Aaarrgghh Former UKIP MEP supports secession from the UK

twizzel · 23-06-2008, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aardvark

From Welcome : Ashley Mote MEP

If ever you doubted the man's sanity..................

It sounds good to me.

chikrodah · 24-06-2008, 06:54 AM

Res ipsa loquitur.

Bob FM · 24-06-2008, 08:34 AM

They do indeed. Mind there does seem rather a lot of losing the plot at the moment.

Hartlepool · 24-06-2008, 12:03 PM

Hartlepool said,"C_s,your post 21 which I answered says this,"There is nowhere now that is not owned by a Government".

C_s,you have admitted that your statement WAS WRONG when you said in your above post 29,"er,no I don't,EXCEPT in the........".

chikrodah,perhaps the Shetland Islands Council reaction will be the same as the Scottish,British,and EU Governments reactions if Mr Hill declares his Unilateral Declaration of Independence from them all,and possible from others as well.We shall see,I expect.

It will be interesting for many and who knows,it may just turn out to be an example that others may wish to look into and follow?

Aardvark · 24-06-2008, 12:53 PM

H, You're being deliberately obtuse and acting as a troll on this issue. My explanation was reasoned, based on my studies of land law at degree level and, subject to any recent changes, correct. Land is held from a government in every country in the world. The rules of title vary, but, as is pointed out, governments are sovereign and can do things like make compulsory purchase orders, turn your home into a military range or drive a road through it. Mr Hill's land contains a SSSI. There is a new Statutory Instrument controlling SSSIs in Scotland (The Register of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (Scotland) Regulations 2008 No. 221) which replaces the previous rules. As you can see the whole of Forewick Holm is designated a SSSI: SiteLink Home V2

This would suggest that Scotland claims sovereignty over the island since it has passed laws defining it as a SSSI and surrounding it with a Special Area of Conservation.

The island for sale that H links to is in the Bahamas and is priced in dollars. It is under contract, presumably under Bahamian law. The Bahamas is a country with a seat at the UN and is recognised by all other countries. The land for sale is held from that country. If you bought the island and declared yourself independent you would be declaring independence from the Bahamas. The island is ripe for development, but I'll bet you 1 million dollars that you have to get permission from the Bahamas Government to develop it.

International law does not allow the setting up of independent island states otherwise everyone would be doing it. The boundary of the island might well be the sea, but for instance in the UK, with the exception of the Shetlands, ownership of all beaches below the waterline vests in the Crown and is controlled by the Crown Agents.

If you bought the island in the Bahamas it would indeed be private, subject to Bahamian law. The island Mr Hill has bought is his subject to Scots/Shetland land laws.

I 'phoned Shetland Islands Council and they are keeping a watching brief. If Mr Hill steps outside the law by destroying a SSSI or damaging wildlife or building without planning permission then he will ultimately end in court. If he fails to attend he will be fined and it is possible that his land could be sequestered. The fact that the gullible and terminally dim will have banked their money with him means he will be able to afford his day in court, but you only have to look at the rights claimed by Robbie the Pict over the Isle of Skye toll bridge to realise that the law will take its course and be properly interpreted.(http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/a93_04_.html; ROBBIE THE PICT v. MILLER BUIDHEANN LIMITED, 13 May 2005, Sheriff Principal Sir Stephen S.T. Young and other cases).

The fact that twizzel thinks Mr Mote is sane in supporting this absurd proposition says it all.

chikrodah · 24-06-2008, 10:02 PM

This saga just gets better and better...

According to FORVIK - TRUTH & LIGHT, Forewick Holm is already owned by some anonymous descendants of the original owner, based in Cape Verde, who've taken umbrage at Mr. Hill's claims and has persuaded their president to mobilise troops to reclaim Forewick Holm from the imposter.

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.

Bett Nwar · 25-06-2008, 01:33 PM

Has anybody here bought a plot yet (wasn't there a forum member in the Shetlands)? Has anybody applied for and received citizenship?

a swansong 4 europe · 25-06-2008, 11:14 PM

"The Shetlands, which I visited years ago, are beautiful, but winters of perpetual darkness and overcast skies are bleak and unendearing. It rains for 90% of the year."

"Perpetual darkness" Did you asleep most of the time, then? I have stayed in Shetland in January on three occassions, it was pleasant, not raining and quite "spring-like" on two of those occassions, but stormy on the third, leaving me stranded at the airport for 24 hours. Hardly what I call bleak, I have also stayed in June and September on two occassions, June was a bit miserable but September was wonderful. Hardly "bleak".

As for the Crown ownership of land, ownership like everything written in "law", is subject to the ultimate rule of the gun or sword and is worthless without the backing of force. The aquisition of Shetland as part of a marriage dowry, as I understand it, was not fully paid by the Scots, and the Danes have raised the issue on a number of occassions down the centuries. This is part of the basis of the Udal Law claim having authority over Scots/British jurisdiction.

Of course, had the Danish navy been bigger and better than the Royal Navy this would not even be a subject for debate.

