So did someone move the goalposts?

Today’s Question Time programme, where Ramsey Candidates Alan Bell, Anne Craine and Leonard Singer answered questions from the public, on Manx Radio reinforced my concerns that most members of the electorate are blissfully unaware of the real issues. The fact that we do not appear to be in control of our legislative system was not touched upon – nor did any of the panel mention this issue. So it must be a non-issue? I believe this matter to be of major importance and it seems that the electorate is, in the most part, simply unaware of the issue. What would happen if this matter became well-known? I refer again to previous posts:

The present voter apathy, and the mistaken belief that our general election is about issues such as nuisance parking and dog fouling, might well change immediately if the electorate were informed of these issues concerning our sovereignty – as the information is in the public domain why does the local media not cover it?

Did you know that there really is such a thing as an alternative reality? Well, it’s incontrovertible because that is where many (not all) of the electorate live. Now and again they look up from their busy lives of ferrying children, working 9 to 5, working out and chilling with friends, to discover that there is an issue with VAT which could mean cuts. Oh well, there’s not much to be done about it anyway. What happened in Eastenders last night? The old bread and circuses trick? Keeping us happy with entertainment to distract us from the real issues? Were voters to become aware of the fact that we are adopting unnecessary UK legislation, which in turn has emanated from the EU, and which is costly and restrictive, things could change dramatically.

If we could become privy to a real breakdown of government expenditure and discover where the suggestions for new statutes have come from and exactly what the cost of these has been, both in Tynwald time and implementation, things might be clearer. Cutting services is always the first thought when economies are demanded, yet how much does our present lack of legislative control cost us? We are paying to be kept under surveillance in every area of our lives. Why? We really don’t need all this. Not one of the candidates mentioned these things last time round – because they weren’t planned. Yet how much time is taken up with these issues? Phenomenal amounts, it seems. Chris Robertshaw refers to the “sheer volume” of draft legislation, hugely complicated draft bills and casts doubt on the necessity of this legislation. Why? Why are we adopting legislation emanating fromBrussels? Why does no-one mention this and why did most members go along with this last time without a squeak? Don’t you think it demands inquiry? 

Could it be that someone moved the goalposts without telling us and therefore there is nothing that can be done? That is the only reasonable conclusion that I can come to. If secretive meetings are held at high levels (these were revealed as a result of investigation) then what else can be done in private, without our knowledge? 

Readers, I know you are awake. Please awaken others. Pass on the links. None of the references in the blogposts has been invented. They’re for real. If our MHKs, with one or two exceptions, are not being open about this then we need to take action. We must take action. More to follow…….


Great minds……?

 Prof. Hugh Davidson and Liberal Vannin are presently conducting surveys to gain an insight into the electorate’s views on a number of topics. This is a new angle and it is important to find out what islanders think about our present situation and how they view our future. Has anyone ever asked us before? It’s also a good move for Liberal Vannin who can steer their manifesto in a vote-winning direction. There is nothing wrong with addressing concerns and representing the people. That would really make a change. It’s also pleasing to hear that both Hugh Davidson and Liberal Vannin are co-operating and sharing data and it will be interesting to hear the results at some point. Representing the people is what it’s all about and I have no gripes about that.

However, my prime concern is that if our MHKs continue to adopt unnecessary and controlling UK legislation at the present rate we may have little scope to paddle our own canoe in any case. To put it plainly: Legislation and draft legislation that we have been exposed or subjected to over the last five years seems to have been almost totally UK based. It is frequently unsuited to our needs as well as being overly-controlling and usually contains additional and more stringent clauses than were contained in the original. And if the legislation doesn’t slip through then it seems the working practices can do just that. We have just seen how new working practices (requested by whom?) have cost us half a million. These practices appear to be based on the Every Child Matters philosophy. This was rejected by the public but no probs – call it “New working practices” and slip it in the side door – without public consultation. We just pay for it!

This situation can’t be ignored any longer. What on earth is going on? We know about the secret meetings between the UK Department of Justice and “counterparts” from the IOM Government and we have been told of the introduction of draft legislation which follows. We also know that our MHKs are inundated with legislation and that there is often a looming deadline making it difficult to thoroughly scrutinise bills. It seems that there is an effort from someone, somewhere to impose restrictive, Orwellian-style statutes on the people of the Isle of Man. We also know that the legislation is “copied and pasted” from UK legislation. So who wants us to adopt it and why? Furthermore, who inserts the additional, more restrictive clauses and why? This cannot be coincidencal when these actions are constantly being repeated. There is something we need to get to the bottom of and that is surely of utmost importance. If legislation is being adopted in haste who knows what might slip through? Before we can achieve our aims to improve our situation we must get our house in order and find out what exactly is going on. If we are not requesting the legislation and if there is no obvious necessity for it why in is it being introduced? The above procedures not only place us at risk of losing our freedoms – without our knowledge – they also cost money, as we have recently discovered.

