Sovereign Shetland

[troll]

NEW Forvik Consular Vehicle No2 is now on the road. It seems that he has a fleet of them.

WHITE Merc Vito, same plate FREE ZE123.

This is not a joke, because he has no tax or MOT he cannot be INSURED.

If he collides with your car or runs down your child would you like to sue him in court?

When his red one was impounded last week was he charged?

[justlookin]

NEW Forvik Consular Vehicle No2 is now on the road. It seems that he has a fleet of them.

WHITE Merc Vito, same plate FREE ZE123.

This is not a joke, because he has no tax or MOT he cannot be INSURED.

If he collides with your car or runs down your child would you like to sue him in court?

 

Yes you can be insured! An insurance company can insure you for anything they wish. He just wont be in the same folder as other car users.

 

Stop trying to scare everyone. The system is corrupt and riddled with expensive paperwork and he is the only one doing something to fight it.

 

An MOT is only valid for the day it taken.

[trooter]

^ this is rubbish MoT is valid for 1 year, but police can request a vehicle be put through MoT again if they think it is not fit to be on road. Failure to tax or MoT a vehicle invalidates the insurance.

[paulb]

what about the offence of displaying false number plates.

having a tax disc even from forvik could be classed as fraud.

if he keeps getting new cars instead of fighting over the last one then he is just abusing the law.

would the total of points from an uninsured and failing to display proper number plates puts him very near the banning point. assuming he has a licence.

[Ghostrider]

NEW Forvik Consular Vehicle No2 is now on the road. It seems that he has a fleet of them.

WHITE Merc Vito, same plate FREE ZE123.

This is not a joke, because he has no tax or MOT he cannot be INSURED.

If he collides with your car or runs down your child would you like to sue him in court?

When his red one was impounded last week was he charged?

 

Ignoring, for now, the wooden spoon weilding connotations of the user I.D......

 

As justlookin points out, he CAN be insured without having tax and MOT, he just won't be able to have one of your standard "one size fits all" "rip off" "off the peg" policies. He will, if he does have insurance, have to have negotiated a bespoke deal with an insurance company.

 

At worst, he's going to be no different to anyone else that runs around without motor insurance....and they're not exactly an endangered species. At best, he's as well insured as anyone else, only he, his insurance company (if he has one), and possibly the Police can know for sure. Tax and MOT, or the lack thereof is irrelevant, the fact all three are tied together is a simple straighforward scam cooked up between the UK Government and the Insurance industry, it doesn't necessarily any insurance company insuring anything in any way they see if, if they want the business.

 

According to what's been posted on the Forvik site, unspecified charges were laid by the Police when the red Vito was impounded, alleging contravention(s) of UK highway statutes, but as Hill doesn't recognise the authority of the UK in Shetland, he appears to be dismissing them as irrelevant.

[justlookin]

^ this is rubbish MoT is valid for 1 year, but police can request a vehicle be put through MoT again if they think it is not fit to be on road. Failure to tax or MoT a vehicle invalidates the insurance.

 

The MoT only ensures the safety of the vehicle for one day. I should have phrased that differently.

 

When your referring to your mode of travel as a "vehicle" or "car" that takes it into statutory realms. "Driving" a "vehicle" is a commercial venture hence the statutory realm.

 

Its a private conveyance for the purpose of travel, that’s common law jurisdiction.

 

Anything can be insured, it just wont be as u normally would in this case.

[Ghostrider]

what about the offence of displaying false number plates.

having a tax disc even from forvik could be classed as fraud.

if he keeps getting new cars instead of fighting over the last one then he is just abusing the law.

would the total of points from an uninsured and failing to display proper number plates puts him very near the banning point. assuming he has a licence.

 

You're missing the point, this is all playing right in to Hill's hands.

 

The point is, he doesn't recognise the authority of the UK in Shetland, so all the offences you list, and the potential consequences thereof if found guilty by a UK court in Shetland are, to him, meaningless.

 

All he's doing, if indeed he is on the road with a second vehicle, is racking up the ante to make sure they have a far harder job ignoring his antics. He wants his day in court, and if a telephone directory full of motoring "charges" is what get him there, then he would appear to think it worth it.

