The Guardian: Sinister Propaganda & Fake News


It’s been a couple of weeks since my last entry, a nice little hiatus in which hopefully any readers have brought themselves up to speed with the plethora of evidence against wind energy and its destructive impacts. I’ve not come into contact with that many turbines since my last entry, just the usual horrendous and dangerous blight that lines long stretches of our motorways.

I’m pleased to report that the broken turbine next to the Scammonden viaduct currently remains broken, its three blades lying lifeless on the ground and its naked nacelle exposed to the elements. Will anyone bother fixing it? I shall keep you posted. Let’s hope that whatever has afflicted this turbine spreads and takes out the remainder of the unwelcome turbines around Kirklees and Calderdale. I’m certain that by the end of the year, just over six weeks from now, more of these turbines will fail. As always, I will be quick on the scene to take video footage of any accidents.

My several M62 journeys have afforded me regular views of Scout Moor, Crook Hill and the various single turbines on the hillsides immediately north of Manchester. There is a whole swathe of Green Belt that has been trashed by these inappropriate turbines, the two off Ashworth Road near Rochdale in particular casting a negative shadow over the otherwise scenic Pennine foothills.


I’ve also been down to London a couple of times since writing, taking me out of my current home patch and back to my Southern roots. Both the A1 and M1 link West Yorkshire with London: heading south, the A1(M) splits adjacent to Hook Moor Wind Farm, a horrid and dangerous affair rejected THREE TIMES by Leeds City Council, and once again only approved on appeal by the Planning Inspectorate under their abysmal and probably corrupt old methodology (the one still largely prevalent in Scotland that says: whatever a wind developer wants, a wind developer gets, and to hell with the general public).

I generally prefer the A1 as there is far less wind blight than the M1, large parts of which are now almost undrivable due to the hazardous wind blight that dominates the landscape between Lutterworth and Northampton, hundreds of massive turbines with their flashing red lights (“Devil’s Eyes”, the locals call them apparently) stretching off as far as the eye can see. One of these turbines, in particular, caught my attention and sparked another One-Man campaign.

I’m referring to the horrible turbine at the Tesco Distribution Centre near Daventry, accompanied by a misanthropic and anti-democratic banner “Less CO2 emissions using wind turbines”. Despite my best efforts to have this banner forcibly removed – so far I’ve contacted Tesco head office, the local Planning Department, the Highways Agency and the Advertising Standards Agency to complain about its offensive, bias-motivated hate speech – it’s still there leering at motorists and sticking two fingers up at nature lovers. Oh well, it’s living proof of the kind of people who promote wind turbines: huge great capitalist corporations like Tesco who can use them as a greenwashing/money-laundering tool.

Lesson for activists: don’t be discouraged by a lack of support from the authorities when you alert them to a new issue. Technological and administrative processes will always be more adept at dealing with known issues over unknown ones. I see this at work constantly – there are templates for how to deal with known and understood issues, but the moment you step outside the Overton Window and present someone with a new and unaccounted-for problem, then you get the tumbleweed treatment. But don’t get discouraged, because eventually when enough people start to experience the same issue, often after a serious failure of some sort, solutions will soon be found.

And so, even if right now nobody is directly forcing Tesco to remove the offensive poster, in terms of the wider war Tesco is on the losing side; it’s just taking longer for them to acknowledge how badly they’ve screwed up. Maybe this is a symptom of their problems as a corporation – they don’t listen to the public, they’re not honest, they’re basically a terrible company with whom I’ve not shopped for over a year now.

Only a fool, or a horsemeat fan, would shop at Tescos.

The A1 corridor has generally avoided the worst of the wind blight, other than the two horrifying wind farms near Doncaster, and at the other end, the truly nauseating wind farm near Biggleswade. YUK! There are also several lone turbines between Worksop and Grantham, yet again disgusting and totally out of place, rendering vast areas of the countryside unpleasant and inhospitable. Wind turbines are truly a pox on an area.

So that’s the real-life turbines I’ve encountered these last couple of weeks. The main development in the news has been Communities Secretary Sajid Javid once again proving himself to be spot-on in his judgement.

What a LEGEND! I’ve always had a soft spot for the Rochdale-born MP, ever since his secretary empathetically responded to my Rooley Moor objection letter. saying that although Mr Javid couldn’t formally help me as I didn’t live in the constituency myself, he most certainly took on board my views. I’ll say! Every now and then I hear the salient points from my letter repeated in Mr Javid’s own words. Either he’s just naturally on my wavelength (great minds think alike and all that!), or else he’e genuinely listened to what we Wind Warriors have been telling him all this time, and realised there might actually be something in what we’re saying.


Now we come to the main point of today’s entry: as always I’m writing the full truth as I understand it, because truth is its own reward. The truth is a thing of beauty and spirituality, the sun that lights up and energises human consciousness. Maybe it’s a personal thing, and I really don’t mean to sound like I’m virtue-signalling in any way, but the truth is pretty much the only thing I’m interested in. I’d rather go through life alone yet wedded to the truth, rather than fall for any kind of illusion whatsoever, and this is one of the worst qualities of wind turbines – they bring lies and untruth into my safe space, causing amygdala hijacks and adverse physiological reactions with their creepy deceptions and covert hostility.

I now have another piece of evidence, through sheer luck witnessed by an impartial observer, that there are Dishonest Bananas out there deliberately and systematically misleading the public about the negative impacts of wind energy. My witness is a dear friend of mine, an incredibly clever man who used to work on security systems for the Ministry of Defence, ie someone who knows a thing or two about logic, science and technology. For what it’s worth, my friend is not a Wind Warrior, indeed I encourage him to play Devil’s Advocate and to logic-chop my hypotheses. He wants hard facts, evidence and valid reasons for opposing wind blight; like everyone he supports the idea of clean, green energy, and originally gave full support to the rollout of wind farms. I’ve only semi-persuaded him of their horrors, which is good, because, once again: HONESTY! I don’t want fake support, it’s not what this intellectual odyssey is all about. It’s about getting to the truth of the matter.

I once again refer to my role model Lieutenant Columbo: what motivates him above all is to prove, with incontrovertible evidence, that whatever lies he’s been told are false. And that’s how it is with me. Hit me with some truths and I’ll incorporate them into my understanding of the world. I gain absolutely nothing from expressing myself within an echo chamber; although it gives me emotional support and boosts my confidence by sharing my findings with fellow Wind Warriors, what I want more than anything is to peel away the soft support for wind amongst casual observers, and to bring previously pro-wind supporters around to the side of nature and truth. You must all know by now, I’m equally happy to shift my stance if it can be proven that I’m believing lies and basing my own views upon untruths.

I was alerted to a debate on The Guardian’s website, which I thought might be fertile ground for engaging with some wind supporters and planting some seeds of truth. As you can see, I’ve linked to The Guardian several times, including in my very last post. I’ve not previously been biased against The Guardian, although I did remark upon how comments are disabled on some of its more dubious opinion pieces.

I now realise that The Guardian is really NOT interested in an honest exchange of opinions, as for reasons best known to itself, it decided to delete my perfectly civil, inoffensive comments (right in front of my witness’s eyes). Because there was hardly any direct speech in my initial comment, merely some useful links to scientific research that I thought would forward the discussion, I can repeat verbatim what I typed, and let you be the judge of exactly why the Guardian might have decided to pull my comments within seconds.

The “debate”:

My contribution, which sparked a couple of replies before deletion:

“Scientific evidence that wind turbines increase rates of suicide: ‘Current technology uses wind turbines’ blade aerodynamics to convert wind energy to electricity. This process generates significant low-frequency noise that reportedly results in residents’ sleep disruptions, among other annoyance symptoms. However, the existence and the importance of wind farms’ health effects on a population scale remain unknown. Exploiting over 800 utility-scale wind turbine installation events in the United States from 2001-2013, I show robust evidence that wind farms lead to significant increases in suicide.’

Scientific evidence that people would rather live further away from wind turbines:

63 peer-reviewed articles proving health problems associated with wind turbines:

Go ahead and screw yourselves up, but not me (or the whales), thanks.”

Someone rapidly replied, calling my post “Bollocks”, before going on to say: “There are four beautiful turbines near me and I’ve not topped myself yet.”

Now bear in mind that this is the apparently progressive Guardian, so one might have assumed that issues relating to suicide and mental health would be treated with a smidgen less callous indifference. But, as I have said repeatedly throughout this blog, when it comes to wind turbines, normal standards don’t apply, and the nature-destroying, humanity-harming predatory corporations that would otherwise be on the receiving end of the progressives’ ire have miraculously been transformed into planet-saving Messiahs who can do no wrong. Nowadays at The Guardian, it’s us poor victims of eco-vandals who are laughed at and ridiculed, while the bulldozers are cheered on.


Lest it be forgotten, The Guardian is as capitalist and corporate as McDonalds and Coca-Cola. It sells fantasy. It won’t take you very long perusing their website before intrusive pop-ups start asking you for money to support their “independent journalism.” Yet someone truly independent like me, who brings real news and scientific research to the debate, free of charge, has their contributions instantly deleted!

I simply asked the chap who claimed to live near these four wonderful turbines for some more details about them, so I could do my own research into what makes their design such a success story. My comment was gone within seconds. No insults, no rudeness, no bad language, rather a genuine attempt to enter into an intelligent discourse with someone with an opposing view. Our opening salvos should be seen as just that – the real debate should come after the initial introductions, as we settle down into a full and fearless exchange of ideas, in pursuit of some shared consensus about the nature of reality.

The Guardian blocked the discourse after barely two messages each. How does that move the dialogue forward? Why would The Guardian block links to peer-reviewed scientific research? What is their agenda? I received no notification that my comments were in breach of any rules, they simply disappeared into the ether as if I’d never posted them!

If the science is wrong, then here’s the perfect opportunity to debunk it. There’s no way on earth I would continue to promulgate information I knew to be false! The net result of just rubbing out the science is that The Guardian has proven itself to be untrustworthy. Even if people disagree with some of my opinions, the objective truth is that I have clearly done my research and know my topic inside out. I am equipped with dates, places, policies, scientific research and personal contact with wind victims all across the world. Surely someone with my experience and passion for this topic should be welcomed with open arms into any debate about wind farms? What kind of debate is it when those who are most interested in the topic, those who have done the most research and fieldwork, are not even allowed to take part?

The answer is, it’s not a debate. It’s not motivated by truth, it’s motivated by a hidden agenda. Maybe there is an acceptable level of disagreement tolerated (anything incoherent that makes dissenters look stupid!), but in my case the simple and intellectually honest act of linking to the latest scientific research was deemed beyond the pale.

It’s almost like The Guardian’s biggest enemy is science itself.

More than that, The Guardian has revealed itself to be an enemy of nature. How any truly Green-minded individual could support this fake news rag is a mystery. The scientific research I have drawn upon really does exist, that’s the truth. The research might be flawed, possibly, in which case the voice of nature would be to draw attention to those flaws and move the research forward, applying the Hegelian Dialectic principle of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. As with all debates, whenever I come across a thesis I disagree with, I try and present the antithesis. Science, truth, rationality and reason are all about the synthesis – factoring in all those awkward contradictions to arrive at a one-size-fits-all axiom of inarguable truth! In this case – my antithesis to the central thesis of The Guardian’s viewpoint was simply erased from history.

What they should have done is kept my comments up there and allowed people to fire logical shots at any flaws in the research. We could have batted the dialogue backwards and forwards, really getting under the skin of the topic, before gradually reaching some level of agreement. The Guardian denied its readers the opportunity to experience the voice of nature, instead it has created an artificial bubble of non-reality in order to make profit from the fantasies of its readership.

As my ex-MoD friend pointed out so succinctly, what’s more important to The Guardian (and maybe all media outlets) is to reinforce the existing beliefs of their core readership, than simply to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

That’s where this blog comes in. And, as always, priority is always given to those who disagree. I actively want you to reach out and express opposing opinions to mine!

I can’t think of any circumstances whatsoever in which I’d delete a single comment on here, even if “offensive” in anyway. If that’s what I make someone feel with my words, then that’s the true voice of nature. I’d be lying to you all, and above all myself, were I to delete any comments that arise from my think-pieces!

EDIT: I’ve emailed The Guardian with a link to this piece, and I’ve invited them to reply to my allegations. They have yet to respond. But surely that says it all: once again I am being totally transparent and hospitable, welcoming even those I vehemently disagree with to have their say and to move the dialogue forward. I’ve said in black and white, repeatedly, that if the facts change I’ll change my opinion. I love everyone, it’s not PERSONAL, just an intellectual battle of ideas, with the best idea going ahead and shaping government policy. Luckily, the man who actually makes the decisions, Mr Javid, is a beacon of rationality and reason in an ocean of delusion, deception and detachment from nature.

I hope this proves the difference between my approach and that of The Guardian: I invite them to express themselves, I welcome them to my forum and offer them the right to reply. The Guardian, on the other hand, sneakily delete comments they don’t like, and shut out those with the wrong opinions (I’ve had confirmation that this has happened to others as well). As a result, their comments section is artificial, unnatural, contrived, skewed, flawed.

There’s a word for The Guardian’s approach: BIGOTRY.

Bigotry: “intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself”

On the issue of wind energy, comment is truly free on my website. Literally everyone reading is encouraged to have their say, particularly those with an opposing opinion. I might actually learn something from those contributors bringing new information into the discourse! Whereas The Guardian’s website is an exercise in pure, closed-minded bigotry.

I hope everyone reading can spot the difference and figure out whose approach is the more honest, natural and true!


EDIT 2: Hmmmm. I may have been a bit hasty in my unqualified support for Sajid Javid! A few days since this post (it’s now the 17th November) and I see Mr Javid has ruffled a few feathers with his intent to launch a massive house building programme. Surely this is the antithesis to my own BANANA (Build Absolutely None Anywhere Near Anyone) stance? If it was Sajid who used the word NIMBY, rather than the sub-editors at Metro, then WE REALLY NEED TO TALK!

Luckily I’m not a bigot. Luckily I don’t shut out opinions that differ from mine, but instead I engage with them, I deal with them head-on, and I really try and get under the skin of the antithesis to my original thesis, as always in search of synthesis.

Do we really need new homes? Why? What reason is there that the population has outgrown the buildings available? Is it that we are having more and more babies, with families getting bigger and bigger? Or is it that there are more families to house? If so, where did these new families come from? Have we stemmed the increase in our population, or is it still rising?

Anyone have any ideas why our population has risen so dramatically since 1997?

The synthesis to the house building problem is to ensure we pick the right locations. Nobody wants to live higher than 300 metres above sea level in the UK, unless they’re a glutton for ice-driving, so our uplands should be safe. I’m more worried about the Green Belts that separate our urban areas.

Being totally intellectually honest about it, where I’m sat right now was once upon a time fields. Vast swathes of North Leeds were built upon relatively high altitude open moorland (the clue is in the names: Moortown, Moorallerton, Tinshill, Cookridge etc), yet now these formerly green fields have been covered in suburban sprawl.

