We are told that Protocol 3 is essential if we are to trade with the EU. However, the following demonstrates that neither EU membership nor a general trading agreement are necessary in order to successfully sell wares and services to our European neighbours:

Switzerland, which isn’t in the EEA but instead relies on a series of sectoral free trade deals, sells four-and-a-half times as much. So much for the risible notion that three million British jobs ‘depend on the EU’. (I write this with conviction, as one of the tiny handful of Britons whose job genuinely does depend on the EU: no one looks forward more eagerly to his redundancy.)


As an MEP, Daniel Hannan, should know what he’s talking about.

The most disturbing part of the EU/IOM relationship is the fact that we appear to be absorbing EU legislation which has been adopted by the UK and tweaked a little before being introduced to the Isle of Man. A contact in the UK tells me that investigation has shown that the UK is in a similar position. Unnecessary legislation is constantly being introduced and that comparison has revealed that it is in fact EU legislation.

We all know that we are harmonising legislation with the UK – so where are these inappropriate statutes coming from? It would appear that the trail points to the EU.

So we claim to be an independent nation while at the same time we are tied up in trading agreements which other countries do not require. Furthermore, we appear to be adopting EU legislation, like it or not. We can only guess at the costs we incur in time and admin expenses!

Why are we doing this? Well, we all know that the signatories of the Lisbon Treaty effectively sold their people and their sovereignty down the river. The question is: Are we really not included in the Lisbon Treaty, or did our dear old Big Brother UK somehow include us in things? Can you think of any other reason for our legislators’ compliance?

Why are we habitually opposing the introduction of stringent legislation which no-one requested and which apparently is inappropriate and unnecessary? Who keeps foisting it on us and why? Are they following a script?

If anyone can suggest other plausible reasons please leave a comment.



Irish Court Rules Against Mothers Right To Refuse Vaccination


A young mother, Clare O Sullivan from Waterford, Eire, who has refused consent for her young five year old son to be vaccinated was before the high court on the 18th of June 2012 in Dublin.

Article | June 27, 2012 – 11:51am

She was there to seek an injunction on an order from her local district court taken by the father of her child.

Ms O Sullivan, who was main organiser of the Awaken Ireland event in Waterford earlier this month, travelled in the early hours of the morning to Dublin from Waterford in an effort to seek an injunction on the order made by the district court. By the afternoon, in a private sitting, Clare invoked Article 41.1.1 of the Irish Constitution in the original direct literal translation:

The State acknowledges that the family is the basic primary group-unit of/for society according to nature, and that it is a moral institution which has inalienable invincible rights which are more ancient and higher than any human statute.

However, the judge refused to accept the invocation of the article 41.1.1 of constitution and refused an injunction on the previous order.

This is clearly not only a violation of Ms O’Sullivan rights as a mother, but also a violation of the Irish Constitution itself.

Ms O Sullivan stated:

these vaccinations are NOT  mandatory in the Republic of Ireland. All parents are given a consent form to sign in a consent or ‘I do not consent section’. I chose not to consent, I feel that I am acting in the best interests of my child and my decision is to protect him. I have every right to make this decision as the primary carer, natural mother, sole custodian and legal guardian of my son.

Alarmingly this is the second time in a week that the members of the BAR (British Accredited Registry) have refused to recognise the Constitution of Ireland. Last Friday Ben Gilroy invoked Article 40 Habeas Corpus in the High Courts in Dublin, which was passed between seven high court judges and completely ignored.




A Slippery Slope

Look, we have looked at the Icelandic Economic Model, & this

Irish plan is far better. The Icelandics have it all wrong and they

are heading down a slippery slope. What they have done is all

well and good as a short term solution, but won’t facilitate the

Irish State in their proliferation of their continued Pillage of the

People of this Island.


The Icelandic People will regret what they’ve done:

They have kicked out the EU, the IMF and the One World Bank.

They have paid off ALL of the Alleged & Apparent National Debt.

They have recovered their Economy and are trading internationally.

They have Prosecuted & Imprisoned Bankers, Politicians & Civil Servants.

They have reclaimed their Fishing Rights and ALL of their Natural Resources.

They have precluded Oligarchs and Corporations from Persecuting their People.


“Down with that sort of thing”

Manxasthehills: Thanks to Des Carty of the Common Law Society for the above. Well said.


