own it, control it, use it for the greater good, to assert purpose and structure wherever they may be lacking. That’s what Trump and his fans believe they are doing, directing the brutalism specifically towards wherever they believe it can do most good, including towards the wind scammers. I guess I do the same with my blogging!

So if that’s what you’re imposing on rural communities, at least be equally honest about it, Explain the reasoning behind your wind blight, and exactly why it’s for the greater good, whilst also acknowledging the very real impact of its brutalist aesthetic. Don’t pussyfoot around pretending that wind farms are all fluffy bunnies and daffodils. Nothing can get away from the fact that the huge, sharp and intimidating rotating blades of a wind turbine have a brutal impact on a landscape, and as soon as you own that fundamental truth, you can adopt a more sensible, reality-based approach to locating them, without attracting the wrath of people like me!

That said… when the actual purpose of the 8,879 brutalist structures you’ve imposed on the countryside is as a sustainable source of energy, and between the whole bloody lot of ’em they can’t even sustain 1GW of power generation…




Trump Derangement Syndrome: Advice From A Fellow TDS Victim

Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin

Dear TDS Victims,

I’m on your side.

I know exactly what it feels like. The very thought of how on earth it came to this makes you shudder and wince: this monstrous, overwhelming and overbearing presence, dominating and devastating everything you once held dear; displaying no obvious sense of compassion, no empathy, no class, and less grace than an ostrich let loose in a One Stop…

How anyone in their right mind could be a fan of this blight upon humanity eludes you… they must be stupid, gullible, brainwashed or just plain nasty people to support such an obviously divisive, offensive manifestation of politics, right?

Every news story, meme or monologue you come across seems to reinforce your negative opinions about this grotesque scam, which only makes you more and more incandescent with rage that such a travesty could have been allowed to happen.

All in all, it just makes you feel so MAD!

I get it. I feel your pain. I really do.

The good news is: you can help yourself!

By understanding TDS – in my case, the T stands for Turbine, but it applies equally to all other Derangement Syndromes – you can really get under the hood of your own negative feelings and make some positive changes. By applying some critical thinking, you can begin to understand that things aren’t always as clear-cut as they first seem, with at least two sides to every story; and from that more balanced perspective, you can start to hone and focus your rage into a more constructive and useful emotion.

(As I’ve said before, what a shame we cannot harness anger and turn it into electricity… TDS could fulfill well over 50% of our daily power needs!)

First and foremost, Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers, understand that your mental chemistry has literally been changed by the presence of this man and his impact on your life. Maybe we all do this to each other, maybe we all have the power to recircuit people’s brain chemistry. Everyone we ever meet adds to our knowledge base, our memories, our subconscious understanding of the world.

Some people have so much power that they can reroute millions of people’s neurological pathways without even having met them. Mr Trump is one such person! Since his election as President of the United States in 2016, the collective consciousness of the whole world has been totally rewired.

Of course, whilst many of us were only too ready and willing for this psychological transformation, or at least well-prepared for it, many of us were not. To those of us who predicted a Trump victory (regardless of how we would have voted ourselves), external reality resonates with our own perceptions of the world, which is a fundamental of good mental health. When our perceptions are starkly contradicted by external reality, however, and the man who has zero chance of winning “mathemathically” ends up winning mathematically, then that’s a surefire recipe for trauma and confusion.

All you TDS Victims have thus had a nightmare two years, and basic human compassion means that even the most ardent Trump fans should acknowledge the very real psychological strain you have all been under. I’ve always said that the wind developers should acknowledge the stresses they’ve caused by imposing their twisted blades on people against their will, and by the same token it’s only right to acknowledge just how tough it has been for those whose mental health has been adversely affected by Trump’s own brutal aesthetics.

If Trump drives you mad, I’m genuinely sympathetic because I understand exactly what he’s done to your psychological state. Wind turbines do the same to me. I’m here to help.

Once you understand that you now have altered brain chemistry as a direct result of Trump, you should realise that the fundamental emotion behind your TDS is in fact FEAR. Fear of death, ultimately, fear of being de-energised, of having the very life force sucked out of you. Those of you most genuinely affected by Mr Trump are probably those whose worldview, identity, self-esteem or even basic human survival is threatened by what he represents.

What you experience every time you are exposed to Trump is an “amygdala hijack”, the brain’s response to fear. I’ve discussed amygdala hijacks before, and having spent so much time over the last few years deliberately exposing my amygdala to the “fear” stimuli of wind turbines, so I can analyse the results, I am by now pretty damn good at recognising the cognitive and physiological processes behind an amygdala hijack, and working out how this negative, de-energising sensation can be harnessed and turned into a force for good (just like the wind, ahem).

Trump Derangement Syndrome basically means that exposure to “The Donald” gives you an amygdala hijack every time you see him, hear him or come across any mention of him. You might not consciously think you’re scared of Trump, but the vehemency of your reactions would imply otherwise. With good reason, you might argue, should you feel under specific threat from his policies.

In the name of research, I merely ask you to analyse your own psychological reactions to the the photo at the top of the page. Here it is again. Remember, we’re doing this to help YOU understand what’s going on in YOUR mind and to help you turn any negatives into positives. So take a long, hard look into his soul…

OK… 3, 2, 1… go!

Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin

How many of you suddenly feel the following symptoms:

Sudden feelings of aggression

Rush of blood to the muscles


Pounding heart

Rapid breathing

Aching chest

If the photo triggers any of these physiological reactions, then it’s probably an amygdala hijack taking place, a perfectly natural animal reaction to a “perceived” threat. Yes I use those quotes deliberately, because the amygdala is notorious for getting real and perceived threats mixed up. Not that the reaction isn’t real, but the link between stimulus and reaction may well be out-of-proportion to the actual threat. I have to remind myself to do this with wind turbines.

Bear with me, while I now deliberately give my own amygdala something to get worked up about… the following photo affects me in exactly the same was as the above photo affects those of you who are still frothing at the mouth.


(Ooh look, it says “Daily Mail” in the bottom left corner. I wonder if those two words trigger another hijack in some people!)

The amygdala is in fact a cluster of nuclei located towards the base of the brain, and it plays a vital role in our survival. When people talk about intuition or instinct, or “having a bad feeling about something”, it’s more likely they’re referring to their amygdala starting to go into overdrive; the pre-rational, animal part of our minds that is just as important in our decision-making as the purely logical element.

When aroused into a state of fear, the amygdala can block off the pathway to logical analysis in an instant – either by creating a “flight” response (intuition telling us to run a bloody mile) or alternatively by creating a “fight” response (intuition telling us this is a fight we can in fact win through strength alone, without the recourse for logic!)

Something about both Trump and Turbines gets many people’s amygdalae working overtime, in most cases either/or, but maybe there are some poor people who get triggered by both Trump AND Turbines, in which case they may have to relocate to Mars to escape. Maybe there are some lucky people who are triggered by neither!

What causes the amygdala to spazz out in fear (well, to release an adrenal chemical called epinephrine) is related more to memory than logic, hence people with bad experiences will naturally relate any new danger to what has occurred in the past, occasionally seeing threats where none exist, solely because they are so used to bad things happening. Perfectly understandable!

When people see Trump and get bad vibes, what’s going on is a connection is being formed by their amygdala, with Trump reminding them of something bad. Similarly, wind turbines fit a pattern in my own mind which connects their presence to some kind of remembered negativity.

Vitally though, we must remember that the amygdala on its own can be, and indeed often is WRONG! And again, I stress, that’s not to say that the bad sensations are invalid, but that they might well be based on an outdated pattern or missing information of some sort. This is the specific journey this blog has taken me on with wind turbines, and therefore that’s a major piece of advice I can give Trump Derangement Syndrome sufferers:

Your feelings are valid, but the cause of them may not be what you think it is. I know that wind turbines give me cognitive dissonance (the technical name for “bad vibes”, that initial sense that something is not quite as it should be), which can in certain circumstances escalate into a full-blown amygdala hijack. What I’ve been trying to understand is what it is specifically about the turbines that triggers this reaction?

To reach the answer, I have to apply critical thinking and logical deduction (aka Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) in order to forensically challenge my own feelings. Some people really have a problem with this, and can literally go no further with their thinking than their basic, instinctive, primal emotions. This is particularly an issue with Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Now if you don’t want to be mired in hatred, anger and stress, then you really need to move your thoughts forward beyond the state of fear. It’s only when your amygdala guard dogs have piped down and are back in their kennels that the neural pathways to your neocortex become available again, from which the actual higher processing functions of your brain can now take place.

It’s very, very hard when you feel under attack, but this is exactly why unspoilt natural landscapes are so important, to give us somewhere where our thoughts are afforded breathing space.

This is why wind farms are bad for mental health – they damage our places of healing equilibrium, and they increase the amount of landscapes that trigger fear reactions.

Many of you suffering Trump Derangement Syndrome will have forgotten what it feels like to have your amygdala on holiday and your neocortex running the show. It’s been two long years of continuous bombardment by the Trump train coming round and round the tracks, and I can empathise. Imagine how I’d be feeling right now, had the government not effectively stopped any new wind blight from screwing up the English countryside; I’d possibly be in very, very bad mental health by now, if every week I found a new threat of wind blight I was required to fight against, a new moor or mountain under the Sword of Damocles from speculative wind developers.

In order to transform your fear-based emotions into something more positive, the trick is to find a way of sneaking your negativity past your amygdala and out onto the sunlit plains of your neocortex, where you can take a step back and see things more through the prism of nature. In fact, this is the basic recipe for happiness IMO: better out than in! Get it out of your mind and into the world – whether via writing, speaking, singing or making movies!

(The irony is, of course, is that the more outwardly violent and aggressive the placards and slogans against Trump, and the more people are free to express their negative emotions towards him, the less he is acting like the totalitarian fascist dictator the very same protestors accuse him of being! But because the insults and name-calling originate from people’s pre-rational amygdalae rather than their higher thinking neocortexes, they rarely lead anywhere near logical dialectic.)

Ask someone for a discussion about how President Trump is performing, regardless of their personal opinion. Ask them to apply an objective SWOT Analysis to his first couple of years. If they are able to have a cogent, calm and sensible conversation about Trump’s performance, using critical thinking to evaluate his strengths and weaknesses – even if they’re not personally a huge fan – then at least you know you are dealing with someone whose mind is no longer under the control of their rabid amygdala. Whereas if they start to swear and shout, losing all sense of proportion, and literally cannot give you a sane and adult response, then you know that their thinking hasn’t quite gone on the complete journey yet, and their amygdala is still responding in fear to a perceived threat from Mr Trump.

A friend of mine who the other day called Trump a “Ginger wankmaggot” didn’t even notice my ashen-faced disgust at this dehumanising, demeaning, real-life instance of Hate Speech, so consumed was he by his anti-Trump amygdala hijack. I don’t really think badly of my friend for his misjudged outburst, because he clearly wasn’t thinking straight. It was effectively a panic attack, dressed up as a witticism.

