Jump to content

Stuart Hill (Captain Calamity) Forvik


tlady
 Share

Do you support Stuart Hill  

222 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you support Stuart Hill

    • Yes!
      58
    • No!
      164
    • Don't know?
      8


Recommended Posts

were would he get the grounds for an appeal. forget the rubbish of independence. he would need to prove that there was an error of law in his conviction. we all know he is guilty of the offences that he was convicted. so why waste time on this nonsense he does his community service or he will be spending a lot of time in jail.

 

anyone remember the nudist hiker he is spending a heck of a long time in prision because he won't conform.

 

i say good on the sheriff just hope he treats everyone the same.

 

how would you have handled it then folks if you were the sheriff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just what was the Sheriff thinking about locking up Mr Hill? Just look at the contribution he has made to society - always pays his taxes and debts, regular emergency services test man, massive contributor to the public purse with his numerous successful business ventures, refunds all of his State Pension payments, law abiding citizen, hates attention seekers, master mariner ... the list goes on and on. There really is no justice!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thou i admit that its strange that mister hill is in the nick when others that gave someone a good kicking get off with a fine.

 

Mister Hill is in the nick because he refused to pay a fine and do his community service for a crime he committed. If the guy who gave someone a good kicking did likewise, he too would in the nick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

were would he get the grounds for an appeal. forget the rubbish of independence. he would need to prove that there was an error of law in his conviction. we all know he is guilty of the offences that he was convicted. so why waste time on this nonsense he does his community service or he will be spending a lot of time in jail.

 

When are you going to get you head around the fact that Mr Hill DOES NOT think he is guilty of any crimes because Mr Hill argues that the Sheriff, as a representative of the UK Government, has NO JURISDICTION on Shetland.

 

Until that point is settled by a wholly independent body, he remains at liberty? to flout whatever UK 'Laws' he sees fit to.

 

OK, he is probably going to end up on 1st name terms with just about everyone in the penal system but, IMHO, it's his choice.

 

There must be a lot of people 'in authority' who just don't want this can of worms opened and are probably feeling pretty uncomfortable at the moment.

Bet that more than a few wish that he would just go away.. After all, if it was decided (by an independent body) that Shetland was NOT UK 'property', what would that do to the Treasury revenues viz:Sullom Voe.

 

Like I said earlier, there is more to this than meets the eye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When are you going to get you head around the fact that Mr Hill DOES NOT think he is guilty of any crimes because Mr Hill argues that the Sheriff, as a representative of the UK Government, has NO JURISDICTION on Shetland.

 

 

Presumably you missed this a couple of pages previous?

 

http://scotslawthoughts.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/the-scottish-courts-rule-that-shetland-is-part-of-the-uk-rbs-v-hill-2012-csoh-110/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thou i admit that its strange that mister hill is in the nick when others that gave someone a good kicking get off with a fine.

 

Nah, belligerent drunk nuts someone and gets a (deserved IMO) pasting. Not really the same as being on the receiving end of a totally unprovoked attack - that should certainly attract a prison sentence.

 

Mr Hill is finding out that he can pretend he's not subject to the same laws as us til the cows come home. The Sheriff has, quite rightly, made it crystal clear that the Scots judicial system and State is in charge here - not Mr Hill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok then colin if mr hill had run a member of your family over in his uninsured and roadworthy transport. i bet you would have been screaming to have him locked up. there is a reason that our cars need to be insured and moted (the taxes i could not care a fig about)

 

by him failing to conform to the law he placed use all at risk of injury. which he repeated with 3 different cars/vans.

 

he was found guilty of those offences after he presented his defense.

he refused to except the punishment of the court and showed his contempt of our legal system.

 

the 12 days he is serving are on remand until the next hearing were he can present his reason for failing to comply with the courts order. if he continues to refuse to obey the court he will go back to jail.

 

which does seem unfair but this is all by his own choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok then colin if mr hill had run a member of your family over in his uninsured and roadworthy transport. i bet you would have been screaming to have him locked up. there is a reason that our cars need to be insured and moted (the taxes i could not care a fig about)

 

Hypothetical.

 

I thought that the argument here was about Mr Hill's right to challenge the system and, ultimately, to make it prove it's jurisdiction.

 

The fact that he contravened OUR laws in the way he did is, largely, irrelevent and, adding "if he killed one of your kids" type arguments is meaningless. He could do that just as easily with a fully compliant vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...