Laws are invisible and cause no intrusion on people's lives unless they transgress them. You cannot logically jump from the visual impact of a windfarm and compare them to laws, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. They are there, right in front of you, forced upon your vision and are an absolute blot on the landscape. If the government introduces a law it will have no impact on me whatsoever unless it stops me from doing something I would normally do or causes a major inconvenience. How is that like a windfarm? So your assumption of my logic is wide of the mark and it is yours that seems to lack.thatdberight wrote:Now you're just being (deliberately I hope) dim.
You only get something for nothing if it's not part of a bigger thing. The £100m is part of a much bigger piece not just in terms of wind power but the whole electricity generation market.
I never said they said it was "bull". I said (I'll quote so you're clear) "it seems like they think it's"bull"". Does it need to be clearer for you?
Like other things in life, wind farms have an impact on everybody, regardless of what they think. By your logic, you shouldn't have to be subject to laws brought in by a government you didn't vote for. It's your argument that makes no sense.
Oh, and by the way, they do look reet smart.
What I am saying, a point you seem to have missed, is that no account is taken as to whether the local population near a new site is considered. Yes there are planning permissions and consultations and all the usual pointlessness but these things inevitably get built. In fact the government has a right to override a local council decision on this matter even if they did refuse permission.
Listen bud there is no point going on with this and I have no wish to argue with a fellow Claret so we'll call it a draw. I hate them with a passion, you love 'em. It's a free world and you have a right to do so. It's been an interesting chat though.