When you see this sort of thing happen in real-time, you immediately recognise that what’s going on with TDS is the same type of psychological warfare that I maintain wind turbines waged on rural communities – THE DELIBERATE IMPOSITION OF BRUTAL AESTHETICS AS A “FUCK YOU” TO ONE’S POLITICAL ADVERSARIES.

Now, if it’s morally wrong for wind developers to do this to country dwellers, then how can it be right for countryfolk to inflict their tough-talkin’ “redneck” aesthetics on sensitive metropolitan souls?

Well, here’s the answer. You see, both sides claim to have democracy on their side, and indeed they both have a point. Turbines and Trump were both INVITED IN. This is the absolutely pivotal lesson in how to change the world: you need to accept that the things you oppose exist for a reason, and you need to know and understand that reason like the back of your hand. It’s usually because someone or something else failed to fulfill our needs, which is why whatever it is that triggers us gets introduced in the first place.

In the case of wind turbines, they are with us because we as a society decided that polluting, unrenewable energy sources clearly needed cleaning up and replacing with more sustainable alternatives (or so we were led to believe). In the case of Trump, he is with us because Hillary Clinton was a poor candidate who lost the election by alienating a good half of her core voters, through a mixture of arrogance, sleaze and incompetence.

Now, whatever we may think of the solutions on offer, the problems – the needs still unfulfilled by our previous efforts – are REAL.

Identifying the underlying problems that led to the introduction of whatever we are triggered by is essential in understanding why these so-called “solutions” have been offered to, or possibly imposed on us.

Remove the problems at source, or find a superior way of handling them, and you’re well on your way to changing the world.

You could almost boil down TDS (in all its forms – maybe even Turnip Derangement Syndrome!) into one sentence: the fear that what is touted as the solution to our problems may in fact do more harm than good.

That’s why you don’t like Trump and I don’t like Turbines. These twin icons of Millennial Life have both been promoted as the antidote to problems of dirtiness of some sort, whether it be Mr Trump’s pledge to “drain the swamp”, or the “clean, green energy” of wind turbines.

TDS sufferers of both types are basically frantic with worry that these promises may be empty at best; downright toxic at worst.

Now hopefully you have a deeper understanding of exactly why you react the way you do to Donald Trump: based on remembered responses, your amygdala perceives him as a threat to your survival in some way. You realise that this threat is only in your life right now because enough people believed in him as the solution to at least some of society’s problems, but you are terrified that instead of offering genuine solutions, he only promises to do more harm than good.

So exactly what, may I ask, is your specific fear about Trump? What worries you most about his impact on your well-being? What do you cherish that he threatens to damage?

With regard to my own TDS, the answers are simple: I’m terrified of the industrialisation, corporatisation and degradation of the Pennine uplands that energise us all. I cherish the Green Belts, the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks that keep this country a largely green and pleasant land. Wind turbines directly violate that Green idyll, all the more so by pretending to be “Green” themselves, when in reality they devour truly Green landscapes for breakfast, lunch and tea. I pointed this out to Sajid Javid and various other ministers, and they seemed to agree. A few months later and the threat of any further wind blight has subsided (for now).

The root problem that caused the “false solution” of wind power is – in reality, when all the BS is scraped away – our need for only a tiny amount of additional electricity; barely reaching a few GW at any given moment over the course of last week, right now only 1.08GW (

I am thus able to change the world by proving that this small amount of energy would be better generated by other means, and persuading those who make the decisions that following my guidance is in everyone’s best interests. You can do the same, there’s nothing stopping you!

Assiduous research, fieldwork and above all engaging in constructive dialectic with those holding differing opinions are all essential. Doing everything through the system, then pointing out with real evidence how the system is failing and what needs fixing. I’m now at the point where I believe maths are my best weapon against wind blight, so silly names are largely superfluous if the stats tell their own story. But it does take time and effort to get to this point and stay there (after all, things change continually, and sometimes just one new variable can transform your entire worldview). You need to be dedicated, focused and flexible enough to be able to modify your case at any time.

I like that word “case”. Think of your individual case as a briefcase. The overall shape and size of the case may stay the same (or indeed you may throw the whole thing in the bin if it starts leaking!), but the documentation and paperwork it contains are updated all the time! Letters are sent and received. Forms are submitted and reports returned. Laws evolve. Research constantly supplies new data. Ultimately, a successful case is one which is tightly packed with relevant facts, figures and evidence.

Finally, play the ball, not the man. In all my millions of anti-turbine rantings, I’ve not personally insulted a single individual, other than to eviscerate their comments or actions that specifically relate to the support for inappropriate wind blight (such as the “freaks” and “weirdos” who like wind turbines, but that’s the only thing about them I’m insulting). I certainly don’t care about their personal lives, and neither should you. Concentrate on your own!

The net result of all this? Well, as a consequence of the research and fieldwork passed onto the government by myself and my friends, although no new law was introduced specifically banning wind farms, a few little tweaks here and there have between them made it virtually impossible to build a new wind farm onshore in England right now!

It’s worth remembering that when I was first triggered by wind turbines, less than four years ago, there seemed to be no end in sight to the continuing onslaught of the wind developers. Now they’re going bust left, right and centre!

So, TDS Victims, this is your homework for today. What is it about Trump that you are most afraid of? What is it that you hold dear that he seems to threaten most? How real is the threat? How sure are you that Trump is the real source of the threat? What practical steps can you take to protect yourself from that threat?

(Clue: identify the root problems that led to Trump’s election, and come up with some solutions that you think could lead to a different outcome in 2020!)

And finally, if you’re feeling really up for some Advanced Critical Thinking, try running an OBJECTIVE SWOT Analysis on Trump’s time in office. You’ll feel better for it!

What have been the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of the Trump Presidency so far?

I don’t expect the above to transform anyone’s opinion of Trump, and that’s not my aim anyway, as you’re all adults, and you can all make up your own minds. All I want is for you TDS sufferers to analyse your own amygdala hijacks, and to help you move your thinking on from pure fear and hatred to a place of higher understanding, positivity, and practical solutions.






Defeating The Wind Scam With Statistics

If the pen is mightier than the sword, then maybe the calculator is deadlier than the shotgun! After all, it was the use (or misuse) of stats that originally allowed wind operators to bamboozle us all into believing their companies could “save the world”, in exactly the same way that the nice man who says he works for Microsoft calls and offers to “save your computer”…

Live by stats, however; die by stats too. The following snapshot, captured at 13:00 pm on Friday 13th July 2018, introduces this diary segment, in which I monitor the real-life performance of the UK’s wind industry and share with you the results. I’d love to be able to break down these figures even further, so we know specifically which wind turbines are generating power, and which turbines are doing absolutely nothing…


All in all, every wind turbine in the UK combined, both onshore and offshore, is currently generating less than 1% of our power! In real terms, that’s 0.19GW, out of our total current power demand of 38.62GW. By comparison, nuclear power is generating 6.59GW, and CCGT is generating 18.95GW.

This figure is even more pathetic when you look at it in terms of capacity factor (if I understand it correctly). The total installed capacity of all our turbines combined is approximately 19GW, which means our turbines are currently operating at 1% efficiency. People say, “Well, there’s no limit to the wind, what does it matter if we only harness a fraction of it?” But there IS a limit to our ever-decreasing amount of unspoilt, health-giving, natural landscapes.

When looked at in terms of LAND pollution rather than AIR pollution, suddenly the wind industry’s 1% efficiency rate reveals its vast, bloated, oversized and hugely destructive footprint: so much natural desecration for so, so little benefit to humanity.

Therefore when 10:10 Climate Action ask whether you would prefer to live next to a wind turbine or a nuclear power station, it’s not really like-for-like. A fairer question would be: are you happy with the current amount of turbine blight required to generate 0.19GW of power, or would you rather we replaced some (if not all) of these turbines, by generating the same amount of power via other technologies?

I’ll keep monitoring the stats over the next week and together we can analyse wind’s performance in real time. What we’re asking is: exactly how large or small is wind power’s contribution to our energy demands? How sustainable is our wind supply? Are there any wind farms that do especially well, or especially badly?!

SATURDAY 14 July 2018 16:30 pm:

Total demand is down to 30GW

Wind is currently generating 2.56GW (8.29%)

Nuclear is currently generating 6.39GW (20.69%)

CCGT is currently generating 12.30GW (39.62%)

Wind is producing significantly more power today than at the time of yesterday’s reading, but being a Saturday afternoon, demand is 8GW lower today than as of Friday lunchtime! Nuclear’s contribution remains more or less the same (now THAT’S what I call sustainable…) CCGT is significantly lower, in line with reduced demand.

Although wind’s 8% contribution looks reasonable, it appears as if its small total output has “queue-jumped” to the front of our energy mix, meaning power generated from wind turbines is being given priority over power generated by other methods. This decision needs investigating further: WHY? Is it cheaper? Cleaner? More efficient? Feel free to educate me if you have more info!

SUNDAY 15 July 2018 12:00 pm

Total demand is again 30GW

Wind is currently generating 1.33GW (4.36%)

Nuclear is currently generating 6.61GW (21.66%)

CCGT is currently generating 11.22GW (36.76%)

Wind power generation is back to half of what is was yesterday, whereas again nuclear and CCGT are more or less unchanged. Bearing in mind all the land pollution caused by our 19GW of installed wind power capacity, there must be something really special about that trickle of 1.33GW generated by turbines, to justify its continued use. It must surely be significantly cheaper or cleaner than any other form of power; or is it that maybe we simply don’t have the means to generate that 1.33GW by any other method?

If we could, eg by boosting our nuclear output by just a couple of GW, then surely it’d make sense to scrap wind power altogether and use a better alternative?

MONDAY 16 July 2018 14:00 pm

Total demand is back up to 37.79GW

Wind is currently generating 0.68GW (1.80%)

Nuclear is currently generating 6.42GW (16.99%)

CCGT is currently generating 19.12GW (50.60%)

Gas is steamrollering ahead today, basically powering the lion’s share of our economy. Nuclear power is as reliable and regular as ever. Wind has dropped right back to under 1GW, particularly poor for a business day, and raising serious questions about these advertised “capacity factors”. Scout Moor, for example, has a published capacity factor of 27%, meaning that in real-life conditions the turbines should be able to generate just over a quarter of their total capacity.

Based on the first four days of diary-keeping, the entire UK wind industry’s average performance has so far barely even averaged 10% of its overall capacity! Its high point in this research period so far has been 2.6GW, out of a total installed capacity of 19GW. I make that 13.6% AT BEST, not even half of the claimed capacity factor of Scout Moor. Surely in order to meet the capacity factor claims, there will have to be an equal and opposite period of seriously above-average wind power generation in order to bring up the mean?

I eagerly await the PROMISED (*based on the above stats) day that the UK wind industry is generating 7.6GW of power! Actually I don’t – the state of the country were we to have that many turbines would be uninhabitable.

