shetlandpeat Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 Convicted Thieves, drug dealers, rapists and PAEDOPHILES would have to be released from their incarceration, as imposed by those laws, to continue with their terrorism of the wider, law abiding citizens of Shetland. God help us all if this were to happen. See the bigger picture of what Hill is doing. I don't think it would be as dramatic as you state, if Shetland was an independent then then those folk you mention would be released in Scotland and would have to apply to move back. We can make this sorta stuff up as we go along. They would only be let in if the public vote for it. Now, realistically, it won't happen. All have been subject to Scottish Law and ate imprisoned in Scotland. The sensible thing would be to honour such agreements, and that is what will happen. Stop trying to scare folk... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ironwithin Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 The guy may be eccentric, but I say let him get on with it, hes not harming anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonydog Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 [*** Mod edit - threads merged ***] a reply from my last postinghe`s not hurting anyonewell that is untill his brakes failand he kill someone ocraquoy is not a safe place to live Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 The comment is quite correct, he is not hurting anyone until.An MOT does not say the vehicle is safe at all times, it just quotes that at the time of testing, enough was right with the vehicle to allow it to pass.If the accused had maintained his/her vehicle to a high standard with qualified mechanics then would you say the vehicle is unsafe because it did not have an MOT. The MOT is a formality, a check in this country on the annual condition of the vehicle and nothing else. Some just see it as another hurdle to get Road Tax. Some of the safest cars in this country do not have a current MOT.I would be more worried about drunk drivers or folk who habitually break speed limits in built up areas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 The comment is quite correct, he is not hurting anyone until.An MOT does not say the vehicle is safe at all times, it just quotes that at the time of testing, enough was right with the vehicle to allow it to pass.If the accused had maintained his/her vehicle to a high standard with qualified mechanics then would you say the vehicle is unsafe because it did not have an MOT. The MOT is a formality, a check in this country on the annual condition of the vehicle and nothing else. Some just see it as another hurdle to get Road Tax. Some of the safest cars in this country do not have a current MOT.I would be more worried about drunk drivers or folk who habitually break speed limits in built up areas. But then SP, if my memory serves me correctly, you don't drive or own a motor vehicle, do you? The likes of those who can't be bovvered to insure their vehicles puts up the cost of insurance for other HONEST citizens who do toe the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted July 30, 2011 Report Share Posted July 30, 2011 No, you got it wrong, I do not own a motor vehicle, but I do ride a fully insured push bike and drive anything up to 22 tonnes on the highway. Insured by my employer, and on the cheap as I am a professional driver with an impeccable record. As I quoted in another of my posts, there is already a scheme for folk who are victims of uninsured drivers already paid for by YOUR premiums. I would think that more of the cost of premiums may perhaps be from the thousands of bogus claims. Oh, and the tax. Also, if they get away with having no insurance, and are not caught, the insurance premiums are not affected. With ANPR, this is quite a difficult thing to avoid. It will not be long, if it has not already a system of ANPR cameras dotted about the Jeweled Isles as there is happening throughout the UK. Big Brother WILL we watching all your vehicular movements and a machine will send you the fine if you fail to have proper cover/mot. But the accused is not one who could not be bothered to get insurance. It is a bit more detailed than that and the outcome of the trial/hearing will determine it, till then, speculation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Inky Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 Now, realistically, it won't happen. All have been subject to Scottish Law and ate imprisoned in Scotland. The sensible thing would be to honour such agreements, and that is what will happen. Stop trying to scare folk... If (and that's a BIG if) the courts don't have the power to convict Stuart "Mentally" Hill of some motoring offences, why do you think they would have the power to convict someone of murder? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 The thing I don't understand here is his motivation. He is an English man who (quite literally) washed up on our shores. Why would an outsider want to force the separation of Shetland from the UK? Has he got other motives? Or is it an ego thing? Very worried by him and the damage he is doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 Now, realistically, it won't happen. All have been subject to Scottish Law and ate imprisoned in Scotland. The sensible thing would be to honour such agreements, and that is what will happen. Stop trying to scare folk... If (and that's a BIG if) the courts don't have the power to convict Stuart "Mentally" Hill of some motoring offenses, why do you think they would have the power to convict someone of murder? Emergency Laws would have to be drawn up by the S.I.C. There are always plans for events such as national emergencies and other similar scenarios.There are plenty of what if plans, though I would not think there would be ones for this particular case, as yet. How many murderers are there there? Is there a high turn over of folk sent to prisons south. As we are sorta making this up as we go along, I would imagine there would be an agreement between the two countries, Shetland and Scotland. Not everyone is claiming they are from an independent state. As stated we are dealing with a test case of motoring offenses. I would not worry, what ever the outcome, folk will still be safe and S.I C. will be the GOV instead of Gov, the parish councils will instead of being gov will be promoted to Gov. Exciting times.I think there would be an appeal in any way. There are still international laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George. Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 Now, realistically, it won't happen. All have been subject to Scottish Law and ate imprisoned in Scotland. The sensible thing would be to honour such agreements, and that is what will happen. Stop trying to scare folk... If (and that's a BIG if) the courts don't have the power to convict Stuart "Mentally" Hill of some motoring offences, why do you think they would have the power to convict someone of murder? If they don't have the power to convict Stuart Hill of motoring offences then surely they have no power at all. After all, they are the UK and as Stuart has pointed out, Shetland is not, it is an item of pawn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 The emergency powers we have just made up will cover that. There will also be a international agreement to help. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 Now, realistically, it won't happen. All have been subject to Scottish Law and ate imprisoned in Scotland. The sensible thing would be to honour such agreements, and that is what will happen. Stop trying to scare folk... If (and that's a BIG if) the courts don't have the power to convict Stuart "Mentally" Hill of some motoring offences, why do you think they would have the power to convict someone of murder? This kinda illustrates where I tend to believe Hill is going badly wrong with his course of action. Motoring legislation, by my take, is going to be far more easily to justify the enforcement of by Scottish Courts than other older laws. Hill is on record on this site as stating that he believes researching the status of Shetland prior to 1469 is irrelevant, I disagree with that completely, and motoring legislation I believe illustrates the point quite well. The roads of Shetland were built post 1469, sometimes at the behest of the UK, almost all in mutual cooperation with the UK, and mostly partly or largely funded by the UK. To me, it therefor follows that having had such a significant input in to their creation, they are entitled to at least have a significant say in their usage. The roads, and the legislation governing them arrived as a job lot, Shetland accepted that job lot as offered, end of. If Hill, or Shetland wants out of the package deal, it'll have to be negotiated and agreed with the UK. It has very little to do with when/if Shetland became part of the UK, and everything to do with Shetland entering in to a deal with the UK re: public highways. If he really wants to continue on the course of action he's on, IMHO he needs to test the laws the were in existence pre-1469, ie. *if* we never became part of the UK, the UK never received the right to enforce them here, whereas laws enacted post 1469 it could be argued we'd accepted as we didn't oppose them. The fact that we were led to believe we had no right to oppose them, *if* proven, is a wholly different subject and debate. I wouldn't pretend to know what laws were on the books in Shetland pre-1469, but I'd hazard a guess the murder, witchcraft and sheep stealing probably were. I wouldn't recommend testing the first one, and teh second probably wouldn't fly too good these days, but if Hill wants to keep on going in this direction, roaming the Clift Hills and taking home a few yowes to keep would go far farther in proving his point that posing with clapped bombs around the toon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 So, if (and I don't think it will happen) Mr. Hill is correct what happens? The UK and Scottish government has to relinquish control? If this is the case, realistically what could happen?* Funding from the Scottish and UK government would be terminated-> Northink would cease to function due to no subsidy-> ADS and Flybe subsidy would be withdrawn-> Subsidies for farmers would be withdrawn-> Freight subsidies would be withdrawn* Seconded police would be recalled to the mainland* Seconded teaching staff would be recalled* The legal requirement for Hydro to provide power (which they o with substantial subsidies) would end.* Heavy equipment (gritters ec.) purchased through Government grants would be recalled* The legal agreement for BT to provide telecoms to Shetland would no longer be in force * TV from BBC would be switched off* Those convicted under Scots law in Shetland would be freed* Several council staff (including the leader) would leave Shetland as they are seconded.* Trade with the UK could stop* I would expect Sulom Voe to close or be mothballed - BP and other companies would pump into tankers rather than pump to a country with unstable government.* Qualifications for children, young people and those at Shetland College could be worthless as the SQA would no longer be legally recognised here.* Would the Scottish Government allow Shetland to continue with the Scottish Curriculum. I think Mr. hill will fail, as has been seen time and again length of rule, and freedom for the population to choose in democratic elections seems to be the rule here. That being said, if Mr. Hill wins, I can see Shetland being plunged into the dark ages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 Here is something to think about. If Mr Hill proves that Scotland "nor indeed England" has any say in the handling of matters of law on Shetland then all those sent to prison from Shetland under Scots or English law could in theory be released and will be entitled to compensation for false imprisonment. That includes murderers, rapists, kiddy fiddlers, robbers, burglars, drug dealers etc etc etc.Shetland would also either have to pay to house future prisoners or build a prison with full facilities to hold them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icepick239 Posted July 31, 2011 Report Share Posted July 31, 2011 Maybe Stuart Hill should have called on Politically-Right for some advice... 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.