Assisted Dying Leaflet published by ?

[BillyNoMates]

13 hours ago, Josem said:

Everyone reading this knows that reducing anonymous speech is not a genuine or good faith concern of "genericUserName".

 

But because of the misinformation on this issue, some readers might not know it is illegal for the Manx TaxPayers' Alliance to publish a list of supporters, just like it is illegal for the Manx Wildlife Trust to publish a list of its supporters, just like it is illegal for the Manx Cooperative Society to publish a list of its supporters, just like it is illegal for any other organisation to publish such lists. I think that obeying the law is a good thing, not a bad thing.

wow you still sticking to that story? most people know whos paying you by now. always found it weird that mr transaprency isn;t transparent himself but whatever dude, i didn't vote for you. 

[Ringy Rose]

18 hours ago, Josem said:

some readers might not know it is illegal for the Manx TaxPayers' Alliance to publish a list of supporters, just like it is illegal for the Manx Wildlife Trust to publish a list of its supporters

Really? The Manx Wildlife Trust literally publish a list on their website. I'm sure the FIU and the Information Commissioner will be along with the handcuffs for them very soon...any time now....in a mo. Maybe they're still busy arresting Hospice staff for posing with those novelty big cheques from local companies.

[John Wright]

2 hours ago, Ringy Rose said:

Really? The Manx Wildlife Trust literally publish a list on their website. I'm sure the FIU and the Information Commissioner will be along with the handcuffs for them very soon...any time now....in a mo. Maybe they're still busy arresting Hospice staff for posing with those novelty big cheques from local companies.

Of course one is a transparent public charity. Operating for the public good.

The other is a secretive extreme right libertarian think tank. That’s how the operate. Made up research and skewed campaigns. For the benefit of their owners/funders, not the public.

Thats how they all work in Tufton Street. It’s how the suspected funders of Josem’s organisation worked in the UK.

And of course MWT will have publication of data re donations and donors as a term of membership and acceptance of funds, and be notified accordingly to the Information Commissioner.

Josem and his donors/funders  can do the same. That they choose not to is what speaks volumes.

So, the only conclusion is that he, and they, don’t want us to know, that’s how they set it up. Not that it is actually illegal to tell us, but that they’ve made it so it is illegal to tell us. We clearly need a retrospective piece of legislation for all political lobby and think tank groups/funding to list source of funds in an open transparent manner..

So, without revealing who they are, @Josem, why don’t you, and they, whoever they are, want us to know?

[Cinderella]

53 minutes ago, John Wright said:

Of course one is a transparent public charity. Operating for the public good.

The other is a secretive extreme right libertarian think tank. That’s how the operate. Made up research and skewed campaigns. For the benefit of their owners/funders, not the public.

Thats how they all work in Tufton Street. It’s how the suspected funders of Josem’s organisation worked in the UK.

And of course MWT will have publication of data re donations and donors as a term of membership and acceptance of funds, and be notified accordingly to the Information Commissioner.

Josem and his donors/funders  can do the same. That they choose not to is what speaks volumes.

So, the only conclusion is that he, and they, don’t want us to know, that’s how they set it up. Not that it is actually illegal to tell us, but that they’ve made it so it is illegal to tell us. We clearly need a retrospective piece of legislation for all political lobby and think tank groups/funding to list source of funds in an open transparent manner..

So, without revealing who they are, @Josem, why don’t you, and they, whoever they are, want us to know?

If I can also bring this debate back to the original point - which was a piece of propaganda being delivered to households without declaring who had prepared and paid for it. Is there any legislation in the IoM that covers this (in the name of transparency) and if not, why not? 

[WTF]

stumbled across this earlier on the tinterweb

 

Becoming a doctor. At the end of the day, it’s just a job. It wasn’t worth flushing my 20’s down the drain and accumulating a mountain of debt for this. I’m (finally) in a good spot in life now, but I don’t think the sacrifices I made to get here were worth it. Even from a less self-centered point of view, I don’t really do that much good for others with this job. Modern medicine is so much better at dragging out death than it is at improving life, and I’m tired of being a part of it.

