JustMe Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 Why is this thread even allowed to stay active?Shouldn't it be deleted or, at the very least, locked? I'm pretty sure that if a thread was started about the affairs of, say, Abe Hassan (a Shetland resident with a similar disregard for the law)... The mod's would be onto it as keen as mustard!Since Stuart's criminal activities are aimed at getting publicity for a cause and ultimately to get a court somewhere to rule that the Sheriff has no jurisdiction in Shetland I rather think Stuart would complain if the thread was locked. On the wider issue if people appear in court and get their names in the newspaper and on the news websites can they really complain if they are also named on Shetlink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 Does that mean we can mention Denis Nilsen, a cook at RAF Maybury in 1972? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 ^^ If you don't want to read this thread, then don't. Simple solution, I'd say. You're right. If there's something online I object to, I should simply throw my pc in the skip. But while I'm still here, may I bring up a point regarding naming people in a forum?I just re-read the T&C's and allthough it does mention the use of "Defamatory" remarks not being allowed, It doesn't specify whether a thread regarding a common criminal is or is not (but I'm sure such a thread would normally bring some negative sentiment towards the aforementioned criminal). And there lies a problem... Unfortunately, I think I may have used some "Defamatory" remarks towards this individual.. And my remarks are still online for all to see. This makes Shetlink the host for online- personal attacks. Is this really what the mod's want to support? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 Does that mean we can mention Denis Nilsen, a cook at RAF Maybury in 1972?I think you just did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 Since Stuart's criminal activities are aimed at getting publicity for a cause and ultimately to get a court somewhere to rule that the Sheriff has no jurisdiction in Shetland I rather think Stuart would complain if the thread was locked. On the wider issue if people appear in court and get their names in the newspaper and on the news websites can they really complain if they are also named on Shetlink. I also don't think that we should sympathise or agree with a criminals behaviour in an online and local forum. The Sheriff has a dificult job and if he finds that someone is guilty of a criminal offence, regardless of their motives, they should be regarded as such until their debt has been paid. Which Hill refuses to do.Condoning this behaviour sets a very bad example to younger generations and I really don't think Shetlink should be supporting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pleepsie Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 I seem to remember the Harry Horse thread was locked and deleted quick sharpish, even though it was national news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveh Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 ^^ If you don't want to read this thread, then don't. Simple solution, I'd say. You're right. If there's something online I object to, I should simply throw my pc in the skip. What a strange comment ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 ^^ If you don't want to read this thread, then don't. Simple solution, I'd say. Maybe I've mis-understood your solution... Could you start by explaining the problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveh Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 ^^ What is the point that you are attempting to make? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crofter Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 The Sheriff has a dificult job and if he finds that someone is guilty of a criminal offence, regardless of their motives, they should be regarded as such until their debt has been paid. Which Hill refuses to do. If I understand his argument, he is refusing to do it until his appeal is heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted April 19, 2012 Report Share Posted April 19, 2012 then he can spend time in jail like anyone else would. he is taking the wee wee. he is not a campaigner just a fool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted April 20, 2012 Report Share Posted April 20, 2012 Does that mean we can mention Denis Nilsen, a cook at RAF Maybury in 1972? Just so long as you don't mention Dyno-Rod, it could be considered commercial advertising. It was actually Dennis Nilsen, I believe anyway. OT. Hill's only asset these days is entertainment value, and as he chooses to perform on a pubic stage, I see no problem in milking it for all its worth as long as there's one small titter still left in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dratsy Posted April 20, 2012 Report Share Posted April 20, 2012 Why is this thread even allowed to stay active?Shouldn't it be deleted or, at the very least, locked? I'm pretty sure that if a thread was started about the affairs of, say, Abe Hassan (a Shetland resident with a similar disregard for the law)... The mod's would be onto it as keen as mustard! (accidental reference to another common criminal we're not allowed to mention on an open forum, not fully intended) mention him aa du wants but be ready to run Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted April 20, 2012 Report Share Posted April 20, 2012 At least he doesn't ask the court to enter his version of reality when proceedings start Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 Looks like Stuart Hill has lost his case http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/the-scottish-courts-rule-that-shetland-is-part-of-the-uk-rbs-v-hill-2012-csoh-110/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.