shetlandcars Posted July 14, 2012 Report Share Posted July 14, 2012 there is a reason that our cars need to be insured and moted by him failing to conform to the law he placed use all at risk of injury. A lack of MOT and insurance placed us at risk of injury? how does that work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted July 14, 2012 Report Share Posted July 14, 2012 did you not see the state of them. not road worthy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandcars Posted July 14, 2012 Report Share Posted July 14, 2012 did you not see the state of them. not road worthy In your opinion...As far as I was aware they were never officially inspected after he was stopped to ascertain their roadworthy state. The point you made was regards lack of MOT and Insurance was the cause for us to be at greater risk of injury. Which is not correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted July 14, 2012 Report Share Posted July 14, 2012 The fact that he contravened OUR laws in the way he did is, largely, irreleventreally Yes, really... It is his right to challenge the law just as much as it is yours or mine. If it wasn't, the 'rules' would be imposed on all of us by a ruling elite, with no comeback, and we would all have to do as we were told. The great pity here is that Mr Hill has been (quite rightly) ridculed by many for his ill thought out efforts, posturing and, posing and has done not a little damage to any genuine attempt at resolving sovereingty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorrie Posted July 15, 2012 Report Share Posted July 15, 2012 ...... The great pity here is that Mr Hill has been (quite rightly) ridculed by many for his ill thought out efforts, posturing and, posing and has done not a little damage to any genuine attempt at resolving sovereingty My sentiments too, Shetland has a reasonable case for something more akin to full autonomy (IMO). In fact I'd say more so than Scotland. Hill could have used some of his liking for the centre stage spotlight to focus on the issue rather than his own enormous ego. His original notion of setting up Forvik was something that I understood and, in many ways, supported. Unfortunately he then turned the whole shebang into a third rate "look at me" show in which all semblance of worthiness and intelligent challenge to 'the system' was lost. It's like watching a decidedly unfunny clown in a crap circus. Bring on the smoking monkey....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted July 15, 2012 Report Share Posted July 15, 2012 The eyes did look, it was in the public forum. Although some may not agree with his posture, he did what he thought was right, it did get a little farsicle in the end but he has done a lot of research. If channelled correctly, the research could help. Now it needs someone else to move forward with this, unless of course it is not that important to the majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted July 15, 2012 Report Share Posted July 15, 2012 Now it needs someone else to move forward with this, unless of course it is not that important to the majority. I think that it is quite important to a lot of people that we have a proper independent ruling, one way or the other, as to who owns Shetland. Personally, I do not want to be a 'subject'', I want to be a 'citizen' and, I have no faith in London/Edinburgh to look after our best interests. If you want an example, just take a peek at the fishing industry and balance that against the amount of revenue they have extracted from Sullom Voe.Then check the benefits(?) against the amount of interference that we have in conducting our own affairs. Also, I do not subscribe to the 'Neo-Norski' brigades wish to be transferred(?) to Scandinavian ownership and I just don't see the point in it. If they want to live in Norway, let them move to Norway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted July 15, 2012 Report Share Posted July 15, 2012 You could be right. There is much woolly thinking on here. Yet, I have never heard it anywhere else, except in a pub. It will take quite a bit of time to work out how it can move forward, it will take some convincing of folk to show them the other side of the wall, in a way they will side with. Many campaigns have started in a public house, many more have failed or not even started. There are very few who will give up their time and efforts for a common good. I would think it would be good to get the letters pages buzzing first, although censored in cases, it will develop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infiltrator Posted July 15, 2012 Report Share Posted July 15, 2012 This independence debate always ends at this same cul-de-sac. No one is prepared to take it any further, everyone assumes it's better, but no one can tell exactly what it'll mean - and it's always dependent on the snaring the revenue tax from the oil production around Shetland. Largely the same story with Scottish independence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted July 15, 2012 Report Share Posted July 15, 2012 Of course the court has been clever imposing a "community payback order". Had they just imposed a fine then the supporters of Stuart or Forvik could have just paid the fine for him........but so far as I know they cannot do the work for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorrie Posted July 15, 2012 Report Share Posted July 15, 2012 This independence debate always ends at this same cul-de-sac. No one is prepared to take it any further, everyone assumes it's better, but no one can tell exactly what it'll mean - and it's always dependent on the snaring the revenue tax from the oil production around Shetland. Largely the same story with Scottish independence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Posted July 15, 2012 Report Share Posted July 15, 2012 This independence debate always ends at this same cul-de-sac. No one is prepared to take it any further, everyone assumes it's better, but no one can tell exactly what it'll mean - and it's always dependent on the snaring the revenue tax from the oil production around Shetland. It would be 'better' in so much as we would have control of our own destiny. Anything else, I don't know but, we shouldn't be afraid to try it and, if it wasn't for the oil revenue and fishing grounds, it's a fair bet that Scotland/UK would be encouraging us to try it. Either way, it doesn't appear to have been 'bad' for the Isle of Man and Channel Islands for starters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted July 15, 2012 Report Share Posted July 15, 2012 Of course the court has been clever imposing a "community payback order". Had they just imposed a fine then the supporters of Stuart or Forvik could have just paid the fine for him........but so far as I know they cannot do the work for him. Perhaps he could research the independence that the community on here seem to think is viable. Keeps him on the islands a bit longer. A cunning plan perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattie Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 http://www.forvik.com/index.php/membership/membership-guidlines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaiser chef Posted July 16, 2012 Report Share Posted July 16, 2012 It isnt a subject I have much interest in but if Mr Hill has been declared bankrupt how can he still be collecting memberships?I havent bought one by the way. 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.