Edited January 13, 2023 by WTF

[Banker]

Article on subject 

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/group-worried-what-would-happen-to-society-if-assisted-dying-laws-passed/

[doc.fixit]

Just got another weird pamphlet through the door concerning the farming and fishing industries. Seems some group or other has really got their knickers in a twist about meat and fish production.

I put it in the bin.

[Apple]

Much discussions about the subject on Manx Radio. Again, some very sad descriptions of peoples experiences heard. 

Putting in sufficient safe guards is going to be very difficult.

[hissingsid]

How do you come to the conclusion that these leaflets were delivered at the tax payers expense?  Surely the people who had these printed and made the arrangement with the Post Office to deliver them paid the going rate?

[Hoops]

17 hours ago, Apple said:

Much discussions about the subject on Manx Radio. Again, some very sad descriptions of peoples experiences heard. 

Putting in sufficient safe guards is going to be very difficult.

Yeah, I've always thought assisted dying should be a given, looking at the Canadian experience has made me understand just how careful you have to be in writing up these laws.

IOM AG's office.

Face slaps.

[doc.fixit]

On 1/12/2023 at 6:26 PM, Cinderella said:

If I can also bring this debate back to the original point - which was a piece of propaganda being delivered to households without declaring who had prepared and paid for it. Is there any legislation in the IoM that covers this (in the name of transparency) and if not, why not? 

unsolicited selling? Does that cover it? They are trying to convince to buy in to their propoganda.

[Hoops]

25 minutes ago, doc.fixit said:

unsolicited selling? Does that cover it? They are trying to convince to buy in to their propoganda.

But then presumably anyone putting their opinion across could be construed as propaganda. So next time a candidate for the house of keys puts a leaflet through your postbox..

Why does it matter so much who paid for and wrote the thing? Read it if you want (I didn't), see what they have to say, use your capacity for critical thinking. It's never a bad thing to hear the other side of the argument, even if it reinforces your original opinion.

We get propaganda from all angles, a lot of it far more invasive and subtle then a leaflet through the post.

[Harry Lamb]

18 minutes ago, Hoops said:

But then presumably anyone putting their opinion across could be construed as propaganda. So next time a candidate for the house of keys puts a leaflet through your postbox..

Why does it matter so much who paid for and wrote the thing? Read it if you want (I didn't), see what they have to say, use your capacity for critical thinking. It's never a bad thing to hear the other side of the argument, even if it reinforces your original opinion.

We get propaganda from all angles, a lot of it far more invasive and subtle then a leaflet through the post.

Part of critical thinking is taking into account the source of the material.

[Hoops]

5 minutes ago, Harry Lamb said:

Part of critical thinking is taking into account the source of the material.

Ha ha, touche.

Although, of course, you run the risk of conscious, or subconscious, bias that way.

Edited January 14, 2023 by Hoops

[John Wright]

18 hours ago, Hoops said:

But then presumably anyone putting their opinion across could be construed as propaganda. So next time a candidate for the house of keys puts a leaflet through your postbox..

Why does it matter so much who paid for and wrote the thing? Read it if you want (I didn't), see what they have to say, use your capacity for critical thinking. It's never a bad thing to hear the other side of the argument, even if it reinforces your original opinion.

We get propaganda from all angles, a lot of it far more invasive and subtle then a leaflet through the post.

Except, an election leaflet must have the name and contact details of the publisher, and the amount an election candidate can spend is strictly controlled and has to be reported and checked.

Im pretty sure that suspicions were raised that Josem’s lobby group/think tank was being used to employ and support him during the campaign as a way round that. My recollection. And I can’t be bothered looking back, but I recollect him saying he had taken unpaid leave.