Ghostrider Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 ^^ I rather suspect you may be right, and we all know how the circumnavigation ended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Rather like his attempt to circumnavigate the British Isles.Any word on how Team Forvik got on in the sailing events at the Island Games? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 ^^ Last I heard they were appealing to have their sailing entry reclassified at the last minute to an underwater hockey entry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohanofNess Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Rather like his attempt to circumnavigate the British Isles.Any word on how Team Forvik got on in the sailing events at the Island Games? They were nearing the final course marker when a rogue cod holed his hull. He had to be rescued by the isle of wight's synchronised swimming team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohanofNess Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Intercepted communications reveal The Shetland Liberation Front have come up with a protest song Free Captain CalamityFree freeFree free free Captain Calamity Free Captain Calamity 2 days in captivityCell too small to fit his egoHis ego abused, but his mind is still freeYou're so blind that you cannot see Free Captain Calamity Visited the causes at the SLFOnly one man in a small armyYou're so lucky that you cannot seeYou're so lucky that you cannot hear him Free Captain Calamity 2 tears in captivityYou're so lucky that you cannot seeYou're so lucky that you cannot hear himYou're so dumb to let him speak Free Captain Calamity They're trying to smuggle an african choir onto the isles to sing it at the police station until Mr Hill is released. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beachcaster Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 For someone who has claimed that he will be delighted when the Police eventually charge him for his blatent disregard of the law, Mr Hill certainly didn't look very happy when he was getting his collar felt. He will now get what he claims he always wanted, a day in Court. I hope they throw the book at him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hillsidevoe Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 How very sad that so many people on here totally miss the point and take the high moral stance."Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."Stuart Hills stance isn't one of blatant disregard of the law rather I suspect he is like many of us who dwell in this piece of land known as the united kingdom. One who is fed up with the lies and curruption of politicians, fed up with being taxed at every opportunity, fed up with paying through the nose for fuel and everyday living costs, fed up with being told that all the high security, CC tv, body searches, ID checks, can't carry a can of coke on an airplane etc is to prevent terrorism, yeah right, that old chestnut. Maybe, just maybe someone has got to push back at the system once in a while, maybe we could get back to the real law, Common law whereby we all live in peace, do no one any harm, do not steal and are honorable in our commerce.Maybe its time for us all to do a bit more research on the laws of this fair land before we are quick to judge. I expect everyone who has ever done 31MPH in a 30MPH limit or forgot to change that baldy tyre to report to Lerwick Police station immediately!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infiltrator Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 ^"Miss the point" You are kidding aren't you? How does a someone who has a blatant disregard for the safety of others become some sort of hero in your eyes? I'm talking about his marine antics when the RNLI and coastguard had to rescue him (was it 3 or 4 times I forget) because of his sheer selfish stupidity. From memory, I think the Landrover saga also had some public safety issues - I'd need to look back. We'll not dwell on the possibility that driving without insurance might be one of his motoring offences as we've no idea at the moment - if that proves to be the case I'd like to hear your view on that. I've no problem with someone having a peaceful protest to get a point across as long as other folk aren't inconvenienced or put in some sort of danger but Stuarts disregard for others safety and increasing cost to the taxpayers isn't something I support at all. Would you be willing to fund his legal costs? as maybe it's about time his 'followers' started to pick up the costs of his antics. After all, he's not likely to get legal aid not being a UK citizen, is he? We've all got views when it comes to closing schools to cut public spending, and yet it's okay to spend public funds and resources on this folly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances144 Posted July 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 To drive around without car insurance is unforgivable in my book and does not make him a hero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone."I've never been particularly impressed by that concept. It seems to be generally used to indicate that since nobody is 100% innocent of sin, they are consequently morally disallowed from making any kind of negative critical comment. As such it is quite a pointless and naive idea. I don't think that someone who has peed in the street is morally precluded from commenting on the appropriateness of activity which is significantly more anti-social. How very sad that so many people on here totally miss the point and take the high moral stance.I think the aspect which leads people to take a high moral stance in this instance, is the way the general public are being deliberately and avoidably exposed to hazard. Mr Hill makes a point of claiming the vehicles are safe and roadworthy, but, as far as I am aware, he has not made similar statements about the public liability insurance situation. Without such an assurance the general public are quite right in expressing indignation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klanky Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Maybe, just maybe someone has got to push back at the system once in a while, maybe we could get back to the real law, Common law whereby we all live in peace, do no one any harm, do not steal and are honorable in our commerce......... Could you point in the history books where this 'golden age' was? I can't find it in any of mine. Laughing boy is nothing more than an overblown attention seeker, a showman, a self publicist, all smoke and mirrors. More power to his elbow for being 'different', certainly. But he has serious delusions of adequacy when he plays the 'you can't touch me' card. Kick his ass. (This message was brought to you by the Grand Overlord of the Republics of Gobigoe and Gobi Skerries..all pay homage to me who set foot here ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Infiltrator Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 To drive around without car insurance is unforgivable in my book and does not make him a hero. I agree - but there's nothing to suggest that is the case. Vehicles can also be impounded now for not having road tax. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 To drive around without car insurance...I agree - but there's nothing to suggest that is the case.Don't you think that if he does have insurance, he would have made a point of proclaiming that fact loud and clear? The silence suggests to me a likelihood that he does not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hillsidevoe Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 So Stuart has no MOT how does he differ from folks who drive on our outer islands where MOTs are not required? Stuart is not my hero.Having or not having insurance does not in itself put anyone in danger rather the standard and conduct of the driver does and as such how has he put people in danger? I do not advocate driving without insurance, like I said you miss the point.As to legal costs why would he incur any? His challenge is one of requiring the court to prove jurisdiction. You really need to understand the difference between legal and lawful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted July 6, 2011 Report Share Posted July 6, 2011 Having or not having insurance does not in itself put anyone in danger ... how has he put people in danger?I spoke of hazard, not physical danger. Though there are issues of causing exposure to physical danger in some of his other antics, in the matter of vehicle insurance the hazard I refer to is financial hazard. 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.