Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

 

Or insurance - unless declared SORN

 

Correct me if i'm wrong, but if he is driving a vehicle with an unregistered number plate "free ZE1" I can't see that any insurance he may or may not have would be valid or pay out in the event he crashes into you, me or anyone else.

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!!!

 

I can understand the point you are trying to make, it would be a hellish place if folk didna somtimes challange the system and introduce some midder wit (common sense). But the actions of this bloke seem to lack all midder wit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When a protest has a reasonable chance of challenging the status quo and is conducted in a way that neither endangers nor inconveniences, that's fine. I'm not about to offer judgement or comment on Hill's alleged endangerments or of causing inconvenience, because I believe they're secondary and as such largely irrelevant.

 

The main issue, as I see it at least, is that nothing Hill has done or is doing will challenge one damn thing, wherever it goes, and whatever twists and turns he or "the system" take in handling it. If someone can explain to me how him appearing before a court charged with whatever, then expecting the court to "prove" their right of jurisdiction, will end in anything other than "sending in the army", then I'm willing to reconsider my opinion.

 

If he stands in the dock, and asks the Sheriff to justify the rights of jurisdiction of the court he is presiding over, what's to stop the Sheriff, and indeed why expect the Sheriff to say anything else than, "because I have that right". Pronounce a verdict on the charges at hand, and hand down a sentence. Where does Hill have left to go in that case?

 

The "citizenships" and "nations" he is relying on to get anywhere are not internationally recognised, they only exist in the minds of himself and any of his supporters of like mind, its not like he can call on the Forvikian Embassy to the UK, or to Shetland for assistance, or envoke international law regarding national rights.

 

Unless he skips off PDQ to some country which doesn't have an extradition treaty with the U.K. the powers that be will make sure he appears in court if he is slated to do so, simply through weight of numbers of Police etc, the court can fine him whatever they feel like, and as long as he has assets and/or income from anywhere in the U.K. they will collect either through impounding or arrestment. If that fails the court will make sure he ends up in jail, again simply by weight of numbers of Police. And, there's not one damn thing he can do about any of it unless talk.

 

Is he really naive enough to believe that if he stands in the dock and tells the Sheriff that he does not recognise the court as he can find no proof Shetland ever became part of the U.K. that the court is going to actually argue with him, and then go away and compile their "evidence" proving Shetland did become part of the U.K? Far more likely he's going to get a reply something along the lines of, "This court has the jurisdiction, the fact that it is convened here today, exactly as it has been for centuries, and without challenge either then or now, is the proof. If you have evidence to the contrary, raise a seperate action to hear and judge on it in the normal way. Here today is neither the time nor place...."

 

No UK court is ever going to admit they've been operating illegally for centuries, just like that, if ever. He can talk as much as he likes, appear in court as often as they can be bothered to take him there, and offer up whatever arguments to them he feels like, and it will make no difference to one damn thing. The system will close ranks to protect itself, and will walk rough shod all over him, because it can. All he has is talk and questionable stunts, the system can easily ignore the former, and lock him up if the latter gets too out of hand, if for no other reason than just because it can.

 

He can tell any UK court he doesn't recognise them, and they can ignore him, and go about their merry way like he'd never said a workd, and he has no more weapons to use. As it stands what he's doing is not going, and cannot go anyplace, unless the court simply says, "Oh, you don't think we should be here, that's okay then, we'll just shut up shop and be on our way then". Yeah, right....I'm not holding my breath!

 

Without either significant local support for his stance ie. folk willing to stand up and be counted, or international backing, he's doing nothing but making a lot of noise fighting fog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is he really naive enough to believe that if he stands in the dock and tells the Sheriff that he does not recognise the court as he can find no proof Shetland ever became part of the U.K. that the court is going to actually argue with him

 

I have a feeling he'll reel off something like this

 

Show me no mercy, give me no bail! I'm ready and willing to go to jail!

 

That's been my sticking point with this whole enterprise, if he is up in court for something relatively minor like having no insurance for his van they don't have to get into whether or not they are actually able to prosecute him. By the simple fact he is standing in court then the court exists and is carrying out justice on behalf of the people. If he tries blather on about whether the sheriff has the right to try him he'll probably get done for contempt and sent down which he'll probably have to do to get an appeal to properly question a Scottish courts right to prosecute him.

 

The other thing I've noticed from speaking to friends and family back home is that there isn't a massive amount of support for him, on facebook last night of all the folk that mentioned him none were being supportive. This all seems to me to be a vanity project and mostly a bit of attention seeking. [/b]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Is he really naive enough to believe that if he stands in the dock and tells the Sheriff that he does not recognise the court as he can find no proof Shetland ever became part of the U.K. that the court is going to actually argue with him

 

I have a feeling he'll reel off something like this

 

Show me no mercy, give me no bail! I'm ready and willing to go to jail!

 

That's been my sticking point with this whole enterprise, if he is up in court for something relatively minor like having no insurance for his van they don't have to get into whether or not they are actually able to prosecute him. By the simple fact he is standing in court then the court exists and is carrying out justice on behalf of the people. If he tries blather on about whether the sheriff has the right to try him he'll probably get done for contempt and sent down which he'll probably have to do to get an appeal to properly question a Scottish courts right to prosecute him.

 

The other thing I've noticed from speaking to friends and family back home is that there isn't a massive amount of support for him, on facebook last night of all the folk that mentioned him none were being supportive. This all seems to me to be a vanity project and mostly a bit of attention seeking. [/b]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He might have weapons of mass destruction......

 

Oh, that he does. Just the one though, its called "Stuart Hill", and its pretty damn effective. So far he's half killed two "boats", cluttered up a holm with a collection of junk, killed an old Land Rover, and seems to be well on his way to killing two old Merc Vitos. :wink:

 

In return he's "gained".....ummmm.... :ponders:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any insurance he may or may not have is null and void.

 

He is driving around on false plates thus invalidating his insurance.

 

It terms of standard "off the shelf" motor insurance policies, yes. However there is no way of knowing whether he does or doesnt have a bespoke insurance policy specially negotiated for his purposes, which could include any level of coverage or conditions/exclusions both parties are agreeable to.

 

The probability of such existing, I'd agree is likely low, but as it could, then until and unless it is proven that it doesn't exist, he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

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...