Indeed my town of birth, Crowborough, is an urban Marilyn (see my post “I Was Born On A Marilyn”). A few hundred years ago it’d have been part of the ancient Forest of Anderida, now it’s a medium-sized town housing 25,000 people. The trig point is in somebody’s back garden! So everywhere was countryside once upon a time. Where do we draw the line?

I’m starting to think the best synthesis of all would be an actual face-to-face meeting and interview with Sajid Javid, preferably on film, in which I can put my questions to him. Even if I fundamentally disagree with the house building policy – and I’d need to chat with him first of all to work out exactly what he wants to do, and where, before knowing whether I agree or not – I’d thoroughly enjoy the intellectual discourse with a man who clearly has a strong point of view about the wellbeing of the UK. A letter to his secretary will follow…let’s see if we can hook up the first ever MindWind video interview with an MP! 

EDIT 02/06/19: The dreaded wind turbine at the Tesco Distribution Centre has been conspicuously stationary for weeks, if not months. Last time I drove past, it was literally the only turbine amongst several others in close proximity not to be spinning. I’m calling it out as, if not broken, well, inactive for an extended period of time. NOT lowering CO2 emissions! I told you the poster was a bad idea, Tescos, but you thought you knew best, you wouldn’t listen to the Voice of Nature. When will you people learn? Sigh…

The Future Leader Of The Green Party



If I’m directing this blog at anyone in particular, it’s the future leader of the Green Party. Whoever that might be…

The future leader of the Green Party will be a very special person indeed. Can you think of a more important role, to ensure the conservation and protection of the UK’s green and pleasant countryside, than its official spokesperson in Parliament?

The health and wellbeing of Britain’s countryside is an indicator of the health and wellbeing of our population as a whole. Our Green Belts are often described as the “lungs” of our cities – the source of our fresh air, food and water, and a vital recreational, recuperative resource that directly contributes to our health and happiness. Screw up the countryside and you screw up the adjacent cities. Prioritise the well-being of the countryside, however, and the surrounding population will soon feel the benefits.

This is just the voice of nature, no dispute really. And if the Green Party truly wants to represent the voice of nature, then Items 1-999 on its manifesto will relate to the conservation of our countryside, at pretty much all costs. Items 1000- onwards can possibly pertain to other social issues, but only once the survival of our natural habitats has been guaranteed.

The Green Party’s continued unconditional support for wind power schemes, with their proven negative environmental and psychological impact (, indicates that under its present leadership the party has become corrupted with tainted money. Bought and paid for by international banking syndicates looking for a fig-leaf, to make it almost socially unacceptable to oppose their “clean, green energy” BS. It’s called “greenwashing”, it’s a known phenomenon.

As I said in a previous entry, when it actually mattered most, the Green Party sided with the bulldozers, lending a veneer of eco-credentials to the Turbine Mafia, steamrollering their way over our unspoilt moors with their terrifying Weapons of Moss Destruction. On this issue at least, it’s the Tories and UKIP who are siding with nature and humanity, and the Green Party siding with the global investment banks.

If that shocks you, then you need to do some research, fast, into what on earth has gone so wrong with the Green Party that EVEN THE TORIES have better environmental policies than the Greens.

Don’t think that’s going to make me vote Tory by the way – they’re merely acting the way anyone with half a brain would do when confronted with a scam as egregious as wind energy. But all across the North Midlands, South Pennines and Southern Scotland, formerly safe Labour or SNP seats swung blue in the last couple of General Elections, indicating to me that opposing wind blight is now becoming an important factor in electoral success.

The Labour Party coming out firmly and unambiguously against wind blight would be as significant a shift as Tony Blair’s “Clause IV” moment. Come on Jeremy, even your own brother campaigns vociferously against Agenda 21, and he says at heart you feel the same. Speak out and win the next election by a landslide!

Seeing how the Tories and UKIP have taken the lead in starting to campaign against wind blight has been something of a reality check as to just how disastrously the other parties have lost the plot when it comes to the conservation of our countryside. Most upsetting is that the protection of our moors and uplands from HGVs and bulldozers should be the natural impulse of the Green Party. It’s almost as if Joni Mitchell never wrote “Big Yellow Taxi”; with a few notable exceptions, the party has revealed itself to be totally apathetic to the eco-destruction of our wild natural spaces for profit.

The appalling Rampion Wind Farm off the coast of Brighton, blighting the South Downs National Park for over a hundred miles, really is the final nail in the coffin of the Green Party’s reputation as a serious environmental organisation. RIP Green Party. RIP Brighton. RIP the old ways of doing things.

Still… where there is death, there is rebirth.

And where the field lies fallow, that’s precisely where we should be planting the seeds of future growth, development and success 🙂

If, hypothetically speaking, one was to groom potential candidates for the leadership of the Green Party, what personal qualities would one look for, and how would one wish to help prepare them for the role, should they choose to accept it?

Step One is to ensure that the Green Party fundamentally remains a party of geography. Detailed knowledge of the geography of the UK is the sine qua non of environmentalism, as I have said repeatedly over these pages. Every Green Party activist needs to know the lie of the land, they need to know from memory how our hills and rivers link up, in order to truly understand how we came to live where we live and how we interact with our landforms. So many social problems of today stem from the geographical characteristics of the environment.

A deeper knowledge of geography would help the Green Party figure out that sticking dozens of industrial wind turbines over the high moors from which rise the Rivers Irwell and Calder might just possibly increase the likelihood and severity of flooding!

Tied in with a love and passion for geography should be appreciation for and dedication to the spirit of the National Parks, because these places represent the Green idyll, and anything that has a negative impact on the National Parks is clearly against everything the Green Party should stand for.

My own journey into environmentalism started with my Geography A-Level coursework, which involved a trip to Mam Tor and my first real academic research into the geography of the Peak.

I WAS ONLY 16! The Peak Vibe has stuck with me ever since. In fact, that Geography project seems strangely recent, like it’s much more prominent in my memory than anything else from that era. It almost seems like yesterday I was throwing quadrats over the hillsides and counting the daisies in each square metre!

Our National Parks are where the physical geography of the UK meets up with our social history. I’ve already discussed the Kinder Trespass, and I really can’t emphasise just how important this movement was in paving the way for the creation of the National Parks. Another old comment I’d like to recycle (to save people having to trawl through dozens of previous entries): whatever problems the Labour Party has had under Blair, Brown and Miliband, once upon a time it was the party of working class outdoor pursuits. I am hopeful Jeremy Corbyn is as committed to the principle of the National Parks as his political ancestors.

So our future leader of the Green Party must be rooted in geographical knowledge and the need to conserve our National Parks. These founding principles will underpin every subsequent decision they make – is a policy in keeping with the nature of the geographic world, and does it help conserve our National Parks? If not, then it’s not a policy the Green Party should have anything to do with!

I’ve said this before (something of a Greatest Hits entry this, but good to get these salient points all linked together in one post): honesty and integrity are also crucial for the Green Party to separate itself from the more mainstream options. If the Green Party isn’t dedicated to honesty, then it’s absolutely unfit for purpose. There is simply no room whatsoever for any kind of untruth or deception within the environmental movement. The harm done to environmental causes through being associated with untrustworthiness is immense.

Dogma and hidden agendas are enemies of truth, especially when it comes to the murky world of renewable energy. Nothing is as it seems. This is why we should go back to basics, back to the 70s Green slogan “Small is beautiful” (tell that to the turbine operators!), and away from crony capitalism and Cultural Marxism. Free and open debate and discourse are better for the environment than a movement based on people being afraid to speak out for fear of not seeming adequately “progressive”.

I sometimes feel embarrassed to speak out against wind blight because it’s not an “approved” Green position. Stop and think through the implications of this for a second: if saying all the right things is all that it takes to be considered Green, just consider how easy it becomes for a bad person to abuse the Green ideal, simply by “talking the talk” rather than “walking the walk”. I call these people Dishonest Bananas, and they’re basically scammers who take advantage of people’s good nature by telling them what they want to hear. This has happened on a global scale with the endless repetition of the “clean, green energy” mantra, to the point where calling out wind blight is commonly seen as being opposed to clean, green energy.

NO! It’s simply saying that wind energy is neither as clean or green as it claims to be, and if the Green Party was all about honesty, geography and conserving the countryside at all costs, it would have no problem in calling this out.

The future leader of the Green Party will be no more dogmatically attached to wind turbines than they are to typewriters. If a technology is obsolete and outdated, and superior alternatives are available, then the genuinely environmentally friendly course of action is to just tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, rather than continue to promote failed wind power with dubious claims and bogus support.

This brings me on to the next radical break with the past the future leader of the Green Party needs to make.

Enough with the Climate Change crap already!

Climate change is a symptom, not the root of the problem. Having a War on Climate Change will probably go as well as the War on Terror and the War on Drugs. The Green Party needs to stop scaring the bejesus out of everyone with its apocalyptic nightmarish visions of the world going up in flames. What on earth does all this nihilism do to the mental health of its members? Bad decisions will be made in a panic, so far better to take a deep breath, go for a long ramble, and critically think about ways in which we can sort out the issues associated with wind energy.

All this needs to be part of a much wider engagement with the environment – it’s not just about CO2, it’s about all the other ways we destroy the planet, such as industrialising mountains and killing whales. A much more rounded discourse is needed, not just splattering climate change sceptics or ridiculing those with genuine concerns about the impact of wind turbines on their health and wellbeing.

I know from my correspondence with the Green candidate for Rossendale, that there are indeed members of the party who truly believe in wind energy. They need to take responsibility for policing the industry, and they need to be aware that simply believing in a concept does not automatically grant immunity to those who let down the cause. Believing in the concept of the police does not equate to approving of police brutality; believing in localism does not equate to endorsing xenophobia. Critical thinking once again… separate the wheat from the chaff, analyse what works and what doesn’t, be open and honest about what requires improvement.

All parties do this in order to adapt, evolve and survive. Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party has moved on from Blairite policies; the Tories have moved on from Thatcherism. No party today has the same policies as it had a couple of decades ago. The Greens should be no exception – it’s not still 1992!

Well, I hope this gives some pointers and good constructive advice for anyone reading who is considering standing as leader of the Green Party. We need a great Green Party, the environmental conscience of Westminster. I would love to vote Green, and with the right leader and the right policies, I would vote Green tomorrow!

Wind energy is the Achilles Heel of the Green Party, however, and I for one will continue to campaign until the problems with wind energy generation take centre stage in Green Party discourse! It will take real leadership and true passion for the geography of Britain to transform the party into one genuinely concerned about the best interests of our green and pleasant land.

There are future leaders of the Green Party out there with the intellect and empathy required to restore some natural equilibrium to the environmentalist movement, I know this for a fact. Although the mistakes the party made in the past made me angry, and the lack of concern for the health and wellbeing of wind victims made me upset, I am confident that the next incarnation of the Green Party will be smart and compassionate enough to learn from these mistakes and to reconnect with the voice of nature: ECO not EGO 🙂

When they return to nature, I’ll give them my vote!


“Socialists should insist on using the nationalised industries not simply to out-capitalise the capitalists – an attempt in which they may or may not succeed – but to evolve a more democratic and dignified system of industrial administration, a more humane employment of machinery, and a more intelligent utilization of the fruits of human ingenuity and effort. If they can do this, they have the future in their hands. If they cannot, they have nothing to offer that is worthy of the sweat of free-born men.”


“Put it this way, he’d rather say nothing and carry on getting support from various greenies.” Well that’s not very honest, is it Jeremy? Be like me, an Honest Banana: if you think they’re misguided, set them straight!

Here’s the Green Party’s official energy policy statement. There’s not a lot I’d argue with in there, so it’s just about ensuring compliance with these fine aims, and calling out those projects that fail to live up to the hype. Most wind schemes breach several of these targets, eg “3. Ensure secure, reliable and resilient energy supply.” Well, can we rely on the wind? Exactly how resilient is our wind energy supply when the wind stops blowing???

Don your Critical Thinking Cap, do your research, and separate the Heroes from the Zeroes!

“A fraud promulgated by fools based on a fantasy” – so is the Green Party dishonest or merely stupid in its support for wind energy? Either way, the party needs a reboot – out with the old, in with the new. Less dogma and deception, more nature and truth please!

Just in case you missed it above, here’s that Smoking Gun once again: WIND FARMS CAUSE SUICIDES. ***SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN***


I can’t wait a whole blog entry for this. Remember a couple of weeks ago I informed Kirklees Council that any useless turbines would be recommended for destruction? I WARNED YOU VERY CLEARLY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY THIS WOULD HAPPEN!

When will you start listening to the voice of nature, Kirklees Council??? This is why I send emails, take videos and write blogs…. This was the scene at the Scammonden suicide blackspot yesterday. I posted a video message from here just a couple of weeks ago.






I Was Born On A Marilyn


Good old serendipity. It’s one of the buzzwords of this blog that keeps cropping up over and over again, along with terms such as “toxic”, “torture”, “greed”, “eco-vandals”, “Watermelons” and “Rossendale Council”…

Serendipity has been very good to me this week, and real-life has swirled around MindWind as organically as the winds that swirl around the Campsie Fells. If this blog is something of a turbine itself, transforming the destructive force of the wind scammers into a positive, constructive energy that can help humanity, well this week’s weather has resembled Hurricane Ophelia: a gentle breeze of conversation whipping up into a fierce storm, before easing back down again.

So much has happened this week in terms of experiencing wind blight, writing about it, discussing the points raised, and then using the discussion to further develop the blog. It’s definitely sustainable, that’s for sure!

Just stop me if ever I start plastering my blog all over people’s newsfeeds, whether they want to read it or not. Call me out if ever I promote my blog with lies and distortions of the truth, making loads and loads of money from gratuitously upsetting people (whilst also getting paid “constraints”, even if I don’t write a single word!).

The entry about the SNP is my first really successful blog entry, and an introduction to how the blogosphere works. Now it’s out there in circulation, it’s taken on a life of its own, circulating the globe and hopefully providing support for wind victims the world over. 100% positive feedback so far, not a single word of criticism for the points made, If by any chance anyone is reading and finds something to dispute, please, please get in touch. This website isn’t about one-way propaganda, it’s about free and open discourse that encourages everyone to chip in with useful information that can add to our collective knowledge base. Don’t let my snarling invective put you off! A dog’s bark is always worse than its bite. And anyway, dogs mostly bark in order to alert you to some kind of imminent danger.