Perhaps it is now time for the return to DaneLaw and acknowledge the Danish royal family, language, and law as paramount in that area of England previously and legally subject to that status and forceably removed by those nasty English. I have a design for a flag, any takers of the proposal to formally acknowledge the Danish crown as head of state for Danish England as established in the Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum:

"The Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum is an agreement between Alfred of Wessex and Guthrum, the Viking ruler of East Anglia. Its date is uncertain, but must have been between 878 and 890. The treaty is one of the few existing documents of Alfred's reign; it survives in Old English in Corpus Christi College Cambridge Manuscript 383, and in a Latin compilation known as Quadripartitus. The original was probably in Old English."

chikrodah · 30-06-2008, 07:59 AM

Looks like Mr. Hill's not getting too many takers for citizenship:

Quote:

On June 23rd 2008 the cost of land-owing citizenship was reduced to 2 Forvik Gulden (approx GB Pounds Sterling 110), Non-land owning citizenship became known as Honorary Citizenship, remaining at the previous cost of 1 Forvik Gulde (approx GB Pounds Sterling 55) and was open to anyone who "support the ideals and aspirations of Forvik". In addition a "Forvik Passport" was first offered on June 23rd 2008 and available for purchase by Honorary Citizens, at a cost of 20 "Forvik Groats" (approx GB Pounds Sterling 11.00) - (100 Forvik Groats = 1 Forvik Gulde), and entitled Honorary Forvik Citizens the right to buy duty free supplies from "Federated Suppliers" in Shetland, but no information was made available concerning which products were obtainable in this manner, or whom the "Federated Suppliers" in Shetland were. For reasons not given, this Passport option was withdrawn again sometime on June 24th 2008. Also on June 24th 2008 the following seemingly mathematically impossible statement was made concerning the "Forvik" currency: "1 Gulde is about £60 sterling. There are 100 groats in a Gulde. One groat is about £12", however this was revised on June 25th 2008 to the more reasonable "One groat is about £0.6".

Source: Forvik Island - Shetlopedia - The Shetland Encyclopaedia - The Shetland Encyclopaedia that anyone can edit.

Mr. Hill told the Shetland News: Hill: I’m ready when they are!

Quote:

"People have accused me of being a self publicist, but I can assure you it is not about this. I am out to do something for the good of Shetland, I always have been.

"I want to get a federation of like-minded people who want to see things happening here. This would be a way of getting cheaper fuel prices, if all the garages declare themselves a crown dependency and go into federation with Forvik. We could then have duty free fuel here.”

He added that he had received very little response locally, apart from ridicule,and none whatsoever from the island and mainland authorities.

But when contacted yesterday, SIC convener Sandy Cluness did not dismiss Mr Hill's actions out of hand.

"I would guess that most of the official bodies would wait and see how long this one lasts. Many of his previous contributions to the autonomy argument have fizzled out. So, let's wait and see how this one goes,” the convener said.

"On the other hand it raises interest in the question of what Shetland's status should be, as is his intention. Many Shetlanders would be quite interested to see whether this has any impact on views in relation to greater autonomy for the isles.

"From time to time, it has been the council's policy that we could provide a better service if we had greater control of our own resources. From that point of view he is spot on.

“However, it needs an act of parliament to grant us this status. It is my belief that the main Scottish islands would do much better with greater autonomy."

Mr Hill said: "People have to realise that this is not just a whim, something I am doing to amuse myself. This is a serious endeavour to change things here in Shetland, to have a better democracy which will ripple out to the rest of the world, because it is sorely needed.”

And he warned: "There has been absolutely no response from the authorities so far. It has to come to a confrontation at some point, whether that be physical or in the courts. I am ready when they are."

Aardvark · 30-06-2008, 10:23 AM

They might ignore him for a little while as he will lose interest soon enough. He is not a leader of Shetland rebellion, but has been ridiculed as we all would be if we set out to make complete prats of ourselves.

He can't live in his tent in a windswept bog forever. His 'building' project will cost real money as his currency won't be accepted by local suppliers. I guess he hasn't got too much real money as he hasn't got a job and a man of principle can only claim benefits from the enemy state for so long. He has vandalised a SSSI and might be ordered to repair the damage. He can present this as a 'confrontation' with the authorities, but only very silly people will see the planned destruction of endangered habitat as a good thing. That will lose him most of his remaining supporters unless people believe in a God given right to trash the world.

At the moment the weather is reasonable, but if he hasn't got 4 walls up by the end of summer his tent will be blown down on a regular basis and he might lose contact with the larger isles for days on end. The reason nobody lives on Forewick Holm is that it is uninhabitable for most of the year. Mr Hill will be gone by the end of November at the latest and so will his country.

