I’ve got to take my problem to the United Nations

When a bad bout of the Summertime Blues struck Trex’s Marc Bolan a while back, he told us he had no choice but to take his problem to the United Nations. Here’s a flashback for Glam Rock tragics:



Facing their own version of the same malady – this time the threat of giant fans destroying an otherwise idyllic life in the Scottish Highlands, near Loch Awe – Pat Swords and Christine Metcalfe weren’t about to let the Summertime Blues get them down, so – just like Marc Bolan and Eddie Cochran before him – they took their problem to the United Nations.

United Nation Headquarter New York

Maybe this joint really is about social justice for the World’s citizens?

This plucky pair – Christine a red-blooded, Scot and Pat of the “fightin’ Irish” – may have just pulled the wind industry to a screaming halt in the UK and Ireland and – what’s more – with legislative weaponry usually employed to the advantage of British and Irish wind weasels.

Here’s JD on the case.

Wind farms are a breach of human rights says UN. No, really.
The Telegraph
James Delingpole
28 August 2013

Over the last year or so, I’ve been getting emails from two campaigners – Irish engineer Pat Swords and Christine Metcalfe, a retired community councillor from Argyllshire – urging me to report on their campaign to have Britain’s and Ireland’s renewable energy policy declared illegal under the UN’s Aarhus Convention.

I never got round to doing so, not because I didn’t wholeheartedly support them but because I thought: “Naaah. Ain’t never going to happen.”

I mean: how could it possibly? The United Nations, as we know, is the very belly of the beast; the onlie begetter of almost all the world’s most far-reaching and dangerous environmental policies.

It was under the auspices of two UN organisations – the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organisation – that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established.  As I report in Watermelons, even as far back as 2004 it was responsible for launching over 60,000 environment projects – each with its crack team of sustainability consultants, conservation biologists and other pseudo-science looters draining the public purse for dubious green causes.  Worst of all, the UN is the home of Agenda 21, probably the single most all-encompassingly fascistic policy ever devised.  Or, as I describe it in the book:

Agenda 21 effectively puts an end to national sovereignty, abolishes private property, elevates Nature above man and places a host of restrictions on what we’ve come to accept as our most basic freedoms – everything from how, when and where we travel to what we eat.

How could an organisation as corrupt, depraved and enslaved by deep-green ideology possibly do anything to help the little guy against the depredations of Big Green?

Well, it seems I owe Pat Swords and Christine Metcalfe an apology. Like most people I hate saying “sorry”. But on this occasion, I’m overjoyed to have the opportunity.

Here’s how the Independent reports it:

Plans for future wind farms in Britain could be in jeopardy after a United Nations legal tribunal ruled that the UK Government acted illegally by denying the public decision-making powers over their approval and the “necessary information” over their benefits or adverse effects.

The new ruling, agreed by a United Nations committee in Geneva, calls into question the legal validity of any further planning consent for all future wind-farm developments based on current policy, both onshore and offshore.

The United Nations Economic Commission Europe has declared that the UK flouted Article 7 of the Aarhus Convention, which requires full and effective public participation on all environmental issues and demands that citizens are given the right to participate in the process.

Yes, I thought “too good to be true” too.  But even the wise Richard North appears to think the story has legs.

As too does one expert lawyer:

Says David Hart, QC, an environmental lawyer, “This ruling means that consents and permissions for further wind-farm developments in Scotland and the UK are liable to challenge on the grounds that the necessary policy preliminaries have not been complied with, and that, in effect, the public has been denied the chance to consider and contribute to the NREAP”.

North notes a delicious irony in this affair.  The Aarhus Convention has hitherto been exploited by green activists to railroad through their extremist policies. Now, they have been hoist by their own petard.

Therein lies a huge and delightful irony and the Aarhus Convention is hailed by the Greens giving them the potential to challenge all manner of government decisions.  The former secretary to the convention was Jeremy Wates, now supreme Fuhrer of the EEB, lording it in Brussels.  The whole thing stemmed from Rio, and was the brainchild of the Green NGOs, led by the EEB.

Can our good fortune last?  I doubt it.  But till the greenies find a loophole, I’m encouraged to think what useful ammunition this will provide for anti-wind groups fighting desperately to protect their corner of Britain or Ireland from the bat-chomping, bird-slicing terror.