 

When, or if it leads him to his day in court though, the motoring "charges" will not be the issue, they are the means to the end jthat he needs to be able to challenge the authority of the UK in Shetland.

 

What does the court do if he fails to appear? Probably arrest him and physically force him to appear. But having got him there, what do they do if he refuses to plead to the charges on the grounds they are not brought under legal and competent authority? The UK justice system requires that the accused plead or it hits a brick wall. That is where he wants to be. It will be interesting to see how the court handles such a scenario.

[paulb]

NEW Forvik Consular Vehicle No2 is now on the road. It seems that he has a fleet of them.

WHITE Merc Vito, same plate FREE ZE123.

This is not a joke, because he has no tax or MOT he cannot be INSURED.

If he collides with your car or runs down your child would you like to sue him in court?

When his red one was impounded last week was he charged?

 

Ignoring, for now, the wooden spoon weilding connotations of the user I.D......

 

As justlookin points out, he CAN be insured without having tax and MOT, he just won't be able to have one of your standard "one size fits all" "rip off" "off the peg" policies. He will, if he does have insurance, have to have negotiated a bespoke deal with an insurance company.

 

At worst, he's going to be no different to anyone else that runs around without motor insurance....and they're not exactly an endangered species. At best, he's as well insured as anyone else, only he, his insurance company (if he has one), and possibly the Police can know for sure. Tax and MOT, or the lack thereof is irrelevant, the fact all three are tied together is a simple straighforward scam cooked up between the UK Government and the Insurance industry, it doesn't necessarily any insurance company insuring anything in any way they see if, if they want the business.

 

According to what's been posted on the Forvik site, unspecified charges were laid by the Police when the red Vito was impounded, alleging contravention(s) of UK highway statutes, but as Hill doesn't recognise the authority of the UK in Shetland, he appears to be dismissing them as irrelevant.

find a company that would honour a policy when the driver fails to conform to the law. for insurance to be valid the car needs to be roadworthy.

Why is it a con for a car to be road safe and have insurance to be taxed.

[JustMe]

Ghostrider wrote

What does the court do if he fails to appear? Probably arrest him and physically force him to appear. But having got him there, what do they do if he refuses to plead to the charges on the grounds they are not brought under legal and competent authority? The UK justice system requires that the accused plead or it hits a brick wall. That is where he wants to be. It will be interesting to see how the court handles such a scenario.

As I understand it the justice system treats a refusal to plead as a plea of not guilty and the legal process proceeds as though the accused had pleaded not guilty. Should the accused be found guilty then any punishment would be applied as normal.

 

I personally believe that Hill should not be messing around with dodgy vehicles and the possibility that, where one of them to be involved in an accident, an innocent party might lose out on any compensation due. Instead I think he should be exploring avenues where he can come up against the UK tax system which is a way of protesting that does not hurt innocent people.

[Ghostrider]

find a company that would honour a policy when the driver fails to conform to the law. for insurance to be valid the car needs to be roadworthy.

Why is it a con for a car to be road safe and have insurance to be taxed.

 

For an "off the peg" policy to be valid a vehicle must comply with UK statutes and be "roadworthy", but anyone can negotiate a policy for anything on any terms with an insurance company, and there's nothing to stop any insurance company insuring anything and anyone on any terms and coverage they see fit, if they want the business. Whether any insurance company is willing to go there, and whether Hill is acceptable of their terms and permium, only he and whatever insurance companies he may have discussed it with can possibly know.

 

If an insurance company is willing to insure an "unroadworthy" vehicle while on the public highway against third party claims, it is their right and privilege to do so. Purely a matter between the company themselves and the policyholder.

 

It is a con to tie MOT, road tax and insurance together, the MOT is barely worth the paper it is written on, it only certifies that the vehicle was in a roadworthy condition at the time of inspection. What good is that to anyone if it is produced 50 weeks after it was issued to prove whatever its supposed to prove? A week's normal wear and tear and general decay in the life of a vehicle can change much, 50 can easily put it from an easy pass, to having long since broken up through rot....

