Jump to content

Stuart Hill (Captain Calamity) Forvik


Do you support Stuart Hill  

222 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you support Stuart Hill

    • Yes!
    • No!
    • Don't know?

Recommended Posts

  • 9 months later...

So Stuart Hill is in the news again,another failed court case. Right cause perhaps but certainly the

wrong man.


How much exactly has this liability cost Shetland in police time, court costs, and it has to be said

rescue services? Quite apart from legal costs accrued by individuals caught up in his campaigns.


It seems he has fenced off land at the Cunningsburgh pier so he can rebuild his shelter for the Mary

Celeste. He has signs up warning people against trespass on the sovereign territory of Shetland. That

territory also includes the Cunningsburgh shop I think.


When are we going stop giving this clown the oxygen of publicity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His justification is the provision in the Treaty of Breda signed in 1667.




"The parties agreed to postpone a discussion of the pawnings of Orkney (1468) and Shetland (1469) until a future occasion. Such a discussion has yet to take place, leading some to argue that this constitutes a legal basis for regarding Orkney and Shetland as direct dependencies of the Scots crown, rather than parts of the UK."


Unfortunately things have moved on since then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately things have moved on since then.


Yes, they have. But if in that moving on, everything relies on a house of cards to support its very existence, is it legitimate.


That aside. Isn't anyone just slightly concerned at the Sheriff's use of very bad nautical puns to, for the want of a better term, 'rip the pith' of Calamity personally.


The Court, a Court, you expect to behave in a manner befitting their status and role, and display absolute professionalism, decorum, politeness and respect to everyone, including whoever is in the dock. To not do so is to denegrate and disrespect it's very existence, and consequently damage the respect the general public has in the organisation and its decisions. Basically, regardless of whatever chancer, yahoo or nutter they're dealing with, the Court should, and needs to 'rise above it' and treat everybody exactly the same in every way.


While the Sheriff is fully entitled to think and say whatever he likes wherever he likes 'off the record', what's said and done in a public Court while it is in session is a whole othe rmatter, and IMHO very definitely not the time or place to be making very bad cheap jokes at anyones expense, regardless how much anyone may believe they are justified and deserved.


The same things could have been said with equal, possibly greater clarity using neutral terminology, the use of the terminology quoted in the media was gratuitous and uncalled for. The last Sheriff created negative PR and damaged the respect and esteem the Court is held in by many, with the several occasions he was portrayed as arrogant, pompous and opening his mouth and sticking his foot right in it. Its disheartening to see a new Sheriff apparently starting in where his predecessor left off with it.


The whole thing was a rather pointless charade too, for while the Sheriff may have made such a meal of telling Calamity he was wrong, he produced nothing tp prove the Court's stance was right, so in the end they're each as bad as the other in their own ways. 'Is - Isnae - Is - Isne......', 'Sot - not - sot - not......'. Its like a playground argument - Why can't/won't the Court produce an indisputable answer to Calamity's question, and shut him up on it for good. This 'You're wrong', 'We're right' endless bickering between them got boring long ago, and its a total waste of god knows how many of our tax dollars needlessly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ True, but the trend for at least the last 70 years and more has been that where the present day occupants of a territory were unhappy with the status quo, either rolling back some of the historical changes and restarting in a different direction, or forcing ahead in a whole new direction has been the trendy thing.


Numerous Shetlanders have been unhappy with the status quo since at least the 1600's if not before, and remain so today, history proves both points. Whether the current dissatisfied amounts to a majority, or not, who knows until there's a head count, but there's at least enough and a long enough sustained interest to legitimately explore such things.


To move forward it is necessary to both understand how we got ourselves in the mess we're in today, and to know where we could go if a whole new direction was taken, otherwise nobody can make an informed decision whether Shetland's best future is to roll back and head off on a new tangent, simply head off from where we are anew, or leave well alone as is.


Arguably Hill's mistake is to concentrate on the past and how we got here, making it a near obsession, and somehow believing that if he can discredit it and remove its legitimacy a better future will somehow make itself. We need to be forward looking towards the best direction for increased growth and prosperity for ourselves first and foremost, if some of the dubious shenanigans of the past can be undone and better place us to move forward from, that would be a welcome bonus, and is worth exploring as part of the bigger picture, but that is all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said it a few times but, right idea, wrong man.


Truth is that the sheriff will always p*ss on anyone who challenges his position.  After all, he's just a tool of the state and has a vested interest in maintaining it's position..

Making a mockery of Stuart Hill was unprofessioal and, imho, a bad thing. Like minded people to Stuart Hill should be offering him some kind of support.  That's the only way that the establishment will start to take note.


Stuart Hill could have taken a different approach.  Just be grateful that he is at least trying to do things the "legal"(?) way..  It might be a little far fetched but, years back, the IRA started blowing things up, killing people and organised a full scale revolution to get rid of "English Oppression".  The Free Wales Army started burning down holiday cottages etc...  Stopped short of armed insurrection but, they did paint a lot of stuff green.. :rofl:


I'm not suggesting for one second that the solution is violence but, it is worth bearing in mind that the UN Charter of Human Rights (of which the UK is a signatory) states that ALL peoples have a right to self determination (or something like that).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^ Agree with the above.

As a long time supporter of self determination and more autonomy for Shetland I admit I cringe every time I see Mr Hill's name in the press. His arguments become irrelevant because of the counter productive nature of his methods. 

Too many people are apathetic and unaware of what their actual rights are. Many are quite prepared to moan about a government or Council decision but few are prepared to actually take any sort of action to support an alternative, even if they think it is a good idea in theory. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Stuart can get his point proved, what then?


If he is correct that the court has no jurisdiction over Shetland and gets that proved somehow, what happens then?


What court would have jurisdiction over Shetland?


Or, is he planning that him and his "parliament" would take over?

Edited by Lerwick antiques
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What then(?) is the great unknown.. 


Truth is that Shetland would then enjoy a kind of power that it has never had.


There would have to be a referendum to decide on a number of options ie;

Maintain the existing status quo and continue to be shafted,

Full independence.

Crown Dependency status similar to Isle of Man, Channel Islands.

Rejoin Norway or Denmark..



The up side of it all would be that we could then regain control of our resources.  Make up our own rules. Govern ourselves.  The down side is that every  carpetbagger in creation would try to exploit us.


If he proves succesful then, Stuart Hill will probably disappear into history.  He might get a statue erected in his name at some point but, I think that on a personal level, he does not enjoy the level of support that would put him into a position where he could "make the  rules".  I also do not think that is what he wants to do anyway.


It's just a pity that everyone locally seems to take some kind of perverse joy in refering to him in a derogatory fashion when, imho, he has placed a very uncomfortable(?) question in front of the establishment.


As GR pointed out on another thread, every one derides the man but, no one yet has been able to justify their arguments against him.

I suppose "character assasination" has been adopted as the best approach for the moment.

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.

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.


  • Create New...