Another question worth asking: was this paltry amount of wind power generated by just one in ten of our turbines actually doing a decent job, the other nine doing sweet FA? Or was it generated by all our turbines combined, ie hundreds, if not thousands of wind turbines each generating tiny, erratic amounts of energy: on, off, on, off, half what it was yesterday, twice what it will be tomorrow, unpredictable, unconservable, unsustainable?

How we deal with wind blight really depends on the answer: if some of our turbines have been doing all the work but the rest are a waste of space, then let’s study the successes and work out why they’re doing well. And once we’ve isolated those specific turbines that have done NOTHING, they’ll need to go. Like, yesterday. No ifs, no buts… if they’re not generating sufficient power then they’re not fit for purpose and need removing, pending legal action for gross fraud.

If however, almost all the turbines are doing a little, even if just a tenth of what they should be capable of, then that leaves us with another problem: is wind power innately, intrinsically dependent on far too much equipment, capable of generating far too little electricity… BY DESIGN?

If that is the case, and our turbine blight has been approved knowing full well just what an inefficient and wasteful use of land it really is, then we as a society have officially declared War On Nature…

… with Friends of the Earth and 10:10 Climate Action leading us into battle!

TUESDAY 17 July 2018 12:30pm

This week has been been full of non-stop media scaremongering about a giant whirlwind crashing into the UK from the direction of the Atlantic, obliterating everything in its path and leaving in its wake a path of pure destruction.

But enough about the press coverage of Trump’s visit… what about the weather?

Total demand is currently 36.22GW

Wind is currently generating 0.94GW (2.56%)

Nuclear is currently generating 6.44GW (17.78%)

CCGT is currently generating 18.01GW (49.72%)

Coal is currently generating 0.87 (2.4%)

For some reason coal is back in the mix today. I wonder why? Could it be that wind simply isn’t stepping up to the plate when it’s actually needed? What’s interesting about wind’s contribution is that in real terms it’s doing better than it was on Sunday, but in percentage terms it’s providing significantly less of the mix. That’s because demand is greater by approximately 6GW on a business day, but wind power has no correlation with demand whatsoever, so on a quiet day like a Sunday the wind could be going full-throttle, whereas the very next day, a Monday when we actually need considerably more power, there’s simply no way of relying on the wind. Hence the need for coal backup.

I would posit that the sole reason we are relying on coal today is because the wind has let us down just when we needed it most.

WEDNESDAY 18 July 2018 20:30pm

Total demand is currently 32.85GW

Wind is currently generating 0.45GW (1.37%)

Nuclear is currently generating 6.64GW (20.21%)

CCGT is currently generating 18.94GW (57.65%)

Coal is currently generating 0.89GW (2.71%)

Wind racks up another very low score indeed tonight, surpassed even by coal for the first time in this survey period. Exactly how many coal-fired power stations are currently contributing 0.89GW to the grid? We only have eight left: Drax, Eggborough, Fiddler’s Ferry, Ratcliffe-on-Soar, West Burton, Cottam, Aberthaw and Kinroot; whereas we have around 8,900 wind turbines.

You do the math:

8,900 wind turbines = 0.45GW

8 coal-fired power stations = 0.89GW

I make that 2,250 wind turbines (about 200 wind farms) for every coal-fired power station.

THURSDAY 19 July 2018 22:30pm

Total demand is currently 29.76GW

Wind is currently generating 1.40GW (4.70%)

Nuclear is currently generating 6.68GW (22.25%)

CCGT is currently generating 16.08GW (54.03%)

Coal is currently generating 0.21GW (0.71%)

A late-evening look at our power generation stats (the rock’n’roll lifestyle, eh!) reveals over three times as much wind power today compared with 20:30pm yesterday evening, a mahoosive 1.40GW woop woop. And yet our total demand is actually 3GW less than it was yesterday! Surprising to see a really, really small amount of coal power in the mix. I wonder what determines when we need coal: why tonight when demand is low, but not during peak hours earlier in the week?

SATURDAY 21 July 2018 12:00pm

Total demand is currently 31.08GW

Wind is currently generating 0.43GW (1.38%)

Nuclear is currently generating 7.17GW (23.07%)

CCGT is currently generating 14.28GW (45.94%)

Coal is currently generating 0.21GW (0.68%)

Wind power has dropped back once again to below 0.5GW, rounding off this week’s performance with another almost negligible contribution to our grid. Maybe if I just shut down my laptop, we could do without any wind power at all! Of course, if we all used just a little less electricity a day then we could easily do without wind blight, so it’s all of our responsibilities to use power as sparingly as possible.

Another interesting thing about today’s stats is the increase in nuclear generation to over 7% for the first time, on a low demand day to boot, PROVING that we have additional nuclear capacity that could easily displace wind power should we so desire. If today’s nuclear output of 7.17GW had been generated last Friday, we literally wouldn’t have needed a single wind turbine. So why oh why can’t we keep our nuclear generation nearer the 7GW mark than the 6GW, every day of the week, thus instantly removing the need for the <1GW routinely generated by wind turbines?


Moulins Et Éoliennes


It’s a very hot evening and I’m on official business in Paris for the week. The Moulin Rouge is just a few doors down: an archetype for my previously touted Turbine Traffic Light Scheme, with underperforming wind turbines compulsorily painted red as a demonstration of their proven uselessness. Maybe, however, red is too sexy a colour to use as code for condemned wind turbines (those that should never have been built in the first place). Maybe black is more fitting, more symbolic of death.

I had a fascinating flight over much of England (from Leeds to Eastbourne), then barely a few minutes later into France and the gradual descent to Paris Charles De Gaulle. From what I could see out of the plane window, Northern France seems to have had more than its fair share of wind blight – it really is popular on the continent, isn’t it? I was hoping to see Rampion from the air, but alas my window was looking out in the other direction.

No real overriding topic today, just a catchup on the various different wind-related conversations I’ve been having these last few weeks!

In a classic “meta” social media exchange the other day, I came across yet another commenter using the word “majestic”, and so I pointed them to the article I’d already written just a few weeks ago debunking the use of this stupid term to describe wind blight. I ended up getting stuck right into a fascinating dialogue, once again. I really do enjoy debating wind power with its supporters, and once we get past the “comedy” insults, we can usually settle down into a robust discourse.

Yet again part of 10:10 Climate Action’s continued (and doomed) campaign for the resurgence of rigged planning policies in favour of wind turbines, against the wishes of those communities who’d have to host them (in 2015 the Conservatives swung the balance of power back to local communities…yes, really!), this debate saw the usual fantasists mixed in with a healthy number of realists. I’m never the only one in a group to criticise wind power, there’s always a fair few of us (many from the fields of engineering and science).

Did anyone say anything that really got through to me and helped me see things differently? Well, nobody was able to defend the aesthetics of wind turbines, other than the usual “it’s subjective” crap, which I was able to refute immediately by pointing out that our planning policy is not, never was, and never will be “subjective” – justice under the law is by its very nature objective and therefore fair to everyone.

Up until 2015 the law presumed in favour of renewable energy development, resulting in vast numbers of successful appeals despite local communities saying “no”; since the changes the law now presumes in favour of those NIMBYs like me (bearing in mind as I’ve said before: my back yard is your back yard; mi casa su casa!). Subjectivity doesn’t come into it; how do we as a society objectively view the aesthetic impact of wind turbines? Mercifully, right now, we officially view them as unwanted blight. But it could change again in the future, if the likes of 10:10 and Ben & Jerry’s have their way.

Ben & Jerry’s? The ice cream people? Yup. For some reason a bunch of Californian hippies (I’m guessing) seem to feel it’s their duty to stick their oar into whether we allow wind turbines on appeal in the Fens and the Wolds. This is yet another company promulgating the use of wind turbines. WHY??? Maybe they’d be better off sorting out the problems of the dairy industry rather than interfering in matters which have got nothing whatsoever to do with them. I’ve given Ben & Jerry a piece of my mind, anyway. I’m sure they appreciate my customer feedback 😉

On my “Remove All Wind Blight” YouTube channel, somebody came along and started calling me rude names, so I bantered with them and tried to up the standard of debate to a point where it actually becomes interesting and useful for the general public. Name-calling is fine for the opening attack, but you do actually need some empathy towards the person you’re debating, otherwise it merely ends up alienating the public. A great public debate is absolutely not about hurting or upsetting your opponent, indeed it’s not really even about changing their mind… it’s about persuading the audience as a whole to reconsider its own assumptions about the world we live in.

Once again I was asked “What would YOU do, instead of wind power?” My answer has involved analysing the mix of the National Grid over the last few weeks, a habit I now find quite compulsive. You can study it yourself. Here, have a look…

My first observation is that wind is currently providing around 11% of the UK’s power needs, feeding a total of 4.05GW into the grid. However last week, wind was barely providing 3% of our power. What this tells us is that the amount of power generated by wind turbines is highly erratic, ranging from almost zero to a good 10% of the UK’s overall power supply. In fact, today’s figure of 11% is the highest I’ve seen it. Woopy Doo!

My next query is to break down that 11%, that 4.05GW, and see if it’s possible to find out exactly which turbines contributed most to that total? Taking this research further, I’d love to look at the total output of every single wind farm ever constructed in Britain, and I’d love to see if there are some turbines that have genuinely done their owners proud. Conversely, I’d love to know if there are some freeloading turbines that do buggerall but try and nab some of the glory.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the bad wind turbines spoil the reputation of the good ones. Let’s root out the underperformers, and I for one will give more credit to the genuine high achievers.

In an ideal world I’d rather see that 4.05GW of our energy generated from other sources that don’t have as much negative impact upon our landscapes as wind power does, gigawatt per gigawatt. I’d be happy with a mass cull of our lowest-performing 75% of wind farms, and instead of relying so much upon the wind, we simply ramp up the contributions made by our other key energy sources: nuclear and CCGT. Bearing in mind nuclear is already generating of 7.33 GW, and CCGT a whopping 16.45GW, would it really take that much innovation or investment to bump those figures up by a couple of GW each, thus removing the need for wind power altogether?

What would the implications be of replacing all (or the vast majority) of our wind turbines with just enough additional nuclear and CCGT capacity to cover the shortfall?

How can it be Green to have an entire industry and infrastructure, blighting pretty much every county in the UK, unable to provide much more than a tenth (at most) of our energy supply? 



Safely back in the UK after a frenetic few days in sweltering Central Paris,  I’m continuing to monitor the state of the National Grid, and the 11% high point from a few days really does seem like an unsustainable spike in wind’s output. Remember the definition of “sustainable”: able to be maintained at a constant rate. Well, that 11% sure ain’t sustainable, as right now wind’s contribution is down to a measly 3.86% (that’s 1.37GW). Nuclear is contributing 18.74% (7.08GW) and CCGT 47.02% (17.77GW).

