Ghostrider Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 ^^ "Forvik" is central to his current overall project, without it he's just one more agitator talking to the wind, for Forvik to have credibility he needs to visit and reside there at least sometimes, and unless he's made a mint off the alleged disposal of his alleged Sovereign Collection and plans on hiring a chopper for inter-island transport, he's gonna have to get afloat to get to/from there, and he's gonna need fishing out of the briney yet again..... Perhaps, given his track record as a seaman, if he couldn't/wouldn't hire a competent boatman, he would have been better advised to acquire a holm with some sort of bridge, or at least one he could wade back and forth to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted June 17, 2009 Report Share Posted June 17, 2009 ^^Is it unsinkable? Although given Calamity's track record, he'd probably still find a way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted June 18, 2009 Report Share Posted June 18, 2009 A holm is a good Could I suggest he might find a good one in the South Shetland IslandsA Forvik right off (to) the coast of the South Shetland Islands. It will be a doddle for all who are not idiots. Oops, I mean all that are Eccentric and Misguided. O and I forgot for a few seconds. He would need a boat to get there. And bless my sole The Lifeboat and Rescue Helicopter, can’t carry enough fuel to get that far, to rescue him yet again. What ever will we do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Person Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 Found some interesting information. This is from a discussion on the 1669 Act for annexation of Orkney and Shetland to the Crown from wikkipidia "MacRusgail - the 1669 Act had the effect of removing the islands from the jurisdiction of parliament and placed them under the personal care of the king as "Crown Dependencies" similar to the constitutional status of the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. This is the Stuart Hill of www.forvik.com position and it is, with respect, a misunderstanding of the 1669 Act. All the Act did was "annex" the islands to the Crown which in this context means that the Crown could not alienate its interests in Orkney & Shetland without the consent of parliament. The relevant wording of the 1669 Act is "[the islands] shall not nor may be given away [by the Crown] in fie and heretage, nor in frank tenement, lyverent, pension or tack, except for the full duetie which may be gotten from and payed by the tennents, nor by any other maner of alienation, right or disposition whatsomever to any person or persons of whatsoever estate, degree or qualitie they be, without advice, decreit and deliberation of the whole parliament; and for great, weighty and reasonable causes concerning the good weillfare and publict interest of the whole kingdom, first to be proposed and to be advised and maturely pondered and considered by the estates re integra," I don't know what happened in 1742 but in 1707 the Crown Estates in O&S were granted to Morton perfectly legally in terms of an Act of Parliament passed within the procedure envisaged by the 1669 Act (the 1707 Act specifically refers to the 1669 Act)." I also read the act myself and from my interpretation of it it seemthe act was actually annexing Shetland and Orkney as part of Scotland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepychef Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 I have read this post with interest but did not comment as knew little of Stuart Hill and his claims, but after the post from person it is resolved. Stuart Hill needs to be made aware of his misunderstanding of the Act and leave Shetland alone, or live here like everyone else in peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted July 6, 2009 Report Share Posted July 6, 2009 ^^ Two very different and opposing interpretations of one statement, the only place to hammer out which interpretation is correct, or which bits of both interpretations are correct for that matter, is in a court type situation with experts in legal historical matters debating everything in front of a judgement panel. Its all fine and well to come along and state Hill has "misunderstood" the meaning of the relevant text and dismiss him, but that in itself isn't good enough. It has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt that he is misunderstanding the relevant documentation. With all due respect that's not being done, as the "relevant wording" posted above, is of such a standard of antiquated legal speak gobbledegook that no layman can say with 100% certainty what its exact meaning is. Its all rather irrelevant anyway as far as I'm concerned. IMHO Hill is making two very dangerous mistakes, and I've already called him on one of them on this thread. 1) A UK court, as Hill is trying to force the issue in to, is the last place on earth the matter should be taken to be investigated and settled. Talk about putting the lunatics in charge of the asylum....bias, hidden agendas, behind the scenes "whispers"....the list is endless. In no way can a fair, just and full investigation ever take place in a British court, the very same people running the courts would be far too heavily involved as the defence of the status quo to have a hope in hell of that. 2) As far as I can see there's no point in arguing and debating over what did and didn't occur to Shetland's constitutional status after the Scottie King mittened us, unless we first establish what exactly it was the old Dane/Norski King actually gave him in the first place, and if what he did give was even his to give at all. If you can prove that King Jeemie grippit and keepit things that was either neither the owld Dane's to give, or then were not actually given by the owld Dane, everything thereafter is irrelevant as it is null and void. The time to investigate whatever shenanigans Jeemie and his heirs got up to, is after its proven what they held legally and what they held illegally, and you can bet your boots that they took everything they could lay hands on, which is almost certainly somewhat more than the owld Dane willingly gave. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepshagger Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 So person speaks and sleepychef obeys, person has made 9 posts on shetlink at this point all of them on the stuart hill thread. An agenda is afoot here me thinks?????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepychef Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 I read I understand more than the threads here relating to the Crown & Parliament which Stuart Hill and all his blind followers need to. Shetland belongs to Scotland not Norway or Denmark if they wanted it they would be making moves in higher circles than Shetlink. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted July 7, 2009 Report Share Posted July 7, 2009 I have read this post with interest but did not comment as knew little of Stuart Hill and his claims, but after the post from person it is resolved. Stuart Hill needs to be made aware of his misunderstanding of the Act and leave Shetland alone, or live here like everyone else in peace. I think he should carry on, this way it will come to some sort of ending...to say the least, the man is sticking to what he believes is right. I dont think he, himself will do anyone any harm, though, the recent coverage by Clunes has done Shetland for a lost opportunity, but, that is ANOTHER thread.... So we should continue the debate, in a respectable manner and at least be civil..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepychef Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Where in my post am I not civil??? Explain... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Where in my post am I not civil??? Explain... Index fingers were rested, just a general thing not made at anyone in particular, no need to fret.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 chill folks just wait for his next stunt then get hot about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 I read I understand more than the threads here relating to the Crown & Parliament which Stuart Hill and all his blind followers need to. Shetland belongs to Scotland not Norway or Denmark if they wanted it they would be making moves in higher circles than Shetlink. Err would making moves in higher circles be rowing a boat in a circular direction then when the waves were high? Sorry, couldn't resist! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 Shetland belongs to the Shetlanders. IF they choose to be Scotish then that's their choice; the same as the Scots choose to be part of the UK. Now if the folks up here decided that they would prefer to be Danish, Norwegian or any other nationality then that would be their choice. As of this moment it seems that the majority of people prefer to remain as they are so it really matters not if these islands were once owned by someone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 I don't think that if 51 % of the population wants to be Kenyan, the Islands would fall under African Rule. With the apethy with voting, there will never be a proper result, unless you force folk to decide, mm civil liberties and freedom of choice will then rear it's heed 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.