New statutes require administrators, paperwork etc etc. How much could we save if we removed unnecessary statutes in place and ensured that the introduction of any new laws is restricted to those essential to our needs? Since the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty EU law overrides Westminster. I can understand that the UK would prefer us to adopt the same legislation. However, we have been told that we are not members of the EU and that Protocol 3 allows us to trade without becoming further involved with EU matters. Did someone forget to inform us of a change in our situation? This is really a matter of major importance and it demands an answer.

Mr Andrew Newington-Bridges, a candidate for Ayre, highlights some of the above in his letter to the electorate:  It is difficult to understand why MHKs who have been confronted with this situation for the last five years have not raised the issues. As far as I’m aware Chris Robertshaw MHK is the only member to have raised the point. (If that statement should be incorrect then please leave a comment). As a member of the electorate I find that perplexing. Can’t anyone else see what’s going on? Our first move has to be taking steps to ensure we gain control of our legal processes. I would suggest that our priority is to sort out what is happening and ensure that the present situation changes because if we are not in control (and can anyone honestly claim that we are?) then we have few options.

Children need informed parents who have a voice

The control element in our daily lives is pervasive. The area of child care is, however, particularly prone to interference. Take vaccinations for example, pressure is applied to parents to ensure they vaccinate their children. Yet are we really well-informed of the safety of the vaccines? We are assured by health authorities, governments etc that vaccinations are completely safe and that responsible parents ensure their children are vaccinated. It’s a rare parent who feels at liberty to ignore the pressure to have her child vaccinated prior to school entry. It’s not easy to go against the mainstream but we know that mainstream is influenced and manipulated by huge corporations.

Dr Andrew Wakefield’s removal from the medical register was top news item on the BBC at the time. The report, so one-sided and so damning of Dr Wakefield’s actions, made it blatantly obvious that the public was being given another dose of BBC brain-washing. There is another side to the issue which of course mainstream has not reported but thanks to alternative media Dr Wakefield still has a voice and in this most recent interview he explains how concerned parents brought his attention to autism and multiple vaccinations. He goes on to explain that at the same time MMR vaccinations were being introduced to the UK they were being banned in Canada because of side-effects. A particular mumps strain contained in the vaccine was causing meningitis. Could it be that the British government was so determined to introduce the vaccine because the manufacturer, Smith Kline Beecham was home-grown? The vaccines had to be discontinued because of the same result in the UK. However, the vaccines weren’t destroyed, instead they were sent to Brazil where an outbreak of meningitis also occurred. The most astonishing revelation is that the result of this was that guidelines now state that mass vaccinations are not advisable because it reveals the true adverse reaction rate.

Dr Wakefield was vilified by the GMC but only one side of the issue was given any publicity. He tells us that all he refers to is accessible in written form. The issue seems to be that those with vested interests assure doctors of the importance of vaccination. While it might be a leap of faith to question accepted sources it is essential if we are to protect our children. Vaccinations spell big money for unscrupulous pharmaceutical companies – that is the bottom line. Dr Wakefield advises parents to do their own research and act as informed parents. Mainstream media uses “accepted sources” without question. We know that accepted sources must be queried.

Locals who question the mainstream viewpoint have felt the necessity to meet in secret to gain further information. Is this really a free and open society we live in? If you don’t toe the mainstream line how much freedom do you have?

The health authorities insist that vaccination is essential. There is no mention of side-effects. Parents with questioning minds and some sense of sovereignty may well feel that the choice should be left to them. Vaccination should remain the parents’ choice. Children are being sucked into the system at a very early age. It seems that parents feel that government has an overriding right to control child care as it sees fit. Are we then saying that our children belong to the state? Do they? Our children need our protection. That means having a voice and using it.

Opinion not required – maverick operatives at large?

Did anyone request the aforementioned working procedures? (Previous post)Was there a general consensus that we were sadly lacking in child protection working practices? Has there been an outcry in the media about the cases that were ignored? What exactly prompted the half million pound change to the system? It certainly wasn’t measured open and public debate. Once again it seems to have happened in opaque and murky fashion. We discover that half a million pounds is required to support a new working system that no-one seems to have requested. Is this democracy? Could it be that “they” decide that we need further controls and we can pay for them. Isn’t it about time that we made it clear that their duty as servants of the public is to represent us and not control us?