It’s at this point I should explain, just in case anyone hadn’t noticed the stylistic trimmings yet, that I am a graduate of one of the finest Journalism courses in the land. At the time I underperformed, getting only a 2:2 (a “wind turbine” degree: I had the capacity to get a First but only delivered a fraction of what was expected of me); looking back, however, my excellent tutors certainly instilled in me some of the fundamentals of great Journalism: how to ask the right questions, how to see through PR puff pieces, how to fact-check EVERYTHING…

These blogs are what is called in the trade “think pieces” (more technically, “opinion-editorials” or “op-eds”), and their point is to make you think, to tell you stuff you didn’t already know. To be challenging, troubling and thought-provoking, whilst hopefully, like all my journalistic role models, raising a naughty laugh every now and then. We wind victims need to find humour in amongst all the eco-destruction of our homelands.

The internet has been an amazing help in allowing readers to continue the discussion where the op-eds leave off, and I hope you all know just how much I actively encourage you to use these pieces as a springboard for your own research and debate. As a thought-experiment, look for some pro-wind websites that express the opposite viewpoint to mine, and see how much they encourage you to have your say. Anyone who seems to be denying you a voice would appear to have something to hide. You see it a lot with the Guardian’s website (formerly “Comment Is Free”). If there’s no comment section beneath an article, you can probably call BS on its contents. Comments are the journalistic version of science: peer-review.

I’ve noticed a total silence from the councils and politicians I’ve contacted this week. Let’s apply some Socratic Questioning.


Only Wakefield have been consistently on-the-ball, polite, informative, empathetic. Superb stuff!

Kirklees do tend to reply, after a fashion, although with zero enthusiasm for looking into the problems reported. Still, they have said they’re investigating the blatant case of a planning proposal for one small turbine having nothing in common with the three large turbines actually erected, so I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt for now and hold fire until I receive more information.

All in all though, it really seems like councils can’t be arsed to do anything to stop wind blight, despite the fact that I’m alerting them to a universal problem that is experienced all over the world. WHY DON’T THEY RESPOND???

Again I feel I’m talking to myself, and I really want to know why. What is the reason the councils have for not engaging with the letters I write to them? Is it that they’re not receiving them for some reason? Is it that they’re reading them and don’t think they’re worthy of a response? Or that they don’t know how to respond? Why can’t you people just talk like normal humans and simply answer the questions asked of you? Why the silence???

How come if someone reported a broken bus shelter or “hate speech” (like calling someone “luv”, no doubt), you Councils would be instantly on the case; but the minute someone reports crimes of eco-destruction on an industrial scale, all they get from the Councils is a total tumbleweed moment?


What is it about wind turbines that makes people in authority just clam up and suddenly go all non-responsive? How come you never get straight, plain English answers? You have to prod and prod, pester and pester people for even a single sentence.


And these are simple, basic, everyday questions that we shouldn’t even have to ask – we should be able to find all this stuff out at the click of a mouse. What is the specific purpose of each turbine? What are the service level agreements in place? What are the financial arrangements? What are the penalties if a turbine doesn’t meet its electricity generation claims? How can the public monitor the performance of each turbine and report those that don’t have any environmental benefit? What measures are available to make an official complaint about any inappropriate turbines?

You see what I mean? Just common or garden questions that you’d expect to be asked of every school, every hospital, every transport network in the land. What is it that makes wind turbines so different? Why won’t anybody provide simple answers to these simple questions?



It feels like the Devil himself – or maybe just Common Purpose ( – has taken over the hearts and minds of vast swathes of our bureaucracies, and nobody is speaking up! I have only ever had ONE solitary soulful, empathetic, engaged, intellectually honest response from a wind supporter, and that was the Green Party guy I corresponded with, whose awesome reply I posted a few weeks ago. He was quite literally the ONLY person I have ever known, in my entire life, to make a passionate case from the bottom of his heart about why he felt we needed wind turbines. He was  sympathetic to the disfigurement of the landscape they cause, he talked to me like a human, he was happy to bat my points back and forth like a proper discourse. We ultimately agreed to disagree, but I think you’d have to say there was a lot of mutual respect there.




This is the document I lovingly prepared for the Planning Inspectorate – a fact-filled set of case studies that took hours of my own free time, travel, fieldwork and research to present them with a review of all the mistakes their inspectors Brendan Lyons, Robin Brooks and George Baird had made, possibly deliberately or under some kind of duress. I volunteered to travel down to Bristol for a chat in the Planning Inspectorate’s offices. I love talking to people. I love conversation and debate and discussion, systematically working through disagreements and coming up with a mutually beneficial win-win synthesis. Yet they didn’t want to know. Their replies didn’t answer my questions, other than to say they’d destroyed the paperwork so couldn’t provide any more information about the locations they’d visited to carry out their demonstrably inaccurate Environmental Impact Assessments.

All in all, the Planning Inspectorate provided me with nothing but the cold, emotionless, passive-aggressive, scripted auto-responses of someone advised by their lawyer that anything they say might be used in evidence against them, so best say nothing.

I believe the basic tenet of my complaint was fair and reasonable. Scout Moor’s expansion was rejected by Planning Inspectors for eminently sensible reasons. So they obviously get it now, having clearly taken on board my points. But over the last decade they’d already allowed dozens and dozens of inappropriate wind turbines that had been rejected by local councils. What changed? And if they’re now refusing wind farm schemes, why did they previously allow equally destructive ones to slip through? Even David Cameron announced that the public were fed up with wind farms, implying strongly that too many inappropriate ones had been approved, which were now starting to have a negative psychological impact on the public.

Surely in terms of process, there had been a major error in Planning Policy over the last ten years. Would the Planning Inspectorate like to discuss the process failure and work with me to rectify some of their worst mistakes?

Their replies made no sense, and were bordering on offensive and personally disrespectful, bearing in mind I pay these people, with my taxes, to do what I tell them to do.



Here, look, you’re all invited to my house for a cuppa. Every single person reading this is welcome, just send a comment and I’ll invite you over for a coffee, a cake and a natter about wind energy and its impact! Why aren’t all the people who inflict wind turbines on us equally as open, hospitable and willing to have a normal, adult conversation about their policies?


To wrap things up for now, a couple of more light-hearted points. Firstly, in doing some research about the Marilyns of the UK, I discovered that my home town is actually a Marilyn! The hospital I was born in lies just a few metres below the summit, which is actually in someone’s back garden. Hills come in all shapes and sizes, and this one is a whole town, Crowborough in East Sussex.

So when I say wind turbines screw up my natural habitat, it’s because I was literally born on a Marilyn!


And finally, I believe at last I’ve found a genuine LIME. Thank you Mary for pointing me in this direction 🙂 Remember, a Lime is someone truly Green on the inside, someone with an internal locus of control, who really does believe in wind power, who takes full responsibility for the success or failure of their wind projects, and who isn’t doing it to make profit or degrade the countryside. I’d like to introduce this inspiring gentleman, just to prove that I really am receptive to those who can “do wind well”.

It can be done!

The SNP: Making English Eco-Vandals Look Like Amateurs


In the last few hours I have received 63 likes (and climbing), plus 13 shares, for the following Facebook comment:

“I’ve truly never seen anything quite like the 40 miles from Beattock to Glasgow. There must be literally thousands of wind turbines visible from the M74, as far as the eye can see. This was my worst nightmare and what an awful way to introduce visitors to Scotland. How do people live here surrounded by dozens and dozens of wind farms? I am totally unsurprised nobody in southern Scotland votes SNP, it took me barely an hour of driving through this ring of steel to get the measure of that bunch of fakes. Corrupt gangsters talking the talk of nationalism to get votes but once elected puppets of the EU, showing utter contempt for the Scottish people, total phoneys who’d be happy to turn Scotland into a third world country in order to make their landowner mates rich. Feudalism lives on in Scotland. I am so angry and upset for Scottish wind victims, this is outrageous and far far worse than anything I’ve seen in my entire life. Words cannot express the toxic dump the SNP have turned Southern Scotland into. Any campaigns in Scotland that need support, count me in. Am I right about the SNP? What do you think?”

These are some of the reactions from the public:

“Yup, that about sums them up. Rights are taken away by the developers and the so called authorities sit back and reap the cash.”

“This is the reason I no longer visit Scotland.”

“And all that to produce just 0.97 GW of electricity.”

“There is no end to this. SNP are guilty of reckless, industrial scale vandalism to our treasured wild places. There are no winners here except greedy energy companies and rich landowners. Bill payers get poorer and our energy security has never been at such risk.”

“Try going up on to the Lowther Hills. This abomination is absolutely horrific. Over 200 white luminous monsters and wildlife completely trashed.”

“The Ochills and The Campsies are trashed with them too. Try going up to Aberdeen and see the horror as you get near to the city. There are few places left where you don’t see the things.”

“They are on the march to the Highlands as well.”

“You want to see the mess the SNP have made of Dumfries and Galloway, they hate Scotland.”

“We lived there and saw what was happening so we moved….to England. Breaks my heart every time I go back to see how much worse it is getting.”

“I took a road trip up to and around Scotland a couple of years ago and like you, was horrified at the destruction these things have caused.”

“Just stop the subsidies.”

To my Scottish friends: please excuse the following rhetoric. As you know, I’m on YOUR side. But if people are to listen to what you’ve been trying to tell them (analyse the psephology of the Scottish election results for more evidence), then shocking language is of the essence. You know me!

I’m therefore torn between wanting to be respectful to the poor, traumatised Scottish public and empathetic to the fact that they still have to live in this degraded shithole; versus needing to paint a true and accurate picture of exactly what Southern Scotland now looks like: HELL ON EARTH.

The most horrific blight was around Beattock Summit, with the Clyde Wind Farm seeming to be never-ending, several sectors that are gradually being infilled to form one uber-wind farm. Possibly a good idea, if wind worked, but a dreadful location, on both sides of the main gateway to Scotland, the first real mountainous terrain visitors drive through after the border foothills, so absolutely a mission statement from Scotland to the rest of the world: “This is who we are as a society…”

Except it’s not. It’s only a few rich landowners and spivvy contractors, sticking two fingers up to humanity and nature, and doing it deliberately to wind people up, I swear. As I said before: bitter, misanthropic and sadistic. Welcome to “their” Scotland, not yours.

Less than ten years ago I would have jumped at the chance to see all those hills and mountains. Maybe once you get to the Highlands, it might be worth it. But for mile after mile, almost continuously from the English border to Glasgow, the Scottish countryside resembles a dead body. A victim of multiple stab wounds.

Why would anyone bother going all the way to look at wind blight in Scotland, when they could enjoy the unspoilt mountains of the North Pennines or the Yorkshire Dales?

Please don’t get me wrong. I say all this with more love and compassion in my heart for the people of Scotland than I ever thought possible. The population of Scotland have my deepest sympathies, because everyone I met on my trip was so kind-hearted. But I feel the very open, socially conscious and progressive nature of the Scottish people has been abused and taken advantage of by some seriously Dishonest Bananas.

Maybe the SNP really do believe this is the way of the future, in which case they’re not dishonest, just demented. I think they’re probably both to be honest, and it’s starting to look as if the Scottish electorate feels the same as I do. Imposing wind turbines on people against their will is a surefire way of haemorrhaging votes. When will politicians learn???

It’s not for me to chip in about the Independence debate. Although I’d be sad to see Scotland break away from the Union, I perfectly respect the need for a nation to feel in control of its own destiny. But come on people, critical thinking! There’s other options than just wee Jimmy Krankie.

And I won’t even delve into the SNP’s extremely creepy Named Person legislation. Just eurgh…

What happened to that rebellious Scots spirit, can it rise again? Braveheart would have seen off the hordes of wind scammers by now. Prove yourselves, Scotland! I love that you’re so nice, but you need to be STRONG, and you need an internal locus of control that I don’t think you’ll get from ruining the very hills and mountains that define you and make people come from all around the world to explore your country.

Finally, for what it’s worth, I saw a car crash right under the shadow flicker of a huge turbine alongside the M74, possibly the A74(M) – ask the road geeks about this well-known road numbering anomaly. The horrific looking turbine was right in the line of vision of northbound traffic. It certainly distracted me!

Thanks for a fascinating stay, Scotland. Glasgow itself was wonderful, but I fear for the sustainability of your energy supply.

Bring yourselves out of the 15th century and into a world where you don’t have to sit around waiting for the weather to power your economy!


EDIT: I’ve been thinking long and hard about my use of the word “shithole” above. I’ll keep it, as yet more documentary evidence of an amygdala hijack triggered by wind turbines, but now, safely away from the direct impact of the blight, I worry that I might be insulting and offending the thousands of people who live in Scotland with hurtful language. You all know I don’t really mean it! But things could soon go that way, if the virus of unconstrained wind blight isn’t contained. As I prefaced the shocking linguistics employed above, indeed my whole website, it’s all about proving the psychological impact of wind turbines qualitatively, equally important as their claimed quantitative benefits.

If a nature-loving visitor comes away from Scotland describing its countryside as a “shithole”, nowhere near as hospitable as England’s green and pleasant landscapes; even if just said in a temper tantrum, it’s still an animal reaction, the true voice of nature. As such, it should be acknowledged by anyone genuinely interested in the impact of wind turbines on wildlife.

EDIT 14/01/18: It is with considerable amusement that I observe the world’s reaction to Donald Trump’s alleged use of the word “shithole”. I described above my own mixed feelings about the usage of this incendiary term!

Doing Wind Badly (Part 1)

The biggest problem with today’s entry is going to be how to keep it short. It could take some time… An awful lot to get through, and reading back what I’ve written so far, I realise just how much I’ve already covered. I wish I didn’t have to write so much, I really do. But it’s all defensive, not aggressive. I wouldn’t harm a fly!

It’s just essential, in the name of natural equilibrium, that each and every one of the lies told by the wind industry is balanced and corrected. There’s been such an awful lot of lies, there’s bound to be an equal and opposite amount of words required to set things straight.


This really is the blog that writes itself, real-life news events occurring in sync with the topics I discuss (a darn sight more in sync than the turbines at Ovenden Moor earlier this afternoon, but I’ll come onto that later). Check out this story:

“The claims in the Westminster offshore wind campaign are some of the most blatant distortions of the truth that I have seen in pro-wind advertising… This campaign is deliberately aimed at MPs, peers and other decision makers. The wind industry and green campaigners owe them a public apology. This is a shameful piece of spin.”

A bunch of Dishonest Bananas trying to control a bunch of Scared Watermelons. And they are Dishonest Bananas at heart, not Limes, because people who are genuinely Green on the inside don’t lie. The very act of lying proves that, deep down, they know their solution is a crock of shit. How do they live with themselves?

Hopefully, dear reader, you’re starting to join the dots!


And there’s yet more wind being done badly. More LIES! What else is in today’s news feed?

“Concerns are growing about potential ethics violations by wind companies and some county officials who approve their projects….“

Had enough LIES yet, or do you want some more?

“If the true and staggering cost of subsidised wind and solar power were public knowledge, there would be public outrage.”

