code99

I would be surprised if Celton Manx had not sponsored the Governors Garden Party. I wonder who will be game enough to sponsor the Treasury Minister’s Budget presentation next year. Judging by the size of the original fine (nearly £6.0m), Celton Manx’s revenue must have been substantial (given that Celton Manx was a private company, we will never know), but a Google search showed that they only employed 6-7 staff. Their business model appears to have been to host e-games supplied to them by an assortment of other companies located all over the world. I understand that the technical term for this type of business is ‘white-labelling‘ - Celton Manx held the ’white’ licence, and under that licence sold other companies’ products. I imagine we have other companies here that operate the same or similar business models. When the GSC guys were asked about the 16 surrendered licences so far this year, the prevailing answer was, ah…um… well… good riddance to bad actors. So, some of these previously upstanding (now badly behaved companies) handed back their licences and left the Island. Unless a company has a super-duper IT system and loads of staff, it is difficult to see how a company, with in excess of, say, £100m annual income and hundreds of thousands of clients, could fulfil their AML, CTF and KYC requirements with a staff of less than 10 people. However, none of the impossible practicalities of doing that seem to have mattered until the GSC/ IOMG suddenly pivoted to a new low-risk appetite, especially with a specific intolerance for SE Asian based firms. This new ‘intolerance for risk’ was published in the NRA statement in May this year, what looks like preparation for MONEYVAL inspection in 2026. IMHO, the DfE’s strategy review is extremely important, and needs to be done properly to sufficiently impress MONEYVAL, or the Island will risk being blacklisted, in which case there will be severe economic (and practical) consequences for residents.

My overall impression was that the three MHKs weren’t exactly on the ball, perhaps because the session was being recorded and made public. KLB pressed the GSC on a piece of legislation from 1962 (the year the GSC was created) that obliges it to ensure our e-gaming sector is both competitive and regulated. The GSC guys pushed back, arguing that competitiveness is a secondary concern - their primary duty is consumer protection. It struck me as odd that she leaned on a 62-year-old Act instead of something more relevant, like the Online Gambling Regulation Act (OGRA) 2001. The GSC also made it clear that “marketing” the sector isn’t their job, and that’s for the DfE. KLB then quoted a 2003 statement praising the Island’s high-quality e-gaming regulation and asked if that still held true in 2025. The GSC’s response was that a lot has changed since 2003, and I agree. While they didn’t say it outright, it’s clear the GSC should have spent the intervening years tightening its focus on AML, CTF and KYC compliance. KLB suggested that the GSC’s regulations have recently become too restrictive, implying that this enforcement pivot is driving companies away. The GSC cited MONEYVAL as a key reason for the shift. One example they gave: the GSC currently lacks the power to impose financial penalties on individuals, only on companies. They acknowledged this as a “weakness in our system” and said it’s something they’re looking to fix. To me, this all points to a deeper schism, both within the GSC and among our politicians, about what the GSC should be doing, e.g, the GSC now wants tighter enforcement, but politicians seem to want less oversight/ interference and more businesses to oversee?

I might be wrong, but my interpretation of these latest revelations is that the GSC used to roll out red carpet to all sorts of ‘grey’ e-gambling companies, but now that it has finally decided to do its job as a Regulator, those grey companies are leaving (16 licences have been surrendered in 2025 so far). What was the GSC not doing for the last umpteen years, and has suddenly decided to do? If their claim that the Island is under attack by organised crime groups is actually true, then how long has this been going on and why hasn’t the GSC been doing its job, and identifying these criminals? In July 2022, the then DfE Minister, Dr Allinson, was seemingly in awe of King Gaming and heralded their arrival as a vote of confidence in the IOM’s ability to attract global companies: https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/major-brownfield-development-promises-jobs-boost/ At the time when political euphoria over King Gaming was at its peak, Mr Rutherford was the Deputy CEO of the GSC. He appears to have suspected nothing about King Gaming. Given that this was a huge ‘regrettable’ professional oversight, why does he now have an even more responsible job? The other thing I note is that during all of these years MONEYVAL gave our e-gaming sector a clean bill of health. They seem to have suspected nothing either. Why was everyone turning a blind eye and now they are not, or were they all just asleep at the wheel? Unfortunately, unlike the UK Gambling Commission, the GSC’s enforcement powers do not include “criminal referrals”. IMHO, what should be happening here is a full investigation into the GSC’s systemic failure to conduct proper due diligence of their gambling licence holders over many years. Instead, they are behaving in a typical IOMG’s mode of sweeping an inconvenient truth under their already lumpy carpet, with ‘nothing to do with me, guv’ and ‘lessons have been learnt’ platitudes. Let’s see how they will spin this sorry saga to MONEYVAL inspectors when they visit next year. Its is a pity that this inspection appears to have been scheduled for October-November, after the IOM GE in September 2026.