The most intriguing part of this is why we would look to the UK in the first place. It hardly has the best record in dealing with child abuse. There have been some very prominent cases of apparent lack of competence in dealing with cases in the UK over the past few years. In any case, excessive interference from the state infers that “they” know better and that we must place our trust in them and submit to whatever controls they impose. This is ridiculous. As previously mentioned we have had paedophiles in the education system despite police-checks. How can we be sure that the system is free of them now? Being “protected” has not always been successful here either. The care authorities were unable to protect vulnerable juveniles in the past. However, we are supposed to forget these issues and blindly accept the claims of those in the department that they know best.

Of course some children need protection. The problem is that we are unaware of what goes on in the department. We are presented with a fait accompli which has only become known because of the department’s demands for funds to cover it. Had the funding not been an issue we would presumably know nothing about the drastic changes which have been introduced. Why did we hear nothing from those involved at all levels? Was there a real element of secrecy involved? (Please do leave comments if you have insight into this matter).

The point is that we are being controlled and governed – not represented. We elect public servants to represent us and they suddenly assume control. It’s as if achieving the most votes bestows immediate expertise on the candidate.   Quite remarkable, don’t you think? In reality these people are no different than before. What gives them the right to introduce more and more controls in the form of statutes? Above all, who is really in control of the Isle of Man? I’m certain it’s not our MHKs.

Apathy is rife and many feel disempowered. Why? We give the MHKs their power by giving them our votes. Many complain about the last government and its inadequacies yet few feel able to change things. We do have the power but it means taking action and making our views known. Suggestions on how to achieve this to follow……

Yet another case of adopting UK measures. Without consent

A letter in The Examiner refers to Martyn Quayle’s recent request for half a million pounds for children and family social workers. I’m grateful to the writer who seems to have researched the subject pretty thoroughly. We learn that over 2,200 people have been trained in the new procedures in the last year. This translates into approximately one adult for every seven children. As usual we have gone a step further. It seems that the rule which applies is stated in bold type: The rule must always be “If in doubt refer to social services” whereas the UK works to the rule of “If in doubt – seek advice”. Quite obviously, many of these thousands of participants in the scheme will be in fear of repercussions if they should miss a genuine case. It seems reasonable to assume that there is a heavy element of over-reporting as a result of this which would explain why the number of children on the protection plan has almost doubled over the last year. It also seems reasonable to assume that this volume of unnecessary work is hindering rather than helping matters.

No-one is suggesting that children shouldn’t be protected when it is necessary. However, there is an unhealthy obsession with this subject within the UK and it has now spread to our shores. If a job description implies dealing with children in any way at all it becomes necessary for applicants to undergo a police-check. An author cancelled his proposed readings at UK schools because he refused to be treated as a criminal and undergo a police check in order to read to children. He has a point. Are the clergy police-checked? Not that police-checks have been so successful anyway. Fairly recent cases of paedophilia were perpetrated by some within the system – those who must have been police-checked in order to obtain their positions and who now would be helping to administer the new guidelines had they not been brought before court.

Other countries are not so convinced that the public are all potential child abusers. There is still an amount of common sense in use. I’m not aware that the British obsession with this topic has led to our being world leaders in prevention of this disgusting crime. This culture of fixation about paedophilia and child abuse is simply another example of control and costly and inappropriate  measures. While it is desirable to do all we can to prevent these crimes happening we also have to draw the line and know when we are verging on paranoia, unhealthy obsession and totalitarian control.

Although the Every Child Matters framework was officially rejected it seems we have introduced the practices through the side door as this appears to be the principle under which staff are working. Didn’t Mr Quayle get the message? What part of We don’t want excessive and unnecessary intrusion in our lives doesn’t he understand? This sytem is OTT and expensive. Of course we want children to be protected but frankly the system doesn’t seem to work so well anyway which is perhaps why the UK has now revised the guidelines. 

This is insanity. Control, control and more control – we seem to love it, especially if the procedures emanated in the UK. Do we ever look further afield? We see the familiar elements in this case: We reject it and we get it anyway. If it’s of UK origin it’s a cert that we’ll go for it. Costly? Excessive? More stringent clauses entered? Who cares as long as we do what the UK does – and more. Same old same old. There are alternatives to this appalling system of kowtowing to the UK.