So that’s what’s going on across the world. Closer to home, I had a great Peak Protection drive today, my usual Pennine Patrol: just checking all is well in the hills and nothing untoward to report. My journey started at Horbury Bridge on the River Calder and took me up onto the foothills to the north east of the Peak. At Grange Moor I headed north onto a very twisty and dangerous B-road, with a couple of nasty wind turbines very close to the road, adding a distracting visual presence to what is already a challenging drive.

I twisted my way down some country lanes with far-reaching views over the South Pennines. Just past Hopton I crossed onto the northern bank of the Calder and headed west onto the A644 towards Brighouse. A couple of large turbines dominated a hill straight ahead of me, somewhere just south of Southowram I make it. I continued on the long, almost continuous uphill drag, through Hipperholme, Stone Chair and Queensbury to the appropriately named village of Mountain, over 300 metres above sea level.

The appallingly blighted Soil Hill loomed ahead of me, with seven or eight turbines haphazardly plastered all around the summit. Not an actual wind farm, this is one of the worst cases of cumulative impact in the area, its appearance and character totally and utterly degraded by the horrible white pillars dotted around its upper slopes.

I cut south of Soil Hill, crossing the A629 near Ogden Water, and to my right I saw the monsters of Ovenden Moor, most spinning rapidly despite very low wind. About three of the turbines were stationary. Suffice to say that poor old Ogden Water, up until just a few years ago one of the most relaxing and life-affirming beauty spots of West Yorkshire, has had its pleasantness totally destroyed by the repugnant wind blight. Yes, there were smaller turbines here before, remnants of a bygone era, but you couldn’t see or hear them from the nature reserve. Now you can’t avoid the bastards.

I drove through the strange village/overspill estate of Mixenden, not one of the most inviting settlements I’ve ever visited, and headed north onto the ancient Withens Road. Finally above the tree line, I drove alongside the barbed-wire fence that surrounds the Ovenden Moor substation, and shortly beyond I passed the last building before the wilderness. To my left, the true wuthering heights of the South Pennines stretched off into the fog. What an incredible, if hazy view.

To my right, however, the turbines of Ovenden Moor seemed to monopolise the landscape for ages and ages. At first I thought, “Well, this isn’t so bad”, but after a while their presence started to get on my nerves. How can I best explain the annoyance? It’s like a dripping tap. You wonder what the fuss is about until suddenly you lock into the sound and it becomes the loudest noise in the world. I was truly glad to be past Ovenden Moor when I reached the end of Withens Road, however dominating the view directly in front of me, and single-handedly ruining this supposedly tourist-friendly landscape, was a truly obnoxious turbine, immediately east of the approach to Haworth.


Horrible, horrible, horrible, and a good chance to cue up the Kate Bush. No, not “that” song, a different one…

They told us all they wanted
Was a sound that could kill someone from a distance
So we go ahead and the meters are over in the red
It’s a mistake in the making

Now in my last entry I referred to a Mr Vickram Mirchandani. Have you done your research yet? What have you found out? My introduction to his company, Coronation Power (registered at the same address in the British Virgin Islands as Coronation Oil & Power, wannabe frackers who can’t actually get a licence anywhere, boo hoo!), came shortly after my first real moment of cognitive dissonance, which I described a few entries back. Driving around Rossendale, I felt something seriously wrong with how the Scout Moor wind turbines were making me feel.

I can prove scientifically that right up until this moment, if I did have a bias regarding wind turbines, it was favourable. I’m almost embarrassed to admit I posted this! Oh my Lord. The Kool-Aid hadn’t worn off yet, as of August 6th 2014. On that date I posted on Facebook: “Hail Storm Hill – this is one of my fave mountains. It’s also the site of the UK’s largest onshore wind farm, Scout Moor. Unlike at Rushy Hill, the wind farm here suits its location perfectly. You get the feeling that Hail Storm Hill loves using its height and landmass to produce energy, it’s definitely a mountain that likes to feel useful.”

“When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, Sir?”

Within just a couple of years I would be writing to Rossendale Council, threatening to personally lie in front of a bulldozer if they planned on erecting any more turbines on Hail Storm Hill. I hope this proves again, I really don’t have a beef with honest Watermelons, because I was one myself, just three years ago. We were all hoodwinked, it happened to us all. Maybe that’s another reason I feel so strongly about it. The people who get most upset about a scam are those who fell for it themselves. The first step is to acknowledge it and then we can move on.

It turns out Hail Storm Hill did enjoy being useful, but not in the way I initially thought. I think the good reaction I got to Scout Moor Wind Farm is only now starting to reveal its true purpose.

Firstly, it demonstrates that I didn’t come into this with any kind of hidden agenda (no, I don’t work for an oil company!). Just three short years ago I was publicly singing the praises of at least one wind farm, although clearly the desecration of Rushy Hill (site of Hyndburn Wind Farm) had triggered a bad reaction from the outset.

Secondly, Scout Moor hadn’t at that time been joined by the Reaps Moss and Crook Hill wind farms, adding a further 14 turbines to the skyline above Rochdale, let alone the failed attempts at Rooley Moor, Gorpley and the further two dozen applied for at Scout Moor itself.

Thirdly, I hadn’t seen Scout Moor from up close, or spent considerable time there. I’d probably only seen it from the M62, or possibly the A680 Rochdale – Edenfield Road. I certainly hadn’t talked to anyone in the community about its impact on their health and well-being.

Still, I liked it. I find it hard to believe now, but there it is in black and white. Scout Moor grabbed my attention and said “Look at me!”, and my initial reaction was favourable.

It wasn’t until I was driving through Rossendale a few weeks later and felt that unmistakable sensation of something not quite right that I took a closer look into what might have caused it. I’d never even heard a bad word said about wind turbines up until that point. I just assumed that everyone liked them.

It was around this time I stumbled across Rooley Moor. Another wrong-turning, trying to be clever and to cut from Whitworth to Heywood, I ended up at a quarry overlooking the absolutely gobsmacking hidden treasure of Rooley Moor. “This place is out of this world!” I thought. Totally unheard of outside the local area, Rooley Moor is a high-altitude oasis of moorland surrounded by heavily urbanised valleys. When I found out there were plans to build a wind farm on this ethereal plateau, I had the mother of all amygdala hijacks, and felt myself rapidly transforming into the Wind Warrior whose words you’re reading today!

There was one final piece of the jigsaw. I don’t know if it was the same day or soon afterwards (I was driving around the area about once a week by this point). I parked in Whitworth and went for a ramble up past Brown Wardle and to the rear of the stunning Watergrove Reservoir, another hidden treasure (well, it used to be, just three short years ago…). I still remember the sound of church bells peeling through the air, reverberating off these dark hills. I could also hear football fans cheering somewhere in the distance as I clambered up the side of Crook Hill. I could not believe what I saw at the summit: an HGV access track carved over the top of the moor. I can’t explain just how it made me feel, but I was now frantic with worry about what on earth was going on up there.

When I got home, I soon discovered that Coronation Power, the very same company behind the Rooley Moor proposal, also wanted to build a wind farm up here on Crook Hill, to add to their existing Todmorden abomination just a few miles away. Unfortunately, they’d been given permission and were just about to start work. Not only that, they had also been given permission for a further three turbines at Reaps Moss, between Crook Hill and Todmorden. Coronation Power wanted to literally surround the town of Bacup with turbines in every direction. And, as if all that wasn’t threat enough to these vulnerable moors, Kelda Water had their own plans for the Gorpley Wind Farm, slap-bang in the middle of this Ground Zero for eco-destruction.

Just as an IT system is a network of interconnected devices, so is the system of peaks that form the Pennine chain. What happens on one peak has an impact on those around it. Remember what a Marilyn is? It’s a peak that is over 150 metres higher than the surrounding land, more often than not in the Pennines a large, high, flat-topped plateau, like a giant tabletop, rather than a Toblerone-shaped Alpine mountain. Hail Storm Hill is the Marilyn that hosts Scout Moor Wind Farm on the south-western sections of its plateau. The Scout Moor extension would have also taken out the entire north and centre of the plateau, and Rooley Moor Wind Farm would have obliterated the east. Literally the whole of Hail Storm Hill and its upper slopes would have colonised by wind companies, Peel and Coronation Power slugging it out between them in a mountain-top turf war.

The Pennine Peaks are supposed to provide us with a high-altitude escape from the corporate shenanigans of the valleys below. 

Hail Storm Hill’s eastern edge links with the neighbouring Marilyn, Freeholds Top, just north of Whitworth, where the A671 reaches its high point in a cutting between the two Marilyns. Like Hail Storm Hill, Freeholds Top is a high moorland plateau with steep, sometimes sheer drop offs. It’s also on the national watershed, the high point between the Irish Sea and the North Sea, and something of a “crossroads” peak between different sections of the Pennines: immediately to its east, just across the Walsden Gorge, lie the northernmost moors of the Dark Peak. Less than a decade ago, a drive along the A681 from Bacup towards Todmorden would have showcased the natural unspoilt majesty of Freeholds Top. Now, following the construction of Todmorden, Reaps Moss and Crook Hill wind farms (but mercifully not Gorpley), the same view will make you cry. Thank you, Coronation Power.

What they’ve done to Freeholds Top is GBH to a mountain.

I believe Hail Storm Hill called out to me. It introduced itself and pointed me in the direction of Freeholds Top. Between the two of them, these criminally unprotected mini-mountains of the South Pennines have had to take their wind blight on the chin, in order to provide us with close-up exposure to the true nature of wind energy. That’s what I feel Hail Storm Hill wanted to show me: “I can handle it (just), but there’s many, many vulnerable hills out there who are under attack. Like my good friend and neighbour over here, Freeholds Top. Go and take a closer look, and see if you can put a stop to it!”

There were an awful lot of people involved in the successful protest against Rooley Moor, which I’m going to document in full next time I think, because I’ve already given you loads to take in for one entry, and it’s such a long saga it deserves fresh eyes! I probably had negligible personal influence in the decision to reject Rooley Moor, other than to do whatever I could to amplify the voice of the community. But if there’s one small contribution I was able to make to protect Rooley Moor, it was to keep the horrors of the neighbouring Crook Hill construction in the spotlight, which I’m sure didn’t help instil confidence in Coronation Power’s eco-credentials!

I’ll fill you in with all the mistakes Coronation Power made next time, but that’s how I initially found out about it. From liking Scout Moor at first, to having it make me feel sick, to stumbling across Rooley Moor by accident and finally making my acquaintance with Crook Hill. Throughout it all, my understanding of the wind scam derived 100% from rambling and exploring, then researching what I’d found, not the other way round! I started positively biased towards wind energy, and within two months I was a confirmed Wind Warrior. This is the direction of travel almost all of us have followed – from supporting wind to opposing it within just a few weeks.

You don’t meet many people who travel in the other direction, from opponent of wind power to supporter. Funny that…

Ovenden Moor:

Hail Storm Hill:

Freeholds Top:

Finally, a couple of great blogs from two fellow Wind Warriors. Great minds think alike 😉



Doing Wind Well


Dear Mr **Peak Protection**

I own a wind turbine company. I’ve read every word of your blog and am mortified that you have such a low opinion of my industry. My employees and I work incredibly hard to make a high-quality product that has a provable positive impact on the world, and I invite you to come down to the factory to meet the team and take a look at how we do things.

We believe in our wind turbines because we have hundreds of satisfied customers who keep coming back to us, ordinary members of the public like yourself who find our products help them lower their fuel bills and reduce their carbon footprint.

We also take very seriously the impact of our turbines on the surrounding areas, and we would be horrified to think that our turbines arouse such anger in people that they want to shoot them. We strive to make our turbines as small, efficient and attractive as possible, with no superfluous white paint and an ergonomic design that blends unobtrusively into the landscape. That’s why we’re in business – we want to transform the wind turbine industry and distance ourselves from the rogue traders who understandably give our industry a bad name.

Here is a list of our turbines, together with the independently measured energy generation statistics and carbon footprints of construction and maintenance. The performance of our turbines is audited regularly, and if ever one fails to meet the strict service level agreement in place to ensure it is provably contributing to lower CO2 emissions, we would remove all traces of it at once. Detailed performance metrics for every turbine we operate are available to the public at any time.

Feel free to visit any of our turbines yourself, and please pass on your feedback should you have any complaints. We’ll also see if we can set up a chat so you can speak to some satisfied customers. Above all, we want to prove that we share your concerns about some of the malpractice within our industry, we stand against it and we distance ourselves from any kind of unethical practices whatsoever.

We do our best to do wind well.

Yours sincerely


That’s the type of letter I’d LOVE to receive. That’s the type of letter that would instantly carve an HGV access track through my unspoilt mental landscape, paving the way for dozens of shiny, happy wind turbines to be erected on the ridgelines of my mind.

It would prove that there is another psychological archetype I haven’t yet accounted for in my calculations: for want of a better fruit term, let’s call this character type a Lime. Green on the outside, Green on the inside. People who believe hand on heart in what they do, equally as passionate and verbose as my good self, but on the opposite side of the fence.

More than just being a Watermelon however (remember, a Watermelon is someone who only believes in the wind solution because of what they’ve been told to think, rather than through any actual first-hand personal experience of its benefits), a Lime is someone who is a real mover and shaker within the wind industry, someone in full control over their own thoughts and actions, someone who is motivated by the true and genuine conservation of our planet, a wind turbine entrepreneur who WANTS to hear honest feedback, and who realises that the angry voices of me and my friends are a perfectly natural defensive reaction to the relentless onslaught of big energy companies riding roughshod over our vulnerable rural areas.

A Lime is someone who really does believe in the possibilities of wind power to clean up our air quality, but is honest and upfront about how corporate malpractice and wanton eco-destruction have sold the industry short and destroyed its reputation in the eyes of the public, rather than pure denial and simply blaming (or trying to manipulate) the electorate. Someone who says: “The buck stops with me. If the government has effectively banned wind farms, it’s probably because of the appalling way we behaved; had we conducted ourselves more responsibly, maybe we wouldn’t have aroused such hostility. We need to change to survive, otherwise we deserve to die.”

Someone with an internal locus of control.

A Lime is someone who doesn’t run away from the very real problems of wind energy, but addresses them directly and comes up with innovative, genuinely green solutions, honestly, openly, transparently and empathetically. Someone who would never dream of imposing their wind turbines on communities without their consent. Someone with enough integrity and care for the planet that they’d rather go bust and get another job than make their living from selling products under any kind of false pretences.

If there exists such a Lime, please get in touch. You know you’ll get a warm reception in this parish!

Is Dale Vince a Lime? Google him. Do your research. Would you buy a wind turbine from this man? I’d love a chat. Dale, if you’re reading, get in touch. Let’s have a vegan lunch sometime and you can set me straight about a few things. You oughtta know by now, I’m open-minded and eager to be proved wrong. Just nobody has been able to do it yet!

What about Vickram Mirchandani? Is he a Lime? Or is he a Dishonest Banana? I’ll simply answer that by saying we shall be looking a bit more closely into Mr Mirchandani’s portfolio of wind energy projects in the next edition of this blog: “Doing Wind Badly”…

I’ll leave it at that for now!

Finally, I read back through some old entries and did wonder if I came across as too aggressive and sarcastic, to the point of just seeming horrible?! It’s a tricky tightrope…I really do want to express the amygdala hijacked mindset of someone driven to the end of their tether by wind blight, and I really do want to counterbalance the sickly sales pitch of the wind lobby with some punky straight-talk. But equally I don’t just want to be so biased the other way I refuse to acknowledge genuine successes within the wind industry. I want to stay objective and fact-based, rather than just coming across as some deranged anti-wind nutter (even though I would argue, it was the turbines that made me deranged in the first place!)

I guess every blogger has their own style and I’m developing mine with every entry. If my words sometimes come cross as angry, I’ve tried to go beyond the raw emotion and look deeper into the psychology behind what causes it. I do know that the anger expressed here is merely a distillation of the anger felt by wind victims the world over. It would be highly passive-aggressive of the wind companies to make us feel this way and not acknowledge that they’ve had such an impact on our psychological state. That’s the point I try and get across repeatedly – the angry words are the best possible evidence I can provide of just how wind turbines make us feel. For the record, this is the first time in my entire life I’ve ever been angry enough to start blogging (let’s be honest, almost every blog is borne out of the need to right some wrong, to correct an imbalance of some sort).

The happy coincidence of 10:10 Climate Action simultaneously popping onto my news feed at exactly the same time as me starting this blog does give me considerable justification for continuing, I feel. If I ever thought that debating wind policy was out of date now that the game has changed (in the UK at least), when I see 10:10 enrolling children with their sinister astroturf campaigns, it just makes my flesh creep, and once again I feel the need to stand up and speak out.

I remember this clip from a few years ago and the outcry it generated, but it had slipped my mind that the culprits were the same 10:10 lot who are now back on the scene. I thought they were a new operation, but no, they’ve been around for years, pushing the wind agenda all along. This “classic” of theirs proves my point perfectly. And it’s not just me who finds the whole thing doesn’t sit right… Read the comments and you’ll get an idea of just how abhorrent their “Buy our products or your children die” approach is to most people.

I think the folks who decided the gruesome “Splattergate” film was a good idea (a film described as the PR flop of the millennium and an utter catastrophe for the environmentalist movement) are just about the very last people to lecture us on the aesthetic value of wind turbines!

Read the below-the-line comments!

The 10:10 Splattergate goes “sploot” – a roundup

10:10 Climate Action EXPOSED!


I was going to start today’s blog with some Awkward Questions. I had some lined up: “What on earth is the point? Who actually cares what you say? Will anyone read your blog other than people who already agree with you? Will you change a single person’s mind? Maybe you’re wrong, after all. Maybe the man from the Green Party was right, and wind turbines are the only solution left before the planet implodes. What if? What if?”

I’ll still ask myself these awkward questions, because it’s fun, but now that I’ve hit upon the fundamental axiom that underpins my argument, that people only like wind turbines because someone else told them to, there’s no point typing the same thing over and over; the discussion needs to be moved forward and a pragmatic solution needs to be found.

I’ve realised now that arguing with Watermelons over their honestly-held beliefs is futile; if there’s anyone who needs telling off it’s the Dishonest Bananas, those who secretly know the harm wind turbines do but try and cover it up, actively spreading incomplete and misleading information that plays down the negative impact of wind blight.

I figure that if people only like wind turbines because someone else told them to, the most efficient use of my time and efforts is to directly intercept that “someone else” and to bring a semblance of natural balance back to their skewed communications. If we can stop people telling other people to like wind turbines, the voice of nature will soon reassert itself, and people’s true feelings will gradually make themselves known.

So I guess that’s the point of this blog: to restore some natural equilibrium to the dialogue about wind farms and their impact; to offer people access to a wide range of different opinions and ideas about wind energy that they might not have heard before; and to help humanity assimilate all this new information into the global eco-consciousness.

My aim is simply to shed some light upon the impact wind turbines have had on my own mental health and well-being, to let you judge for yourselves what you make of my story and whether it resonates with your own. It matters a great deal to me that people have the freedom to make their own decisions; I just believe the decisions we make will serve us better if they are based on the truth, not other people’s hidden agendas.


What if I’m wrong though, what if I’m missing some vital piece of information that would instantly win me round to a windy way of thinking? Well, just like the awesome Randi has his million-dollar psychic challenge, we could set up a Windi challenge! I’m a sceptic, you’re a believer (I hope I’m reaching some pro-wind types, I really don’t just want to preach to the converted)… If you can prove that there’s a wind farm out there with a positive impact on my health and well-being (and I don’t just mean “a less negative impact than climate change”, I mean an actual positive impact of its own!), then I’ll pull this website in a heartbeat and give you the keys to my house. Why wouldn’t I? If there was a specific wind farm out there that could cheer me up and make me feel good, it’d be a foolish act of self-sabotage not to support it! Just point me in its direction and I’ll give it every chance to uplift me.

10:10 Climate Action have been irritating a lot of Wind Warriors recently with their trolling pro-wind sponsored posts, so I invite them to take the Windi challenge… Can they prove the positive impact of wind farms on my health and well-being, and win over this arch-critic of their entire weltanschauung? (**Best word of the entire blog so far!!!**)

You be the judge, dear reader…

“We need to talk about wind”, they say. So it’s not just me then, at least we agree on something!

Let’s go through their points one by one, and see if we can find any evidence to prove the positive impact of wind turbines. First up, bird deaths:

There’s no argument here. There’s no denying or covering up the bird deaths caused by turbines, however their whole argument seems to be built around the fact that Donald Trump said that turbines kill “all” the eagles, instead of just “many” eagles. Oh no, hold the front page, Trump exaggerated something!

They also bring in the RSPB as an appeal to authority, whose sole contribution to the debate seems to be that “well yes, wind turbines kill birds, but climate change would kill even more”, which is either Watermelon or Dishonest Banana, depending on their motivation. They’re either so scared they’re not thinking straight, or else they’re crooked. WHAT IF THEY’RE RIGHT? Well, let’s imagine… The trick, according to the RSPB, would be to “do wind well”. How does one do it well then? And all that time and effort to “do wind well”… If it takes three years of ornithological surveys before even a single megawatt of electricity can be generated, IS IT REALLY WORTH THE EFFORT???

This paragraph about bird deaths reveals an awful lot about the psychological trickery at hand here. I’m so glad these guys popped into my life, just as I started writing about wind farms and mental health. What a perfect case study! I do love serendipity… See, it’s kind of moral blackmail and almost an ultimatum: “Birds are gonna die, right? So either buy our product, and only a few get it, or else watch climate change kill the bloody lot of them…” Imagine going out with someone who said: “Well, I’ll only beat you a little…any other man would beat you five times as hard.” Sorry for the unpleasant analogy, but I really want to convey the hidden aggression behind the “clean, green” sales-pitch. There’s often a hint of menace as to what would happen if we didn’t partake of wind farms, which again proves my point that people only like them because someone else told them to, possibly even under duress of some sort. “Don’t blame us. We’re only supporting them because of what the RSPB said what would happen if we didn’t…”

This is gonna take ages to get through at this rate… Well, I’ve got time. Unless climate change threatens to flood my house before I finish typing. What’s up next then, money?

Simple answer to this, in fact I don’t even need to read it, because money’s got nothing to do with my argument. A wind turbine could cause a million pounds to come fluttering down from the sky, but that would have no bearing whatsoever on the psychological impact of erecting one in an area of outstanding natural beauty, other than confirmation that certain people would willingly destroy nature for money. The reality is, however, that whatever money wind turbines generate for their operator, it’s simply money knocked off the value of the adjacent housing stock, its worth depreciated by thousands of pounds due to wind blight.

Who do you think is more academic, more scientific, and more rigorous in their approach to mathematics: the RSPB or the London School of Economics?

Now THAT is research!


This is one for the hardcore scientists to get to grips with. Sound waves are very strange things, and their effects very difficult to pin down. I do know that low frequencies can either sound amazing, or else particularly harmful. Well-arranged, harmonically, rhythmically and sonically sculpted bass sounds form the roots of just about all the music I like best. However, unarranged or badly arranged low frequencies – or even just well-arranged low frequencies playing at an inappropriate time (eg late at night when you’re trying to sleep) – have a distinctly toxic effect on human health and well-being. You don’t need me to tell you what it’s like when a distant bass rumble keeps you awake at night, making you feel anxious and on edge.

I see no mention of Enercon or the Cape Bridgewater study in 10:10’s “Aren’t wind turbines quiet?” piece. Follow the links and judge for yourself!

Impacts on Health? None, apparently.

So my blog is just a work of fiction, I thought as much. “All in your mind!” they’ll say, proving my point for me. Blimey, I actually thought debunking this document would be intellectually demanding; in fact it’s proving to be about as difficult as making a cup of tea. Yet again the paragraph about health draws upon the same old trope that I hope you can start to recognise for yourself…”Well OK, um, erm, some people say wind turbines ruin their health. There’s no evidence that they’re genuinely suffering, they’re probably just making it up for fun. But, even if they are suffering due to wind turbines, they’d be suffering even worse due to climate change…” It gets old after a while.

I must remember to break into someone’s house later. I’ll steal everything they own, other than their bed. If they catch me, I’ll just say: “Stop moaning. Climate change would have destroyed your bed as well. You got off lightly.” I’ll just randomly punch someone on the street, and when they complain, I’ll say: “Ah, well climate change would deny you the very oxygen you’re breathing, so shut up, stop being a wimp, and take this. Kapow!”

Right, now for some fun. Here’s one I can really get my teeth into, in fact I already have, but I don’t mind a little encore. Aesthetics:



Still, I do respect people’s right to make their own decisions. I don’t mind if people personally like something ugly, as long as they don’t lose sight of objective reality in the process. Aesthetics are based on certain core values that we all share, that’s the whole point of it, durrr. I’ll even Google it again if you don’t believe me:

“A set of principles concerned with the nature and appreciation of beauty.”

Yes, we all have different tastes, but transcending personal tastes are certain principles that determine whether something has a positive or negative aesthetic quality. I’ve talked in detail about the things that I would argue make wind turbines objectively ugly – the paint for example. Please, please, please, someone explain to me what is aesthetically pleasing about a huge, high-visibility white pillar, with three huge, lethal-looking, high-visibility white blades, dominating an otherwise totally green landscape? Please explain what is aesthetically pleasing about the juddering movement of the blades, not (as cartoon depictions would have you believe), a continuous spinning motion, but in fact a magnetised “pulling”, “jerking” movement that yanks the blades around the nacelle? I’ve already gone into great detail about out of phase blade movements looking like the worst ballet company you’ve ever seen.

Still: “I’ve always loved seeing wind turbines in the landscape, I think they look elegant and majestic. As someone more than a little bit concerned about climate change, I find the sight of wind power in action uplifting and deeply reassuring – perhaps we really are going to solve this problem after all.”


Elegant and majestic? Which turbines were these then? I want names, I want dates, I want addresses. Where did you go? What did you see? OK, maybe I’ll grudgingly accept that wind turbines sometimes resemble trees… DEAD TREES. No leaves. No flesh. Just a bunch of creepy looking, disembodied skeletons, casting a deathly pall over the surrounding fields.

“As someone more than a little bit concerned about climate change…”

That’s not a sentence, that’s a bleedin’ random word generator. But it also makes the point I was making earlier – that is not an AESTHETIC reason for liking wind turbines. They are merely a symbol, a tube map if you like, that represents in this person’s mind a means of combatting climate change. Following this person’s logic, if they have any, a wind turbine could resemble a giant spooky clown that makes children cry from dozens of miles away, but if its meaning is one of tackling climate change, then miraculously it would suddenly look amazing. They totally misunderstand that aesthetics are about the precise, geometric and spatial qualities of an object, nothing whatsoever to do with what that object represents. I could change the aesthetics of this website without changing a single word.

It’s the meaning behind wind turbines that this person claims to be more than a little bit entranced by, not their aesthetics. A meaning, I repeat, that derives from somebody else. This person’s entire reason for liking wind farms comes from somebody else telling him what wind turbines are supposed to mean.

Finally, to their credit, and once again to show I am a fair-minded soul at heart despite the flamboyant displays of anger, I actually agree with everything they say in the second half of this page, regarding communities being involved in the planning process, and wind turbines needing to be something people want near them. Bravo Sirs! Just a shame it’s buried away beneath pages of misleading drivel.

I shouldn’t be too quick to congratulate them maybe, because if anything all this Aesthetics page does is reveal that, deep down, 10:10 Climate Action really do have something of the Banana-In-Disguise about them. If they know and acknowledge the “imposition” (their word) of wind farms onto communities, and they are genuine about “the involvement of local people in planning processes”, then they’d do well to speak out publicly about my next topic, and maybe one of the other reasons I initially felt the need to blog. I almost forgot, there’s so many!

I’m talking about unfair and suspicious Planning Appeals, and I will devote a whole chapter to this single legal loophole that has allowed so many unwanted wind turbines to slip through the net. Maybe it’s the planning process itself that has been the weakest link, the abuse of which leading to almost all of the controversies. Maybe if our planning system hadn’t been corrupted (some might say “rigged”), we wouldn’t even be having this conversation now…

As for who exactly is behind 10:10 Climate Action, and why, well the question you should all be asking yourselves now is: Banana or Watermelon? I’m starting to sound more and more like a teacher! OK, 10:10 are clearly not Honest Bananas like me. But possibly Dishonest ones, ie deliberately trying to misrepresent the true impact of wind power for a hidden agenda of some sort? Or is it a well-intentioned Watermelon operation, people genuinely worried about climate change, reaching out in good faith to the wind industry and the solutions they offer?

We know that UK citizens can’t detect any discernible climate change with our own senses (yet, I might say…) Therefore we can rule out 10:10 Climate Action arising out of any direct grass roots experiences within the communities of Britain. So what made these people come together, if it was nothing they had experienced first-hand? Where did they get their information from? Is there some kind of hidden hand pulling the strings of these well-meaning people, in order to promote its own agenda? Or are the ones pulling the strings none other than 10:10 Climate Action themselves, and they want YOU to be their puppet?

Make your own minds up, as always. Do your research.

You’re getting the hang of this Journalism lark now! I’m really proud of you 🙂







Sustainable Development?

I’ve mentioned Agenda 21 a few times, without ever explaining what it is. I’ve hoped that everyone reading is intellectually curious, and able to use a search engine without my help! Happy researching 🙂

Here’s a thesis:

Here’s its antithesis:

What’s your synthesis?