The biggest downside with nuclear power is the safety factor, but exactly how much greater is the risk of generating an additional 1.4GW to the 7GW nuclear power already provides for us? It’s that M62 analogy again: adding a couple more lanes to an existing six-lane highway is clearly nowhere as near as destructive as building eight brand new single-lane routes across the moors.

The more I gaze upon the National Grid status in real-time, the more convinced I am that wind power is nothing but a parasite, an almost entirely worthless addition to our power mix that AT BEST can possibly save a thimbleful of CO2 emissions. The fact is, literally one or two more nuclear and CCGT power stations could vastly outperform wind with little or no extra risk or pollution than we already have.

I cannot get my head around how on earth we ended up going down the wind power route.

Never in the field of human endeavour has so much been squandered, for so many, to generate so little, for so few.

WHY ARE WE DOING THIS??? [several links that prove the absolute idiocy of promoting wind turbines]

Firearms & Explosives vs Unwanted Wind Blight


DISCLAIMER: Please check the specific laws regarding the use of firearms and explosives in your community before engaging in any acts of turbine removal enforcement. This blog does not advocate any illegal activity whatsoever, so if in doubt: check with your local police force before taking any direct action.

The following are examples of communities across the world using weaponry to express their displeasure about turbine blight.

Let’s start with Northern Ireland: “Remove all your equipment or it will be burnt to the ground”, workers at a wind farm construction site were warned. “We are serious. We are very good at this. We do a good job.”

In an industry based on lies, deception and wolves in sheep’s clothing, it’s quite rare to come across such honest, plain-speaking as uttered by the masked gunmen who turned up onsite and hit the developers with some words of pure truth: “Final warning: stay away from the wind farm or face the bullet….”

Like them or hate them, these words are at least 100% HONEST. That honesty in itself is a welcome addition to the discourse about wind power. It tells us the truth about what people really think about wind power.

Imagine working in an industry that makes people so angry, they want to shoot you dead and bomb your machinery until it’s destroyed.

Meanwhile, in Canada, a country normally thought to be gentle, easy-going and ultra-liberal:


America is a place where gun-related incidents are more commonplace. Maybe we should repurpose wind farms as giant shooting ranges where people can safely let off steam without fear of killing anyone innocent!

Another account of the Michigan shootings:

In Montana:

Let’s now travel to Australia, where there have been more wind farm shootings:

Can’t stand the heat? Then get out the kitchen!

Nobody has thus far shot or detonated any wind farms in the United Kingdom, but turbine owners have often been called out on their greed and selfishness by justifiably angry neighbours: “No wind turbines here. The nights are drawing in and we are going to get you back.”

This is the true emotional impact of wind turbines, and I sympathise with the poor, tormented writer of the “poison pen” letters. It could have almost been me, only I always put my full name and address on all of my correspondence, because I want my communications to be documented and added to the nation’s official public discourse. Plus, as regular readers will have discovered by now, I prefer to engage with people in a two-way dialogue than to simply stick rude notes through their letterbox and then run away.

In terms of content, however, I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments expressed.

We don’t want wind blight around here. We will make our grievances known to anyone who spoils the landscape for personal profit, in order to drive home the TRUTH that it’s simply not socially acceptable to ruin our treasured rural landscapes with ugly wind turbines.



Robin Brooks’ Big Mistake: Carsington Pastures Wind Farm


Almost all of today’s entry will be an excerpt from the letter I sent the Planning Inspectorate last year. I’m posting it here following a trip back to the White Peak, in which I could not escape the Carsington monsters following me around wherever I looked. The letter is an official document and has been logged on the Planning Inspectorate’s system; as such it is an integral part of the national discourse on wind power, most definitely in the public interest as evidence of the harmful impact of various wind farms on the Peak District.

My personal approach to (ex) Planning Inspector Robin Brooks is to keep this public slaughtering of his reputation strictly on-topic and related to professional matters. He screwed up in his job. If his superiors disagree and think he did a good job, then it’s them, not him, to blame. One way or another, a bad job was carried out, with horrendous impacts. Someone, somewhere has to take responsibility for the colossal error of judgment in allowing Carsington Pastures Wind Farm to f**k up vast swathes of the Peak District.

Robin Brooks is the man with his name attached to the Planning Appeal that allowed this blight to be built, once again against the wishes of the local community and without their consent, and so until I hear otherwise, my search for environmental justice is pointing me in Mr Brooks’ direction.

In publicly shaming Robin Brooks, I’m not seeking to hurt him, rather to educate him; to reach out and make him aware of the harmful impact of his actions on the mental health and well-being of thousands of British citizens who look to the National Parks for recreation, relaxation and a vital escape from industry. It’s not too late for Mr Brooks to emerge from hiding and admit, on the record, that he goofed and now stands opposed to the wind blight he previously sanctioned.

I’m a great believer in sinners repenting and being forgiven, and that’s what I’d love to happen regarding Carsington: (1) apologies and acknowledgment from all concerned that they have seriously harmed our most visited National Park; (2) remedial action to remove all traces of the wind blight from the National Park; followed on my side by (3) forgiveness for their mistakes. That’s the journey I’m heading on, but things need to happen in the right order. The apologies must come first. Then the remedial action. Finally, forgiveness.

So let’s hand over to the original letter, addressed to the Planning Inspectorate as an organisation, and my very own Freedom of Information requests regarding the inexplicable approval of Carsington Pastures Wind Farm.


CASE REF: APP/P1045/A/07/2054080

Proven negative environmental impact:

In order to truly understand the devastating environmental impact of the Carsington Pastures Wind Farm, and how its approval on appeal by Mr Brooks breaches every principle of planning best practice since the Second World War, it is necessary to have a detailed knowledge of the social history of the Peak National Park and its formation.

The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 set out two “statutory purposes”:

1. to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the area, and

2. to promote opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the park’s special qualities by the public.

There is also a statutory duty: “to seek to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities within the national parks.”

Approving an unwanted power station, rejected by the community, less than two miles from the Peak District, on a prominent ridge visible from north of Bakewell, east of Matlock, south of Ashbourne and west of Buxton, must rank as one of the most outrageous, possibly criminal planning mistakes in recorded history.

Almost the entirety of the Southern Peak District is now blighted by the unsightly appearance of the huge, obtrusive industrial development looming over the otherwise idyllic National Park, breaching the core principles above by defiling the natural beauty and cultural heritage of the area, and spoiling opportunities for millions of people to escape nasty industrial views and enjoy the park’s special qualities.

Extent of area blighted by Carsington Pastures Wind Farm:


I shouldn’t need to inform the Planning Inspectorate about its duty to conserve the integrity of the UK’s National Parks at all costs – if at any time the Planning Inspectorate does not put their conservation first and foremost in its decisions, then it is a malignant agency that is not fit-for-purpose,  proactively and deliberately harming the environment and inhabitants of the UK; as such, I would not want a penny of my taxes to go towards propping up such an unpatriotic organisation.

I sincerely hope this degradation of the Peak was inadvertent and accidental rather than deliberate or malicious, however the approval of Carsington Pastures Wind Farm has undoubtedly had an extremely (and entirely predictable/avoidable) negative impact on the landscapes of the National Park, and so the fact remains: the Planning Inspectorate has provably damaged the United Kingdom and harmed the millions of citizens whose appreciation of its unique landscapes has been ruined all for the profits of one firm, Engie Renewables (based over 100 miles away).

Causing harm to the environment & inhabitants of the UK is totally unacceptable to me, therefore I am now taking action to enforce the compulsory removal of the unwanted, unneeded Carsington Pastures Wind Farm.

I am reaching out to you as a representative of the Planning Inspectorate, in the sincere hope that you appreciate the true severity of Mr Brooks’ harmful decision and its extremely negative impact on the UK’s best interests. It is my hope that official arrangements can consequently be made for the removal of the destructive wind farm, without the need for the community to sideline the Planning Inspectorate and take over sole responsibility for the enforced removal of the harmful wind turbines, with no outside assistance.

The people of the UK do not want or need the wind farm at Carsington Pastures, as expressed unequivocally by Derbyshire Dales Council’s strong rejection of the application, and the electorate’s rejection of pro-wind policies at every general election since 2010 (plus the Brexit vote, which was a vote against, amongst other things, EU energy/environmental policies). Mr Brooks’ decision is unpatriotic, antidemocratic, unethical, unnatural, unsupported by science and therefore totally unacceptable. CONSEQUENTLY, CARSINGTON PASTURES WIND FARM HAS TO BE FORCIBLY REMOVED.

FOI Request:

(21) In Paragraph 47 Mr Brooks states: “Both their visual impact and their effects on landscape character would diminish fairly quickly to east and west, and would be perceived by those travelling through the landscape as affecting a relatively limited area.” In Paragraph 52 Mr Brooks states: “…significant visual effects would be likely up to about 3-5 kms radius of the appeal site though this
does not in itself equate to unacceptable harm to landscape character”

These are provable errors made by Mr Brooks personally, factually incorrect misstatements of Carsington Pastures Wind Farm’s impact on the landscape. I will testify that these descriptions of the wind farm’s impact are incorrect, if not downright dishonest/deceptive.

The true fact is that Carsington Pastures has ruined the iconic “White Peak” landscapes from such important vantage points as Axe Edge (20 miles away), Thorpe Cloud (10 miles away), Crich Memorial Tower (9 miles away) and Longstone Edge (15 miles away). What Mr Brooks has spectacularly failed to take into account is that the very attraction of the Peak District is to offer every citizen of the UK and overseas visitors the chance to feel “on top of the world”. To deprive people of that sensation by erecting such prominent, high-altitude industrial structures is to belittle and disrespect every single citizen of the UK. In such a context, the visual effect of even the slightest blight is amplified and of heightened negative impact due to the uniqueness and remoteness of the National Park.

The song “The Manchester Rambler” by Ewan MacColl, recognised as the anthem of the original Kinder Trespass which led to the creation of the Peak District National Park, sets out in lyrics the ethos (enshrined in law) behind National Park policy: “I may be a wage slave on Monday, but I am a free man on Sunday.” The menacing sight and presence of huge industrial equipment operating unremittingly, even on a Sunday, is a direct attack on that freedom from “wage slavery”, bringing corporate industry and the health/safety risks inherent in high-voltage electricity generation to what is supposed to be a National Park, an area of recuperation and freedom away from such toxic blight, thus ruining the meditative, liberating qualities of the landscape. To deprive people of this basic freedom is, quite frankly, immoral and directly hostile to the well-being of UK citizens.

Therefore it is factually incorrect to say that the turbines do not equate to unacceptable harm to the landscape. They do, just by being there in the landscape, denying people the chance to survey the rolling hills as far as the eye can see. There is scientific evidence that it is medically good for people to experience nature (source:, and therefore it is indisputable that by allowing a significant man-made presence to degrade the natural environment of the Peak District, Mr Brooks has directly and unacceptably harmed the health of UK citizens.

How can I therefore enforce a full enquiry into how Mr Brooks came to base his report on these harmful falsehoods about the true extent of Carsington Pastures’ adverse impact on the National Park, including a list of locations that he visited in the course of his casework?

(22) What procedures are available to me to enforce the reversal of Mr Brooks’ wrong decision, based on his false statements incorrectly describing the extent of the adverse impact of the wind farm, rather than its true impact (unacceptably detrimental to the beauty of dozens of significant peaks within the National Park, inappropriate blight visible from distances of up to 20 miles

Proven depreciation of all properties from which turbine is visible:

The inhabitants of Derbyshire Dales and the southern Peak District (stretching as far as Staffordshire) are now “second class citizens” as a direct result of having this ghastly blight imposed on them against their will, with their homes depreciated directly as a result of Mr Brooks’ decision to allow the construction of the inappropriate wind farm.

[Source: “Gone With The Wind” – report by the London School of Economics proving the adverse effect of wind turbines on house prices]

Carbon footprint of construction/maintenance/decommissioning:

FOI Request:

(23) Please provide the independently verified carbon footprint of the
construction, maintenance and disposal of Carsington Pastures Wind Farm (plus ancillary infrastructure), including the land restoration that will be necessary to return the land to its original state.

Unproven environmental benefit claims:

Up until the carbon payback date of the wind farm it has ZERO environmental benefit, in fact due to its carbon footprint and widely visible blight, it has a provable negative impact on the environment. Its sole claimed benefit is that it will apparently one day offset CO2 emissions.

FOI Requests:

(24) Please provide the independently verified guaranteed output of
Carsington Pastures Wind Farm (including the percentage of this
output generated by fossil fuel-powered turbine rotation, ie when
the turbines’ rotation is not powered by the wind, but either by
diesel or by drawing power from the grid);

(25) Please provide the independently verified amount of CO2
emissions that will be guaranteed to be saved as a result of this
wind farm’s operation.

(26) Please provide the contractually agreed date by which the wind
farm is guaranteed to have offset the CO2 emissions involved in
its construction, maintenance, decommissioning and land

(27) Please provide the legally binding penalty for the wind farm’s
failure to meet the agreed carbon payback date.

Evidence of negligence/corruption:

I wish to make a formal complaint about the following comment, so unbelievably crass, insensitive and ignorant that this raises serious doubts about the mentality of the Planning Inspectorate and those working for it. From Paragraph 46: “a good number [of tourists] would probably accept it [the wind farm] as a dramatic addition.”

Even more astoundingly wrong and ignorant, from Paragraph 72: “Against this background I find it hard to believe that, in general, views would be so disturbing as to unacceptably diminish the aesthetic and recreational experiences of the majority of visitors, including their appreciation of the particular qualities of the National Park.”

Such a lack of empathy and awareness of the desire of the National Park visitors to escape from repulsive, towering man-made, corporately owned structures as displayed by Mr Brooks above, is pathological, bordering on sadistic, in its casual indifference towards the adverse effect of his decision upon the millions of visitors to the National Park, whose experiences have all been spoilt as a result of his ill-informed subjective opinion. It is a fact that Mr Brooks has sided with the interests of Engie Renewables over the millions of visitors to the Peak District, when he personally was entrusted with the authority to conserve the integrity of the National Park for ALL citizens of the UK.

Therefore, as a CUSTOMER of the Planning Inspectorate who pays the organisation to protect my country from inappropriate blight, I do not want a penny of the tax money I pay you going towards this horrible man, who has personally insulted ME, until he has been dismissed pending full psychiatric assessment relating to his unacceptable contempt towards his fellow UK citizens. Spoiling millions of people’s “peak experiences” must rank as one of the most evil, immoral actions imaginable, and this is ALWAYS unacceptable to me. Even if miraculously no existing law has been broken, then I ask the Planning Inspectorate to take a serious look at the spirit of its behaviour, its ethics and conduct, and to appreciate the very real and true pain and suffering it has caused to millions of people needlessly. This is a matter of conscience and soul-searching as much as about the law – WHY ARE THESE NASTY PEOPLE DOING THIS TO THE COUNTRYSIDE? WHY WOULD ANYBODY JOIN THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE IN ORDER TO IMPOSE INAPPROPRIATE BLIGHT ON A COMMUNITY WITHOUT ITS CONSENT? HOW IS THAT  ETHICAL, FAIR OR JUST?

FOI Request:

(28) How can I as a tax-paying citizen object as strongly as possible to such offensive comments, totally and diametrically opposite to the principles of the above National Park legislation? People do NOT visit National Parks to look at disgusting, corporate industrial equipment that resembles huge disembodied spiders. I am utterly gobsmacked that a professional Planning Inspector could seriously add to an official report, which had the power to radically change the appearance and character of the UK’s first and most visited National Park, such subjective, qualitative and unverified comments about a large number of visitors “probably” accepting it.

(29) Who is Mr Brooks’ line manager? Can you send me evidence that Mr Brooks’ line manager has been alerted to my complaint and Mr Brooks has received appropriate disciplinary measures as a result of grossly understating the impact of a wind farm he approved?

(30) How can I arrange a training session with Mr Brooks and his line manager, to visit with me some of the beauty spots that have been destroyed as a result of Mr Brooks’ wrong decision, to provide education and information for Mr Brooks that he clearly is not aware of, and to improve the quality of future decision-making so that such a mistake is never, ever made again?

Feedback from members of the community:

“It was notable that local authorities rejected the proposals only to have it sanctioned by Whitehall. Collusion, anyone?”

“Oh I am absolutely convinced of it being government collusion / stitch up. The land around here has remained agricultural since, forever. If you apply to build a house it is never granted planning permission. One day planning is requested for a test mast – turned down. An appeal is lodged and all of a sudden permission granted. Never happened like that since I’ve lived here (about 6 years)”

“The financial details reported don’t tally with the [Engie Renewables] website; wonder what’s hidden in all this?”

“If these things are so benign I wonder why they have to list all these caveats too?“

“It really is absolutely disgusting isn’t it. Money grubbers able to ignore the wishes of the vast majority of locals and local authorities with the connivance of govt. departments“

“Because most of the people who have the areas they live in blighted by these huge, artificial, ugly, wasteful monstrosities hate the ruination of the natural landscape and the tax we have to pay to foreign companies and rich landowners alike, for bugger all benefit.”

FOI Request:

(27) What is the Planning Inspectorate’s official response to these residents’ allegations of collusion/impropriety regarding the “foregone conclusion” of the approval of Carsington Pastures Wind Farm on appeal? Would Mr Brooks be prepared to testify in a court of law that at no time was he coerced or influenced, nor rewarded financially, for approving Carsington Pastures Wind Farm?

Proposed Environmental Restoration Solution:


Proposed Disciplinary Action Against Robin Brooks:



The letter continued, with another four wind farm planning appeals put under the microscope. As I say, the law had already changed by the time I’d sent the letter, and none of these wind farms would now be permitted. But what about steps to get rid of those that slipped through the net, such as Carsington? Maybe we just have to wait until the end of the contracts, not very long in the great scheme of things.

The important thing to take forward is that we as a society must make it clear to our Planning Inspectors that their most important job is to conserve our National Parks and Green Belts. Any decisions that have a negative impact on our special landscapes will simply NOT be tolerated. Furthermore Planning Inspectors are expected to be transparent and accessible, the way I am (open invitation to any reader who wants to meet up for a coffee and a chat!). Running away from your responsibilities to the general public is absolutely unacceptable.

Eco-vandals will be hounded, pursued and their lives made hell, until they face up to the impact of their actions.

The simple solution is to respect the countryside and to refuse any type of landscape degradation whatsoever! 

Thankfully, since Sajid Javid came along to bang some heads together and restore some sense and empathy to the scene, it’s been a while since I’ve had to publicly shame any Planning Inspectors. Brendan Lyons was the last, thanks to his Jaytail Farm abomination.

To Robin Brooks I say once more: admit you got the Carsington case totally wrong, apologise wholeheartedly, make the case for the immediate removal of the wind farm, and I will forgive you.


Here’s your homework for today: get yourself to Greenfield, the last outpost of Oldham, nestled underneath the Dark Peak at its most rocky and mountainous. Everyone knows Snowdon and Helvellyn, but how many people are aware that within the boundaries of Oldham lie some of the most dramatic, almost-vertical mountainsides in the country?

The A635 (known locally as The Isle Of Skye Road) winds its way past Dove Stones to the right and Pots & Pans to the left, rapidly climbing in altitude until it reaches the top of the infamous Saddleworth Moor. This is a truly “top of the world”, outer-space landscape, as if only tenuously connected to solid Earth. I’ve mentioned before about alpha brain waves, and how these ethereal landscapes help alter our frame of mind into a healing, relaxing, lightly hypnotised state.

Sadly, almost as soon as you pass the county line into Kirklees, the blight begins and its negative impact on your mindset becomes apparent. The first three turbines to catch your eye are miles away to the north at Round Ings Hill Farm – a high point locally that nonetheless is a good couple of hundred metres lower than Saddleworth Moor. These turbines take too much of your attention, spoiling the view from this part of the National Park. THEY MUST COME DOWN!

Once past the Wessenden Head turning, the land to the south of the Isle Of Skye Road starts falling away, offering what, just ten years ago, were amazing, unspoilt views across the uppermost Holme Valley towards the Dark Peak plateau, stretching from Holme Moss towards Snailsden.

There are now a good two dozen individual wind turbines visible, as well as the previously studied Royd Moor, Spicer Hill and Hazelhead wind farms. Please do get here for a true vision of just how badly this area has been affected by wind power infrastructure, so you can experience the impact for yourself.

One by one, these turbines will be targetted for removal, starting at the top with Whitegates Farm, just a few metres from the edge of the Dark Peak, and working our way down the valley. I have given the owners of Whitegates Farm some feedback:

I wish to make a formal complaint about your inappropriate wind turbine, which has had an unbelievably negative impact on the landscapes of the Dark Peak and Holme Valley south of Huddersfield. Views from as far away the A635 Isle of Skye Road near Wessenden Head have been utterly trashed by the hideous high-visibility white metal towers that have come to dominate the area in the last decade.

Your turbine in particular is far too close to the National Park to be acceptable, and therefore I request politely that you remove it at once, avoiding the need for further action to force the removal of the unwanted blight. I have been monitoring the turbine and have noticed several occasions in which it is spinning rapidly in no wind – what is powering it at these times if not the wind? And what is the environmental benefit of the high visibility white paint? It is totally inappropriate and wrong for the landscape, absolutely unacceptable.

Do you have any understanding of the negative impact your wind turbine has on the public? Why should everyone else suffer just for your benefit? Therefore I am taking steps to ensure your wind turbine is decommissioned ASAP, the first of which is to inform you of the harm you are causing, and to ask you politely to remove the turbine voluntarily. I do hope this matter can be resolved without the need for legal help. I will be featuring this correspondence in my blog MindWind – Monitoring The Impact Of Wind Turbines On Mental Health.