Well done Christine!  Well done Pat!  Bloody heroes, the pair of you!
The Telegraph

STT says: “hats off, Christine and Pat”.  Your tenacity and efforts will have a far wider impact than saving the Emerald Isle and the Scottish Highlands.  By pulling things to a halt in the UK and Ireland, the whole wind power scam faces collapse.  Things are DESPERATE for the wind weasel and their parasitic fellow travellers – just check the greentard blogs like ruin-economy and yes2ruining-us.  These people sound suicidal!

Vestas just sacked its boss after turning in more woeful results – and STT’s favourite whipping boys, Infigen have backed up a $55 million loss in 2011/12 with a WHOPPING $80 million loss for 2012/13.

Did someone say something about a monstrous Ponzi scheme on the brink of a disaster that fleeces investors of $billions on the way to the liquidator?

Here’s STT’s riddle for the week: what’s the easiest way to end up with a small fortune?


Trust us – we used to be called Babcock & Brown.

Answer: hand over your very large fortune to Infigen.

About stopthesethings

We are a group of citizens concerned about the rapid spread of industrial wind power generation installations across Australia.


  1. Reblogged this on windfarmaction and commented:
    Perverseness pays off

  2. Just wanted to also say congratulations to the two lady anti-wind warriors. It is the same in Australia with Dr. Sarah Laurie and other women who fight continually. Not too many men seem to be up there fighting when you have Two Premiers Victoria and NSW lacking any good judgement in regards to wind turbines. These mechanical monsters are helping rising electricity prices mostly hurting the poor income families and those on pensions.

  3. Infigen has lost 79.97 million this year up from the $55odd million from last year and try to make out they in reality have lost $21 odd million. It seems to me there is something wrong with their mathematics. ANYWAY anyone who watched Myth Busters last night 31/08/13 showed Adam surrounded by amplifiers which had been turned down to 5, then 7, then 9 then 30 odd megahertz. Under 10 he felt and heard nothing but the crew who stood away from him felt various things like chest, ear pressure and nausea. Seems to me that is the very thing people are suffering with wind turbines. So much for Simon Chapman stating its all the ‘nocebo’ effect or mental problems. The program showed that the sound emitted from these instruments sent sound waves out not on the spot.These were under 10 megahertz not heard by human ears.

  4. Jackie Rovensky says:

    Pat and Christine congratulations, well deserved for an effort that has taken a long time but I am sure will bring about changes.
    It’s a pity here in Australia we don’t have anything like Aarhus. We are only signatories to the Rio Declaration, with only the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act) coming out of it to protect us – well not even us, as there is no reference to protecting humans in it, even though Principle 1 of the Rio Declaration states:
    “Human beings are at the centre of concerns for sustainable development. They are entitled to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature.”!!!!
    With our Government only recognising Principle 2 as being of any importance and that Principle says that every individual country has
    ‘the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies’.
    What hope for us when a signature to this declaration is not binding.
    As can be seen from the Principle 2, it leaves any signatories able to do what they like.
    What weight or influence does the UN have when such Declarations contain such ‘out’ clauses/principles and are not binding?

    A couple more of the Principles are as follows:
    Principle 10
    Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided.

    Principle 15
    In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environment degradation.

    Principle 17
    Environmental impact assessment, and a national instrument, shall be undertaken for proposed activities that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment and are subject to a decision of a competent national authority

    Principle 17, is the one on which brought about the EPBC, but though it’s obvious this process should have taken into account the other principles such as Principle 1, our Government took the option to implement the EPBC without consideration of the human being as part of the national environment, or their welfare
    considered in environmental issues.

  5. I will be as happy as a pig in mud, when we see the wind weasels & greentards paying compensation to the citizens that have & are suffering the ill affects of these industrial wind turbines. I hope it sends them all bankrupt in the end.

  6. cornwallwindwatch says:

    Reblogged this on Cornwall Wind Watch.

  7. Jim Hutson says:

    I just cannot wait for all this to fall in one big heap. I just want to live long enough to see these low life sods start forking out compensation to the victims, and could I be so lucky as to see the blasted things torn down? I am sure the SAS, Navy seals, Commando’s, M1 Abrams Tanks crews could put in the odd shot, and maybe in selected areas a few Hornets could tear up a few. Replace a few windows … be glad to.

  8. So IT kind of hit the fan.

  9. Stand against wind says:

    Ooh, I have always been an avid Marc Bolan fan, now I’m joining the Chris and Pat Fan Club!


  1. […] by us to represent the interests of Australian citizens – NOT the interests of morally (and soon to be financially) bankrupt outfits like Infigen (aka Babcock & […]

Leave a Reply to stopthesethings Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: