Infiltrator

I hope you emailed them or you've probably wasted a stamp. You'd be much better emailing ZetTrans. http://www.shetlandnewsarchives.com/news_11_2008/Flybe%20frustrations%20wanted%20for%20airing.htm

Well that's a really helpful post for folk who work offshore and rely on helicopters to get them to their work Suggest you engage brain before operating your keyboard. excuse me for breathing.... if you don't like the truth.... I'm sure they have been up in them too, but they wouldn't do it out of choice. like I said tho it goes with the job, you know the risks involved when you take it on...that's why offshore workers get paid so much. I personally dont begrudge them a penny of it either! So, let me get your thinking here.. Folk who work offshore are made aware that travelling by helicopter is risky but as they've no other option they get paid more to accept the higher risk? So for the poor souls that lost their lives yesterday, they've no-one to blame except themselves for gambling risk vs £reward? The aviation (and offshore) industry goes to great lengths to ensure safety and general public confidence in the business. What doesn't help is you posting something like this, on a thread as sensitive as this, that completely ignores the basic statistics and undermines all the good work that's been done before. There's bound to be folk who read this thread who's other halves work offshore, and now thanks to you, have a reason to be seriously worried about helicopter travel because, according to you, the folk who maintain them wouldn't choose to fly on them. Speechless..

Well that's a really helpful post for folk who work offshore and rely on helicopters to get them to their work Suggest you engage brain before operating your keyboard.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/rspb-gives-surprise-backing-to-gigantic-bird-mincers-200903251662/

Well, he now has plenty time to consider whether saying nowt was the best course of action - like I've said many times before, I think this was his biggest mistake.

But he didn't claim he was trying to control seal numbers to preserve fish stocks - maybe if he had claimed this he wouldn't be locked up tonight. He couldn't explain why he did what he did. Ignoring nature and the food chain for a minute - he broke the law, was caught red handed, literally, and offered no reasonable defence. Regards the sentence and previous cases - show me one court anywhere that sentences consistently. You break the law and get found guilty then you're at the mercy of the Sheriff and what side of the bed he got out of that morning - you don't want to find yourself in this position then don't break the law - it's not difficult.

Told you

^^Sharky, I take it you're new to public forums? You need to learn not to take things you read on here so personally - you'll end up in the nuthouse unless you can learn to let things go over your head. You want to see some of the abuse thrown about on some of the bigger forums, the mods on here keep a tight rein on what's posted.

Well I'll be, I was expecting the Sheriff to take the easier option. Personally I feel the sentence of Jail (duration of sentence is secondary) sends an important message to those who show no regard to the law when it comes to the protection of wildlife.

Careful JustMe - we're trying to keep this internet buying lark under cover - if the local retailers and council find out they'll nuke BT's link to the mainland

^^ I've said before I'm not against culling animals if there's a good reason to do so. Unfortunately, Stewart couldn't offer any reason why he killed the seals. Needless killing of animals I do object to. His lack of any defence for his actions has led people to draw their own conclusions on the sort of person he may or may not be.

No Were you there? Do you know Stewart to know they type of person he is? I like to think that the Police, the Fiscals office and the Sheriff all know exactly what took place and the charges reflect what really happened. Given the high profile that this case was always likely to attract, the charges had to be pretty watertight.

Double dare you to try and start a thread on that or the murder case - you'll find yourself being moderated faster than Chubby Brown at the Vatican

I said it previously, just a guess but I suspect probably the case. Even saying he thought it would help local Salmon farmers might have given him some thread of defence. The way he's left it, not able to offer any defence, suggests he did it just for the hell of it.

Isn't 'Terminator' Stewart back in court for sentence this week - tomorrow? Anyone know what the other chap does for a living? I wonder if his role in all this has led to the silent defence approach. Seems to me if JS had offered any sort of explanation it might have made his defence case a bit more understandable.

In what way? Tourism to a small extent perhaps. Or maybe you meant ecology. Tourism allegedly - this quote from the SNH story on Shetland News. “Of course we hope that this is an isolated case, but it is very difficult to obtain the evidence required for a successful prosecution, and suspicions have been raised in the past. Shetland’s positive image depends to a large part on its wildlife, including seals. “These animals help to attract people and business to the islands and many people feel a strong connection with them. Conflicts do sometimes arise with people’s business, but there are legitimate ways of resolving these.

I've no problem with seal culling - this wasn't a cull though, he couldn't explain why he did it. So from what I'm reading - he needlessly blugeoned to death 21 seals using excessive violence. I'd guess that following the revelation that he faces a £100k fine or even jail that he's rethinking his approach of offering no defence for his actions.

I think if council workers were battering young seagulls to death with fence posts I'd be having words with someone Given what we've been told, do you think he should never have been charged under the Wild Mammals (Protection) act in the first place?

Ghostrider, I can't agree with your view on this but everyone's entitled to their own opinions. Can't believe you won't condemn someone who clubs a young animal (or 21) to death and then can't explain why he's done it. If he'd shot them and said it was because seals were damaging nets or killing off fish in the area I'd have some understanding of why he'd done it - what does he have to hide? I'm a bit confused why seals would be causing a problem on a small isle where sheep are grazing - has there been cases of sheep worrying from seals? Taking your stance, it's a good thing that Stuart Hill didn't try to set up home on Linga.

There's a proper way to eradicate vermin - clubbing to death with a fence post for no good reason (his words) isn't something that should be tolerated in a civilised society.

I'd put money on this not being the first time they've done this. As for the co-accused having a not guilty plea accepted - I suspect this was always going to happen as they probably only saw one person doing the clubbing so they had to charge both knowing that the other would probably get off with the charge if one agreed to carry the charge on their own. What is it with folks connected to this boat that makes them think they're above the law?

Yes, that's what St Fergus do. Laggan/Tormore is gas/condensate, the plant at SVT will seperate the condensate and then and do some gas treatment and compression to send it down the Frigg line. Not sure what the plan for the condensate is though - guess it depends on the quantities? There's a lot more gas and gas condensate discoveries W/NW of Shetland, this first piece of infrastructure could just be start of summit big - however, it's unlikely to lead to masses more long term jobs as previously as the gas will be piped out rather than shipped.

The Shetland Hotel was built by the Lerwick Harbour Trust (Port Authority now) and I think it was just to symbolise the ports link to the oil business. We did an UHA squad about it in 1985/6 or thereabouts. We were dressed as BP workers - maybe it came from them?

Defend all you like, after all it's you that's paying the council tax. Yes, these are just stats, but it's the two and a half times the scottish avg that shocked me. Hardly seems like a local authority that's been tightening it's belt for the last few years.

This was reported on local Aberdeen radio this morning. The Aberdeen radio news bulletin was making a big deal about the Scottish avg @ 10% but then mentioned the Shetland figs - 25% I remember a similar story a few years ago that had the figure somewhere around 16 or 18% with a Scottish avg of 8%. Latest figures now show the Shetland figure stands at 25%. I do realise that the Island councils will have a higher than Scottish avg figure but two and a half times? Surely with the coffers dwindling fast thanks to the fall in investment return a figure like this isn't sustainable? Nearly 4,000 employed by the council http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/Apps2/Business/PQA/default.aspx?pq=S3W-20360