The Russians were responsible for the attack on MH17, claimed the US within a very short time of the tragedy having occurred. On what did they base their claims? ‘Common sense’ and social media, it seems. Yet the initial and ensuing hype has been sufficient to chivy members of NATO into agreeing to a ‘spearhead’ force to respond rapidly to any situation which might occur. How easily could such a situation arise? Too easily, it seems. The controlled western media’s selective reports can lead to situations being blown out of proportion in no time at all. We recently experienced Reuters ‘mistranslation’ with regard to Russian troops in the Ukraine. The slip up and retraction did not exactly hit the headlines though.

How easy it is to edit footage and create an evil enemy. Take the scenes from the MH17 tragedy, for example. Any reasonable person would have been horrified to see the images of a teddy bear being held aloft as a ‘trophy’. What we did not see is what happened directly afterwards. The teddy was placed gently on the ground and the man in question doffed his hat:

We want those bastards to see whom they shot down,” the man said, “Do you see?” meaning that there were innocent children who died in the crash.

The news coverage of the attack on this aircraft, so obviously the work of the Russians, according to the US government has gone very quiet. Although western media representatives attended the press conference given in the Kremlin where many queries were raised: , reports of this did not appear in the western media, needless to say.

Patrick Henningsen, an investigative journalist, (and where do you find those in mainstream these days?) informs us of many points that western msm has not reported. He raises numerous queries, which leave the reader/listener to question who was really responsible for this tragic loss of life.

Would Obama be so quick to point fingers and pinpoint yet another enemy if the potential war was to take place on US soil? Would he not be very cautious about fomenting war if his family were to be in the front line? It is too easy to send strangers to engage in combat on foreign soil. If we do not start to question what is going on we could end up with WW3. It would not be the first time that countries have been led to war under false pretences.


This is getting really confusing. Assad was the bogey man who had to be unseated. Now the US may seek Assad’s co-operation to root out ISIS. But just a minute – it seems the US was considering arming ISIS at one point.

The rhetoric has changed again. What is going on?

It seems that the US is now dependent on wars to prop up the debt-based monetary system.

It would be preferable to leave the scary headlines to mainstream media but msm does not cover this topic so apologies for the apocalyptic headline on the above, which does not devalue the content btw.

Scrutiny of the US paranoid stance on so many diverse nations is essential if lives are to be spared. Taking things at face value and accepting the hype is exactly what we are supposed to do. Cognitive dissonance is not easy to deal with but wars have usually been initiated by hype so it is surely essential that we question what is going on. We got it so wrong with Iraq. Should we really accept the current ‘Feindbild’, whichever that might be, without question?


Free as thy sweet mountain air? No doubt some still believe this to be true. But those who are awake and alert will no doubt have a different view of things. The early blog posts give an insight into the extent of our forelock-grasping compliance. Legislation is ‘copied and pasted’ from the UK. Could this be linked to the high-level meetings between IOM and UK? If no formal minutes are kept, how would we know?

Leslie Hanson, a 2011 Keys candidate, asked: Who controls the Isle of Man?

Any suggestions? Mr Hanson now fears a UK takeover, according to today’s Independent. This seems a superfluous concern. Some would say it has happened already.

In detail:


tynwald hill

LAND of our birth,
O gem of God’s earth,
O Island so strong and so fair;
Built firm as Barool,
Thy throne of Home Rule
Makes us free as thy sweet mountain air

Those were the days! Home rule? What does this really mean? Precious little, I suspect. How do the Manx people feel about government and representation of their wishes? I would suggest that most of us simply wish to live our lives without major interference from those we employ to take care of the island.

We like to think that we have a say in the democratic process. What is democracy anyway? In practical terms it means that you could, theoretically, belong to 49% of the population of your sheading who did not elect your MHK. However, chosen or not, our MHK is there to represent us. Right? But how can our MHKs represent us if their first allegiance is to the monarch? This is the oath they take:

I, (name), do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithfull and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her heirs and successors. So help me, God.

And the second oath, which is administered:

Her Majesty’s Counsel, your fellows’ and your own, you shall not reveal; you shall use your best endeavours to maintain the ancient laws and customs of this Isle. You shall justly and truly deliver your opinion and do right in all matters which shall be put unto you without favour or affection, without affinity or consanguinity, love or fear, reward or gain, or for any hope thereof but in all things you shall deal uprightly and do wrong to no man. So help you God and by the contents of this book.

 ‘Her Majesty’s Counsel, your fellows’ and your own, you shall not reveal?’ Could someone please explain exactly what this means?

‘You shall use your best endeavours to maintain the ancient laws and customs of this Isle’  So this would exclude all those statutes introduced in the form of Maritime Law. otherwise known as Statute Law, one would assume. After all, we are told that Manx law is based on common law.

Indeed, what empowers the UK to have any say in what happens here? Can anyone refer to documents which explain this clearly and unambiguously?

‘You shall justly and truly deliver your opinion and do right in all matters which shall be put unto you without favour or affection, without affinity or consanguinity, love or fear, reward or gain, or for any hope thereof but in all things you shall deal uprightly and do wrong to no man. So help you God and by the contents of this book.’

No comment.

My question: Who do MHKs serve?

Your comments are welcome.







Time flies! It’s over three years since the first blog post. The intention at the time was to draw attention to the fact that a candidate’s manifesto has little to do with reality. What can a lone MHK achieve? Not a lot. The script is written and strings are pulled to ensure the agenda takes shape.

Little has changed in the past three years. With perhaps one exception. Mud slinging. Instead of responding to allegations made, it now seems the game is about deflecting the impact of criticism by pointing the finger at others, in a personal attack. This is neither becoming nor helpful. The public is interested only in the facts of the matter and above all we are keen to find out why our money is being thrown around with apparent gay abandon while ministers tersely tell us that financial sacrifices are essential.

While it is logical to assume that the agenda is mapped out by senior civil servants and advising officers, who may retain their positions throughout several administrations, it is not clear how the new brand of minister has emerged. Our present senior ministers seem accustomed to doing as they please consider best with our money and treating us with what appears to be little more than contempt. How dare we query government outgoings!

In the past Peter Karran has referred to IOM plc and the shareholders. This is not form of analogy. The Isle of Man is truly a corporation and as shareholders we should be consulted about our opinions of the present financial situation and those we employ.







Is it just me or does anyone else feel we are being taken to the cleaners? Over the years things seem to have gone from bad to worse. Public money is shelled out on schemes our government deems worthwhile, while members of the electorate query, protest and ultimately are totally ignored – or worse still responded to in a patronising manner by our head honcho. We are stupidly being distracted by backbencher games. We are unaware of the ‘plan’ and should not criticise. Now we, the silly old electorate, are unaware of the repercussions resulting from the ousting of Mr Shimmin – and it seems the department has been robbed of a highly competent member who is ensuring the island flourishes. If things go downhill now, well it is probably our fault as well.

How conveniently the MEA debt has been swept out of sight. A debt that can never be repaid. But a rigorous investigation ensuring those responsible would be held to account would be far too costly, we were told. Far too costly? Peanuts surely in comparison to the huge sum we will never pay off, with or without toilet tax.

Safe in the knowledge that the electorate simply accepted this statement the CM could be forgiven for believing that government has carte blanche to continue in the same manner. Hardly surprising then that there have been no attempts to introduce accountability into government spending, resulting in further waste of public money and questionable outgoings, with a lack of satisfactory paper trails.

A few examples: IRIS inadequacies and the response to the problems, addressed only after the guarantee period had lapsed. Bendy bus experiments costing six figure sums, I believe, although any layperson could have predicted that the introduction of this type of vehicle would not be feasible. The purchase of a new locomotive – although most of us are not sure why this was essential. The Pinewood ‘deal’ of which no one outside of the inner sanctum can fathom the intricacies of this ‘investment’. The consultants engaged by government under very opaque circumstances. The Sefton saga. The list goes on.