There’s no shortage of Communications Directors, Change Management Directors, Culture Change Directors etc but we've got no money to fund frontline health and education staff, food hygiene inspectors (Noa's not inspected for over 12 years), GSC inspectors, etc. The GSC is facing a £778,000 shortfall, but this raises questions about whether financial dependency on licence fees could compromise regulatory stringency i.e. economic reliance on the e-gaming sector vs the need for robust, independent oversight, with the shrinking licensee base may soon be insufficient to support the regulatory infrastructure required to oversee it effectively. So, what is the strategy?

The GSC operates as a Statutory Board, reporting to the DfE, but with operational independence. Leadership Structure: CEO: Mark Rutherford (appointed January 2025): Appointed in January 2025 as the permanent CEO. Has over 15 years of experience within the GSC, including roles as Director of Policy and Legislation and Deputy CEO. Previously worked in the Income Tax Division of the Isle of Man Government. Holds a diploma from the International Compliance Association in Money Laundering & Terrorist Financing. His mandate includes strengthening the Island’s defences against financial crime and overseeing regulation of both gambling and medicinal cannabis. Acting Chair: David Butterworth: Publicly acknowledged as the Acting Chair of the GSC during Rutherford’s appointment. Praised Rutherford’s “extensive experience and clear vision for continuous improvement”. This structure is relatively lean compared to larger regulators like the UK Gambling Commission, which has a full board of commissioners, a CEO, and multiple executive directors overseeing compliance, enforcement, and policy. The full board membership isn’t always published in detail, but the Commission typically includes a mix of independent members and government appointees, with oversight responsibilities for licensing, compliance, and enforcement across the gambling sector. The IOM GSC’s small size and limited transparency make it more agile but potentially more vulnerable to regulatory capture - a concern when major licensees like Celton Manx are also prominent public sponsors. This is how the GSC compares to other regulatory bodies in terms of leadership structure and independence.: Feature GSC (Isle of Man) UK Gambling Commission US SEC / CFTC (for financial markets) Board Structure CEO + Chair + small board Chair + Commissioners + Executive Team Multiple commissioners appointed by President Reporting Line Dept. for Enterprise (IoM Gov’t) Dept. for Culture, Media & Sport (UK) US Congress / Executive Branch Public Transparency Limited board disclosures Annual reports, board minutes published Extensive public filings and hearings Enforcement Powers Civil penalties, licence revocation Same, plus criminal referrals Broad enforcement, including litigation Funding Source Licence fees + applications Licence fees + fines Federal budget + fines The IOMG acknowledges that the sector has “faced a number of challenges in recent years, which have raised questions about its future”. The current trajectory suggests: Without a new funding model or a significant influx of high-integrity licensees, the sector may become regulatorily unsustainable. In that case, the Isle of Man would no longer be able to credibly claim to offer a “gold standard” e-gaming jurisdiction - a cornerstone of its economic identity for over two decades. Going forward, if our regulations are too strict, the Island risks regulatory overkill, but if too lenient, it risks international censure, reputational damage, and potential exclusion from global financial systems. This is not just a policy dilemma, it’s a statement about the Island’s economic fragility and uncertainty. IMHO, this is far more important topic than the debate about 20 mph.

“Minister without Portfolio Tim Crookall said more £6 million had been saved in the past decade following 100 new systems, with further progress expected as artificial intelligence is gradually adopted across the public sector” – not sure Evri would want him, tbh (even by Evri standards this performance is pathetic). https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/final-government-roadshow-ends-with-focus-on-ai-housing-and-efficiencies/

It seems that in total about 260 residents (less than 0.3% of the total population) attended these roadshows. Presumably the small number who went still have some faith in the Government’s propaganda, and hope that it is ‘listening’ and is taking any notice of the public’s views (including theirs), and believe that broaching subjects which are important to them might make a small difference to the Government’s decision-making. The Government will believe what it wants to, it will listen to whomever about whatever, but for some reason it always seems to hear what it wants to hear. Stu Peters’ (subjective) opinion that most Islanders are happy with the Government to crack on with the job is an example of this. However, it contradicts the recent survey of 1000+ participants where the majority indicated a low level of trust in their elected representatives. IMHO, most MHKs, if not all of them, do not deserve their £70K salaries plus perks plus pensions. I will certainly not vote for my current MHKs – as far as I am concerned, they do not represent my views.

