JoeyDeaconsCat

Of course I know they don't care. I'm aware of exactly the sort of people we are dealing within the CS. I do hope to get an answer though as clearly the whole online consultation process is flawed and a waste of everyone's time. As I suspect this particular consultation will show us (and was always going to show us all along).

I understand where you're coming from and agree the decision has likely been already made to not change the law here and all this consultation has just been set up to support what they wanted to do anyway. That said as I said above my main issue is that I basically don't trust anyone in the civil service and that this process, which superficially looks slack with no meaningful checks and balances, could very easily be openly abused by government itself to drive state agendas by allowing the creation of false opinion (anyone can set up a false account even if they were a department employee) that is then used to drive government legislative changes. There seem to be no obvious checks and controls to validate that people who respond even live here that are visible (some I hope exist behind the scenes). To vote you have to be on the electoral roll, have your address verified (by a letter sent to your home address which is then returned), and often have to produce ID to prove who you are when you vote. With consultations you can basically create a false email account, find any Manx post code to use on Google, and then submit a full consultation response on the government website under any name you want. Even if you work for the Department concerned. It's just plain wrong to say that it's an authoritative benchmark of the Manx publics views at all.

I don't know to be honest which is why I asked the question. I get where you're coming from but as the Sultan raised the issue I thought it worthy to agree and say I have already questioned it. On a big national issue like this if it's true they have had thousands of responses (I didn't see the news this morning so I dont know) but hundreds or thousands of them are the same as the one I made then they carry no weight as the people might not even live here. Or they could even be totally fake identities. Surely you agree? I'd like to know what goes on behind the scenes to validate otherwise the consultation process is a total sham if some or many of the respondents aren't even real people and might not even live here. I'm sure there must be some validation behind the scenes back to electoral role or tax records? However if a fake name, email address and any Manx post code (which you can Google in 2 secs) is all it takes to register an opinion that counts they might as well do a poll on MF and thousands of fake accounts could vote with the same validity. My concern is/was that I basically don't trust anyone in the civil service and that this process which superficially looks slack with no meaningful checks and balances could be openly abused to drive agendas by allowing the creation of false opinion that is then used to drive government legislation changes that a department might want.

Nevertheless I was able to respond to a consultation using a fake name, a fake email address, and a post code plucked out of the phone book (which anyone has access to). I'd like to know how/if they validate the responses and whether they discount the ones that don't tally back to the electoral role or tax record etc. Looked like a total scam to me and anyone can say whatever they want and it counts as authoritative feedback.

I agree here and I've already made a complaint to my MHK about another consultation outcome which I was able to complete with a 100% fake email address in about 5 minutes. There is no clear governance around the online consultation feedback process at all which actively encourages abuse. In fact from what I can see there's nothing stopping someone in the Department concerned registering 10 fake Manx.net email addresses and providing the response that the Dept wants. I'm waiting for feedback on this as we speak as I've specifically asked how they validate whether these people actually exist and live on the IOM. I would hope they check names and email addresses against other records they have and throw them out or make further enquiries if they don't match. But I bet they don't.

If they're not from verifiable legitimate commercial activity that's hardly good news is it?