Hurray for Maryanne Godboldo who recently received a Citizens Commission on Human Rights award for her bravery and utter conviction in following the path she knew to be right. Faced with forceful state intervention to remove her daughter from the family home in order that she be forcefully administered medication Maryanne continued her crusade to allow parents the right to decide what is best for their children.

Her opponent was the Therapeutic State, described by a leading psychiatrist as  

The marriage between government and psychiatry for social control…The therapeutic state uses force in the name of help

Every man, woman and child is entitled to the fundamental human rights set forth in this Mental Health Declaration of Human Rights, regardless of race, political ideology, religious, cultural or social beliefs. Given the fact that there are virtually no human or civil rights granted to those psychiatry deems mentally ill, that there are no medical or scientific tests to conclusively prove anyone is mentally ill, and that no guidelines exist to protect citizens from abuses being committed under the guise of mental health, thus allowing violations of their fundamental human rights, it is vital that the following rights be recognized and that all countries adopt this Declaration. A. The right to full informed consent, including:

  •  1. The scientific/medical test confirming any alleged diagnoses of psychiatric disorder and the right to refute any psychiatric diagnoses of mental “illness” that cannot be medically confirmed.
  •  2. Full disclosure of all documented risks of any proposed drug or mental “treatment.”
  • 3. The right to be informed of all available medical treatments which do not involve the administration of a psychiatric drug or treatment.
  • 4. The right to refuse any treatment the patient considers harmful. B. No person shall be forced to undergo any psychiatric or psychological treatment against his or her will.



Bread and Circuses

So it seems we still don’t know the answer to the real questions we needed to ask CoMin. We didn’t discover whether ministers can ignore UK/EU legislation. (We already know the answer to this, don’t we?). We also probably didn’t find out whether ministers fear litigation if they don’t follow the advisors’ recommendations. And the advisors’ details, interests and backgrounds were almost certainly not revealed either.

Why do Isle of Man Government ministers have such close relationships with UK government departments?

Amidst concern about matters that have a  immediate and negative effect on us such as nurseries and education the consultations are ignored. Bread and circuses.


Legislation comes from UK and ultimately EU

There’s a pattern to this, isn’t there? We note how we are tidying up some old ambiguous terminology in the Manx legal system and then discover that the Bill contains measures adopted elsewhere.  It is EU/UK legislation-friendly. How friendly is it towards the residents of the Isle of Man? Nothing new. We have it straight from the horse’s mouth that we copy and paste legislation from the UK. Where does most of the UK legislation emanate from? The EU. After all the UK is harmonising with the EU in the same way that we are harmonising with the UK’s laws. In other words – we seem to be adopting EU legislation.

Who are the bigwigs with no roof over their heads?

Another Bill presently in the consultation stage is Planning and the Economy. We have been provided with a rather vague statement with regard to interpretation of this Bill. It has been impressed upon us that times are hard and that we cannot let planning controls stand in the way of business development. It has also been suggested that we cannot attract a certain calibre of investor if we don’t allow them more freedom to build large houses. A dicky bird told me that there is no longstanding demand for enormous houses on the island. The estate agents are not turning away droves of billionaire homeless. Is it perhaps a case of one or two particular people who won’t move here until things change? Just a thought.

Straight steal from the UK? Nimbyism optional?

Anyway, the message is that we must abandon our planning preciousness and permit development in places others can’t reach. Guess what? There is nothing new under the sun:

The Guardian revelations leave the chancellor, George Osborne, and Eric Pickles and his ministers in the Department for Communities and Local Government accused of “breathtaking hypocrisy” for saying major changes to planning laws are vital to boost economic growth and ease the shortage of homes, while fighting such developments in their own backyards.

There you go. Same old. And same old nimbyism to boot. To an average voter it appears that we copy and paste Westminster legislation for all we’re worth. Do we have a choice? What do you think?


Legislation and increasing controls

It all appears to come back to the same issues: UK legislation being slavishly copied, the politburo ptb becoming less and less accountable (EU legislation, remember?), and a very low crime rate jurisdiction ratcheting up security and surveillance to paranoid levels. And some see nothing wrong? Well, as it happens more and more people feel that there is a charade going on but many feel disempowered. If we feel disempowered now – wait till these measures really take effect!

