hillsidevoe

I find it puzzling that Mr Hill was not allowed to address the court unless he was standing in a particular place and what is it about him wearing a black gown that should be so offensive? Can anyone enlighten me?

The court must prove jurisdiction before the case can commence,look at any court hearing defence papers and on them you will find the defendants right to challenge jurisdiction.

What evidence have you that Stuart is a "Freeloader"? I thought he was a pensioner? I feel sorry for you that you have the misguided impression that the courts are the be all and end all in this world. As I have said before He is standing up for his beliefs and misguided or not he has the right to challenge authority if he so wishes, as have all of us if we had the guts to do so, most of us are simply following like sheep baaaaaaaa.

I have a feeling he'll reel off something like this Show me no mercy, give me no bail! I'm ready and willing to go to jail! That's been my sticking point with this whole enterprise, if he is up in court for something relatively minor like having no insurance for his van they don't have to get into whether or not they are actually able to prosecute him. By the simple fact he is standing in court then the court exists and is carrying out justice on behalf of the people. If he tries blather on about whether the sheriff has the right to try him he'll probably get done for contempt and sent down which he'll probably have to do to get an appeal to properly question a Scottish courts right to prosecute him. The other thing I've noticed from speaking to friends and family back home is that there isn't a massive amount of support for him, on facebook last night of all the folk that mentioned him none were being supportive. This all seems to me to be a vanity project and mostly a bit of attention seeking. [/b]

Ah EM I wondered when the debate would turn to money!

So EM have you peed in da street? If so let me tell you that I find that more offensive than someone failing to pay his road tax! however that is only my opinion, you are entitled to yours!!

So Stuart has no MOT how does he differ from folks who drive on our outer islands where MOTs are not required? Stuart is not my hero. Having or not having insurance does not in itself put anyone in danger rather the standard and conduct of the driver does and as such how has he put people in danger? I do not advocate driving without insurance, like I said you miss the point. As to legal costs why would he incur any? His challenge is one of requiring the court to prove jurisdiction. You really need to understand the difference between legal and lawful.

How very sad that so many people on here totally miss the point and take the high moral stance. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." Stuart Hills stance isn't one of blatant disregard of the law rather I suspect he is like many of us who dwell in this piece of land known as the united kingdom. One who is fed up with the lies and curruption of politicians, fed up with being taxed at every opportunity, fed up with paying through the nose for fuel and everyday living costs, fed up with being told that all the high security, CC tv, body searches, ID checks, can't carry a can of coke on an airplane etc is to prevent terrorism, yeah right, that old chestnut. Maybe, just maybe someone has got to push back at the system once in a while, maybe we could get back to the real law, Common law whereby we all live in peace, do no one any harm, do not steal and are honorable in our commerce. Maybe its time for us all to do a bit more research on the laws of this fair land before we are quick to judge. I expect everyone who has ever done 31MPH in a 30MPH limit or forgot to change that baldy tyre to report to Lerwick Police station immediately!!!

No photos of Bin Ladens corpse because its hard to dig a body up and then make it look like he has just been shot!