The Council of Ministers update report on Inward Migration is worth a read, if only for its entertainment value. The real substance lies in the report it references to - “The Isle of Man and UK Immigration Gap Analysis” produced by BridsonHalsall Advocates (their report can be accessed via footnote 29 of the COMIN report). In summary, the BridsonHalsall report says that the immigration goals as set out in the Island Plan have not been achieved. It is clear that neither our elect Government not our senior civil servants have skills to deliver the objectives that were set out in the Island Plan. This failure is not a ‘one off’. Remember, MHKs voted for this Island Plan en masse, but they also voted for Manx Care Act, the Climate Change Act 2021, the Liverpool Dock, the Douglas Promenade, the Local Economy Plan, etc, etc. Stand-by future energy projects that according to Dr Allinson "would be more than £100 million"…which of course means that the final cost could be anything between £101 million and a figure many times that. Change is needed, but the Establishment is resistant to change. /https://tynwald.org.im/index.php/spfile?file=/business/opqp/sittings/20212026/2025-GD-0039.pdf

But the previous Airport Director did not seem to think that those things mattered. He was in favour of privatising the Airport, and at the time some MHK sheeple seem to have gone along with that ‘plan’. In order to lure investors and customers alike, he wanted to expand the Airport’s floorspace to bring in retail designer shops and to install a flight simulator. So instead of actually going somewhere the passengers could pretend that they were flying, and then go home/ return to their hotels after yet another EasyJet cancellation. Marvelous stuff that would make the Island an attractive place to visit, apparently.

Like a referendum on Scottish independence? Or Brexit – 10 years later and people still argue about the results? Won’t work here, IMHO, but I’d give Future IOM the benefit of the doubt that they have their ducks in a row, let’s wait and see.

Not only do they want to increase NHS dental charges, they also want to change the eligibility criteria. I recall a Manx Care spokesperson on Manx Radio wittering about bringing in these “changes” to align with the UK. At the same time, they intimated to means test pensioners to determine if they should be entitled to continue to receive free prescriptions - this does not exist in the UK? Anyway you look at it, residents are getting a raw deal with Manx Care. And there was no public consultation on whether we wanted Manx Care or not! ETA: Meanwhile, Health and Social Care degree course at University College Isle of Man has been suspended. https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/three-ucm-degree-courses-suspended/

Something to quiz MHKs/ prospective candidates about (next year or possibly even ask at next week’s roadshows, that the Chief Minister is so “happy” with) - what does the following statement mean to them: “No changes will be made to existing arrangements and charges for NHS prescription charges, dental services or eye tests during the remainder of the current administration”. The way I read it, is that these "changes" are definitely coming. That has also already been decided but will not be introduced before the next GE. IMHO, these ideas (proposals) have been initiated by an unconstrained Treasury and Treasury Minister. They are leading the public into a trap i.e., if the same Council of Ministers, and a couple of other Government’s shills, are re-elected, they will sting the public with charges for these (and other essential health services). On top of that there will be the NHS Levy and of course, Dr Allinson will come back with ‘adjustments’ to pension triple-lock, that has already been promised - he tried to push through but failed, as other MHKs knew how unpopular this would be before the next GE in 2026. Why are they doing this? It must be because the public finances are in worse state than the IOMG is admitting. Why? Because the IOMG has screwed up with Manx Care and other vanity projects, with more to come. Ministers refuse to streamline the Government’s bloated payroll and, consequently, they think 85,000 people must shoulder the burden of the IOMG’s profligacy. And so, the proliferation of non-jobs in the public sector will continue unabated, until the Island goes bankrupt. https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/no-changes-to-prescription-or-dental-charges-planned-before-next-general-election/