Aesthetics For Dummies: The Majesty Of Wind Turbines Debunked


My thesis regarding the aesthetics of wind turbines is that they have an objectively negative quality. A few freaks and weirdos might personally like the appearance of wind turbines (which is fine by me: as a classical liberal I’m all for freedom of thought and freedom of expression), but objectively speaking I’d like to make the case that wind turbines have a provably negative aesthetic value, and therefore it’s morally wrong to inflict their presence on people against their will and without their consent.

(This is the same ethical principle as saying if people really want to eat a plate of cold sick, it’s their perfect right to do so, but the moment they force someone else to eat their regurgitated vomit, it crosses ethical boundaries.)

Now of course we are all forced to see things that have a negative aesthetic value many times daily; are they also morally as aesthetically impaired? Generally speaking, progress involves gradually removing or improving bad aesthetics wherever we come across room for improvement. Most of the time our town planning has been very tight and stringent about maintaining as good aesthetics as possible, although every now and then we have made catastrophic mistakes.

A lot of late 60s town centre redevelopments and social housing schemes suffered from incredibly poor aesthetics, which only increased crime, antisocial behaviour and social injustice. The worst examples, such as Manchester’s Hulme Crescents, have gone down in history as Titanic-sized planning mistakes, universally acknowledged as such and henceforth referred to in textbooks as what to avoid in the future.

I’d like to put the UK’s wind energy planning policy (1992 to 2015) in the same category: a catastrophic underestimation of just how badly wind turbines screwed up the aesthetics of some our most cherished landscapes.

The term “psychogeography” refers to how our landscapes affect our moods, which is also an underpinning tenet of feng shui. The ethics of the psychogeographical impact of a development are a no-brainer on every level: good aesthetics make us feel better, bad aesthetics make us feel worse, therefore it’s morally wrong to impose bad aesthetics on people. Anyone who doesn’t get this basic principle should be strung out of the Planning Inspectorate on their ear.



Anyone who imposes bad aesthetics onto people against their will is therefore acting unethically.

So what are aesthetics, and how do their differ from taste? The whole point of aesthetics is that they are objective, rational and based on mathematical and geometric principles, not subjective in any way. Liking something is NOT the same as appreciating its aesthetic qualities, although what you tend to find is the more people understand aesthetics, the more their tastes will converge.

This is the same with music: a Number One single will have certain aesthetic characteristics that resonate clearly with a far wider audience than simply some obscure album track. These will be related to the structure, composition, arrangement, performance and production, that all share certain values. One’s own musical taste might not be for Number One pop singles, but that’s beside the point… there is a certain, almost definable, aesthetic that separates a smash hit from a flop!

When you read some Green BS that tells you “aesthetics are a personal thing… I’ll like wind turbines if I want to, nobody will tell me otherwise”, they’re actually talking about individual taste rather than aesthetics. Personally liking wind turbines is fine, just as long as they are the only one in the world to see them. But the moment they inflict their turbines on anyone else, against their will and without their consent, is the moment they lose the moral argument. 

One of the simplest ways of determining the aesthetic value of something is to look at how few noticeable flaws there are in its contextual presentation (ie the right look, sound and feel, in the right time and the right place). If there’s nothing obviously wrong with a picture, a song, a movie or a landscape, then you could say it has an aesthetic value of 100%. Each little mistake, everything that breaks the spell of perfection, pulls the percentage down by a fraction. We could therefore say that anything with a total aesthetic value of over 50% is essentially aesthetically positive, albeit with imperfections; whereas anything with a total aesthetic value of under 50% is essentially aesthetically negative, even if it does have a few highlights.

Understanding aesthetics is the trick to changing or modifying anything. Nothing that gets added should have any detriment to what is already good. Changes or modifications should complement or enhance the existing form, enriching it or adding subtle definition. All elements should be in harmony and synchronisation with each other (I’ve mentioned this before in regard to out-of-phase wind turbines: were they ballerinas, they would have rotten vegetables thrown at them!).

Yes, there can be a time and place for dissonant “shock” aesthetics that obliterate everything in their path – eg The Sex Pistols or a Tarantino movie – but in order to be good they have to be deliberate (or just highly intuitive), well aware of their stark impact on those who come across them, doing it for a reason.

And this is the key to why wind turbines have bad aesthetics: any element that appears in high contrast to its surroundings will stand out as the dominant feature… just like this sentence! The same applies to pop vocals over an instrumental backing track, cartoon spaceships exploding into huge fireballs, graffiti spraypainted onto a train, and sterile white wind turbines erected in a lush, verdant meadow.

The extremely high visual prominence of wind turbines set against a green backdrop (a contrast more prominent than virtually any other structure you can imagine) has the effect of dramatically transforming the colour balance of a landscape; all the green elements are relegated to the background, whilst the gleaming white pillars and blades are promoted to the foreground.

The basic error of the wrong colour is compounded by the even more rudimentary errors of the wrong size (wind turbines by far the largest elements of a rural landscape) and the wrong shape (skeletal, jagged and deathly). The larger and more intrusive the wind turbines, the smaller and more insignificant all the natural, green elements of a landscape.

Taken together, these three schoolboy aesthetic errors – wrong colour, wrong size and wrong shape – ensure that, far from being Green themselves, wind turbines have the effect of blocking out, belittling and blighting all that is truly Green.

I can’t work out whether the brutal aesthetic of high-visibility white wind turbines slashing their way through our deep green landscapes was simply accidental (based on stupidity, ignorance and utterly Philistine levels of aesthetic appreciation); or whether, according to a rather more sinister explanation, it was actually deliberately intended that huge white wind turbines would be allowed to trash traditional green countryside views and reinvent our “rural landscapes” as “turbine landscapes”…

Either way: the only possible logical explanation anyone could have for enjoying the aesthetics of wind turbines would be IF THEY REALLY, REALLY DIDN’T LIKE THE COUNTRYSIDE. Then, and only then, might there be a conceivable reason to claim the confrontational impact of wind turbines was aesthetically successful in any way.

Let’s now look at a real-life example of how distant turbines can have a ruinous effect on our National Parks.

This piece was directly inspired by the views from one stretch of road, which I advise everyone to visit, so you too can experience this impact for yourselves. Get yourself up to the Peak District, specifically the top of Ringinglow Road, then head east down towards Sheffield. What an amazing vista, so wide that you can almost see the Earth’s curvature. You’ll also see for yourself the impact of various wind farms, most prominent of which is Penny Hill, a good ten miles away. Even from up here on the roof of the world, the giant turbines catch your eye and take your attention.

What we have at Ringinglow Road is an amazing landscape stretching as far as the eye can see, a great place for amateur painters to set up their easel and try and recreate the vast panorama. Sheffield City Centre is huddled at the centre of the landscape, with Rotherham a little further away and Doncaster bringing up the rear. Unfortunately the haphazard turbines at Penny Hill change the focus of the view, so that instead of the squat, cubic towers of Steel City being the focal point, now these giant spinning monsters queue-barge their way to the front of your attention span.

It seems that wind turbines extract more energy from humans and animals than from the wind itself.

Unless the Planning Inspectorate specifically wanted visitors to the Peak District to have their views dominated by these spinning wind turbines, and their “shock” aesthetic was deliberately added to unnerve people and make them feel awkward, inadvertently what they’ve done is to transform the aesthetics of a treasured National Park viewpoint into one in which electricity generators are now the most eye-catching feature. It’s true that you can see Drax, Eggborough and Ferrybridge power stations from up here, but their aesthetics are nowhere near as negative, the curved cooling towers far, far distant on the skyline, anchoring and framing the landscape.

The aesthetics of spinning wind turbines on this Peak District landscape are akin to the aesthetics of flashing text on a website…

In searching for a hilariously bad example of flashing text ruining a website, I came across this website with some actual design principles. I think most of these apply to landscapes as well, so ask yourself how well wind turbines apply to these fundamentals of good aesthetics:

  • Proper use of colour (are wind turbines painted the right colour for the landscape?)
  • Proper use of animation (let’s say motion… how do the blade movements help the landscape?)
  • Appropriate to the topic (ie appropriate to the surrounding landscape)
  • The design elements don’t get in the way of the content (ie your sense of well-being isn’t interfered with by the turbines)

Now I’d like to debunk another old trope, and time to put to bed yet another hoary old Green BS line… just after writing my last entry, which ridiculed the strangely common usage of the word “majestic” amongst pro-wind councillors and commentators, I came across that ludicrous description yet again in an online debate:

“I love wind turbines. I find them majestic and beautiful.” Or words to that effect. OK… Pause… Deep Breath… With all due respect to everyone’s right to think whatever they want, I’d love to break down this sentiment and expose what lies beneath the surface, something quite surprising actually:



Firstly, it has to be said that “majestic” is a ridiculously pompous adjective, very rarely used in everyday speech. When was the last time you used it, dear reader? When was the last time someone wandered around Gipton saying, “Ey oop it’s reet majestic is that Knowlesthorp wind turbine.” It’s a Polly Toynbee word. Nobody under 60 would use it.

But what exactly is “majesty” when it’s at home? Well, there are two definitions, clearly linked: (1) “impressive beauty, scale, or stateliness”; and (2) “royal power”. So fundamentally the concept of “majesty” is linked to the power of the monarchy, and one’s perception that such power is beautiful and impressive. The aesthetics of “majesty” are stateliness, ornateness, opulence and splendour, all denoting wealth, power and privilege.

I understand these aesthetics perfectly, after all as I keep saying, aesthetics are not a personal thing. I’m just not convinced these are the aesthetics people really want to be confronted with, high in the wild moors of the Peak District. Especially when that “majesty” comes in the form of a high voltage electricity generator owned and operated by a corporation. I’m not sure that’s entirely in keeping with the spirit of “The Manchester Rambler”.

Now one might say the very Peaks themselves are majestic, especially the mighty lion-like Kinder Scout as viewed from the east, nestling its surrounding peaks like cubs. But here’s the psychological difference between finding a mountain “majestic” and finding a wind turbine “majestic”: the whole ethos of the National Parks is that every single one of us, physically able to do so, can go and climb Kinder. That’s what the struggle was for. To give each of us the opportunity to stand a few feet taller than the highest land in the region. To be on top of the world. To have all that majesty BENEATH OUR FEET!

Yes, it’s all well and good having views of distant mountains, in fact this in itself is good psychogeography and healthy for all of us. But it’s something else to be able to climb to the top of them and look down! It’s empowering, self-actualising and incredible for mental health 🙂

Unless we are able to climb to the very top of a moving wind turbine, our only experience of its “majesty” comes from gazing up at it. This is surely highly passive and disempowering!

When people say they find wind turbines “majestic”, they really mean they like to gawp up at great big gadgets, and luxuriate in their perceived “Royal” stateliness. Which to me seems incredibly right-wing in so many ways… firstly the deferential, forelock-tugging, bowing and scraping to ANYONE or ANYTHING is the antithesis to the rebellious spirit of the original Kinder Trespassers. But when the object of such deference is a metal machine, owned and run by some huge corporation, then it’s off-the-scale Worship at the Altar of Capitalism!

As I say, even the Conservatives aren’t that right wing. Even the Conservatives, especially Man of the Moment Sajid Javid (you read it here first… what did I tell you about the high correlation between opposing wind blight and doing well in life?!), care more about the majesty of Kinder than the majesty of yet another wind farm.

So when you next come across someone raving about the majesty of wind turbines, ask them if they’ve always been more right-wing and capitalist than the Conservatives?

The only other conclusion to be drawn is that they’ve mixed up the word “majesty” with “travesty”….



The Good, The Bad & The Ugly In Scotland


OK, that’s it, I’m packing this blog in. All this time I’ve been ranting away, writing letters to politicians and essays to the public, submitting FOI Requests, commenting on planning applications and video-taping evidence of turbine malpractice; all with the aim of removing every single wind turbine from the UK and its waters.

All for nothing. You see, I’ve changed my mind.

I’ve found a wind farm I like.


OK, let’s not get carried away. Before I alienate all my fellow Wind Warriors (“Judas!” I hear them cry), I should make it clear that although I’ve just found a wind farm I “quite” liked, I’ve also come across some of the most egregious eco-destruction imaginable, so the hit is balanced, indeed outnumbered by numerous misses.

I’m not sure if I’ve ever mentioned Critical Thinking and Hegelian Dialetic in this blog before. Well, only about a trillion times… Today’s entry is all about critical thinking and grading the impact of the various wind farms I just encountered on a tour of Central and Southern Scotland.

As I have written repeatedly, I’m trying to get beyond the simplistic slogans that dominate many public pronouncements on wind energy: “Ooh I love the majesty of wind turbines. They make me feel hopeful that there is a future for humanity after all”. It’s amazing how many proponents of wind energy come up with almost verbatim clones of this comment template. It sounds like it derives from the John Lennon School of Political Discourse: “Imagine all the people, living life in peace” he wrote, in between drinking and beating Yoko. (Don’t get me wrong, I am a huge fan of Lennon’s music, but I think even he would have admitted that utopian pop lyrics were more his forte than the practicalities of town and country planning).

I’m therefore not only ridiculing and lampooning the uncritical support for wind power based upon nothing but the vaguest and most nebulous of hopes and dreams, but also trying to introduce the type of quality control and gradation of real-life wind energy schemes that we see in every other field of human endeavour – from schools to hospitals to hotels to restaurants… How good is the service? If we compare similar companies, which ones perform the best, and why? Which ones are in urgent need of improvement? How can we drive standards up and put the rogue traders out of business?

In every other industry, we reward those who provide great value for money and we penalise those who are ripping us off. Why should the wind industry be any different?

For my part, I’m going to grade my findings from my Scotland road trip into three categories: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. In truth of course when it comes to wind turbines, the last two categories are virtually synonymous, and so I’ll modify the definition of “ugly” in this context to refer specifically to those ugly secrets the wind operators would rather keep hidden. Accordingly, a “bad” wind farm is one which looks, sounds and feels self-evidently awful, whereas “ugly” facts simply relate to the dark truths behind the glossy brochures and Lennonesque lyricisms.

As always, my modus operandi is this: a genuine need to travel (in this case for work), followed by a written description of my findings en route. Any wind turbines that catch my eye and affect my mood are researched and, if I feel strongly enough, contact is made with the relevant authorities to log my objections officially.

So let’s kick off with an example of The Good: a wind farm that actually exceeded my low expectations and appeared to be less offensive to the senses than I would have predicted. The winner of this award is none other than the huge Whitelee Wind Farm, the UK’s largest onshore wind farm, located a few miles south of Glasgow.

What made it better than expected? Well, the obvious, immediate answer is that, for a wind farm with around a hundred turbines, Whitelee is remarkably unobtrusive. There should be a fundamental assumption built in to all wind farm design that the public do not want to see these machines, and at least at Whitelee you really have to make the effort to get there. The contours of the land provide a natural barrier between the wind farm and Glasgow to the north. If you really want to see Whitelee up close, you have to follow the Tourist Attraction signs.

Tourist Attraction? Yes, apparently Whitelee is a huge tourist attraction, though I was the only person there on the misty Tuesday evening I inspected the site. There is even a visitor’s centre and a park (of sorts) dotted around the wind turbines, with paths, trees and even some lakes for good measure.

I like the transparency of this approach and found it refreshing, compared with the “Danger! Keep Out!” intimidating hostility of most wind farms. The calm atmosphere of the place transported me back in time to my very first dalliance with wind energy, way way back in 2002 when I chanced upon the Centre for Alternative Technology, deep in the mid-Wales countryside.

It’s amazing to think that in those days I’d have been wholeheartedly in support of wind technology. I’d like to think it’s not me that’s changed over the intervening 16 years – it’s the grim reality of wind energy itself that, having been given every chance in the world to prove its value, ended up upsetting far more people and damaging more landscapes than could have ever been imagined.

For a moment Whitelee took me back to the Centre for Alternative Technology, with its mission to inform and educate the public. It seemed more genuinely “hippie” somehow than the wind farms near me in the South Pennines, less corporate and brutal in its aesthetic, like the people involved aren’t just doing it for money.

Sadly, with the benefit of hindsight, this idealistic approach to wind power now seems quaintly dated and dreadfully misguided, a “retro-futuristic” relic of a bygone era, like an old episode of Tomorrow’s World. But as a tourist attraction, an interesting place to visit, it’s definitely unique. The Whitelee Experience gives an idea of what, in a parallel universe, wind power might have been.

Meanwhile, back on this planet…

One final reason why Whitelee seemed to exceed expectations is confirmation of a theory I’ve posited a few times, and what I experienced makes me feel even more strongly that size and scale are everything. Because wind turbines are by their very nature huge (the longer the blades, the more wind can be “caught” apparently – I know, I know, don’t laugh at the absurdity of all this!), they dwarf all the other elements of our landscapes and as a result tend to screw up our sense of balance and equilibrium.

Rather than struggle to integrate these monsters into our cherished landscapes, let’s find a handful of areas where we don’t even bother – we happily admit defeat and dedicate the land to wind turbines. But the deal is this: no turbines anywhere else outside these zones.

In a previous entry I referred to the M62 model – we’ve progressed from loads of narrow, windy highways across the moors to one giant superhighway (the old roads are still there, but only the Woodhead is still an industrial route, the rest pretty much just pleasure-driving routes now).

Whitelee is the M62 of wind farms. Well, it should be. I’d much rather have five or six Whitelee-sized wind farms in similarly well-chosen locations, than dozens and dozens of inappropriate smaller turbine developments.

The fact is that even a single turbine like at Jaytail Farm or Marsden Gate can have an appalling impact on a vast area. Far better then to install one mega wind farm per region (say: Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, England South and England North), each with hundreds of turbines, than to blitz the entirety of Britain with smaller developments.

A good computer analogy would be defragging the hard drive: our wind blight is too fragmented, corrupting the integrity of far too much of our countryside. Far better to shove all the wind turbines into a few designated partitions.

Now there is an ugly side to all the above. The biggest scare story so far has come from a local doctor, who has assiduously researched the theory that Whitelee Wind Farm might have polluted local water with carcinogens:

Also, sadly, in 2017 a turbine worker fell to his death in an accident at Whitelee. Although the human toll of wind power is low, and it’s never pleasant when someone dies, it nonetheless does give us a rare opportunity to take a closer look at the running of these operations, even if the turbines have to be stopped for weeks or months while investigations are carried out.

As for actual usefulness, well how well has Whitelee performed at its main job, generating electricity? Presumably it’s easy to see at the click of a mouse button exactly how much Whitelee contributes to our power needs?

Erm. I’ll get back to you with that when I can actually get hold of the stats. Don’t hold your breath…

All in all then, despite a few ugly secrets, on the surface I’d grade Whitelee as a (relatively) Good Wind Farm. Let’s now travel to Stirling to look at a Bad Wind Farm. Ladies and gents, I present the Braes of Doune Wind Farm. This is a travesty, one so self-evidently terrible that its impact even made the Daily Mail, though if I’m honest I’d bet money that the photo has been modified somehow to make the turbines appear nearer Stirling Castle than they really are (about five miles away). I don’t approve of bending the facts to prove a point, and in this case the stark reality doesn’t even need exaggerating. So take the Mail’s story as possibly based on a manipulated photo rather than an actual site visit, but that doesn’t mean the basic facts aren’t true. As always, do your own research. Nobody sued the Mail for libel over this story, put it that way.

Yet again there’s a secret ugliness to the Braes of Doune operation, swept under the carpet but exposed thanks to the hard work of these local activists. This detailed report makes very sad reading, but it’s the ugly truth about the horrendous environmental impact of the wind farm.

Finally, I stumbled across another fascinating case study of a wind farm, quite by chance. Just north of the stunning Campsie Fells there is another range of hills, not quite as high, called the Fintry Hills. Sure enough, this being Scotland, the presence of a wind farm in the vicinity goes without saying, but this one (Earlsburn) has a funny story attached (hilarious stuff!). The locals actually requested another wind turbine be added so they too could create their own “clean, green” energy. Ah, bless!

AS ALWAYS, the hopes, dreams and fantasies of the locals are reported in great detail when the scheme is launched, but then everything goes quiet and that’s the last we ever hear of it. Did it do what they hoped it would? It apparently made £140,000 in its first year (how exactly?), so only another £1,860,000 to go before the two million pound turbine has been bought and paid for in full! Fintry residents, I’m struggling to find out how well this venture worked. Anyone care to give me an update?

Just when all seems sweetness and light, sure enough there’s an ugly truth waiting to disrupt the celebrations: the death of another turbine worker, leading to serious questions about the Health & Safety of the operation. Turbine operators Nordex were ultimately fined for the H & S breaches.

On my previous visit to Scotland, I was gobsmacked by the sheer amount of turbines stretched along the sides of the M74, describing what I saw as an “industrialised shit-hole”. I’m happy to report that there are plenty of unblighted areas across the rest of the country, so the picture isn’t quite as bleak as I originally painted it. But it does need critical thinking and a general improvement in service delivery to ensure no more turbine worker deaths, no more water pollution, no more blighted communities, no more scandalous damage to our moors, hills and rivers.

My conclusion is that wind farms can be superficially either good or bad, but there is ALWAYS an ugly side, only sometimes it’s not immediately apparent.

I’ll finish today’s entry with one of the very best blog posts I’ve ever seen. Just when I think I might have misjudged the wind industry, I read an article like this and realise I was probably right all along.