Do we hear apologies or even the suggestion that these things must be made more transparent? As if! Following the toilet tax, the present suggestion is that children pay for school buses. The children will not be paying it will be the parents, by the way. But why stop there? Why not introduce parking meters and really cripple local business? Let’s face it – for those in outlying districts it is simply easier and cheaper to order online than it is to travel to towns and pay parking fees, while also risking a fine if we should be criminal enough to overstay the allotted time.

Many are stating that the old guard will not be returned at the next election. Does anyone seriously think that will change things? We need to know who is pulling the strings because the next set of muppets puppets will fall in line just as easily as our present ‘yes men’ have.

Who is really pulling the strings?



No warming in seventeen years and nine months: yet the hysteria continues. Where is the logic here? Where is the conventional room for scientific debate? Amid threats, and even fear for his life, another scientist speaks out about IPCC pressure to adhere to the dogma or risk your future credibility in climate science circles. Professor Lennard Bengtsson has resigned from the Global Warming Policy Foundations advisory council stating:

I thought joining the organisation would provide a platform for me to bring more common sense into the global climate change debate.

‘I have been very concerned about tensions in the climate change community between activists and people who have questions.

This is not the first negative remark about the IPCC’s adherence to dogma, while it seemingly suppresses any evidence which contradicts the myth ( definition: a widely held but false belief or idea).

The scare stories continue. The 50,000,000 climate refugees forecast for 2010 thankfully did not materialise.  The predicted warming is simply not happening  – but why let facts stand in the way of a hugely profitable industry based on a dubious theory? However, the most curious part of all this is total lack of reference to the weather modification programmes which have been going on for decades. There exists  no global database on who is spraying what and where and hence no information on how this impacts the climate (if there is a climate issue). Yet the climate clowns continue the brainwashing and ensure that those who are out of step are simply not heard. There is no debate. If you question this topic you become a ‘denier’. What kind of science is that? Not very reliable science, I would suggest.

Where is the warming? Please explain how you build up a global movement based on a myth. Words like profit, control and jobs come to mind.





Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Please forgive us for our (measly) consumption of CO2. We will of course self-flagellate by way of plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 80% below the 1990 levels by 2050. Minister Gawne appears to ignore the fact that China and India may well increase CO2 production levels on a huge scale that puts them in a completely different league. In other words, our painful path to 80% CO2 reduction probably has very little effect on global statistics.

However, the really puzzling, yet noteworthy, omission in this morning’s Manx Radio soundbites is that the usual references to climate change (going back millennia ) contain not one reference to ongoing global geoengineering programmes and the effects these have on the weather – and climate. While DEFA continues to scourge us with the climate change/CO2 whip the department appears to prefer to withhold mention of a very pertinent factor in any climate change.

The fact is that man is changing the climate  – intentionally. This is not only a possibility, or a theory, it is a very real and documented fact. While DEFA appears to have attempted to avoid discussion of this topic in the past, it must now not only be acknowledged but should be accompanied by the admission that while this practice continues unabated, unrestricted and unmonitored by any global authority, it has also been responsible for droughts in some countries while others enjoyed the necessary rainfall. It does not seem unreasonable to suggest that some have suffered from drought while others have suffered from severe deluges. They tell us there are winners and losers in this game. But did they consult us about this? Did they obtain our consent? They spray and alter the weather accordingly and then omit to mention this when they resume the usual lashings of blame on the commuter, the traveller or the pensioner attempting to keep warm under whatever weather conditions have been imposed upon him.

The UK Met Office is certainly privy to what is going on. Is the public clued up? We are not only entitled to be informed it is the duty of those presently attempting to further restrict our life quality, by wielding the CO2 whip, to supply us with all available information and it is the duty of those responsible for weather manipulation to obtain our consent. Do you consent to this manipulation of global weather? And if, for instance, the bizarre snowfalls of 2013 were to be attributed  to weather manipulation, then who is to be held responsible – and by which means?