The IOMG Lip Service, IMHO. “Ahead of the sessions, political commentator, journalist, and former government press officer Alistair Ramsay has raised several questions he believes remain unanswered – spanning transparency, governance, housing, and electoral reform…”, but “The chief minister says he is happy with the effect his government's roadshows have had on general policy”…Really? https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/government-faces-questions-ahead-of-listening-to-you-roadshows/

Yesterday I watched the Dispatches programme about Farage’s latest exploits. It was hosted by Fraser Nelson, the former editor of The Spectator, who is not known for having leftist inclinations, or being a Marxist, or ‘woke’, etc. My main take away is Farage is a nasty piece of work and a dangerous liar to boot. He has a history of deliberately courting controversy, e.g. he misrepresented Anas Sarwar’s (Scottish Labour Leader) speech at a local conference. This was shameful and (I would argue) defamatory. It chimed with Farage’s previous narrative that young British Muslims don’t share British values. He has been criticised by the Muslim Council of Britain for saying this many times. Last year he received criticism from the former Counter-terror Chief who “accused Farage of inciting Southport violence”. Oddly, in his interview with Fraser Nelson he denied that he ever said anything that would provoke racial tensions. IMHO, this programme underscored his penchant for deceiving the public for his own (political and clearly, financial) gain - exactly the same way he behaved during Brexit. When it came to answering specific questions, he performed the same slippery trick that most politicians do, i.e., he refused to commit to whether his so-called policies are promises to the public which Reform UK will deliver on, or just “aims”… HAHAHA! When Fraser Nelson pressed him for more specific responses, Farage went coy but as an example of what could undermine his ability to deliver on his promises, he gave the example of… a war! But, in the absence of a war, is there anything else he could point to as something that would inhibit him delivering on his promises? The Daily Mail group once published reports that suggested Farage is “an ally of Vladimir Putin’s administration”. Perhaps he is, perhaps he knows more about a “war” than the rest of us do? Farage is capitalising on the disillusionment with politics across swathes of the UK’s population. He is trying to persuade people that Reform UK is the solution to all of their personal woes. The other main political parties must wake-up and smell the stench of these delusions (which spread false information), before it is too late. The Brexit fiasco has caused immeasurable damage to the UK at many levels, but if the mini-Trump (or possibly mini-Putin?) was to become the UK PM, this would be an abomination which has gone too far.

I agree with you. It is worth acknowledging that after the WWI, during the Roaring Twenties, as Germany and Austria were enjoying their economic revival/ a prosperity boom and with many social and cultural changes (as occurred almost everywhere else in the West), very few people cared for Hitler’s rantings and the ideology of the Nazis he represented. Economic downfall came in 1929 with the Global Stock Market Crash and the Great Depression. The Weimar Republic effectively collapsed in 1933 and Hitler was appointed Chancellor. Hitler came to power on the back of the despair being felt by ordinary Germans. This despair occurred because the other political parties’ leaders were not offering any viable solutions. The Nazis ‘seized the moment’ and offered ‘answers’ which told impoverished German and Austrian people who to blame for their miseries. Obviously, there were huge numbers of racists, fascists and anti-Semites who willingly signed up as Nazis, including some notably rich and powerful German and Austrian industrialists and aristocrats (even Duke of Windsor, formerly known as Edward VIII, was a fan), but they would not have achieved anything without the support they got from the disgruntled German and Austrian populace. Our Government must be very careful to not make any more foolish mistakes, otherwise they will create a recipe for discontent here too. The Chief Minister is still talking about growing the size of the Island’s population to 100,000. Most residents either understand that this is not actually happening or ask sensible questions such as: a) where are the new residents going to live, b) what jobs are they going to do, c) what will be done about the needed additional infrastructure such as roads, schools, hospital(s), energy supply, etc; incidentally, more people living here will mean higher CO2 and methane emissions and household waste - how would a bigger population tie into the IOMG’s legally binding net zero targets they are almost certain to miss anyway? Unsurprisingly, many residents are not happy that these issues have not been addressed whilst the Ministers are seemingly tone deaf to any criticism of the Island Plan AKA Cannan's fantasy strategy! Once the public loses confidence in their democratically elected representatives, various conspiratorial agitators will step in to fill the void, e.g. CH and his ilk, or chancers like Farage and his Reform UK, not to mention grotesque Trump and Musk. My point is that no one with their own agenda can succeed unless they have a base of ordinary people supporting them, and for many ordinary people the economy is the most important factor/ consideration/ criteria.