Graeme_Storey Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Personally I think he WANTS to end up in court because by doing so he can question the right of the court to penalise him , thereby getting his question answered.I 100% agree with you - I am sure he WANTS to be taken to court, because then he can get media coverage of his view on the situation, and we all get to hear the official legal stance on matters. I hope he gets his chance. Interesting times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SJP17 Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Hes been a bit quiet lately , has he given up ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 As far as Im aware no one has taken him to court yet , so maybe if they do then he would have the right to ask where the court got its jurisdiction to fine him from , they should need to be able to prove this , therby setting the ball rolling. Thats just my opinion though. The only "explanation" he'll get if they take him to court over something is "Your argument is invalid" - "Guilty, fined £XX.XX". Next...... Now, if he would take them to court, he *might* actually start getting somewhere, although I don't believe he would get a fair hearing in any British court.... If he's right, and they've been scamming it for over 500 years, do you really expect them to admit it....lemme check if the temps in Hell are dropping.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kavi Ugl Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 No I think he has read Shetlands history, that hasn't been slanted by scoty socialist crap Too true. Infact has anybody else read the book "From a Shetland Lairdship to a Norwegian Barony" by Jorn Oyrehagen Sunde?. It's fascinating and shows the enormous volume of trade that was happening between Shetland and Norway long after 1469. I don't see this highlighted in the new museum and archives...... Here's another example of what we're up against: http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/2011/February/news/Shetland%20gets%20university%20status.htm Note the massive Gaelic slogan on the banner and it's being held by SIC councillors in Shetland...... I just despair.... Why though, if there's nothing at all in his argument, will the authorities not take Mr Hill to court.....?. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Why though, if there's nothing at all in his argument, will the authorities not take Mr Hill to court.....?. Has he done anything yet worthy of prosecution "in the public interest". ie. That could justify the tax dollars expended to achive a conviction. He's not damaged anyone's property, other than his (alleged) own, he's not been violent towards anyone, he's not undertaken activities that were endangering anyone but himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kavi Ugl Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Hmm, yeh I ken but after the most recent announcement maybe he has something new planned!. Would one simple way not be to drive around without road tax or insurance?. Cue infamous song, I fought the law and the law....lost!!. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Has he done anything yet worthy of prosecution "in the public interest". ie. That could justify the tax dollars expended to achive a conviction. Oh I don't know about that GR the powers that be thought it was worthwhile prosecuting me when I was overseas and my tax ran out even though I had gone online and tried to sorn my car but it would not let me due to the computer I was on being outside the UK.It seems they thought that was in the public interest, and now the uk courts are no longer the highest power in the land they have managed to hand power to the EU so it may be a lot easier than you think to get us clear of these parasites Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crofter Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Would one simple way not be to drive around without road tax or insurance?. Or kill a seal http://www.shetlandmarine.com/2011/10%20Environment/Clash%20of%20views%20over%20new%20seal%20law.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kavi Ugl Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Yes indeed, if SH is right(and so far nobody can refute him) that law cannot be applied to Shetland.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Has he done anything yet worthy of prosecution "in the public interest". ie. That could justify the tax dollars expended to achive a conviction. Oh I don't know about that GR the powers that be thought it was worthwhile prosecuting me when I was overseas and my tax ran out even though I had gone online and tried to sorn my car but it would not let me due to the computer I was on being outside the UK.It seems they thought that was in the public interest, and now the uk courts are no longer the highest power in the land they have managed to hand power to the EU so it may be a lot easier than you think to get us clear of these parasites Maybe the difference between your car and the Forvik Land Rover was that you'd had your name on the log book for a time, and they figured you'd probably pay just to get the debacle ended. Did Citizen Hill ever have the Rover log book put in to his name at Swansea, and what was the chance, seeing as it was a "trophy" vehicle, that they'd either, after expending god knows how much on warning letters and Sheriff Officers, have to make do with a tiny arrestment from his weekly pension which took years to pay off the fine and any back duty claimed, or have the expense of having him as a resident in of one of H.M's Hiltons for a token sentence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crofter Posted February 2, 2011 Report Share Posted February 2, 2011 Yes indeed, if SH is right(and so far nobody can refute him) that law cannot be applied to Shetland.... Or Orkney... About 1910 a Kirkwall lawyer was determined to prove that Udal Law still had force, and accompanied by his friend, the Procurator Fiscal, went out to Harray Loch and shot a swan. The case went to the High Court and the Crown lost. Everywhere else in UK the Crown owned the swans - in Orkney they were, and still are, the property of the people. Nowadays we do not shoot swans, but the principles of the old Norse Udal Law still stand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EM Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Or Orkney...About 1910 a Kirkwall lawyer was determined to prove that Udal Law still had force, ...It is not a question of if Udal Law still has force, but rather, which parts of Udal Law still apply. Some aspects are generally accepted by the legal authorities, and some are disputed. The extent of land boundaries being to the low water mark rather than high water is an example where the Udal law is accepted as still applying. Rights concerning hunting and fishing, on the other hand, are contentious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Anonymous Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Unless the laws have been repealed and they haven't yet then they still stand. But like all laws you can't rely on judges to get it right and you need the cash to pay a lawyer and a good barrister to go through several layers of legal B.S. to get your case won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crofter Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Or Orkney...About 1910 a Kirkwall lawyer was determined to prove that Udal Law still had force, ...It is not a question of if Udal Law still has force, but rather, which parts of Udal Law still apply. Some aspects are generally accepted by the legal authorities, and some are disputed. The extent of land boundaries being to the low water mark rather than high water is an example where the Udal law is accepted as still applying. Rights concerning hunting and fishing, on the other hand, are contentious. Do you know if there is any case law on ownership stopping at the low water mark? Or when the rights to fish, seals, whales etc ceased? Although whaling has fallen out of fashion lately, there are still people setting nets for trouts and I am not aware of any charges ever being brought against anyone for that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muppet Posted February 3, 2011 Report Share Posted February 3, 2011 Would one simple way not be to drive around without road tax or insurance?. Are you seriously condoning that? Maybe without road tax is only condemning us law abiding people to pay extra to cover for folk like him, but without insurance (which he is automatically doing if his car is not road legal) he could cause an accident and suffer the victim's family to untold extra grief! A stunt's a stunt, but he's so far spent his entire life in Shetland trying to prove his point and how far has he got? He needs to learn when it's time to roll over and lie down! Can't he go and declare independance for Canvey Island instead? 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.