Let’s hear from the horses’s mouth. It’s only 350 pages long, so I’ll see you in five years when you’ve finished reading…

Got that? Great, now we can have a debate, although it won’t take long! In fact, there’s a “Scholar’s ‘mate” quick-win that should, in a logical world, take out the entire justification for the wind energy industry, in literally one killer sentence. The fact is Agenda 21 and wind turbines should come nowhere near each other, which I can prove in 30 seconds flat, because Agenda 21 is all about “sustainable development” (their own words). Sounds groovy! It really does, in fact:

“Humanity stands at a defining moment in history. We are confronted with a perpetuation of disparities between and within nations, a worsening of poverty, hunger, ill health and illiteracy, and the continuing deterioration of the ecosystems on which we depend for our well-being. However, integration of environment and development concerns and greater attention to them will lead to the fulfilment of basic needs, improved living standards for all, better protected and managed ecosystems and a safer, more prosperous future. No nation can achieve this on its own; but together we can – in a global partnership for sustainable development.” (Paragraph 1 of Agenda 21)

Well there we go. It even refers to Maslow, with its talk of fulfilling needs. Better life for all, better protected ecosystems, working together to make the world safer and more prosperous. It comes across as more me than me, to be honest! Count me in. Yup, working towards sustainable development sounds like my dream come true.

I’m on the verge of an epiphany in fact, and I’m prepared for this to be my last ever blog post on the matter, now I realise that in fact Agenda 21 has been saying exactly the same thing I’ve been saying: we need sustainable development in order to protect our ecosystems and enable the people of the world to fulfil their needs. What a lot of words I’ve wasted, arguing against a document that officially sets out a plan to enact exactly the kind of world I want to live in.

Before signing up to get involved in this global partnership for sustainable development, I suppose I better just check I understand exactly what I’m signing up for. I better just check what “sustainable” actually means, before scrapping this blog and permanently dropping my Banana stance towards wind turbines: Build Absolutely None Anywhere Near Anyone.

Let’s Google “sustainable”…


Oh. Hold on. Cognitive Dissonance alert! Agenda 21 is all about the promotion of sustainable development, yet according to the dictionary, “sustainable” means: “able to be maintained at a certain rate or level.”

When was the last time the wind was “able to be maintained at a certain rate or level”???

No further questions, Your Honour.

Well, maybe just one. How the hell has Agenda 21, an agenda for sustainable development, been used as justification for the worldwide rollout of energy projects that rely upon the fickle wind, a meteorological phenomenon singularly and spectacularly unable “to be maintained at a certain rate or level”???

Is there anything less equipped to fulfil our needs for both sustainable energy and the protection of our natural ecosystems than an industrial wind farm?

I realise that I’ve talked in great detail about Bananas and Watermelons, taking an extended look at the two different psychological archetypes behind the two opposing sides of the wind farm debate. You’re either for them or against them. (People who don’t give a hoot one way or the other won’t even be aware there’s a debate going on!)

I wonder if I should maybe delete some of the paragraphs and paragraphs of working I’ve done, as it might be difficult to read or even alienate people I’m trying to persuade, but as I have prefaced them, these are my workings, pencil scribblings feverishly jotted onto a dog-eared notepad (metaphorically speaking). The next step is to distill all these workings into one clear, concise kernel of pure, inarguable truth. I think I’ve got one:

People only like wind farms because someone else told them to.

There we go! What do you think? It sums up everything I’ve been saying. The only fans of wind farms are those with an external locus of control, who have been told that they’re “good for the environment”. Nobody with an internal locus of control likes wind farms.

Can I prove such a sweeping statement? Well, get in touch if you like wind farms, on an aesthetic, visceral, emotional and psychological level. If they elevate your mood and lift your spirits, then please, please, please get in touch and allow your positive feelings to shine through in an effusive paean to turbines. I actively want to hear from people who like wind turbines. I want to know which turbines it was that had such a positive impact on your health and well-being so I can go there and experience it for myself. As you will see if you read through my entries, I give specific locations for you to go and experience what I experience (eg Mortimer Road). If you know of a wind farm that will make me feel good, I’ll meet you there for a picnic!

What about people who only DISlike wind turbines because somebody else told them to? Well, where are these people? Anyone out there who used to like them, and maybe still does deep down (a guilty pleasure!), but due to peer-pressure or social norms, you feel you can’t speak up in public for wind farms? Really??? No, I didn’t think so. That’s because Wind Warriors don’t walk the streets in masks, smashing windows and pulling down statues, to force our views upon people. When was the last time anti-wind activists intruded on your reality while you were just going about your business? Opposing wind power is confined to intellectual debate, political discourse and planning policy.

Wind Warriors never impose our views on people against their will. Far from it, Wind Warriors actively encourage people to carry out their own research into environmental horror stories, and to find out for themselves the impact of official policy. Wind Warriors believe that our relationship with nature should be based upon Love, not Fear 🙂 

Let’s refine the Banana/Watermelon dialectic to take it away from personalities and more towards policy. I don’t want to define people’s spiritual essence by their locus of control, and as I have said before, in reality it’s a sliding scale with many anomalies and contradictions. So, rather than categorising people as either a Banana or a Watermelon, I want to refine my argument by saying every problem we face has a more internal-based solution and a more external-based solution, and people may align themselves with either, based on the specific situation.

Yet again, I can draw upon my IT experiences, with computer issues being logged to engineers who can either resolve them themselves, or reassign them should the resolution lie beyond their own locus of control. This is the essence of my Day Job: can I fix this one or do I need to pass it across to the Infrastructure guys?

Although I like to think I generally have a relatively internal locus of control, I can think of examples in life where I’ve actually gone externally to solve a problem. For example, I had an issue with a noisy neighbour. A true Banana would have dealt with it directly, without the need for outside help. I didn’t – I rushed straight to the agents and asked them to sort it on my behalf, which is pretty Watermelony, I confess!

Now, I didn’t want to get the neighbour into trouble, but looking back I DID have an ulterior motive. I wanted to move anyway so I used the noise complaint to make the case for an early end to the tenancy agreement. I didn’t lie, but I did have another agenda. If I’d wanted to stay at the property, I would have just dealt with the noise problem myself. What this tells me is that, although calling in the letting agents to resolve my noise issues gave me the outward appearance of having an external locus of control, in fact I retained an internal locus throughout, because I’d exploited the situation for my own benefit. Hardly even unethical – there was a genuine noise issue and I wanted to move anyway, so why not “kill two birds with one stone”?

That’s what we have to work out with wind turbines: is there a deeper reason, a hidden agenda, why a wind turbine backer might promote these horrible machines? Is there a chance that wind turbines “kill two birds with one blade”, as it were, only one of those birds being renewable energy? What other hidden reasons could people have for supporting wind turbines? Money is the obvious, but could there be others, such as the deliberate degradation (and maybe even depopulation) of our rural areas? Is that what “sustainable” really means?

Let me know your thoughts, Watermelons! Why DO you like wind turbines? Even the Green Party candidate I spoke to about Rooley Moor doesn’t LIKE them! Even he acknowledged how they “disfigure” the landscape, but unfortunately in his opinion the Earth needs them as an emergency measure to immediately start lowering CO2 emissions. This is possibly the opposing opinion I have most respect for, as I told him, the opinion that, yes, wind turbines are physically repulsive, and nobody wants them, but unfortunately we NEED them, like sticking a broken leg in plaster. Nobody is going to say the plaster enhances the natural beauty of your leg, but for a few months it might just make the difference to ever being able to walk again. Our debate rested on whether we trust the Doctor’s best intentions – the Green Party guy does; I don’t!

Never let it be said I don’t encourage people to express the opposite opinion to me, in order to factor in any valid points they make to my own thesis. Here, once again, is the Watermelon case for wind turbines, the antithesis to my thesis, this time expressed by the Green Party itself. What do you think?

Dear **Mr Peak Protection**

I am the general election agent and also a local election candidate for the Green Party in Rossendale and Darwen.

I know Rooley Moor well. The first time I turned up at the Rossendale Harriers and asked if I could go fell running with them, they took me up Whittle Pike, across to Top of Leach, and back down Rooley Moor Road. I got left behind of course, but one of them took pity and shepherded me home, or I’d probably be up there still. Since then I’ve run, walked and cycled there many times. I don’t like the idea of more wind turbines up there. They disfigure the landscape and destroy the peace up there.

I am a scientist. I studied chemistry and have spent the last 30 years working in research in various parts of manufacturing industry. I have followed the debate on climate change. There is a lot of nonsense from both sides of the argument, and objective data are hard to find, but the latest report (November 2014) of the IPCC gives a reasonable summary.

The impact of climate change is already under way, shown in extreme weather events. This is from a temperature increase of 0.8C. Future impacts include floods, crop failures, displacement of people and increased poverty. And it’s going to get much worse. If the world acted now to cut greenhouse gases, the temperature rise might be limited to 2C. But the world will not act because that would cut their scared cow – growth. Every nation will meet and decide that not they, but someone else, should cut their carbon emissions. So the temperature rise will be 2.5 or 3C, with consequences that are catastrophic. The next generation will inherit from us a planet that is dying.

I can’t go into great detail, but this wind farm will generate 40MW of electricity (when it’s running). An efficient gas fired power station would produce 20 tons/hour of CO2 in generating this power. Assuming the wind turbines operate at an average of 50%, they will save about 88,000 tons CO2 per year. The UK total carbon emissions in 2012 were 474,000,000 tons, which we have to reduce to about 150,000,000 tones by 2050.

Renewable energy is one of the ways to reach this target and mitigate the worst excesses of climate change. Rooley Moor wind farm is a step in that direction. I don’t like it there, but it is the lesser of two evils. We cannot behave like our governments and say that we want renewable energy, but on someone else’s doorstep, not ours.

I also regret the fact that renewable energy projects such as this one are dominated by large companies, and would like to see smaller schemes run by local communities. The Green Party emphatically does not support corporations, but believes in localism.

The true environmental position is to support this development, despite the visual impact, because it will help save the planet we live on.

**Mr Green**

Interesting. Very interesting to read that again, nearly three years after it was written. Glad to see there, in black and white, that the Green Party believes in localism. One might be surprised, given their support for the EU, but hey, that’s good! I sent the following reply:

Dear Mr **Green**

I cannot tell you how grateful I am to you, and impressed with the quality of your email to me. This is a very good advertisement for the Green Party, because it directly deals with all my accusations, provides me with credible evidence and, to a certain extent, explains the Green Party’s position. In addition, your personal connection to the area really demonstrates that you “care”! I think the most disconcerting factor in the wind farm debate is the sheer disconnection many supporters of wind turbines have from their actual effects, It is to your great credit that you acknowledge these negatives but make the case that, on balance, you feel the wind farm is worth them for the greater good. Regardless of whether I agree with the position, it is certainly one I respect.

I totally accept your statistics about the effects of climate change, however I am less inclined to accept the energy production statistics you present at face value, though I am not saying you are wrong – simply I would need to investigate these myself, to ensure they are accurate, independent, and the predictions/forecasts are actually achieved in real life. In other words – these are not just manufacturers’ claims.

I also feel, even though the Green Party may support the principle of constructing a wind farm on Rooley Moor, it has a duty to do so with extreme diligence, it must remain totally detached from the operators of the wind farm and ensure they comply with the utmost of environmental and ethical standards at all times. There are credible allegations of deceipt and tax avoidance on the part of Coronation Power (I can provide evidence if necessary). Just because the product itself is one the Green Party supports, if individual manufacturers are found to be behaving in an inappropriate, or even unethical fashion, then the Green Party should come down doubly hard on those rogue traders for besmirching its noble aims.

Therefore, I still have concerns that the Green Party is not more vocal in qualifying its support for wind energy by insisting that those companies entrusted with the protection of the planet behave with the utmost of probity at all times. Support for wind farms should be conditional, not unconditional, support, given with heavy heart and stringently monitored at all times.

I would also like to say that not all locations are appropriate, and in the context of Rooley Moor I believe the moor itself is absolutely the wrong area. I do NOT see anything morally wrong about being a “NIMBY” (in fact it’s not even my backyard, as I live in Leeds). If people feel strongly and are prepared to protest passionately enough, then their wishes should be respected. I fail to see why wind energy developers are not winning hearts and minds, making a good strong positive case for why people SHOULD welcome these developments in their area. If Rooley Moor is a specific area that arouses such strong feeling enough to object, then on a purely moral level I believe it is unethical to force the wind farm on residents. Why not find an area where everyone WANTS a wind farm?

To be honest, I could debate this for weeks but I appreciate you have taken time out to write to me, and you have certainly set me on a path towards finding out more, which is always good. So I am still as strongly opposed to the construction of the Rooley Moor wind farm as I ever was, I still believe the Green Party needs to be more vocal about stamping out malpractice in the wind industry, and more understanding that it’s not inherently right-wing or NIMBY to be opposed to bulldozers and HGVs (my own inspiration derives from Dr Seuss and Joni Mitchell!), it’s a perfectly valid position for green-minded people to be opposed to the industrialisation of the countryside. What you have done though, is explain a bit deeper the reason why this is even an issue, and you have certainly restored my faith that there are knowledgeable, passionate people in the Green Party.

**Mr Peak Protection**

The above correspondence dates from the very beginning of 2015. By the end of the year, the Rooley Moor proposal had been unanimously rejected. I’ve not really told you much about this one yet. It’s a whole saga in itself. Maybe next time! If Gorpley was the first wind turbine application I got involved with, Rooley Moor was the second. It’s a long story that starts with Abraham Lincoln and the American slave trade, and ends up in a council office in Rochdale. It’s a fascinating and uplifting tale, which I’ll come onto shortly!

What I hope to have demonstrated is that almost all Watermelons are good, honest and well-intentioned people, who have simply made the decision to outsource the locus of control for “saving the planet” to the wind energy companies. I might disagree with the solution they are recommending, but at no time do I deny the rational, logical and ethical reasons that a Watermelon might have for supporting wind farms. In theory, anyway.

I just think all their reasons derive from somebody else, and it’s that somebody else that I really have the problem with. Because, ultimately that someone else is almost definitely a Banana-In-Disguise, someone who knows deep down exactly how unpleasant wind farms are, and therefore deliberately distorts the public’s perception of them in order to pursue some kind of hidden agenda – probably money, but not necessarily.

I’m talking about every single person who ever lied, misled, obfuscated or omitted vital information in their support for a wind energy proposal. That includes YOU, Planning Inspectors of the UK, you know precisely which individuals I’m referring to… These are the people I’m really angry with, not those like the Green Party guy above who openly acknowledge just how badly wind turbines disfigure our landscapes.

It might be true that wind power really is capable of generating a certain amount of carbon-free electricity, so in their own minds they’re not lying so much as playing down the known adverse side effects. The bit they’re missing out is the unfortunate side effect of destroying the countryside as we know and love it, and its negative impact on our health and well-being.

