Imagine, if you will, the casualty department of a city centre hospital. Also imagine a badly fitted paving slab located immediately outside its entrance. Now visualize a steady stream of injured pedestrians, nursing bruised knees and gashed elbows, seeking treatment within - having failed to successfully negotiate the offending item of “road-ware”. Finally, try to get your mind around this - the manager of said casualty department, fed up with the situation, puts pen to paper, to write to his local Health Authority in despair. Bizarrely he ignores the paving slab and, instead, implores them to build him a new and larger casualty department - so that he may be better equipped to cope with the increased workload arising from a never-ending stream of injured pedestrians!

Sounds crazy doesn’t it? But unfortunately this analogy is not that wide of the mark! Let’s explain:

A couple of years ago it was reported in the Guardian newspaper that a well known environmentalist organisation, whom we’ll not mention to save them embarrassment, had written to the then prime minister, Tony Blair. The letter urged Blair to make dramatic changes to the Government’s house building plans, so as to avoid urban sprawl in Britain’s countryside. In addition the organisation concerned was also reported as requesting that the Government increase its stated target for development, on brownfield land, from 60% to 75%”.

To elaborate further, this leading environmentalist organisation wanted the Labour Government to increase building densities in London and the South East to at least 80 homes per hectare, from the present 30 to 50 �“ in order to “protect our countryside from the effects of urban sprawl”

We repeat �“ “to protect our countryside from the effects of urban sprawl!”

Here we have, in real life, the equivalent of the manager of our fictitious casualty department! No mention of the cause of the problem �“ you will note - just a request for more building to cope with the symptoms of the problem.

One would have imagined that a serious organisation claiming environmentalist credentials would be campaigning against the cause of the problem �“ not pussyfooting around tinkering with its effects.

One would also have imagined that a serious organisation claiming environmentalist credentials would be asking why the population of London and the South East region is rising so quickly?

As it is ludicrous to suggest that the organisation concerned is unaware that immigration is the prime cause of the overpopulation that’s wrecking the South East of England - in particular �“ then we must ask why it is that they are determined not to recognise the obvious link between immigration and overpopulation?

Can it really be that these so-called “mainstream” environmentalists are prepared to sacrifice our precious and irreplaceable environment on the altar of political correctness in furtherance of the worship of a false god, the idol known as multiculturalism?

Land & People says its time this idol was cast down, that the disciples of multiculturalism were exorcised from the environmentalist congregation, and that we campaigned for the protection of rural England from the ravages of immigration fuelled overpopulation. Amen to that.