We have the power.

Fleeing a sinking ship? Change for the better?

Alan Bell tells us that the next Chief Minister will probably be very unpopular. We note that our present Chief Minister is leaving politics! (Mr Bell hasn’t declared yet either). There will be tough matters to be dealt with and the chosen methods of dealing with these won’t be popular. However, Mr. Bell adds that we will come out of the next five years in a much stronger position. I would agree that we have to start doing things differently.

Just how differently are we going to do things? My priority would be to stop automatically adopting alien legislation. It is just that – alien. The content of some draft bills that have been presented by the last government demonstrate this point. We are simply not the UK and we have different issues and needs. As we are talking statutes (these are not laws!) and Maritime Law – the result is more control.

Now just supposing one of our learned members decided that from now on we should adopt all legislation emanating from another jurisdiction such as Italy or China or Singapore that would seem ridiculous because our needs are very different. The same applies to imported legislation from the UK. It has little relevance to us but it seems we import it anyway if given half the chance. Controls, legislation, different working practices all cost money. We have evidence of that: Martyn Quayle has just requested half a million pounds so that we are able to keep up with new working practices – adopted from guess where – in the social care area. These particular new practices were really brought in the side door. How opaque is that?  

The measures in imported legislation (note  – legislation, not laws) are frequently inappropriate and costly yet we pursue the same direction without question. Why? How much does this practice cost us? How much could we save if we legislated for our needs alone? Who cares about the globalists? Charity begins at home and we need to focus on our needs – which would include our trade with other countries but wouldn’t be inclusive of globalist garbage legislation. China trades with everyone and what kind of human rights record do they have? Does anyone ask if they have a freedom of information act before they trade with them? Apologies – I chose a poor example 😉

Big is better? Might is right?  Has the EU really helped Greece and Ireland– and Spain, which now has 20% unemployment? The Irish were pressurised into ratifying the Lisbon Treaty by the threat of the dire circumstances that would result from not doing so. So much for that little porky. These guys don’t have the answers. They simply don’t. It’s blatantly obvious and yet everyone goes along with it.

The EU demands enormous sums of money from the UK and other countries yet they haven’t found an accountant who would sign off their accounts for over thirteen years. If that was a company they would be finished. The farce continues because the corruption is accepted.

We are adopting UK statutes and the EU now overrides Westminster since the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty. What does that tell you? We are adopting EU legislation. Why? It has to stop. It simply lines the pockets of others with little benefit for us. When jobs becomes scarce and energy prices soar and carbon tax takes a hold there will be loud protests and even the Manx may demonstrate on the streets a la Greece, Ireland and Spain.

Things could get nasty. But they don’t have to. We could reject the present system corruption and all (remember the MPs expenses, the EU accounts?) and look into creating our own Common Law-based system now. I have a lot to learn about this. I’m no expert but then again do we have experts in charge at the moment? What’s wrong with listening to what others have to say and then making up our minds? Electorate apathy is a major stumbling block in this election but many will wake up if things go downhill and they won’t be happy!

Things can improve. There will be a period of transition which might not be easy – but no pain no gain. One thing is for sure the present system isn’t working. The US is beginning to look like the next defaulter. Hold on to your hats and don’t expect Obama, Cameron or anyone else to help you. We have to look after our own.

‘We can govern ourselves’

Having looked at the rationale for lawful rebellion in the previous post it’s worth taking a look at Roger Hayes’ view of how we can go about improving our situation. The crucial issue, we have been told, is that Common Law is for our protection, Maritime Law is to control us and place restrictions on us – the restrictions are frequently associated with taxation. It would seem that our aim must be to ensure that Common Law is observed. After all our government tells us that the Isle of Man is a Common Law jurisdiction: 

The Isle of Man is a ‘Common Law’ jurisdiction

The basis of Manx law is Manx customary law, itself derived from a combination of Gaelic Brehon law and Norse Udall law, both of which have been very heavily influenced by English Common Law over the centuries. Equity, as it developed in the English courts, has been applied identically in theIsle of Mansince the 17th Century. With a few exceptions, notably in land law and constitutional law, theIsle of Manclosely follows English legal precedents and legislation


If Common Law is not being observed what can we do? Roger Hayes believes that we can govern ourselves. He explains that this is not about removing or overthrowing the system, it is about devising a fairer system that we can choose to join. This would include banking and law and order. Impossible? It seems that some police are keen to learn more.

It’s worth learning more.