A few more examples:

  • Today’s Examiner confirms that we have the lowest crime rate in thirty years.
  • Yet we “need” an overhaul of criminal justice procedures
  • Possibility of Smart phones issued to Manx police (Cui Bono?)
  • Yet lack of funding for basic educational needs
  • Yet half a million spent on pupil parent database last year
  • Running costs of £40,000 p.a. of above database and monitoring
  • Road users frequent casualties in comparison to –
  • A fortune spent on arguably unnecessary security measures

Spending squillions on OTT security

It all comes down to balance and being reasonable. Do we check all vehicles every time we use the road? Do we check all pedestrians for signs of sight problems, dementia etc.? No. We accept  our limits. We take a very genuine risk every time we use the road. Yet we can’t venture into an aircraft without removing shoes, belts, jackets and having our personal belongings scrutinised and then we could even end up being groped. These procedures do appear to condition some of us into accepting intrusive controls. Especially when these controls involve the  mandatory installation of expensive equipment.  Yet it seems security compliant passengers  curiously have no qualms about using the road on a daily basis. How many potential terrorists have been apprehended? Zilch?


Island nation now police state following legislation “tidy up”?

Money and profits – and control. What happens if we do nothing about this Bill? It’s being portrayed as essential tidying up of legislation. Well we have an example of another island nation that seems to have let security legislation get out of control. Islands of sheep rearers. A place that rarely hit the news. Not really a high crime rate jurisdiction. Yet it has also recently had legislation tidied up:

New Zealand = police state


Further information that has been passed to me states that under EU rules corporations set up under them have immunity from prosecution. Everyone working for the EU is unaccountable.  How scary is that? Corporations, councils etc are to be unaccountable to anyone? Is that really the plan? If so it would explain why it is necessary to interpret the meaning of person.

However, if we are also able to clarify that the real living person is accused and not a corporation (which may be unaccountable?) then it would seem that this could impact on the claims made by Freemen that a person is a corporation and not a living human being. 

Comments welcome.


Ok. Some have stated that the Bill (previous posts) is simply another statute and therefore of little consequence. I’m no expert. I don’t know and can’t advise. However, the following citation concerns me:

Secondly, if, in a particular case, “person” is to include unincorporated bodies, the issue of who to be prosecuted and who is to bear any penalty will need to be spelt out so the responsible individuals are clearly identified.

 The question is whether this would automatically include a freeman who might previously have stated that he is not a person. If this Bill allows for the person to be identified as an unicorporated body then this could perhaps affect those who have referred to this apparent ambiguity in the past.

My opinion (permitted under the Human Rights Act remember?) is that this part of the Bill is aimed at Freemen and the person = corporation. I can’t be sure of course but who can? We need to take a closer and well-informed look at what is being proposed.


Look, I don’t know what the implications of this Bill are. I’m a layperson – as are most others. Many parts seem to include perfectly reasonable statements and clarifications. There may well be ambiguities and grey areas in the law as it stands which require attention and clarification. However, there are references to other documents and we hear mention of the EU, the UK, the UK Justice Department, Human Rights and so on.

Previously of seemingly insufficient consequence to demand  interpretation  –  why has it been introduced at this point? To me it seems as if we are tidying things up so that they dovetail into international laws. Just an opinion. But you know what they say about what is in the detail. It makes sense to request an explanation of this document. Yes, it could be argued that the judiciary has no problem with the presentation. However, laws affect us and  so we need to know what it’s all about as well. Should we have queries at a later stage we could well be told that there was a consultation period. We had our chance to register concerns.

The definition of interpret is to explain the meaning of something. But it can also be defined as: to construe or understand in a particular way: to interpret a reply as favorable.

The Interpretation Bill and Legislation Consultation is simply not clear to me. How about you? As always – please leave comments if you can assist.

You can also leave comments on the consultations site:


This part of the consultation document (pervious post) refers to the “person”. Freemen and those who are familiar with Common Law and Statute Law differences will want to check this out:

At common law, an unincorporated body of persons has no separate legal existence apart from the members of which it is composed Investigations by the drafting division revealed differences in the Island’s Statute Book in the reliance on the 1976 Act definition. Most Acts refer to “person”, but few specifically mention unincorporated bodies.

Get reading guys. We need to help each other.


Division 6 (clause 93) has a provision facilitating statutory powers to inspect a document or information kept on a computer. A person with access to the computer and who is required under the power to produce, or help to produce, such a document or information has a duty to reproduce it from the computer in a form that can be understood and to allow the computer’s operation to be checked.

The above is a proposal in a current government consultation issued by the Attorney General’s office. (page 5)

No, I don’t know what the present situation is but a 132 page document needs closer examination. Please check it out.