Letter to Mr Kojan.

(comment on draft regeneration strategy, Wakefield)

Whilst happy to see plenty of development I cannot help but be alarmed at the general form, the reasons for it and further implications.

For starters, all new housing is subject to higher density build due to land being artificially restricted rather than positively as communities of people with shared interests (and a common timetable). The latter point something our political leaders seem desperate to foster.

Instead of a natural community developing we are getting a sketchily offered, pick n mix version where privacy, individuality and free association are practically sanctioned by authority.


Our homes fulfill a number of roles yet it's hard to imagine a comfortable family life in such cramped conditions. Overclose proximity to our neighbours is bound to lead to compromise and occasional tension as our activities impinge on those of others.
In crude terms merely going to the bathroom during the night provides a dilemma over flushing and disturbing the neighbours. Granted, my house is some 100 yrs old - I just hope these new homes have decent soundproofing.

Houses built for an entirely different era need constant upgrades so there's always noisy rebuilding work going on and little peace and quiet in the neighbourhood. It's probably fair to that within 20 yrs the process will need to be repeated if occupiers haven't already started updating.

And what of normal leisure pursuits such as playing your favourite music just the way you like it or even kids playing out?

Never mind though, if our quite normal activities prove too intrusive, rest assured, we can always rely on an ASBO or CPSO to keep things quiet.


It used to be said that an englishman (or woman)'s house is his (or her) castle. It would appear not so now. Gordon Brown's prudence will cost us dear both in money and increasing intrusion into our homes. His profligacy with taxes has led to suggestions of window, patio and even 'view from your house' taxes.
It gets worse - they now want to photograph and catalogue every room in our homes. Which with some snide irony perhaps, is being introduced into Northern Ireland first.

Despite our relative wealth we get slammed by high house prices due to this restriction of land; only ameliorated by low interest rates. How long this situation lasts is anybodys guess but there have already been murmurs of trouble ahead in the economy.
Interestingly enough, the debate heard was more concerned with the lack of prison spaces to house us should we resort to criminality as a result.
No focus on decent jobs then?

Decent jobs and a better quality of life could be had by ditching the sustainability agenda and building spaciously on redundant farmland with modern services and infrastructure.

But no, Castleford MP and housing minister, Yvette Cooper, gets herself all excited at the prospect of theoretically building most, if not all, UK housing on dilapidated brownfield land at high density; aided and abetted by hubby, economic secretary to the treasury and Normanton MP, Ed Balls.
That is some double act from so called socialists.

In this way our own private space gives way to chaperoned public space replete with selective heritage features and equally meaningless but instrumental public art.

And what of transport? Private motor cars are frowned upon as unsustainable, antisocial; every regeneration plan attacking private car use and our freedom to roam. This could almost be bearable if public transport was reliable, ran an extended timetable and was user friendly.

Defra minister, Dave Miliband talks of his environment policy as being for 'a land fit for heroes'.
I can only asume he's been watching too many Disney videos.

Drugs are for mugs?

"I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness . . . " (Ginsberg, Howl )

Society does need to have an open and honest debate about 'drugs' as it is often something known about but a blind eye turned and discussed mostly in terms that avoid clarity.
For starters, everyone from royalty to politicians, to doers and makers, athletes, armed forces and aged has its share of drug takers.
So why do we do it? Possibly as much a release from or aid to the mundane as football, dancing, reading or a hobby. Some of us even become too absorbed in our work to the detriment of other things and miss out on what those things mean.

It's partly a question of balance - quality, quantity, frequency and variety.

Do we also condemn football, love, alcohol or even politics? The efforts people put into 'the beautiful game' can take those connected through every emotion, affect their well being, cost plenty and takes up plenty of time that could arguably be put to better use. And the world of sport doesn't come without significant risk in the form of injuries, hospitalisation and occasionally death. That said, the world of sport, as most other areas, is evermore subject to increased regulation.

Love is the sweetest thing? Hmm, who could honestly say that our most intimate of relationships don't come without there fair sure of turmoil, disappointment and sometimes even hatred. Some of us do crazy and irresponsible things in the pursuit of what we consider to be love. I'm not too sure we know what love is . . . .

What of politics . . . . ?

What of the abuse/misuse of drugs for 'recreational' purposes? - a significant proportion take a little of what tickles their fancy and are able to cope with life just as much as the rest. Some have their best thoughts or can see through problems that hound them through the week . . . . and, of course, many talk and do utter bollocks.
Though there are plenty of others doing the same without substance.

There shouldn't be any problem with people taking drugs as 'pick me ups/put me downs' as a matter of choice rather than, say, as prescribed by busy Doctors on a mandate not necessarily of their own choosing.
This can be illustrated by an article from The Press, a Dewsbury newspaper, headlined 'OAP drug dealers' (2005?). it appears they were selling on their prescribed medication (which oft just made them into zombies) to the local junkies (who didn't mind 'zombing') and the situation only coming to light when the usual pharmacy break-ins stopped. The medication used in this manner alleged to be more deadly than even heroin.
People go to great lengths to get their kicks, so much that to some the journey and nature of it becomes part of the deal - been there, bought the t-shirt, hat, bumper sticker and badge . . . what a rebel. But no cause.

Behind the drugs 'issue' lies the notion that people are feckless no-hopers/addicts and intrusions into our private affairs are fairgame. Yet, often people from these quarters, pursuing these lines, prove to be hypocritical. David Cameron says that politicians ought to be able to have a (previously) private life. Shouldn't we all?

Surely people should have the freedom to choose their poison without the condemnation of others? Recreational drugs may form part of what we consider to be bad about society but that can be argued is largely due to their illegality. Then there's the guilt trip aspect of the west's decadence causing impoverishment and squalor in other countries. So the likes of Kate Moss, Robbie Wiliams and others are given a derisory snort for causing the plight of Colombians.

Perhaps if the stigma attached to drug use was dropped then better drugs could be developed for all walks of life - recreational, sport and medicinal and these fields having a reciprocating nature. Advanced pharmaceutical companies could then devote less time to maintaining patents and allow production of drugs generically and cheaper abroad where they are required.

60 year old Sylvester Stallone was recently busted for possessing 'a drug containing human growth hormone somatropin, said to help muscle mass, boost the immune system and hair growth', as reported in The Daily Star, 14th March. The Star also says 'the illegal substance is used by cheating sportsmen around the world'.
Given the often short length of career in sport, its injuries and stresses a case could be made or it being an ideal testing ground for drug development.
Perhaps better treatments could be developed through sport that benefit the elderly and infirm, alleviate some of the terrible, debilitating illness that blights the lives of many; a developing ground similar to Formula One racing for the humble family motor.

What of boldly going . . . astronauts, deep sea divers, etc face different pressures and conditions, their bodies stretched or compressed and requiring something a bit more potent than aspirin.

Many drugs and treatments have their origins or development on the battlefield. This in dealing with injury - rapid advances were made in plastic/cosmetic surgery due to the high level of facial injuries resulting from trench warfare. And armies throughout the ages have used and developed more than marching powders to gain that competitive edge.

Johan Hari writes (in Prospect) of the chronic global shortage of medicinal opiates and the particularly cruel irony of this in Afghan Hospitals. This in a country where impoverished farmers are encouraged to destroy poppies and adopt poor returning agricultural schemes promoted by an oppressive force.
Surely that's criminal?

It's truly sad that the battlefield provides an arena for development rather than elsewhere. If we developed a better view of humanity - one that didn't just shoehorn us into stereotype - then those 'hippy types' that huff n puff or others that see hedonism as the way or may be inspired to achieve in other areas . . . as well as choose their poison.