Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just a thought but, S.H, is not a native of Shetland, and he has not, to my knowledge produced a Bill of Sale for his island. So while he is distracting every one with his ongoing argument over Shetland's independence.... has he himself not invaded Shetland and stole from the very same place, he says he's defending? Forvik today, Unst, and Yell tomorrow?? :lol: :lol: :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you mean apart from driving an unroadworthy car without tax ,insurance, mot and driving licence. plus being a right pain in the bum to mr plod.


mr stuart of the family hill has accepted the protection of the uk government for the last 60 odd years without complaint. now he claims independence. took your time stuart.


i was not aware that the magna carta applied to scotland. but the only 3 bits still valid are


1. FIRST, We have granted to God, and by this our present Charter have confirmed, for Us and our Heirs for ever, that the Church of England shall be free, and shall have all her whole Rights and Liberties inviolable. We have granted also, and given to all the Freemen of our Realm, for Us and our Heirs for ever, these Liberties under-written, to have and to hold to them and their Heirs, of Us and our Heirs for ever.

not sure how stuart fits into this one unless he is thinking of some other scheme.

9. THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs which it hath been used to have. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, as with all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs.

again not valid in this case

29. NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right

now i guess they are referring to this clause. again it does not apply to scotland and even if did he is getting a fair trial.

stuart would be better having a look through the REGIAM MAJESTATEM however even if we were independent his cars/vans whatever would still be illegal. stuart do yourself a favour go and see a lawyer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prison Planet. Really, Stuart?

Never mind the site - it's not one I usual visit either - click on the video. If it doesn't worry you that a message comes up saying "This content is not available in your country due to a government removal request", then I repeat what I said in my earlier post: Nobody is more securely imprisoned than somebody who doesn't know it.


So he is arguing that council tax is a voluntary payment, but the government does not want people to know this?


The internet video sharing website YouTube has censored the footage of protests outside Birkenhead county court based on a request by the British government.

Some 600 activists from the British Constitution Group staged protests against a ruling on former member of UKIP Roger Hayes who has refused to pay council tax outside Birkenhead county court.

Hayes had challenged the local council to protest the government's moves which he sees as sacrificing Britain to globalist interests.

He has also attempted to prove that council tax is illegal.

Demonstrators chanting "freedom" and "arrest that judge" said they put Judge Michael Peake "under civil arrest" by surrounding him when he was going out of the court building him before police officers intervened and wrestled the judge away from the protestors.

Roger Hayes argued in the court that he has no contract with the government to pay council tax as there is an intricate distinction between himself as an individual and as a corporation, arguing that, therefore, council taxing is illegal.

Censorship of the YouTube footage related to the incident shows the government's fears of wide circulation of such information that could lead to national unrest similar to the 1990 troubles.

Back some 20 years ago, Britons staged massive poll tax riots, and forced Margaret Thatcher's government to end poll taxes.

Viewers trying to access the footage on YouTube receive the message "This content is not available in your country due to a government removal request".

Those who follow up the message to learn more are told "YouTube occasionally receives requests from governments around the world to remove content from our site, and as a result, YouTube may block specific content in order to comply with local laws in certain countries".

Analysts say the "local laws" commitment of YouTube allows the British government to limit, if not violate, its citizens' rights to express themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lordy! :shock: just watched this clip ( I thought they said the uk goby had removed from YouTube??)


As I thought, interesting haircuts on the guys in court pushing at the cops out front. Big tall strapping white skinheads. Look for yourself.


As to the eejit trying to be a leader or spokesman, yet again he burbled on about Article 61 allowing him to arrest a judge? Only if you are a baron, chosen by your own barons if the monarch has gone back on the Carta Libertatum. And that was repealed immediately after.


They rant on about not accepting lies fed to you? Irony, anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uncensored video here...

:shock: What a complete shambles. If that is an indication of how society will be improved when we get back to their halcyon "common law," I certainly prefer a spot of illegal dictatorship.


All of these appeals to enforce lapsed medieval laws suffer from extreme "cherry picking." What suits is trumpeted, but all the iniquitous and barbaric laws of the former ages are neatly ignored.


Spotting the guy at the end wearing the judges wig reminded me of something... :wink: .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think from now on I will only recognize the 10 Commandments as law. Just in case my neighbour covets my ox.


After all, they are the original laws on which ours are based aren't they? Like this lot I will simply choose to ignore any laws that came after that I didn't get a say in making. How dare folk make laws several hundred years ago and amend or repeal others without asking me?!! The blimmin cheek of them! You'll never take me alive!! Mwa-ha-ha-ha!!! :twisted:



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is more securely imprisoned than somebody who doesn't know it.


Ain't that the truth! :roll: Imprisoned in a mindset of utter narcissism and selfishness. This crusade masks an "I am special and the law should not apply to me" attitude that borders on a mental disorder. Either that or he's just trying to wear them down until they say "Alright already! Just shout up and go away and we'll forget all about it!"


Let justice prevail... :!:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming to this site is like getting into a room full of rabid dogs. I'm suddenly accused of holding views, none of which I've expressed, by people who act like the very people they critcise. All I wanted to draw attention to was the fact that the video, no matter what its content, is banned from viewing in this country by the government. I've not even seen it myself, but I'm very disturbed that 'our' government should see fit to ban it. Nobody seems interested in addressing that question.

My last word on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No-one has directly accused you of associating with the loonies above, you're doing mental gymnastics to try and get some modicum of moral high ground you don't have. You're jumping to conclusions. But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of reality!


It is weird that the government would block such a video, given how moronic it makes the 'movement' look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is weird that the government would block such a video, given how moronic it makes the 'movement' look.

Yes, that struck me too. My guess is that it will be something to do with the fact that some of the footage was taken within the court room. Since that is expressly forbidden, there may be some broadcasting statute which can be applied. There are of course many other videos online which have been similarly recorded within courtrooms, but their existence would not rule out others being blocked.

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...