“The island should be prepared to stand up for itself and should be ready to become independent if it were necessary …”

“I hope that the constitutional relationship with the UK will continue. But if it becomes plain that our interests in fact lie in being independent it doesn’t seem to be that we should bury our head in the sand and say we’re not going to do that.”

Could this be a sign of hope for us all? As if! It is Jersey that is discussing the break with the UK. Do you really think our politicians whom we elected to carry out our wishes would be considering that? They know that what we really want is to risk multi millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on struggling businesses. It must be what we wanted, because that is what they are doing.


Anyway, it seems that Jersey is not happy with the UK and residents feel it is not acting in the interests of the island. Where have we heard that before? The question is: Why don’t we join forces? It is obvious that we are dealing with the same issues. Working together sounds like a much better plan.

Btw. the following link demonstrates exactly why we should be very careful about giving the police more powers:



There was an excellent turnout at the PAG meeting. Questions from the public were, almost without exception, based on the same issue: Demonstrate why these proposals are necessary. Unfortunately, I did not have the impression that the question was answered. Watterson waffled (IMO). Top marks for evading the question. That shows he’s made of true politician stuff.

We were told that it was about – guess what – protection! The trigger word for apoplexy as far as I’m concerned. While our wellbeing is almost certainly  threatened by £24,000,000 investments in doldrum businesses we shouldn’t worry too much about that. Instead think of our many arsonists, murderers and rapists who could be apprehended much more easily if the measures proposed in the Bill go through. Wow – that’s a relief. I thought we might be more threatened by poverty and cuts in basic services but it just goes to show how little we know about criminal matters on the island. After all, our members were told not to question the Pinewood investment – just vote. No issues there then. No, we really need to focus on hypothetical juvenile crime – and of course on those who look as if they might be about to commit an offence.

This puts so many things in a completely new light. Your neighbour who practises the French horn can now safely be apprehended before any sound is emitted – before the assault on the eardrums occurs. Your nearest and dearest could even be prevented from grasping the remote in order to turn on the soaps. After all that must be an assault on the senses.  Those prone to travel sickness on buses following alcohol consumption can be removed and prevented from puking and damaging property. I’m beginning to see the positive side of things.

Oh, I see. You think I have misconstrued things? Well, maybe I have. But can we really be intending to introduce draconian measures for very rare crimes?Above all where is the outcry for the necessity for these measures? Who has been campaigning for the introduction of these?

The audience did not appear to be convinced by Mr Watterson’s lacklustre response. However, a lack of response to the consultation could permit the Bill to be passed. There has already been a reasonable amount of respondents, but if you wish to be a part of the legislative process and ensure that common sense prevails then please take part in the consultation:


Many thanks to all those who made the meeting possible.


This blog is about retaining freedom and probing the legislative system which appears to have gone crazy. Legislation (very, very frequently emanating from the EU) finds its way into our lives where it really has no place.

The message from the constabulary: Low crime rate. High detection rate. Safe place to live.

The message from our legislators seems to be: Be scared. Be prepared. We need utter control?

The question is: Why do our legislators seem happy to introduce highly controlling, unnecessary and intrusive measures? Compare Parliament Street and Amsterdam. Where do you find the most CCTV cameras per head? The answer: Not Amsterdam.

Finding the answer to the above conundrum is what this blog is all about so the coming PAG meeting on Monday 25th June sounds exceptionally interesting:

“Criminal Justice – why so many new laws?”


 A public debate between Hon Juan Watterson MHK (Minister for Home Affairs)

and civil liberties campaigner Tristram Llewellyn Jones


7.30 p.m. Monday 25th June 2012

Manx Legion Club, Market Hill, Douglas

Admission free – All welcome


The Government’s 5 year legislative programme includes a number of criminal justice and social bills. Future bills include legislation on hatred, equality and interception of communications.


The first is the Criminal Justice, Police Powers and Other Amendments Bill 2012  currently out for public Consultation (closing 24 th July 2012) 

This proposed Bill contains 35 Clauses and includes many contentious powers already rejected by the public and the Keys in the previous Bill. Importantly, the Police seek a power to arrest people, without a warrant, even before they have committed an offence. Other tricky powers include a Clause allowing the Department of Home Affairs to create an unlimited number of offences for which a child may be arrested, detained and questioned at a Police station. 


