Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In defence, you can take a clapped out motor with 2 weeks MOT and drive it anywhere in Europe. As an independent he too can do that, probably under existing treaties. What we do have to remember is Mr Hill has studied this at great length where as us, not so.

At the moment there may not be any precedent on this particular chain of events.

The authorities may not know how to deal with this because of existing laws either directly or indirectly. It will be complicated and the right course will have to be followed for fear of retribution.

Perhaps the second citizen of the new nation should carry a red flag in front of said vehicle until this is cleared up. That will be the transport minister or minister of international diplomacy.

But could their be a possibility of a third party insuring the vehicle with Mr Hill as a named driver when he is in this country.

You should also fee privileged at being present at the birth of a new nation. Until this wee little nation can fend for it self, should we not nurture it, feed it and teach it to walk, we seem to want to do it in the middle east, why not here?


Even if a vehicle has an MOT, you can still be nicked by PC Plod if you get pulled over and it is found to have defects.


SIC/Northern Constabulary/Scottish Courts have had long enough now to research this matter.


"fee privileged"? No, not if he is driving around without insurance. "We seem to want to to it in the middle east, why not here?" Err who is we? I certainly don't.


I don't think diplomatic immunity would wash; as far as I understand it, doesn't United Nations or some other international body have to have recognised a new state/country? (Someone else mentioned that earlier)


Yes, he has brought to the population's attention the whole saga re "who owns Shetland" but what if we all took the attitude he has done and drove around with no insurance, didn't pay Council Tax, etc.?


Perhaps a way forward would be for him to stand in the forthcoming elections - if he doesn't recognise the Scottish Parliament, he can always do what Sinn Fein did - get elected but refuse to take the seat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ha Ha, that should read "feel privileged", sorry.


If we as a nation can bring about change and a birth or re-birth of nations then should we not let Mr Hill have a fair crack.


With the scale of things, driving without insurance, allegedly may I add, is small fry when it comes to international nation building. If you want to dismiss this as a prank without first looking into it and perhaps asking then it is your prerogative to do so. The wider implication is that if anyone stands up and does something in protest, the worst is always the first to be highlighted.


There is also a possibility that Mr. Hill may be right and is right to drive his vehicle. Preventing him from doing so could be against the law. As you know, the host nation picks up the tab. Ask how much is owed by the USA in parking fines around London. None of us is really sure and we are surmising about these facts with the best of our intelligence.


As I mentioned, we are not the ones to decide really, you should know how long the authorities can take to sort things out, this I thought you would appreciate. As the greater good of the country could be at stake they may just be waiting for an accident.


Northern Ireland is quite a different subject, as well we all should know. Mr Hill cannot stand in a UK election, you know that, foreign nationals do not have that right unless they have been naturalised.


If someone with a big stick and shiny boots were to occupy Mr Hills nation and declared that it was British, then he would have the right to stand and then not take his seat, that would then instigate the forming of the FRA. And we don't want any violence now. It is not the way to deal with wayward nations, especially ones whos Colonel in Chief is also the Cook.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I would be considerably less cynical of his stunts with vehicles, had he had the b*lls to have driven his Land Rover around wherever as his sole form of transport, instead of hiding it away out of sight, out of mind, out of the vast majority of most folk's rod, on a passing place half rods to Saniss. It smacked of being able to say he had a Forvik "registered" vehicle on Shetland roads, while keeping the risk of anyone doing anything about it to the absolute minimum.


If his stance on the subject was right and just and sound, it should have been able to stand up to scrutiny whatever section of road it was performed on, so where better than to drive it around, and park it in Lerwick as much as possible. Right over the toes of those charged with upholding the statutes he's disputing, and among the greatest concentration of witnessess observing him being allowed to do so. It certainly would have done his cause far, far more good than any Conference or Declaration at the Cross.


The fact that he chose not to act so overtly and publically, but instead chose a relatively little used road a considerable distance from any upholder of statutory laws, says to me he had little confidence in his own beliefs and argument. I expect if anything comes of this most recent development that it will be a similarly fudged washout, and a missed opportunity, but I am prepared to be pleasantly surprised, for once.