Is it really ok to harp on about CO2 production, while ignoring the very real and determined measures to alter weather and climate which are presently in use?

Met Office researchers have called for global oversight of the radical schemes after studies showed they could have huge and unintended impacts on some of the world’s most vulnerable people. ….The dangers arose in projects that cooled the planet unevenly. In some cases these caused devastating droughts across Africa; in others they increased rainfall in the region but left huge areas of Brazil parched.

And how are our environmental protectors affording us protection from the associated pollution?



Is the theory of man-made climate change a fanciful notion? This scary scenario is being sold to us from every imaginable source. Schoolchildren have been subjected to very graphic predictions of rising tides, causing unreasonable and unacceptable fear in some cases. Every weather event is now attributed to ‘climate change’. And the Isle of Man Government website has a brochure dedicated to predicted climate change related water shortage. Dream on!

However, man is definitely affecting weather, and hence climate, in devastating ways. Of that there is no doubt. Geooengineering projects are being carried out on a global scale. This is fact:

Strangely, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not appear to take this into consideration in their ‘models’. Instead the doom, gloom theorists prefer to put the blame on every one of us while ignoring the huge ongoing geoengineering programmes. Unsurprisingly, DEFA spokespersons concur with this theory. Those of us who do not are of course dubbed ‘climate change deniers.’ Would it be unkind or unfair to suggest that DEFA might require fewer personnel if CO2 were discovered to have little impact on things and that some might have a vested interest in perpetuating the theory?

While the innumerable, and to some extent unknown, (because there is no global database on who is spraying what) global geoengineering projects are undoubtedly affecting the weather it would seem that DARPA (Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency) and the US Navy have been tweaking the ionosphere, which can move the Jet Stream.

They can use [HAARP] to warm the upper atmosphere to lift it, to create domes [in the ionosphere]. …Once you’ve got the particulates via the chemtrails laid out in the sky, you can deposit heat in the atmosphere. And as you deposit it and warm the air you create a high pressure and if you continually pulse zone – grid by grid by grid, you can accentuate that high pressure that is in place and thereby diverting the jet stream north or south of that island of air.”

Scott Stevens former TV weather presenter.

How often have  exceptional weather events been attributed to Jet Stream displacement?

HAARP is to be decommissioned, but only because the US Military now has much more effective means of messing with the weather as disclosed in this video:

 Is the heavy aerial spraying an essential part of the new technology? It seems that some environmental agencies are working to discover what is going on. In the following video the speaker admits that the spraying is having a very negative on the planet.

It seems that our environmental agency has little interest in protecting the environment but huge interest in thrusting a theory down our throats. This is not acceptable.




Armed with the remote, the Pringles and the chilled drinks many television viewers seem unable to process or consider what they are being told. Why else would there have been no comment on the following detailed description of military aerial spraying and the resultant effect on satellite images of weather fronts?



Military aircraft are involved in the spraying of aluminium? Isn’t that the element implicated in Alzheimers and autism? Would this have an effect on the planet and forests and wildlife? Of course. Yet where are the protests from our environmental agencies? Yes, the footage does emanate from the US but with open skies policies and no monitoring of aircraft outside of a certain elevation, together with the fact that DEFA does not monitor air content apart from periodic tests of particle size, who knows what is in the air?

As the following BBC documentary shows, the British Government has previously adopted a very cavalier attitude towards the population and when the details of aerial spraying emerged we were told that the cadmium spray (yes, cadmium!) was harmless. Well, that will be fine then. Because we have an assurance from the British Government? References are made to the fact that this happened in the Cold War period. We discover that some police were in the know. Easily silenced under security regulations? How does this compare to today’s reaction to the supposed dire threat of terrorism ? (Just ignore the millions dying of cancer and other illnesses produced by pollution). It would also be very easy to silence those in the know.

If you care about your health and that of your family, why do you remain silent in face of substantial and mounting evidence that our air is being intentionally polluted? It is irrational and irresponsible to ignore what we are seeing and what we are being told.

PS This explains how little monitoring occurs.