2014 has been an interesting year. Toilet tax, apparent persecution of the incapacitated, removal of community treasures, such as Ramsey Post Office. Benefit recipients per se appear to be suspect and it has been claimed that for some this is a lifestyle choice. (For many it is not). More charges levied and more services removed.  However, consultants flourish it would seem. This is life in the Isle of Man in 2014.

What can we expect from 2015? Can it get worse? Undoubtedly, if we remain apathetic and passive in face of opaque government dealings which impact us all in our daily lives. We are governed by consent we are told. Do we consent to the present situation? Do we agree to allow our children and grandchildren to work until they are 74+ because we cannot be bothered to challenge decisions?

Keyboard warriors are fine but once the frustration and anger has been released we need to take action. Otherwise nothing will change. Petitions have been summarily ignored. Writing to MHKs is not a guarantee for change either. However, it’s a start. If we make our position clear, ask for a response, write again if the answer is fudged etc etc. Complaints do not result in action. We need to state  our aims  clearly and concisely. We need to state that we do not consent to the proposed action.

If the above fails then non-compliance has to be the answer.

2015 can be a further downhill slide or it can be the turnaround, The change. If we are prepared to take action. Traa dy liooar will not do in this situation. What has inaction or complaining achieved up to the present? Action is essential if we are to effect change and ensure that future generations are not simply wage-slaving workhorses who never enjoy retirement or even the comparative freedom we have known.



It seems the world’s gone crazy? Politicians are taking liberties? What is going on? If you are puzzled, confused and perhaps outraged by world events perhaps that is because you are following mainstream media outlets. If western mainstream media is controlled by a handful of powerful people, does it seem likely that the result is unbiased coverage of the news? No  – not even the beeb.

For many of us there is little time for in-depth analysis of media reports. Thus the status quo continues. The media is unimpeded in continuing to disseminate biased coverage which frequently serves to enrage or confuse the audience.  What is the solution? It involves taking a little time each day to examine well-investigated alternative news. But where to start? To understand what is really going on any of the following journalists are worth checking out: Patrick Henningsen, Ken O’Keefe and James Corbett provide excellent insight into how the world really works.

Have you ever noticed how so much fear and paranoia seems to emanate from across the pond?

Patrick Henningsen takes a look at the mechanisms which provide, if not guarantee, skewed mainstream media reportage:

Ken O’Keefe provides excellent insight into the current global political situation:

James Corbett explains why central Asia is considered to be strategically crucial to the US:

As Ken O’Keefe tells us, we have the power and it is our duty to take action because if we are governed by consent then we can withhold our consent. It really is down to us.


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.




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.


So government would not spray us? Just like soldiers have never been used as lab rats?

The following document explains in detail just how some parts of the UK have been sprayed with chemicals in the past. Was permission sought to do this? Would anyone give permission to become a guinea pig? The document reveals in detail exactly how the spraying was calculated and carried out – in 1959.

With further ‘trials’ being carried out in 1963:

Scott Stevens, a former TV weatherman, has been very active in investigation of persistent contrails and weather manipulation:

Steven Martin, a senior meteorologist also questions weather patterns and is convinced that some storms are engineered.

Why should we believe denials from governments regarding aerial spraying when they also admit to not investigating the matter? We can see it has been done before – and more than once.  So is it really so ridiculous to question what is happening in the sky? It seems to me that the most irrational behaviour is to accept assurances that everything is just fine when we have evidence of the UK Government’s track record.

P.S. The photo in this document dates back to 1926.






Thank goodness some of our MHKs are keeping tabs on things in government. In a Liberal Vannin press release dated the 10th May Mrs Beecroft reveals some quite astounding details of a recent Accounts Committee Public Sitting. She states that:

“From the evidence I listened to this afternoon, it appears that this Government is arrogant beyond belief, has no regard for its own regulations and is totally out of control.”

The following media release regarding the appointment of consultants Ci65 contains references to government not adhering to its own regulations, a lack of ‘paper trail’ and the curious details of how the consultancy firm was incorporated on the 9th September 2013 just three days prior to being awarded the government contract. Furthermore, the website was set up one day before the date of incorporation, yet it contains testimonials dating back years before the company was formed.

A sum of £650,000 was awarded to this company. Government’s money? No, it came from you and me. Just like the funding for the Sefton setup deal and the Pinewood millions. The money wasted on harebrained bendy bus experiments etc. etc.  Yet, when the coffers are empty we are told that we must make sacrifices. Why should we? Accountability is urgently needed.

Press Release 10 May 2014

Arrogant and Out of Control

Kate Beecroft MHK, LibVan Leader, attended the Public Accounts Committee public sitting, Chaired by Alf Cannan MHK, on Wednesday when it took evidence from Ministers Teare and Robertshaw regarding the appointment of consultants Ci65 Limited who were paid in excess of £650,000 from the NI Fund. Kate later stated, “From the evidence I listened to this afternoon, it appears that this Government is arrogant beyond belief, has no regard for its own regulations and is totally out of control.” She continued, “It is somewhat ironic that Minister Robertshaw, nicknamed “The Enforcer”, whose role as the new Cabinet Minister is to enforce policy and reform across all departments, appeared to have so little regard for due process and indeed Tynwald itself that he had to be reminded of the correct procedures by Mrs Cannell MHK.”