What you outline here was my original intention with the land Rover, but it turned out to be so unroadworthy that it would not have made the journey to Lerwick to be parked on a yellow line outside the police station as I intended. Turning your argument round, it doesn't matter what bit of the public road it was on, it should receive the same treatment.


Okay, you bought a vehicle that was not fit for purpose, so went with "Plan B" as a result. Fair enough, as far as it goes.


While I am not about to make accusations, as I did not personally see never mind examine said vehicle. It has to be said, that we just have your word as regards its condition, and of your intent for it. The description of the vehicle by its previous owner shortly before you bought it differs quite significantly from your's, so one of you has to have been mistaken. Also, you did not make your plans for the vehicle public before the fact, so there is no verifiable proof of what your original intent for it was, just the facts of what actually did occur with it.


Yes, you're perfectly correct, the actual piece of road should matter none to how an issue such as your Land Rover was handled by enforcers of highway legislation, and in my belief that is indeed what happened.


The piece of road however matters a very great deal to how quickly (if at all) such an issue comes to the notice of those legislation enforcers, how many complaints are made to them by members of the public, and how many independent witnesses there are to the issue.


By choosing a parking area on a relatively remote road, well away for centres of population, you chose one of the least likely locations on the Shetland Mainland the Police were likely to stumble over it by chance, or happen to be in the area anyway. By leaving it in a parking area you minimised the liklihood of compaliants, and being a realtively low volume traffic road, you minimised witnesses.


If you'd driven it east the same distance as you drove it generally north-west, you'd have gotten to somewhere between Bixter and Weisdale, where many, many more people would have seen it, and the Police were likely to be more frequently. Had you done so, I'd very probably buy your explanation, but as things stand, I can only conclude that your MO was to be able to truthfully claim that you'd put a Forvik registered vehicle on the road, but at the same time absolutely minimised the risk(s) of anyone doing anything about it. Which, as a "test", is no test at all.


Last week somebody was in court for having no MOT. The reason the police put forward for not pursuing me for the same offence was that I was not driving the vehicle at the time, although the relevance of that is beyond me. Even when I admitted in writing that I had driven it to Sandness, they took no action.


The relevance is, that they did not witness you driving it, therefor it was a very weak case to take to court. Until and unless some other independent witness(es) were found that were willing to testify, they had nothing. Did they witness you writing and signing your "confession"? I assume not, as you do not claim they did. Your "confession" therefor is equally weak and worthless as evidence to take forward a case on, you *could* withdraw that "confession" at any time you liked, claim your signature on it was a forgery etc, etc, making it effectively worthless.


At any one given time there are a number of untaxed vehicles without MOT Certificates parked on bits of the public highway, for example there's one in such a state been in the car park along the road here for years. If anything is done about them at all, its very rarely the Police who become involved enquiring about road tax and MOT certificates with a view to prosecution. They usually only do when some wet behind the ears jobsworth PC eats the rule book and goes on a spree.


Its almost always some SIC bod in a eye-blinding bright jacket and a clipboard who turns out, usually after several weeks, and many more complaints about it being in the way and bits of it blowing in the wind. Slaps numerous notices on it, which get ignored, then weeks later the Amenity Trust lorry hauls up and scrapes up most of the biggest pieces. Why would you, or anyone else expect your Land Rover to be treated much differently?


Now, if he would take them to court, he *might* actually start getting somewhere

I'm in a cleft stick here. Taking them to court means I have to recognise the court system here, which I don't (until they show me evidence of their legitimate authority). I have no intention of supporting an illegal regime.


If you'd quoted the whole of the paragraph I wrote. viz.


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....


You would have seen that I did not recommend or even suggest taking the U.K. authorities to court in a British Court. In fact I expressed my doubts that it was a productive course of action.


IMHO, you are wasting far too much time fiddling around with British Courts as it is before you consider taking anything more there. The British Courts are never going to admit the British establishment is wrong and been wrong for 500+ years, they're part of the British establishment themselves, it would be like expecting Masons to be backstabbers among themselves on account of their day jobs.


