derick Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Purely hypothetically, hou dolally does a body hae ta be afore dey get sectioned fur der owin protection?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 the police are not going to do him because they did not witness his offences. they need evidence to prove it. having the banger on the road proves the offence for not having a tax disc. why could they not do him for littering Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justlookin Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 I congratulate Stuart on his letter to the filth. Thats a sweet letter, totally legal and above board until they prove jurisdiction/authority. The beauty of it is he's right, and all you arrogant bitter bar-stewards deep down are envious and fear those, with the balls to stand up and say no more to this pathetic excuse of a dictatorship dressed as democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 ^^ It would help if the guy doing it had the balls to stand up and prove he believed his own rhetoric. Acquiring an old crang and dodging in around the backroads of the westside for a little while before parking it up on a relatively remote and little used road someplace, rather that simply letting his regular car's tax MOT etc expire and not bothering to renew it, claiming it was registered in Forvik and therefor un-necessary, makes his preaching come over as no more sincere than that of the proverible snake oil vendor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infiltrator Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 I congratulate Stuart on his letter to the filth. Thats a sweet letter, totally legal and above board until they prove jurisdiction/authority. The beauty of it is he's right, and all you arrogant bitter bar-stewards deep down are envious and fear those, with the balls to stand up and say no more to this pathetic excuse of a dictatorship dressed as democracy. Arrogant, bitter, envious? try normal law abiding tax payers. You need to seek some help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 I congratulate Stuart on his letter to the filth. Thats a sweet letter, totally legal and above board until they prove jurisdiction/authority. The beauty of it is he's right, and all you arrogant bitter bar-stewards deep down are envious and fear those, with the balls to stand up and say no more to this pathetic excuse of a dictatorship dressed as democracy. Did anyone in Shetland ask this idiot, to stand up for them all, with all this nonsense . I saw nothing in the paper, asking for anyone around here to sponsor this silly action of his . He has not asked me, if I wanted him to represent me for his hair brained scheme. If he had I would have told him to find the nearest highest cliff and take a run and jump. It’s about time Captain Calamity grew up, and stop running around like an pre-teen attention seeker. The only problem is that any job he took up would end like his boating skills. And bring any work place to a stand still. He is not called Captain Calamity for nothing. As for being envious of the twerp, all he is done so far is sink any boat he has been on and that’s not something to be envious of. Just remember what nelson said “ a man from the Shetland Islands was worth more than any pressed man there seamanship skills were second to noneâ€After all the boats that have sunk around the Shetland Islands in the past 30 years. That quote is no longer credible in any way Captain Calamity has seen to that if nothing else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 What?! Stuart Hill is now responsible for every boat sinking around Shetland in the past 30 years? Can that opinion be justified? If not kindly retract it. While we're at it, Stuart Hill may be a lot of things but it is debatable whether or not he could be construed as an idiot. His extensive historical research and website would seem to contradict the description of "a stupid person". Eccentric, misguided, whatever you like, but an idiot - no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Para Handy Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 It was not my intention to ineptly that he was responsible for all the ships, that have sunk around Shetland (I was saying that seaman ship skills are not so well spread through Shetland as it was 200 years ago, when ever one was at least some sort of crofter and fisherman and seaman ship was passed down to the son of the family and then the grand son ect.) As you point out so I am QUITE HAPPY to RETRACT that part in the post as you have requestedThe idiot point in reflection was to strong a word. And Eccentric and misguided is more, what I was shooting for. But his lack of boating skills has been well documented. In the paper over the years.His extensive historical research, has yet to be tested to, he may well prove everyone wrong, who thinks it just a waste of time. And I have yet to see anyone, stand and say. I asked him to fight for independence on my behalf, he has no mandate from the people of Shetland that I have seen. If he wants to do it, he should have at least organised a referendum to see what public opinion was and then do it like everyone else. And campaign for independence If he had a good percentage of the people behind him and prove it by winning Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Does he need a mandate from the people?. If Stuart Hill believes that a wrong has taken place sometime in the past is he not entitled to do something about it on the grounds that he, and he alone, wants that wrong righted?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 ^^ Quite probably he is, but if that's his mission he should either take his greivances to the people who matter....lawyers, politicians, human rights etc al, and/or keep all his activities within the boundaries of the property/ies he is entitled to occupy. As I've said somewhere before, what he gets up to on Forewick Holm, in his own home, in public halls he's hired for the purpose and in the media etc, I really couldn't give a monkey's.... Its when he takes his antics in amongst the rest of us, as with his Land Rover stunt that in my mind it crosses a line he has no right to cross. He's been banging on about the whole Udal Law thing etc for now at least 6 years, yet no-one but himself has dared stick their head above the parapet to back it, despite that he seems incapable of comprehending that we, the masses, should choose to not pursue the opportunity he is waving in front of our faces. It comes over like he believes we are not supporting him because we don't fully understand what he is saying, so he must continue to try and explain it. That apparent attitude is somewhat insulting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Not having had the privilege of seeing the land rover being driven or parked on the road I cannot make a decision about just how bad that "stunt" was but from his point of view it seems to be nothing more than another attempt to get someone to take him to court so he can challenge the legality of the current administration. Now if it was possible for the Coastguard to get him banned from putting to sea ever again in any form of boat I would be happy to see him trying to challenge that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infiltrator Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 While we're at it, Stuart Hill may be a lot of things but it is debatable whether or not he could be construed as an idiot. His extensive historical research and website would seem to contradict the description of "a stupid person". Eccentric, misguided, whatever you like, but an idiot - no. Beg to differ, an idiot can also be someone who is utterly foolish or senseless, I think you'll find that Calamity regularly ticked those boxes on his maritime adventure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infiltrator Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 ^A crap sailor would only get rescued once, an idiot on the other hand... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 Leaving aside whether or not Hill is or isn't an idiot, there can be virtually no question that he has undertaken far more than his fair share of idiotic endeavours over time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derick Posted June 16, 2009 Report Share Posted June 16, 2009 What ever happened to Udal Law.... Whit ivver happened ta Pictish Law. Bl&&dy Proto-Norski Imperialists! 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.