There is much within the evidence that gives cause for concern including:
• Government’s own Chief Financial Officer admitted that Financial Regulations had not been adhered to
• There was no paper trail
• No FD8 waiver had been granted
• The Council of Ministers approved the appointment of Ci65 Limited and believe that they had the legal power to do this although the Public Accounts Committee had doubts about this and were awaiting a legal opinion
Even disregarding the above, there are grave concerns. On 12th September last year Ci65 Limited gave a presentation to the Council of Ministers and the decision was taken by the Council of Ministers to award them the second phase of the review without going out to public tender. As the Treasury Minister, Eddie Teare, was present at this meeting, this was classed as Treasury concurrence. This cannot be right !! We know that the proposed support for the Sefton Group was taken by Minister Shimmin to the Council of Ministers for discussion without Treasury concurrence and we know that the Treasury Minister, Eddie Teare, subsequently publicly defended the decision to go ahead with the support. We know that he had to under the rules of collective responsibility. What we don’t know is whether or not Treasury concurred with the decision to award Ci65 Limited the contract before it was discussed in the Council of Ministers meeting or even within that meeting. Whatever he says now has to be disregarded as he is now obliged to support and defend that decision.
Again, disregarding all of the above, we have to look at the basics. What due diligence was carried out on Ci65 Limited before the decision was made on 12th September 2013 to award them the contract? What due diligence could have been carried out if we look at the facts.
• Ci65 Limited was incorporated on 9th September 2013
• The website domain name was registered on 8th September 2013
• Testimonials on the website date back years before the company was formed
• The presentation to the Council of Ministers by Ci65 Limited and the decision to award them the contract was made by the Council of Ministers on 12th September 2013
We know from previous instances that due diligence is not something that this Government is particularly good at but this really is ridiculous. The most basic piece of due diligence should be a bankers reference. Are we expected to believe that Ci65 Limited was formed on the 9th September and in the two days prior to the presentation to the Council of Ministers, there was time for a back account to be opened and for Government to write for and receive a reference?

Does this Government really believe that we are that gullible?

Kate Beecroft MHK for Douglas South
Leader Liberal Vannin Party


Renowned  author F William Engdahl talks to fellow author Cara St Louis and gives us a fascinating view of world politics. He pulls no punches about duplicitous deeds of the west following the ‘end’ of the cold war and goes on to explain how circumstances have led to the present Ukraine situation. Engdahl reveals that many are waking up to the globalists and tells us that even the Chinese are questioning the US vaccination drive these days. The bottom line is one of hope. Love really is the answer.



(Spot the geoengineering over Ramsey)

Short recap:

We have a massive amount of photographic evidence of aerial spraying taking place over the Isle of Man. Enquiries directed to DEFA are met with the statement that they have no evidence of this/ are not aware of spraying. Cloud seeding and geoengineering are purely theoretical possibilities not in use, we are assured. Go back to sleep.

However, those who have attended the geoengineering presentations in Douglas and Ramsey and have been following this blog will know that both cloud seeding and geoengineering have been in use for some time in various parts of the world. Cloud seeding dates back to the late 1940s and was also used in the Vietnam war. Please credit the general public with a little intelligence! Bearing the denials in mind I wonder then how DEFA would explain the following warning from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control:

“If SRM were terminated for any reason, there is high confidence that global surface temperatures would rise very rapidly to values consistent with the greenhouse gas forcing.”

Solar Radiation Management  (SRM) is the practice of spraying reflective particles into the air in an effort to reduce the level of sunshine reaching the earth. The particulate matter contains such things as aluminium, barium and other metals which are not biodegradable – let alone nature-friendly. Districts which have been sprayed for a number of years are experiencing noticeable negative effects on natural vegetation and, not surprisingly, a lack of uptake of solar energy! Add to this the resultant warming from cloud cover, combined with the devastating effect of these minerals on the ozone layer and you have a recipe for global climate disaster.

Has anyone even asked the general public whether they wish to be sprayed with toxic metals and whether they would be happy to replace present vegetation with aluminium-resistant GM varieties? Has there been any open discussion of the efficacy of these procedures and the long-term effect on climate and wildlife? Of course not! They are too busy denying that it is happening. Plants require sunshine for photosynthesis, humans require sunshine to produce vitamin D – essential for immune system function. Where is the sense in any of this?

“While the entire community of academia still pretends not to know about the ongoing reality of global geoengineering,” comments Dane Wigington at Geoengineering Watch, “the simple fact that they are now discussing geoengineering in the latest IPCC report indicates that the veil is beginning to lift.”

Were reason to prevail, we would capture solar energy, not block it; we would shun fossil fuels, not wage ecocidal wars to seize remaining supplies. In today’s world, however, policymakers have diverted billions of dollars into blocking the sun. Efficient systems cost around $10 billion a year, “well within the budgets of most countries,” notes the IRGC.(International Risk Governance Council)

It is obviously happening right in front of our eyes and it would seem that those in the know are effectively lying to us by refusing to engage in dialogue and ridiculing those who question why we are being subjected to such quantities of obvious aerial pollution.

Those of the man-made climate change brigade are preparing their next step, which is to try and persuade us all that climate change is so real and so dangerous that we should agree to let them spray the sky. However, they omit to mention that this is exactly what has been going on for decades and that they have shredded the ozone, resulting in lack of UV protection for the planet.

The planet has been covertly climate engineered (I will spare you the HAARP and military weather wars connection in this blog post – that is yet another pertinent aspect of this abomination) and they are now trying to convince us that we should let them continue their pursuit of killing the planet, which would permit them to step things up a notch or three. So forget the mea culpa for now. Those controlling these programmes are the ones who should be asking forgiveness. Demand answers.