IMHO you need significant grass roots support, coupled with pressure from something further up the totem than the establishment you are at odds with. Unfortunately, on your current plan(s) of action, the former is by all appearences steadily declining, and you've either never looked higher up, or if you have, have not admitted to doing so.


None of this is about me having a kind of ego trip as 'king of the island'. It's about forcing the authorities to justify their position here. At the end of the day, it's not for me to say what Shetland should do about its future, but if the choice is available, people should know about it.


I really don't give a damn what sort of trip this is for you, lets face it, very few people do things without some sort of personal gain. However if you're one of them, so be it, and if you're not, really, whatever....


Forcing the UK establishment to "justify" their position though, IMHO, you are flogging a dead horse. They will, because they can, and they will use whatever lame excuses and stalling tactics they think fit to do so, and there's nothing you can do to prevent them or force their hand.


If you really want to make progress, you need to lift the issue out of the incestous UK establishment completely. Expecting the UK plc to admit being wrong in their own courts is IMHO naive at best, what you are dealing with here, if you intend to use the historical angle, is something that an impartial and fair judgement can only be made on by wholly independent outsiders with no axe to grind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Ah now GR the powers that be managed to fine me when my road tax ran out while I was overseas, The web site does not allow access from overseas so I was unable to retax or sorn it until coming back into the country.

The car was parked off road at the back of my house yet they managed to find it and fine me.

I would counter that Stuart has proved this is a subject the UK does not want to have opened up for discussion because they know full well that they are on shaky legal ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah now GR the powers that be managed to fine me when my road tax ran out while I was overseas, The web site does not allow access from overseas so I was unable to retax or sorn it until coming back into the country.

The car was parked off road at the back of my house yet they managed to find it and fine me.

I would counter that Stuart has proved this is a subject the UK does not want to have opened up for discussion because they know full well that they are on shaky legal ground.

Why did you not make a phonecall from overseas for temporary disposition?

So, the authorities actually came to your home, but ONLY after you returned to Shetland?

I think, on your return home, you were caught driving without a current Road-Tax.

The alternative of course was to have contacted Politically_Right :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

over complications and creating so many rules, sub rules, exceptions and clauses to absolutely everything, including road tax rules, are enough to put folk off the double digressing parliaments to da suddert, in the old days all they ever gave Shetland was meal roads and mills, these days its no different

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

it was an 0845 number and it also would not accept overseas callers. and the fine was sitting at the post office on my return. so that blows your theory out the water icepick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it was an 0845 number and it also would not accept overseas callers. and the fine was sitting at the post office on my return.

Ok, you're law-abiding and I accept that.

However the responsibility to renew your car-tax remained yours - and yours alone...

What about e-mail or even paper & pen.


While your vehicle remained untaxed, surely your car insurance would also be invalid :?:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

icepick - seems you are a bit confused about the 3 documents for a vehicle (Insurance, Tax and MOT) and how they interelate?


You can insure a vehicle that is not taxed, but you need to have a vehicle insured (and MOT'd) before you can tax it.


If your car has no valid MOT certificate then the insurance *may* be null and void (because you can't prove that the car was fit for using on the road).


For *any* vehicle (on or off the road) you either need to declare SORN, or have it taxed.


If it is kept, or used, on the road, then it needs insurance, MOT (if applicable) and road tax.


If it is kept off the road (in a shed, being rebuilt, awaiting parts etc.), then you can insure it or not, and you can MOT it or not - entirely up to you, but you still have to either tax it, or declare SORN when the tax disc runs out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Afraid you are wrong GS - new law came in or comes in this month - ALL vehicles now have to be insured, whether off the road or not.


Edit: Well, in England anyway! A friend of mine was complaining about it last week on the telephone. She is selling her partner's MG as he has just bought a new van to transport mutts to dog shows and was advised of the new law by her insurance company. She then checked it out on the web!

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.

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.


  • Create New...