Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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.

We don't know for sure it's been blocked by the government at all. I don't think it would be too hard to make a YouTube video which consisted of the words "This video has been censored by the government" on a plain background :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it would be too hard to make a YouTube video which consisted of the words "This video has been censored by the government" on a plain background :)

That would indeed be simple, but it is quite obvious that YouTube is not serving such a video. Whether you try to play it embedded or directly from YouTube's own site, the information displayed is pure character text rather than video pixels. The style is also different depending on the play option being used. Although YouTube can serve up some unusual variations on pure video (remember the interactive bear?), there is no way a user could provide such complex interactive material without YouTube's assistance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on, let's be honest and grown up about this. There's absolutely nothing in Stuart Hill's first post about this vid, saying he wants you to watch it because it's not there and is supposed to have been banned by the government. Then to say he hadn't even watched it himself, and doesn't visit the website it's attached to? Please, don't insult us. This was an attempt to show what he obviously perceives to he a victory for his fellow Freemen, nothing more.


It's backfired a bit though, I think. The whole BNP links and skinhead thugs in the video screaming in the faces of cops doesn't sit well or persuade me any.

And you still haven't addressed the whole Article 61 of the Magna Carta fallacy or fantasy.


Rabid dogs? They're in that videoclip you wanted us to see. Conspiracy

theories? They're in that website you posted a link to and asked us to look at.


Usual rhetoric from that lot when they're stumped. "You're stupid", "You're nasty", "I'm not playing anymore coz you're the bad ones". Just like the bad Police and wicked Sheriff, huh? :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said Spinner



As often stated, I was behind what I thought was the point in all this, that of clarifying Shetland's legal standing as/as not, a part of Scotland.


I doubt there will be much chance of that happening now... :cry:


Is that no what happened in the courtroom during the two "lengthy hearings"? Or were they chatting about the weather?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ The thing was, there was no ruling on that specific subject as far as I am aware.


I was hoping the Sheriff would single out a piece of legislation, or document, or simply say that due to x number of years of common usage, Shetland is under jurisdiction of Scottish Law, both common and statutory.


As I understand it, all that happened really was that Stuart lost his individual claim of no jurisdiction.


I would be delighted to be corrected as I had hoped the Sheriff would take the little extra time to put the entire matter to rest once and for all from a legal standpoint.


(or is it more fun making up conspiracy theories?) ;)

I trust you are not directing that question in my direction?


Not at all. But the idea that there is some sort of conspiracy behind the removal of a video when the reason is explained for all there and then did have to be mentioned :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"There followed a 90 minute debate between Mr Hill, Mr Mackenzie and the sheriff about the history of Shetland, the Viking invasion around 800, the pawning of the islands by the Danish crown in 1469 and the subsequent powers wielded over the islands by the Scottish and UK authorities, including its territorial waters.


Mr Hill initially claimed that it was up to the court to prove its jurisdiction over him, but when asked to cite an authority for this claim he referred to three US legal cases, suggesting they were universally applicable.


He then submitted an inch thick file to the court to back up his general claim, which the sheriff and the fiscal read and asked questions.


Mr Mackenzie said that Mr Hill had failed to recognise the importance of

custom forming the basis of Scottish law and that neither Norway nor

Denmark, or anyone else, had challenged the powers of Scotland in Shetland."


That is just from the first day, Master Spinner. It seems to me that there was a fairly detailed and in-depth discussion. Bear in mind, the foregoing is only a précis of a 90 minute hearing.


Your humble servant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, as has been reported, Procurator Fiscal Mackenzie said that Norway hadn't asked for Shetland back for centuries, perhaps Stuart could now consider approaching the Norwegian government to ask them why.

Would be interesting if they were to make a claim now.

Why would Norway want Shetland, including 'The Gowned Wonder'?

They have a population of about 4.9 Million and GDP of 450 Billion Dollars.

They are, I think, the 3rd richest country in the world.

They don't need us, or him... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if the subtle aspects of that report are accurate or not?


Stuart Hill thought he had precedent for the court having to prove it had jurisdiction over him?

And the Sheriff said "nope that was the US, here you'd have to prove we don't?" Or is it not quite as concrete as that?


Given that the history seems to have a lot of ambiguity / "lost in the mists of time" aspects, the issue of where the default lies in any "balance of probability" judgements may be important.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

".....and that neither Norway nor Denmark, or anyone else, had challenged the powers of Scotland in Shetland."