We have the power.

Roger Hayes will be appearing along with Brian Gerrish, Mike Robinson and John Hurst (an ex-policeman) on 3rd September at the Legion Club.


The red pill

The following are examples of how the differences between Common Law and Maritime Law have been interpreted by some. Freemen are learning more and more about the system. However, any details posted on this site with regard to freemen and their interpretation of the law are purely for your entertainment and should not be viewed as a recommendation from me (Manxasthehills2011). These things are not straightforward and study is essential. I urge you to refrain from taking action on the basis of what you read below.

Don’t take anyone’s word for anything – research. All I can say is that if you read the following it may lead you to question everything.

For a very brief introduction:

160 page PDF document:

If politicians don’t protect us we must protect ourselves

The Wikileaks report (video below) tells us that the US government is attempting to aggressively impose genetically modified foods on European markets. This in itself must be of concern. The US is manipulating on behalf of Monsanto. That’s bad enough but the really worrying fact is that the French ambassador reported that France was not being compliant (as if the French would be) and therefore he recommended applying retaliation in order to effect a change of stance on GM.

Country team Paris recommends we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits.

The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term since we should not expect an early victory.

Craig Stapleton 14th December 2007

We also learn that a British advocate of GM was granted £3 million to test for safety. He was stunned to find that the seeds are inherently unsafe, causing massive damage to the immune system, the reproductive system etc. He lost the funding and was shunned.

The present proposition within the EU is that individual countries will be able to choose whether or not to go GM. I have a gut feeling that France and Germany will say non and nein respectively and the UK will say ‘ How much do you want us to buy from you?’  In fact I wouldn’t mind betting that this is already a topic at DEFA IOM.

America, the well-known home of healthy cuisine and natural food (not), can’t impose it’s Frankenfoods on us by normal means so they adopt dirty methods? The French will have none of this but the Brits will almost certainly buy into the junk science. The Isle of Man does not have to follow – as far as we know (I’m seriously beginning to doubt our autonomy). Farmers and growers have the final say. They have the power.

We have the power

It’s good to see that local farmers are taking the initiative and plan to build their own animal processing plant. That is the spirit we need to if we are to combat increasing controls and globalisation which ultimately present only problems. We are being conditioned to accept control and relinquish individual effort. Unfortunately, this is the road to failure. The more centralised control the less efficient things are. 

Farming is of very real importance to us at the moment. Globalists tell us that we need GM seeds. They would have us believe that GM seeds are resistant to so many diseases and pests and that they are the answer to our problems. However, we are not told that there is a lackof conclusive proof of safety (on the contrary), that the introduction of GM seeds would effectively prevent traditional and organic farmers from continuing the use of their methods and that yield is not that good.

Putting the world’s food production in the hands of unscrupulous pharmaceutical companies is surely the worst thing we could do. We hear reports of how GM agriculture reduces the variety of seeds available, it introduces many controls such as the fact that seeds must be bought every year. Farmers report that seeds can travel several hundred miles. Some farmers have found themselves in court because seed has fallen on their land  and Monsanto closely controls the customers. Farmers report that the first few years’ production appear cheap and economical then the price increases and alternatives are not available. Many are trapped into Monsanto control.

Should farmers be the victim of court action because of stray seeds or animals becoming sick after eating GM plants they don’t need to look to Monsanto for help. Monsanto makes sure they absolve themselves of any blame before they sell the seeds: IN NO EVENT SHALL MONSANTO OR ANY SELLER BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

G Edward Griffin explains that if farmers refuse to buy Monsanto’s Frankenfoods they can end the immense and inappropriate power of these companies. Farmers have the power.

GM is now being aggressively marketed in Europe. What comes to Europe comes to the UK and ultimately to the Isle of Man – if we let it. As a small island it would make sense to retain our traditional agriculture. If GM were introduced it would spell the end of traditional agriculture and organic food production. In a society where minorities are so protected it would surely be grossly unfair to introduce farming methods which would effectively terminate other forms of production. We all have rights. Unfortunately, in the present situation it seems that only certain minorities have rights, unless of course we make our feelings known – now.

Once a new minister has taken ownership of the latest bill copied and pasted from the UK proposing the introduction of GM seeds it becomes more challenging. If this is something that concerns you it might be worth asking your candidates for their opinions of GM.

Wikileaks revealed how the US (not exactly renowned for healthy food) is determined to bring GM to Europe by fair means or foul. Farmers  – you have the power.  Is GM agriculture responsible for bee deaths?