Rather than admit this catastrophic side effect upfront, like the Green Party guy above did, instead they steadfastly refuse to acknowledge the harm wind turbines inflict upon the countryside, and worm their way past all conventional planning policies with slimy NLP and creepy promotional campaigns (yes, 10:10 Climate Action, I’m looking in your direction). You want to build a wind “farm”, you say??? Ooh that sounds nice! Will there be chickens and cows there as well, and a jolly, ruddy-cheeked man driving around on a tractor halfcut on scrumpy? Are there nuclear “farms” and fracking “farms” too, or do we only farm the wind?!

A few wind turbine supporters might go so far as to have some kind of twisted anti-nature psychopathy – these would be the same people who enjoy pulling the wings of butterflies for fun. Or, it might be that they are just anti-human. They might believe that it’s us humans who are causing all the problems on this planet, so let’s just have a mass cull of humanity. If there are millions too many people on the planet, why not start by making the countryside sterile and uninhabitable, forcing everyone into the cities, from where they can be controlled much more easily?

Finally, and following on eerily from my previous sentence, let’s have some more news from Brighton. Do I detect the very early, embryonic stages of Cognitive Dissonance forming in the mind of Caroline Lucas? Grab some popcorn. We’ve got years of this ahead. She’s a funny one is Caroline. What does she REALLY think about wind turbines? Is she a panic-stricken Watermelon who genuinely believes the solutions to the planet’s eco-problems can best be solved externally, or is she in fact a Dishonest Banana, who knows deep down wind farms aren’t the answer she claims them to be, but is too deeply involved in the scam to turn back? I really don’t know. Thoughts?

Outside the wind farm debate, Caroline Lucas has clearly done a lot of good stuff, in order to keep getting re-elected. I’d be a fool to criticise such an adept politician. I just get the feeling she never actually spends any time in nature. Maybe I’m doing her a grave injustice, but Caroline, if you’re reading, when was the last time you came up here to the Backbone of England and did some rambling? I think you should set aside some time every week to climb a new Pennine peak, if you really want me to take your views on the environment seriously.

Do you even know the name and spot-height of your nearest Marilyn, Caroline? Do you, dear reader? You really should know these things… Mine is Ilkley Moor, 402m above sea level 🙂

Worldwide Wind Scams – Daily Update


So many items in my news feed today. With every day it seems we are gaining momentum, the wind inexorably changing in our favour. It’s been a long time coming, but I’m pretty convinced something’s changed over the last few months. I think the Scout Moor Wind Farm expansion was a symbolic moment, in that it’s the first time that I can remember a local authority approved a wind farm, only for the government to overrule it and reject all but one poor, solitary wind turbine (which is basically useless on its own, so it’s like saying “Well I’ve eaten all the sweets, but hey you can have the wrapper!”)

Now hold on, you may be thinking. The government overruled the community? Isn’t that pure Watermelon? Haven’t you been droning on about communities having the final say? Yes, I have. And had Rossendale Council truly and accurately reflected the grass roots will of the community, almost a thousand of whom signed a GENUINE petition, not an astroturf one, against the wind farm extension, I might have agreed. But there was something very, very off about the Council’s approval. See the local paper cuttings below to get a glimpse of the financial black hole Rossendale has found itself in, following major financial irregularities. They were basically relying on the business rates from the wind farm, operated by the infamous Peel Energy group (registered at the same address as Peel Oil & Gas, would-be fracking company!)

It’s not like they really need any more turbines in the fells above Rossendale. There’s already the existing Scout Moor array, which has collectively harmed the mental health and wellbeing of millions of residents of Greater Manchester and South Lancashire. There’s the disgusting Hyndburn Wind Farm, which needs razing to the ground. There’s Hameldon Hill. There’s Scar End. There’s Coal Clough. There’s Todmorden. There’s Reaps Moss. And then there’s Crook Hill. Plus there’s far too many oversized single turbines looming over the towns of Rawtenstall and Bacup. I make that about 80 industrial wind turbines and a few dozen singletons within a radius of 5-10 miles. I know, because I monitor them constantly, keeping them under close surveillance to check for any monkey business. And Peel are upset they couldn’t add 20 more?

If the turbine-infected state of Rossendale’s countryside resembled the virus-ridden state of a hard drive, you’d lock down the computer, delete all the contents immediately, wipe it totally clean, zero all data, reformat it and patch it with the most stringent security protection available to man, to ensure you are never again struck by such lethal Trojans, the type of virus that nukes your computer by telling you just how much you need it to protect you from other (non-existent) viruses!

When a man from a wind company calls your council and tells you there’s a problem with your ecosystem, treat it exactly the same way you’d treat a man with an Eastern European accent, claiming to work for Microsoft, saying he needs to take control of your computer.

Don’t believe me? Follow the links and do your own research!

Just before handing over to the international news desk, I’ll add a couple more paragraphs about the Banana/Watermelon – local/global – internal/external locus of control duality. Now I’ve articulated it, my very own hypothesis which I’ve formulated and shared with you in real time (“showing my working” by illustrating some of my real-life experiences that provided the empirical evidence to work with), it’s time to look at what’s going on in the headlines and see if my theory stacks up.

If there’s one defining characteristic of the Banana mindset, it’s that we err on the side of caution when it comes to changing anything: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Building Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone is our central thesis, because zero building equals zero eco-destruction and zero carbon footprint. The very act of building itself is the antithesis to our worldview. However, in reality of course we need houses, we need roads, we need hospitals, we need schools, we need power stations and communication infrastructure….there’s an awful lot we actually need to build. even though it’d be better for the environment not to. Our synthesis is therefore as little building as humanly possible, just the bare minimum to fulfil our essential needs. I might add that the most efficient computer networks are essentially Banana in principle – if it’s not strictly necessary, then it shouldn’t be part of the “build” (we even call our operating systems that, and we generally want them as tight and lean as possible).

The Banana Method is to live your life, do your thing, have fun, follow your own path, enjoy the world as it is. Only whenever something blocks the flow (cognitive dissonance) is it necessary to stop, assess the nature of the blockage (critical thinking) and come up with a possible explanation (a thesis). Test it out: if it doesn’t help, try the opposite (the antithesis), and see if that gets you anywhere nearer to unblocking the flow. If not then grade and refine your thesis and antithesis until you end up with an explanation somewhere halfway between the two, or maybe nearer one but taking into account the valid points of the other (your synthesis).

When it comes to wind turbines, my thesis is that they severely get on my wick, possibly affecting me in more serious ways, and that building them is generally bad for the environment. The antithesis is that there’s nothing wrong with the lovely turbines, we should build even more of them, and lunatic freaks like me should just shut up and stop accelerating Climageddon with our dangerously backward attachment to something as nebulous and unscientific as a “landscape”. I ask you, dear reader, to test the thesis and antithesis above, and to formulate your own synthesis…

My follow-up thesis is that those who oppose wind farms generally have an internal locus of control, formulating their opinions first and foremost from personal experiences of eco-destruction, which prompts them to research and learn more about the worldwide wind scam. The logical outcome is a global network of grass roots activist campaigns that each work from the bottom up, with a few small victories that are used as springboards for further victories, culminating in new precedents being set, new laws being created to curb issues that have only come to light through personal experience (eg infrasonic noise pollution, shadow flicker, water poisoning, dead whales etc).

Ultimately this thesis concludes with wind scammers facing justice and being held accountable for their crimes, with long jail sentences for those who refuse to comply with the new laws that will come into force prohibiting the ownership of any permanently-based wind electricity generators (small portable ones are fine, if their owners pack them up when they’re done using them).

The antithesis to the above is the Watermelon view, very kindly articulated in my previous entry by the Friends of the Earth, that climate change is a global issue that requires a supranational, top-down, technically-based approach. Even now, I’m crediting the Watermelon position with a level of intelligence and integrity that fellow Wind Warriors may not think it deserves. I’m crediting Watermelons with just as much good intention and intellectual prowess as us Cool Bananas. The only difference is that they have an external locus of control, their instinct is to defer to the experts, which I’m not saying is a bad trait (sometimes it is the right thing to do). But it does have its drawbacks.

You know when you get a new gadget, what’s your first impulse? To play with it, to figure out how it works on your own, and to only refer to the manual if you can’t work out how to do something? You must be a Banana! Or are you the type to follow the manual; you don’t want to risk breaking anything, so best just trust the guys who made it and follow their instructions step-by-step? You must be a Watermelon!

In general I’d say we start off in life more Watermelon and end up more Banana. It even ties in with Maslow to a certain extent – self-actualised people who have managed to fulfil all their needs will clearly have a more internal locus of control than those lower down the Hierarchy, still struggling to satisfy their basic needs, still in need of assistance from higher authorities. What this leads me to believe is that, behind every Watermelon, there has to be a chain that eventually links to a Banana! And this is why, ultimately, being a Banana is the winning hand (in my opinion). Ceding your control to an outside party only means giving it to someone who has an internal locus of control, and more often than not what they really want won’t be in your best interests.

(Of course, I might be being over-cynical, and maybe the wind energy “experts” really do have our best interests at heart. I keep asking them to reassure me that this is the case. Look out for the upcoming entry that will detail my long, protracted intellectual battle with the Planning Inspectorate!)

What upsets me most is the intellectual dishonesty of those “Kingpin” Bananas who willingly deceive millions of well-intentioned Watermelons into ceding their control. And they ARE Bananas-gone-rogue, these who capitalise on the wind scam, because they never have to suffer the consequences of their actions, They, not us, are the real NIMBYs! Get this, from “Lord Of The Manor Of Rochdale” (seriously!) Jeremy Dearden, speaking from his New Zealand home 11,500 miles away as he allowed eleven industrial turbines to be erected on Open Access Common Land in the South Pennines: “I have a pretty big view from my place here, and I don’t know that I’d like to see a lot of windmills.” And he has the chutzpah to call the “commoners” of Rochdale NIMBYs!

At the very core of every wind energy scheme lies a Banana-In-Disguise, who knows full well just how horrible the eco-destruction they are wreaking on the world really is. That’s why they go to such lengths to cover it up. That’s why they never respond like you or I would do to such damning accusations: humble, apologetic, remorseful, utterly horrified at how our well-meaning actions could cause such upset to so many people, and placing top priority on putting things right. That’s what an honest Banana would do, when they realise how badly they’ve screwed up. But these dishonest Bananas, they know exactly what they’re doing to the planet, and deep down they hate themselves for it.

My third thesis is that the internal/external locus of control transcends old-fashioned party lines, and is now the dominant factor in the culture wars. Looking across the Pond, I see two Bananas from totally opposite ends of the political spectrum – Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders – between them outflanking the Queen of Watermelonism, Mrs Hillary Clinton, with their sometimes interchangeable diatribes against a broken system run into the ground by shadowy global elites. Hillary, of course, is a walking, talking external locus of control, to the point where this trait probably mortally wounded her campaign. Vote Hillary, get…who exactly??? Her book, “What Happened?” proves the point emphatically! She seems to have refused point blank to have taken control of her election failure. Oh it wasn’t her fault – it was the Russians. And the CIA. And Obama. And the Deplorables. And the Bernie Bros. Everyone but her.

Even Tony Blair’s approach to politics can be seen as having been defined by an external locus of control. What was the most common criticism of Tony Blair? That he had no core values, no internal locus of control. Bush’s poodle. Murdoch’s poodle. Merkel’s poodle. The bankers’ poodle. The British public soon got the impression that a vote for Blair was a vote for someone else behind the scenes. Ed Miliband merely continued along the same path. Only Jeremy Corbyn has promised to “give back control” to the Labour party members, for better or worse.

Many Tories felt exactly the same under pro-EU Cameron, hence the rise of UKIP. As I said in the previous entry, I believe Theresa May is learning fast about the new realignment that has taken place, encapsulated so succinctly by the Brexit vote. It really has shone a spotlight on just how strongly Britain wishes to retain its internal locus of control.

The more I think about it and analyse it, the more I see in common between Trump and Sanders, Farage and Corbyn, versus Clinton and Bush, Blair and Cameron. Theresa May is somewhere in the middle, but moving in the right direction.

Certainly when it comes to understanding and defeating the core problem that inflicted wind turbines on us, the old left-right alignment seems unfit for purpose, a relic of a bygone, more simple era in which it was only the right that wanted to keep the plebs away from the moors, and only the left that wanted to protect them for everyone. How times change!

My loyalties lie with the localists of both the left and the right, people with an internal locus of control who agree that local communities should have the final say in what happens to the landscapes they know best. Even as an ardent Wind Warrior, if it was clear to me that the population of a community honestly and fairly wanted a wind farm, I would grudgingly respect their opinion, even though I’d do my darnedest to persuade them of the foolhardiness of their decision! Honesty, integrity and transparency go a long way, and maybe that’s why people get really angry when a wind developer is seen to be trying to cheat, to game the system; as they did at Gorpley, the very first wind farm application I witnessed for myself. First impressions last!

With all this in mind, it’s fascinating to cast our eyes over this latest piece of news, and to evaluate the reactions of the individuals involved.

Read it? OK, so what do you think of everyone’s reasons for supporting and rejecting the wind farm? Which ones have given an “internal” reason for their decision, and which ones have given an “external” reason? How many of the councillors give “eco” reasons for their decision, and how many give financial reasons? Are there any opinions that you might disagree with, but respect as a valid opposing point of view? How would you go about trying to change each of the councillors’ minds? Do you see any correlation between party and vote? Is there a left-wing or right-wing dimension to whether people support or oppose the wind farm?

Make your own minds up. Do some research into each of the councillors. Find out about them as people! Do they strike you as essentially Bananas or Watermelons?

I won’t even begin to talk about the locus of control for Northern Ireland as a country…suffice to say it’s been a psychological issue that has troubled the collective psyche for hundreds of years. I just find it interesting that the spectre of this horrendous wind farm in the beautiful Mourne Mountains seems to have split the politicians into surprising alliances, not strictly partly-aligned.

My final observation is that the crucial deciding vote against the wind farm is a sign of the times, nay an indication of the direction the wind is now blowing. Who knows, but I suspect a year or two ago that deciding vote might have swung the other way? I can’t imagine many wind farms received a unanimous majority, I suspect most of those that did get approved barely scraped their way over the finishing line, with only the slenderest mathematical level of support. It feels good now that the boot is on the other foot!

Finally, more wind horrors from JUST ONE DAY of news.

This will no doubt be dismissed by some as “fake news” from the “Daily Fail”… don’t shoot the messenger! Read the article, separate fact from fiction and do your own research.

Twenty million reasons why Rossendale Council wanted to destroy even more of the Pennines:


Behind every Watermelon lies a Dishonest Banana, someone who knows only too well how toxic wind farms are, but doesn’t care as long as they get paid for it! Their ill-gotten gains can be put to best use by forcing them to remove all traces of their unwanted junk from the moors, at their own expense.








Toxic Turbines Around The Dark Peak

Today’s blog entry is a tale of two halves. Firstly, a bit more discourse following on from yesterday’s fruit trifle. Bananas and Watermelons nom nom. After dining, let us go on a relaxing drive around the Dark Peak.

