Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intercepted communications reveal The Shetland Liberation Front have come up with a protest song

 

Free Captain Calamity

Free free

Free free free Captain Calamity

 

Free Captain Calamity

 

2 days in captivity

Cell too small to fit his ego

His ego abused, but his mind is still free

You're so blind that you cannot see

 

Free Captain Calamity

 

Visited the causes at the SLF

Only one man in a small army

You're so lucky that you cannot see

You're so lucky that you cannot hear him

 

Free Captain Calamity

 

2 tears in captivity

You're so lucky that you cannot see

You're so lucky that you cannot hear him

You'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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^"Miss the point" :shock:

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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 8) )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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...