![](https://whaleoilbeefoct.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/nimby.png)
Not in my back yard: your backyard and my backyard are actually all our backyards. Nimbyism has an image of middle-class people objecting to a development that will affect their comfort or devalue their properties. In fact, if it is going to affect middle class people that way it is going to affect everyone else just the same. Let us look at all these developments that blight our lives and first of all ask, do we really need them in the first place? The answer is usually no.
One ofthe biggest blights at the moment is HS2 and all those unfortunate people who are on the route and are already being affected by it. Never mind the mind-boggling cost, which will almost certainly increase even further once work starts, which I hope it never will. We are a small country we can already travel by rail between London and Manchester in just over two hours. Is there really much point in spending billions to shave half an hour off that and then only for the people who can afford to pay even more for their fare than the already extortionate cost. Surely it would make more sense to spend those billions on re-nationalising and improving the existing rail network, reducing fares to encourage more people to use the railways and at the same time reduce the burden on theroad network.
Which brings me to what maybe the next biggest cause of blight, new roads. If we encouraged more people to go by rail and introduced tolls on motorways, we wouldn’t need any new roads. Again, let us improve the existing ones and make them more efficient and safer. Many people, myself included, will travel by car because it is more comfortable and cheaper, even for one, and even given the state of our roads, than using our overcrowded, expensive and often uncomfortable trains. Just about every other country, many not as wealthy as we are supposed to be can do it, why can’t we? They have much better trains than us; of course, they are usually state owned, and all the fare money goes to improving the service, not to be creamed off to make Richard Branson even richer, massive salaries for “top” management and profits for shareholders. One particular journey stands out in my memory; having come from somewhere, can’t remember where, in the Far East, where the trains are superb and the airports even better, fast monorails every few minutes whisk you from terminal to terminal. I arrived at Heathrow and waited, for half an hour, standing, with a lot of angry, tired and sweaty people for a BUS to take us from terminal one to the NEW terminal five for the flight to Manchester. Fortunately, British Airways lost my luggage at Heathrow, because when I finally got on the AIRPORT TRAIN at Manchester, which rattled, smelled unsavoury and was absolutely packed with commuters there was nowhere to put luggage.
Of course, as usual the main problem is overpopulation. If left to their own devices the populations in most European countries would be slowly reducing, that is what we need, and reproduction rates tend to reduce when there is a good standard of living. We could let the rest of the world breed themselves into extinction, if they choose, but the problem is they don’t stay put, they try to come here. Most of the so-called refugees are actually economic migrants, the genuine refugees can’t afford to pay the gangsters. They are usually unskilled and with a bad attitude to women. They come to Europe but are no use to us and we are no use to them. The problem is that our economic system depends on continual growth to work, but it is physically impossible to have continued growth of the economy and the population in a finite world. Am I the only one who can see this? We need a radical new economic model and we need to reduce even skilled immigration and our indigenous population.
Which brings me to housing. We can’t keep oncovering the country in concrete, especially when we should be looking tobecome self-sufficient in food production and not by factory farming, hugechemical fertilized, weed killed crop prairies and GM crops and animals. Weneed wild undeveloped parts for ourselves and for wildlife habitats and we needmore small organic farms and all people growing their own. Modern farming canbe a blight in itself, I am not talking about cows in fields, but how abouthuge stinking barns full of hens, or pigs, stinking even worse, all crammedinto a small space, you wouldn’t want them at the bottom of your garden, Iwouldn’t want them full stop. We managed to feed ourselves in WW2 so let’s startreducing the population to what it was then. I am not saying don’t import foodbut be able to manage without it if necessary. Along with more houses comes theneed for more schools, hospitals, fire stations etc. If the population isrising these are necessary, even though they are not being built. One thing we certainlydon’t need is the proliferation of phone masts; they try to fool us that theseare necessary for business to have state of the art communications, bollox.They are there so that the usual suspects can make big profits and they are mostlyused by people putting pictures of their dinner on social media while on themove. Wind farms are in the same category, they are all about making profits mostly from government subsidies, paid for by us as usual, not sustainable energy. Why despoil our lovely landscapes for something that can only make aminute contribution to our energy needs and only when the wind is blowing. Again, reduce the demand for energy. While I am on the subject, we are seeingan increase in electric cars, these may reduce pollution at the point of use,but still have to be charged with electricity that causes pollution when it is generated and much of what goes into the National Grid is wasted in the distribution network.
Then we come to fracking, whole areas in the UShave been made uninhabitable because the water table has been poisoned byfracking. Obviously, that would have a much bigger impact here we don’t havethat much land. We need to be concentrating more on effective renewable energysources, other than wind, and reducing demand, by definition non-renewablesources will run out someday. Fracking might buy a bit more time but is a bit like taking out a payday loan, it might postpone the inevitable bankruptcy but will make it much worse when it happens. Why destroy our environment for thesake of non-renewable energy, there is only one reason, the usual suspects aremaking profits from it.
Now I will get to the point, I always have to go a bit off piste first. There is something traditionally British about nimbyism. People from all walks of life gathering in draughty church halls tofight a common enemy. The farm labourer sits next to the retired surveyor and they are all prepared to freely contribute their various skills to preventwhatever it is they are trying to prevent. Usually some awful, entirely inappropriate and unnecessary project thought up by the man to make a profit for the usual minority at the expense of all those affected by it. So, nimbyism is justified, has good intentions, helps to prevent the destruction of England’s green and pleasant land, and Wales and Scotland of course. It brings people together to voluntarily help each other, nothing but good there.
Often, those affected find they are in limbo for years by not being able to sell their properties, and then have to fight to get compensation. The law is nearly always on the side of “The Man”, at least initially. Anyone who suffers any kind of loss should be automatically compensated preferably in advance to whatever they have lost plus 50%, paid by whoever has caused the damage. Unfortunately, an Englishman’s home is no longer his castle. If we can’t rely on the law to protect us we need to resort to sabotage, and I will deal with that and vigilantes in my next post.