“Unsettling numbers of environmentalists fail to see that wind turbines are enemies of nature posing as saviors…”

Read on…

And finally, let’s timewarp back to 2002, when I, like many others, was full of hope for the possibilities of wind power. The Centre for Alternative Technology was an amazing place to visit. Even now I think their aims are largely fine. My problem lies with the unintended consequences of poorly planned and implemented commercial wind power schemes, and their emotional and psychological impact on humans, animals and wildlife. I’d like to think the cool cats at the CAT share my concerns!


Exploring The Ethics Of Defending The Moors With Force


Today’s adventures started with a trip to Manchester, retracing some of the steps I’d previously described in an entry last year: “Leeds To Scotland & Back Again.” Regular readers will know from my descriptions how the M62 offers extensive views of turbine blight for virtually all its length, in various clusters that together form one giant corridor of degraded countryside. I’ve also said again and again how Manchester itself has been heavily blighted by views of the huge Scout Moor wind farm to the north, definitely and unambiguously lowering the tone and devaluing vast swathes of the metropolitan area.

Like all wind farms – assuming one was brainwashed enough to start with a positive cognitive bias towards them, just as I was – Scout Moor’s appeal begins to curdle the longer you stare at it. After prolonged exposure to its incessant, haphazard spinning blade movements, the victim’s mood is affected adversely. Try crawling up the A576 from Cheetham Hill to Middleton: for most of the route the turbines are directly ahead, the only man-made objects visible on the otherwise open moorland plateau that reaches its summit at Hail Storm Hill, although the trig point is located a few hundred metres away at the ever-so-slightly lower Top of Leach. We’ll be talking about leaches shortly. Well, leeches anyway. Bloodsucking parasites that take more than they give.

Let’s look at the psychological impact of this for a moment. Instead of one’s eyes gazing from the labyrinthine maze of dark terraces towards distant vistas of wild hills (low mountains, really!), the wind farm acts as a man-made barrier to the natural world, like the bars of a prison cell. I claim this really does limit and inhibit a certain part of the brain’s activity; or rather, the higher neocortex functions are interrupted by fear responses. This is all low-level and subconscious most of the time, and one of the reasons for writing the blog is to bring it out of the shadows and into the light, to identify the root cause of the altered thought processes and to describe the symptoms in more detail.

If we do need wind farms, which I don’t think we do, Scout Moor and the South Pennines are eminently the wrong place for them, being such beautiful and remote uplands adjacent to such huge urban areas. This is a unique juxtaposition within such a small country as Britain (from Central Manchester to the sub-arctic summit of Kinder Scout is barely 20 miles) that it seems an act of criminal and dangerous destruction to have disfigured the surrounding peaks with so much inappropriate, mind-affecting wind blight.

Poor Heywood nestles under the shadow of the horrendous Scout Moor eyesore, as does neighbouring Rochdale. That would be bad enough for the beleaguered birthplace of the Co-operative movement, but just one appalling wind farm apparently wasn’t enough social injustice for the town’s residents; what they really needed to make them feel truly small, inferior and basically useless pieces of shit was another huge “gangster” wind farm in the shape of Crook Hill, plus countless single turbines dotted around in every direction. A drive along the A58 from Heywood into the centre of Rochdale offers views of all this wind blight, towering high above even the giant “Seven Sisters” tower blocks.

Sorry, Rochdalians, if I am making your historic, heritage-filled town sound like a hellhole. I actually love the place, and I’m on your side 100%. I love Rochdale more than some ex-residents, it would seem! Maybe you have to live somewhere to really get to know the downside, and Rochdale has not been short of social problems over the last couple of hundred years. But there is something admirable about the blunt-but-honest Rochdalian spirit – that same integrity which Abraham Lincoln noted, in relation to the townspeople’s solidarity with the slaves of the cotton plantations. Rochdale people are good, honest, hard-working and loyal, despite their sometimes gruff exterior. I have nothing but respect for them!

Rooley Moor proved one wind farm too many for the town’s population. They had already rejected Crook Hill, but Planning Inspector George Baird knew best, imposing the godawful wind farm on the residents of Rochdale without their consent and against their will. Where is George Baird now? Come out, come out, Mr Baird, wherever you are! I have a few questions for you…

How come all these Planning Inspectors seem to go very quiet when you try and locate them? Aren’t they proud of the great work they’ve done? I’m proud of my work, I go on about it all the time! And if ever I screw up, my boss has a one-to-one with me explaining where I went wrong. I apologise and move on. Don’t they operate like that in the Planning Inspectorate?

I’ve offered to come down to Bristol to meet the Planning Inspectors and have a good old chat with them, but they’re not very forthcoming. Surprising really, bearing in mind I’m more interested in town and country planning procedures than maybe 99% of the general public. I can’t think of many other people who sit there drawing up town boundary improvements for fun. Yes it’s highly Aspie of me, but it also shows a level of connection with the physical universe and its natural energies that seems to be entirely lacking in those who consider wind farms to be a good thing!

I headed north through Whitworth, the route I used to take when covering the Crook Hill construction. After Bacup I took the road that I previously described as making me feel physically sick, the A681 towards Todmorden via some of the most hideous wind blight of the lot, captured on video (see above).


That’s the Freedom of Information request I have sent respectively to Rossendale (re Reaps Moss), Calderdale (re Todmorden) and Rochdale (re Crook Hill). I didn’t feel quite as physically ill this time, but I definitely wasn’t uplifted or energised by this high altitude landscape as I used to be, less than ten years ago. I was just puzzled as to exactly how these huge contraptions, supposedly powered by the wind, were moving when there was, in fact, no wind!

Halfway down the winding road towards Tod, I took an almost invisible left turn, just by the observatory, and headed on a narrow lane past the other side of Todmorden Common. Let’s not forget, these horrid, flammable turbines were built on deregistered Open Access Common Land.

What this means in real terms is that Coronation Power, a tax-avoiding corporation based in the British Virgin Islands, was able to buy up Common Land that belonged to the people of Yorkshire, in order for another corporation to to erect industrial machinery on the hills where ramblers and birdwatchers used to have free rein, all funded by global investment banks who smoothed the transfer of funds between all the different corporations. The Green Party and Friends Of The Earth were all for the bankers and bulldozers moving in, by the way, offering no support whatsoever to local nature lovers.

And you wonder why people vote for an anti-wind Conservative Party???

I don’t – it’s a no-brainer really. They are the only adults in the room at the moment. I wish there were others, I really do.

As if the cumulative blight of Todmorden, Reaps Moss and Crook Hill wasn’t enough, views of the otherwise stunning South Pennines across the Cliviger Gorge have also been destroyed by the unwelcome presence of the repowered Coal Clough Wind Farm.

Zigzagging down the twisty lane to the upper Calder Valley (that’s right, all this concrete, steel, paint and neodymium has been dumped at the head of the Calder, the same river that keeps flooding for some reason!), that familiar and predictable sensation of an amygdala hijack kicked in. What had started off as a routine trip back from Manchester had once again transformed into a political and cultural battle training mission. My thoughts as I travelled the A646 along the Calder Valley were dominated by the ethics of using force to remove the wind farms.

My starting point was this: “If we were to forcibly remove all traces of wind energy from the UK, what would the country be like?” I maintain it would be a better place without this most immediate threat to the health and well-being of our nature-loving residents.

One concern is that the past few generations have become disconnected from the natural geography of Brtain, which is mutually exclusive with both (a) environmentalism and (b) happiness. You can’t be truly green if you don’t love the ground beneath your feet. You can’t be truly happy either, if you are that disconnected from nature.

I believe the people of Britain have been too soft and casual about defending themselves against such eco-vandalism on an industrial scale. An armed population would certainly be more confident in protecting their natural habitats; therefore, in purely abstract terms, using firearms as a defensive tool would be the simplest course of action to protect our countryside. It would certainly be the most immediately effective deterrent to wind scammers – an organic line of defence against eco-destruction that would instantly incapacitate the invaders and protect the moors in real-time.

However, because homicide is currently illegal in the UK, residents are not encouraged to shoot wind scammers, no matter how tempted they might be. Instead this blog recommends wind victims use the force of law to defend themselves, despite the law itself in this regard having being corrupted during the late 00s by the then Labour government (the same government who a few years earlier had enshrined the right of the working man to wander the countryside). I personally feel ashamed that I took my eye off the ball at this critical time, not doing more to derail the wind farm legislation before it passed into law. As I say, I was brainwashed. We all were.

Still, the law can change, and that’s what I’m working on. I even explained in the previous entry the legal precedent for the policy I’d like to see: fly-tipping.

Fly-tipping is illegal. Why?

What is materially different between fly-tipping and erecting a harmful wind turbine?

Both are only of benefit to the ones doing it, offering no benefit to everyone else. 

So why aren’t wind turbines as illegal as fly-tipping?

“Oh but wind turbines lower emissions”… So does a contractor dropping his rubble off in a layby on the way home, rather than having to drive all the way to the dump.  Does that make it acceptable? Plus, as I informed Tesco: a firm’s carbon footprint would be ZERO if they simply shut up shop altogether. If you can’t get by without wind turbine subsidies, you have to ask yourself if what you’re doing is truly sustainable.

The Todmorden Turbine Fire:

Astronomers Fear “Ring Of Turbines” Around The South Pennine Moors

Todmorden Common Deregistered:

Very, very sad reading this and seeing the photos of what it looked like as recently as 2011. Do you want this happening to a common near you???

Let’s be honest and real: anyone who thinks these turbines are a good idea is elevating electricity over nature. That’s a valid point of view if you’re intellectually honest about it and prepared to say: “Electricity is more important to my well-being than nature.” But you can’t have it both ways – you can’t claim to be a nature lover and then approve of the destruction of natural upland areas for electrical generation, any more than is ABSOLUTELY necessary. Can we prove every single turbine within the Scout Moor, Crook Hill, Reaps Moss, Todmorden and Coal Clough wind farms is ABSOLUTELY necessary; that we’d die without them? If not, then they really can’t be justified on environmental grounds.

It’s not good enough simply believing in the general concept of wind energy; each and every individual turbine needs to justify its own existence with actual, real-life evidence of its proven service to nature.

So before supporting the construction of any more wind electricity generators in the countryside, just be honest with yourself about who you are deep down:

Are you a Techno Child or are you an Earth Child???

Elsewhere in the world, an excellent but horrifying account of how wind power has wrecked Germany:

The Totalitarian Roots Of Environmentalism:

And yet another case of ACTUAL performance not living up to the sales-pitch:

EDIT: A day later – a day filled with other, much more rewarding activities than deliberately surrounding oneself with eco-destruction, such as working hard in a busy retail environment, relaxing with good friends and listening to great music – I can read back at my angry words above with a vastly more relaxed state of mind. Hopefully the gallows humour comes across! But the intensity of the language IS the point: the writing is a true snapshot of the emotional disturbance caused by real-life exposure to the wind turbines documented.

If I came across as a loony…. BLAME THE TURBINES 🙂