Which is a fundamentally flawed justification. Just because nobody has previously challenged their legitimacy, that does not automatically make any challenge of them, or any component part of them at any time, automatically null and void. If the same logic and justice process had been in play around a century ago the LHT would have won the beach case, not Smith.


Seems to me Napier didn't pull much out of the hat unless "use & wint" (aka. we exist, we function, and we have no plans to change that), which, as Spinner notes, answers no questions on nothing.


Without reviewing and studying a full transcript of the entire proceedings its impossible to know, but on the face of it things went one of two ways. Either Hill's submission was full of holes (highly possible, as it has always appeared that way), or Napier simply railroaded over everything "toeing the party line" (highly possible considering who pays his wages, and from the tone of variously quoted statements attributed to him).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Master Rider,


It appears you omitted, or missed, the first part of that statement, made by the Procurator Fiscal, referring to the importance of custom in Scots Law. I imagine he knows a great deal more of this than I do, and would submit that he would not make such a comment without - as you post - justification. This is where those persons trained and knowledgeable in Scots Law would have a distinct advantage over you and I, unless you have such qualification or training?


Your humble servant :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ I have no qualifications or training in law (thankfully), but I do believe I have a reasonable understanding of the English language as she is written (despite it being more or less a second language to me). And for any part of it for which I don't, many moons since I was somehow mysteriously persuaded to part with some of my hard earned in exchange for a tool I was led to believe would be of assistance in such cases, and I have frequently found it to provide an excellent level of service.


I've still to discover what the word "Dictionary" on the outside of it means, as I've not looked for that one inside it yet, but for many others which I have checked on, befuddlement, confusion and bemusement have frequently be exchanged for total comprehension. :wink:


I omitted the first part intentionally for several reasons.


a) The originally quoted passage provided no apparent connection between the first and second parts of the sentence in question. As it stands, the latter parts comes over as wholly irrelevant, and more than just a little patronising. While I would hope Napier did not intentionally make the latter part of the quoted statement with that in mind, that unfortunately is how it reads


B) The first part of the passage is fair enough, I have no quibble with in principle, however in itself it is a whole other can of worms in general. Specifically to the matter in hand, as far a can be ascertained from the available information Napier simply cited it as the/a reason why Hill's submission failed, but did not elaborate on the specific points of law therein as to how and why that was the case.


There is also the point that arguably Napier was making an untrue statement in the first place. I am led to believe that historical documentation exists proving that approaches were made to the Scottish Crown by Denmark to regain Shetland on more than one occasion, but they failed, as allegedly the Scottish Crown simply ignored them. Those approaches, in my mind, could quite easily be construed as a "challenge" to the legitimacy of Scottish authority over Shetland, and would require either the citing of a previous legal debate which had dismissed them as a "challenge" or to have a legal debate now in which they were dismissed as a "challenge" before the statement he is allegely to have made can be seen to be truthful.


By apparently not citing a previous dismissal of those approaches by Denmark as a "challenge", nor apparently having the legal debate to dismiss them as such right now, his statement comes over as having been made without all relevant evidence having been considered and addressed in a fair and just manner.


As an aside on the same subject. While "custom" aka. "use & wint" may well play a significant role in Scottish Law, and in Shetland's current legal status. Logic would dictate that whether the foundation upon which that "custom" could first start to be established was obtained through agreement and cooperation or through force/fear/oppression/deception etc, would, or at least should, influence the legitimacy and legality status of the resulting "custom" established from it. Napier, unfortunately it would appear has chosen to take (probably predictably) the "it is" perspective, and how it came to pass is irrelevant, as the very fact it does exist negates any irregularlities in how it was obtained. He would also appear (again probably predictably) taking the "from the inside in the present" perspective, rather than stepping back and viewing the entire timeline from the outside. This is borne out by his comment to the effect the events occuring around 1469 have more relevance to historians than 21st C. jurors.


While it could be easy for many Shetlanders to see that comment as quite patronising as well, I can appreciate where he may be coming from, in that he is taking the practical, but arguably a simplistic view, insofar as there is very little argument the relevance of the antics and (in)actions of a few characters 540 years ago, have only and extremely thin thread of connection to alleged motoring offences in Shetland in the 21st C. Which brings things full circle, right back to Hill's antics being a very unwise and ineffectual approach to attempt to achieve the ends he claims to be attempting to achieve.

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...