As always, now I have a hypothesis, I test it rigorously. These are confusing times we live in, and rather than prolonging the culture wars, I’m much more interested in finding synthesis, common ground and mutually agreeable solutions that work for everyone. But we are where we are, and when it comes to wind turbines it’s a pretty divisive issue. We can’t help but hate them, those of us who do (clearly enough of us to bring the problems of wind power into the Overton Window at last). If Watermelon sounds like an insult, calling myself a Banana is hardly an indication of superiority! I guess I’m saying we’re all fruit fools deep down.

Part of the problems we face are that the old labels of left and right seem, on this issue at least, totally redundant. I know my role models in terms of activism are the Kinder Trespassers, a movement with deep ties to the Manchester Communist Party! Does that make me a Communist? Isn’t being a Watermelon being “Red” (ie Commie) on the inside, so weren’t the Kinder Trespassers the original Watermelons?

It’s tricky, I’m thinking as I type, and maybe the fruit analogies are starting to break down, well biodegrade at least. I like the internal and external locus of control spectrum (and it seems worthwhile to consider it more of a sliding scale rather than a binary choice), and that certainly applies to the EU Referendum. But I don’t think the divide between traditional notions of left and right applies in the age of crony capitalism.

The industrialisation and corporatisation of the Pennine tops goes against everything the Kinder Trespassers stood for. From Ewan MacColl’s “The Manchester Rambler”: “No man has the right to own mountains, any more than the deep ocean bed.” I guess that means no offshore wind farms too.

There’s no longer a clear divide between Thatcherite corporations and the traditional left-wing public sector, in this age of PFI and huge billion dollar Cultural Marxist organisations like Google. Wind power blurs the boundaries even further, with massive global investment banks fronting literally millions of pounds for the construction of huge wind farm schemes, backed not by the Tories or UKIP, but by Friends Of The Earth and the Green Party. What about Labour? Well, we’ll come onto that…

I mentioned the Gorpley Wind Farm planning meeting in a previous entry, and I saw a local farmer reduced to tears at the prospect of three huge towers above his hillside property. As I sat there at the back, three young people in suits were chatting, not really paying attention. They seemed pleasant enough, but disengaged from the conversation. Turns out they were from the PR company sent by Kelda Water to make the half-hearted case for the wind farm. They needn’t have bothered. Interesting that nobody actually employed by Kelda turned up.

Do you ever have that feeling when someone enters the room and the temperature drops? I swear that happened as this strange, aloof man sidled in late and sat at the end of the row. Who on earth is that, I thought? He seemed shifty somehow. All became clear as he spoke, coldly and emotionlessly reading out a pre-prepared speech on behalf of Friends Of The Earth, recommending the wind farm. The rest of the room audibly groaned in disbelief.

We were on tenterhooks waiting for the decision, and then the Leader spoke on behalf of Calderdale Council, with a truly inspirational speech about how they had gone on a site visit that day, and on hearing the birdsong and feeling the amazing high altitude atmosphere, they just could not bring themselves to approve the wind farm. It was rejected unanimously! The farmer was absolutely delighted. I went over, shook his hand and said how happy I was for him. The Friends Of The Earth guy sidled out as quietly as he entered. The PR guys representing Kelda really looked like they couldn’t give a monkeys that they’d been rejected. Worth a shot, at least they got a day out of the office, better luck next time. Try and blag another hilltop in another town next week.

What was also notable, making the local papers and certainly the first time I’d heard of such shenanigans, was the deceitful and duplicitous fashion in which Kelda Water had “astroturfed” support for the wind farm. Yet again, pure Watermelonism! Secret behind-the-scenes operators pulling the strings. Dozens of signatures endorsing the wind farm had been provided to the council, yet it turns out these people had not specifically recommended Gorpley, they had merely been stopped on the street, harrassed with some annoying questions, and probably under duress said they approved of the idea of “clean, green energy”. Which is like saying 99% of UK residents approve of overseas holidays, therefore there must be huge support for building a new airport in the middle of Snowdonia. I’ll wager, too, that if you looked closely at the list of names supposedly supporting the Gorpley wind farm (funny how none of them turned up to the planning meeting), you’d probably find a Mr Donald Duck and a Ms Minnie Mouse in there too…

It’s such a shame Calderdale Council didn’t apply the same incontestable logic to Ovenden Moor’s repowering. I will be devoting a lot of words to Ovenden Moor, but not yet. Today’s travels were south of the Calder, so for today we’ll focus our attentions there. But I just wanted to refer to this classic case of a Watermelon, the Friends Of The Earth guy parachuted into Halifax, totally acting against the wishes of everyone in the community. Had it been his own opinion, passionately argued from the heart, I might have disagreed, but I’d have respected him. However he just seemed like a pawn in a larger game, standing on the same side as an eco-destroying corporation instead of standing with the community to reject the bulldozers. And that’s a Friend Of The Earth!

That’s what makes it confusing and no longer about left vs right. If you listen to Jeremy Corbyn’s brother Piers, another hero of mine (check his website!), Jeremy is totally on board with his anti-Agenda 21 stance, but the Labour party under Ed Miliband took millions in donations from wind energy companies. The waters are murky, so Labour has some serious soul-searching to do about where its loyalties lie. I will never forget Labour’s role in creating the National Parks in the first place, and there is always a part of me that hopes they rediscover that voice representing the right of working people to experience unspoilt nature. I am quietly confident that Jeremy heeds his big brother’s advice on all matters to do with climate change and the environment.

Whereas left-wing Watermelons tend to put their trust in an authoritarian state apparatus over the rights of individual citizens, right-wing Watermelons (I should really give them a different name) put their trust in authoritarian corporations over the rights of individual citizens. Different institutions, but in fact it’s the same psychology: first instincts are always to reach out to that external locus of control. These type of right-wing Watermelons (shall we call them Blueberries?) are the Cameron, Osborne, Hammond set, the uber-corporate friends of big business. To be fair, David Cameron did speak up against wind farms, so he saw the light belatedly.

As always, I don’t mean to insult any of them as people, or even to say they are wrong. I’m merely pointing out that their solutions generally involve outsourcing the locus of control to huge top-down organisations such as the EU (another post-left/right hybrid of old-left social policy and Thatcherite economic liberalism).

I think Theresa May started off more of a Watermelon, but has gradually found her own locus of control, rising to the challenge of Brexit now she’s realised that that’s just the way it is. I give Theresa May the benefit of the doubt as a ripening Banana, a good lady with the country’s best interests at heart, going through something of a personal transformation and spiritual rebirth following her very public ego death earlier in the year. What a narrative, especially if she can hang on and, five years from now, finally win the massive majority she always wanted!

Left-wing Bananas are those mavericks like Kate Hoey, George Galloway, Dennis Skinner, even Tony Benn (RIP), whose socialism retains that local rather than global locus of control. On balance, Jeremy Corbyn is far more in this vein than anyone from the New Labour era. That’s probably why he’s so popular with the public (well, sections of the public).

I may possibly be the only person in Britain who genuinely likes both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn, and I am confident that, were I to have a ten minute chat with each of them, they would both be on the side of reason regarding wind blight.


If you can find a pattern in all the above, good luck to you! The locus of control spectrum is complex and inexact, and we each have different loci according to different issues. So it’s not so much left-wing vs right-wing, more a case of local vs global, and both the UK and the US seem to have now opted for a more localised approach after years of globalist dominance. This effectively puts the kibosh on large-scale, Agenda 21-imposed wind energy projects for the foreseeable future. I won’t say forever, but certainly not in the next few years. Dare I say it, for now, the Bananas have won the wind farm debate in the UK, well England at least. Wales has been stung badly. Scotland is another story altogether…

We just have to deal with the turbines that slipped through the net, to make sure no more pop up, and to take steps to decommission all those that we can prove do more harm than good. We’re working on it.

I drove northwards along Mortimer Road (see the “Royd Moor, Spicer Hill & Hazelhead” entry), and tried the control experiment again. Due to a hazy atmosphere, the impact of the turbines wasn’t as drastic as I’d described it. I hit the A616 and headed towards the Woodhead Pass. The turbines loomed ever nearer, with more and more gradually appearing, and soon I felt my amygdala being assaulted. They really started to dominate the surroundings as I approached the Flouch Roundabout.

It’s always quite exciting heading west onto the Woodhead at this point, my little “eco” car feeling particularly tiny in amongst the relentless stream of trucks that traverse this high altitude pass between South Yorkshire and Manchester. The traffic of the Woodhead Pass (and its western approach through Mottram and Hollingworth) is the subject of a whole blog in itself, one of the most pressing issues for the Peak. Just before the scary corners that send the Woodhead racing over the county line into Derbyshire, I turned right and headed down a long, straight hill towards Dunford Bridge. Ahead of me, as far as the eye could see, I saw the 20+ turbines of the terrible trio. From this angle, the three turbines of Hazelhead stood out most closely. Awful, awful, unacceptable blight of the entire northeast of the Peak. Royd Moor’s turbines look old and outdated now, let’s hope and pray they are not given approval for repowering anytime soon. I’ll certainly be watching like a hawk. At the back, Spicer Hill’s huge turbines completed the diabolical vista.

There was slight relief as I turned left onto the Holmfirth road, with the idyllic, unspoilt moors of the Dark Peak to my left. Even man-made Winscar Reservoir looked beautiful, proving we can be both functional and aesthetically pleasing when we put our minds to it. On hitting the West Yorkshire border, however, another nightmare vision appeared almost instantly. Several large single turbines peppered the approach to Holmfirth, once such a gorgeously situated, remote town, now surrounded on all sides by a ring of steel.

It’s not too much of an exaggeration to say in the last ten years the countryside around Holmfirth has become a no-go area for nature lovers, due entirely to unchecked wind blight. Why would anyone choose to come here for leisure? What a travesty.

Marsden restored my faith. Finally a Pennine town totally unmarred by turbine blight, with the mighty bulwark of Standedge standing high, proud and mercifully uncrowned by blades. Standedge, you made me proud. The people of West Yorkshire don’t know how lucky they are to have you, just the way you are. Long may your unspoilt beauty endure.

I passed Pule Hill and followed the A62 over the summit into Saddleworth, still West Yorkshire but also part of Oldham, which is Lancashire (and kind of Greater Manchester). Confused? I think of Saddleworth as pure Yorkshire, but because it’s so cut off from the nearest big Yorkshire town (Huddersfield), it makes more sense to come under Oldham’s jurisdiction. A long line of pylons more or less marks the traditional Yorkshire-Lancashire boundary, not the most scenic addition to the landscape, but not really that offensive either. It was only after cutting down through Delph and up towards Denshaw that I had a slight amygdala hijack, on seeing the horrible, out of place turbine immediately north of the village. THIS MUST COME DOWN!

I headed out of Denshaw onto the A640 Buckstones Pass, one of my favourite Pennine passes, very light in traffic and offering stunning, stunning views. The road reaches its peak by some rocky outcrops, with a left fork down towards Elland. This is another long, arrow-straight hill which crosses the M62 on the huge Scammonden viaduct. Almost as soon as I turned onto this road, I saw the most repulsive turbine blight so far, three manically spinning dervishes so out of place they made even the motorway look attractive by comparison.

Three “small” wind turbines have a more destructive impact on the landscape than a six-lane motorway.

There was a police roadblock at the viaduct. As it is a notorious suicide spot, with Samaritans notices on the railings, I can only hope the worst hadn’t happened {Edit: I found out later, it had]. I made a U-turn and, by now in the midst of a full amygdala hijack, took the opportunity to capture some footage of the “macabre, sabre-toothed monsters”, complete with appropriate commentary.

A letter to Kirklees council, with a link to the video and this blog, is on my To-Do list for tomorrow.

I will talk more about wind turbines next to motorways and major roads in a future blog. I’ll just sum up today’s entry by saying I spent a lot of time around turbines today, loads and loads of them, and I didn’t like what they did to the landscape one bit. They look unhealthy and alienating, sometimes even demonic (like the ones I caught on film), totally inappropriate in their colour, shape and location, totally harmful to our mental health and well-being.




Poor man. The three demonic turbines would have been leering directly at him, watching him fall. The very sight of them gave me an instant amygdala hijack (DOCUMENTED IN REAL TIME). What on earth would such a grimacing vision do to a disturbed mind?

Piers Corbyn’s view of the world, which he says Jeremy shares (and I believe him…brothers know):

Gorpley Wind Farm and a botched attempt at astroturfing:

And here is the strange, aloof man himself. Fascinating to read this in the light of my long essay about Watermelons. This is a textbook example of Watermelon “logic”. I’m not even saying he’s factually wrong, in fact there is some interesting information in there, but it’s all too theoretical and devoid of empathy, which is not how our relationship with Mother Earth should be; emotional resonance is everything! Mr Rae demonstrates the ultimate technocratic approach in his bitter sore-loser rant at the end, in which the world would be just fine if it wasn’t for us thickies and our silly “feelings” getting in the way of cold hard science. He concludes by blaming the Calder floods of 2012 and 2013 on global warming. I BLAME THEM ON TODMORDEN WIND FARM.

Occam’s Razor: which do you think is the simplest explanation for the Calder floods? (A) Global warming caused the icecaps to melt at the North and South Pole, resulting in the oceans rising and a river near Halifax bursting its banks; or (B) cubic tonnes of impermeable concrete dumped all over the moors at the source of the river screwed up the watercourse and overloaded the few remaining channels down the hillside? Oh and by the way, a year after the Gorpley meeting, immediately following the construction of the eleven-turbine Crook Hill Wind Farm on the southern bank of the Calder, even worse floods occurred. But everything to do with climate change and nothing to do with concrete? Riiiight…

(I prefer the Ewan MacColl original, but this video has some great imagery that perfectly illustrates the lyrics…still a great version though!)

EDIT: Letter sent to Kirklees Council!

Dear Sir/Madam

Please could you send me copies or links to every planning document pertaining to the 3 high-visibility white wind turbines located on the south side of the M62, just east of Scammonden Reservoir?

I wish to make a formal complaint about the negative impact of these three wind turbines on my safety, health and well-being, and I will be taking further action to enforce the compulsory removal of this toxic blight, with a mandatory 25 year custodial sentence for non-compliance.

I have documented the harmful impact of these turbines on my mental health in the following video and blog. In addition, I have provided a written testimony of the harmful impacts of the wind turbines near Holmfirth on my sense of well-being. From the blog:

“It’s not too much of an exaggeration to say in the last ten years the countryside around Holmfirth has become a no-go area for nature lovers, due entirely to unchecked wind blight. Why would anyone choose to come here for leisure? What a travesty.”

Please provide all the relevant documentation for the wind turbines next to the M62 so I can commence legal proceedings against the operator. I will enquire further about the remainder of the turbines once I have successfully enforced the removal of the three at Scammonden.

Kind regards

**Mr Peak Protection** (real name and address provided, as always)