The evening promises a lively debate on some very topical issues and as usual the audience will be invited to participate in the discussion.


Everyone is welcome – Admission free!


W Roger Tomlinson





Now some may feel that a certain Jurby inmate has little room to point the finger at others. However, the other side of things is that this guy has nothing to gain from his public correspondence. Trevor Baines suggests that the present Pinewood deal has been born out of a failed venture and that the new Isle of Man based owners of Pinewood Shepperton  “appear to be reducing some of their financial exposure by involving our government.”

Mr B appears to have little faith in the film industry. A founder member of the Isle of Man Film Commission –  set up with the aim of attracting filming to the island while protecting the tax payer, it seems – he goes on to say that government control resulted in investing “vast amounts of money” in a series of box-office failures. He concludes that the film industry is a high-risk investment and that it seldom attracts serious investors for this reason.

No doubt the contents of the letter in this week’s Manx Independent will spark denials and put-downs but could Mr B have a point? Personally, I think he does. Why the pressure to invest in a less than flourishing industry?



Surprise! The individual calling for us to take back our power is a former advisor to Margaret Thatcher – Lord Christopher Monckton. I kid you not. He is on his way to Rio 2. Remember Rio and restrictions? Well, twenty years later leaders are meeting at Rio 2. The good news? The environment has lost its number one position as being the biggest threat worldwide. The present enemy is now considered to be poverty and rightly so. While do-gooders postulate about man’s effect on the climate and fret over polar bears, millions are dying from poverty and hunger. How can we even consider worldwide restrictions when some countries are challenged enough by want and famine?

Monckton explains how  “the governing class treats people with absolute contempt” and how this can be brought to an end. An uplifting video if ever there was one.

Is there really such a thing as right or left – or are these part of the matrix? It seems to me that infighting is the order of the day. But let’s not get bogged down with theories and political parties, the important thing is that we now have an establishment figure confirming the plot and urging us to take charge. We can take action against those who ignore our wishes.

Please take the time to watch.


There are so many questions we would like to ask about the £24,000,000 investment in Pinewood.  It appears that Kate Beecroft also felt more details should be available. Can anyone confirm the amount? Mrs B. revealed that larger sums had been mentioned. As usual, queries were not welcomed. Vote was the response.

In this situation some felt unable to vote in favour. Ministers of course are not at liberty to do this – hence Mr K’s sacking.

Recap: Amidst cuts in education and benefits government proposes investing £24,000,000 in Pinewood. Requests for more information were rejected. Under pressure to vote a minister votes against and automatically loses his seat. This is democracy?





Glitz and bling

There is a discernible difference between children in mainland Europe and British children. It seems that while our neighbours are content to let children grow up at their own pace and in their own time British children are fed a diet of media trivia and almost encouraged to become mini-adults. The continentals wear suitable clothing while we like our little girls to appear in sized- down women’s attire – or so it seems. And if we compare the ladies each side of the channel it does appear that we have a leaning to rather questionable attire. Or as one US comedian put it: “What’s not to like about the UK? Your women dress like hookers.” Not all Brits of course. But the tendency is quite apparent.

The benchmark?

The UK also has a preoccupation with interfering with children’s lives. Naturally, the Isle of Man appears to follow suit. We slipped in the “new working practices” and all this entailed. From reports I have received there appears to be a tendency to grade children’s behaviour in school – age-appropriate or maybe too childish?? If such measures are being implemented then it begs the question whether the grading is somehow related to the phenomenal and as yet unexplained rise in the prescription of pyschopharma for children. Who devised the criteria and how sane were they?

Lunatics running the asylum?

Judging by the latest reports from the adjacent isle we really need to question what is going on over there and stop blindly following the latest UK trends. It seems that inspectors have praised infant schools that introduced cross-dressing and happily label very young children as transgender.


Wake up guys! How many adolescents have a crush on a same gender teacher (a topic covered on BBC this evening btw.) while going on to have quite uncomplicated heterosexual relationships at a later age? It is simply idiocy to even consider this approach to infants – and what’s the betting that our continental neighbours are not doing this?

Police state matrix

The extent of control and labelling that goes on is quite abnormal. Those from farther afield are puzzled that we are unable to recognise the collectivist regime we live under. But then in order to do this we need to stop consuming media trivia and dare to take the red pill.