 

Road Tax is a straightforward scam, plain and simple, very much in the same league as the TV Licence, you pay an annual flat rate according to a few loose "classifications" regardless whether that vehicle does 100,000 miles or 1000 miles per annum. A fairer tax would be on fuel, think about it, an "average" road tax rate is £130/annum, or £2.50/week, or 50p/business day. Assume average mileage is 10,000/annum, approx 200/week, in an average 40mpg car. That's 5 gallons of fuel, or just under 23 litres. Round it up to easier worked numbers, and it means a 10p/litre increase in petrol if the road tax were abolished, would leave your average motorist exactly where they are right now.

 

The fact that the Government doesn't do that, says to me that either the flat rates charges brings in more revenue than they believe motorists would tolerate as a "reasonable" price increase on fuel as an alternative, or, having all these various bits of paper flaoting around for each and every vehicle, gives them yet one more way of keeping tabs on vehicles and people, and they're not willing to give that up.

 

So, you cook up a nice little deal with the Insurance Industry, to make sure both they and you all get the maximum out of it, by tying them all together.

[Ghostrider]

Ghostrider wrote

What does the court do if he fails to appear? Probably arrest him and physically force him to appear. But having got him there, what do they do if he refuses to plead to the charges on the grounds they are not brought under legal and competent authority? The UK justice system requires that the accused plead or it hits a brick wall. That is where he wants to be. It will be interesting to see how the court handles such a scenario.

As I understand it the justice system treats a refusal to plead as a plea of not guilty and the legal process proceeds as though the accused had pleaded not guilty. Should the accused be found guilty then any punishment would be applied as normal.

 

If he remains silent and refuses to acknowledge the court, you're very probably right. However, if he launches a counter legal case against the court disputing their authority to lay such charges, I would imagine any charges against him would be postponed until his counter claim was settled.

 

The contradictory methods, if not irony, of his way of using (and assumedly recognising) the court when it suits him, but refusing to recognise it when it doesn't, are noted. To my mind it rather undermines his case that the court has no jurisdiction in Shetland, but no doubt he has a take on it, understandable to other folk, or otherwise, of how that is "okay".

 

I personally believe that Hill should not be messing around with dodgy vehicles and the possibility that, where one of them to be involved in an accident, an innocent party might lose out on any compensation due. Instead I think he should be exploring avenues where he can come up against the UK tax system which is a way of protesting that does not hurt innocent people.

 

Agreed. As I think I've said before, I have nothing against what Hill stands for or what he's trying to achieve, but his methods leave very much to be desired. This is just one more to add to the list of those.

[klanky]

Mr Hill can 'refuse to recognise' the court all he wants. He is hardly unique in this approach.

 

He'll be tried and dealt with the same as anyone else...and there's diddley squat he can do about that. The nick is full of idiots who refuse to recognise the jurisdiction that sentenced them - but they're still in chokey.

 

Fuss about nowt.

[Ghostrider]

^^ That's what I'd expect too, given the way he's going about it.

 

He may or may not be on to something about whether Shetland did or did not become part of the UK, but to expect any UK entity such as a court not to back the party line on the subject, is very naive. The "system" will protect itself at any and all costs.

 

If he wants to progress, he either needs to prove majority local support, or get the backing of some internationally recognised entity which the UK is bound to accept the findings of, to investigate.

[stephen]

I mentioned the whole 'is Shetland a part of the UK' thing to a friend who is a lecturer in British Studies at Edinburgh University. He said that the bottom line is that as the Union Flag flies at the main port it is seen as British land.

 

Anyway, I think that Stuart acknowledges the fact that Shetland is part of the UK every time he uses the NHS or uses a subsidised service such as public transport, or indeed the roads. In my mind he also agreed that Shetland is a part of the UK when he registered his business as a UK company.

 

Stuart hill is using services that he is refusing to pay for - that makes him a criminal in my mind. The money that he is costing tax payers could be much better spent IMO.

[shetlandpeat]

If he is disputing that then he still has a right to use our roads and NHS and so on. I do not remember getting a bill from France for using the pavement and I had no bill from Holland for visiting the doctor.

Once a independent state has been set up, there will need to be further agreements, as with any other.