24-06-2008, 12:53 PM	#35 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,928	H, You're being deliberately obtuse and acting as a troll on this issue. My explanation was reasoned, based on my studies of land law at degree level and, subject to any recent changes, correct. Land is held from a government in every country in the world. The rules of title vary, but, as is pointed out, governments are sovereign and can do things like make compulsory purchase orders, turn your home into a military range or drive a road through it. Mr Hill's land contains a SSSI. There is a new Statutory Instrument controlling SSSIs in Scotland (The Register of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (Scotland) Regulations 2008 No. 221) which replaces the previous rules. As you can see the whole of Forewick Holm is designated a SSSI: SiteLink Home V2 This would suggest that Scotland claims sovereignty over the island since it has passed laws defining it as a SSSI and surrounding it with a Special Area of Conservation. The island for sale that H links to is in the Bahamas and is priced in dollars. It is under contract, presumably under Bahamian law. The Bahamas is a country with a seat at the UN and is recognised by all other countries. The land for sale is held from that country. If you bought the island and declared yourself independent you would be declaring independence from the Bahamas. The island is ripe for development, but I'll bet you 1 million dollars that you have to get permission from the Bahamas Government to develop it. International law does not allow the setting up of independent island states otherwise everyone would be doing it. The boundary of the island might well be the sea, but for instance in the UK, with the exception of the Shetlands, ownership of all beaches below the waterline vests in the Crown and is controlled by the Crown Agents. If you bought the island in the Bahamas it would indeed be private, subject to Bahamian law. The island Mr Hill has bought is his subject to Scots/Shetland land laws. I 'phoned Shetland Islands Council and they are keeping a watching brief. If Mr Hill steps outside the law by destroying a SSSI or damaging wildlife or building without planning permission then he will ultimately end in court. If he fails to attend he will be fined and it is possible that his land could be sequestered. The fact that the gullible and terminally dim will have banked their money with him means he will be able to afford his day in court, but you only have to look at the rights claimed by Robbie the Pict over the Isle of Skye toll bridge to realise that the law will take its course and be properly interpreted.(http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/a93_04_.html; ROBBIE THE PICT v. MILLER BUIDHEANN LIMITED, 13 May 2005, Sheriff Principal Sir Stephen S.T. Young and other cases). The fact that twizzel thinks Mr Mote is sane in supporting this absurd proposition says it all. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

30-06-2008, 10:23 AM	#40 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,928	They might ignore him for a little while as he will lose interest soon enough. He is not a leader of Shetland rebellion, but has been ridiculed as we all would be if we set out to make complete prats of ourselves. He can't live in his tent in a windswept bog forever. His 'building' project will cost real money as his currency won't be accepted by local suppliers. I guess he hasn't got too much real money as he hasn't got a job and a man of principle can only claim benefits from the enemy state for so long. He has vandalised a SSSI and might be ordered to repair the damage. He can present this as a 'confrontation' with the authorities, but only very silly people will see the planned destruction of endangered habitat as a good thing. That will lose him most of his remaining supporters unless people believe in a God given right to trash the world. At the moment the weather is reasonable, but if he hasn't got 4 walls up by the end of summer his tent will be blown down on a regular basis and he might lose contact with the larger isles for days on end. The reason nobody lives on Forewick Holm is that it is uninhabitable for most of the year. Mr Hill will be gone by the end of November at the latest and so will his country. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

24-06-2008, 06:54 AM	#32 (permalink)
chikrodah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Midlands Posts: 1,663	Res ipsa loquitur.

24-06-2008, 08:34 AM	#33 (permalink)
Bob FM Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: South Marston Swindon Posts: 1,626	They do indeed. Mind there does seem rather a lot of losing the plot at the moment.

24-06-2008, 12:03 PM	#34 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North East England Posts: 6,785 Party: Free England Party	Hartlepool said,"C_s,your post 21 which I answered says this,"There is nowhere now that is not owned by a Government". C_s,you have admitted that your statement WAS WRONG when you said in your above post 29,"er,no I don't,EXCEPT in the........". chikrodah,perhaps the Shetland Islands Council reaction will be the same as the Scottish,British,and EU Governments reactions if Mr Hill declares his Unilateral Declaration of Independence from them all,and possible from others as well.We shall see,I expect. It will be interesting for many and who knows,it may just turn out to be an example that others may wish to look into and follow?

24-06-2008, 10:02 PM	#36 (permalink)
chikrodah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Midlands Posts: 1,663	This saga just gets better and better... According to FORVIK - TRUTH & LIGHT, Forewick Holm is already owned by some anonymous descendants of the original owner, based in Cape Verde, who've taken umbrage at Mr. Hill's claims and has persuaded their president to mobilise troops to reclaim Forewick Holm from the imposter. C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre.

25-06-2008, 01:33 PM	#37 (permalink)
Bett Nwar Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 199	Has anybody here bought a plot yet (wasn't there a forum member in the Shetlands)? Has anybody applied for and received citizenship?

25-06-2008, 11:14 PM	#38 (permalink)
a swansong 4 europe Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 411	"The Shetlands, which I visited years ago, are beautiful, but winters of perpetual darkness and overcast skies are bleak and unendearing. It rains for 90% of the year." "Perpetual darkness" Did you asleep most of the time, then? I have stayed in Shetland in January on three occassions, it was pleasant, not raining and quite "spring-like" on two of those occassions, but stormy on the third, leaving me stranded at the airport for 24 hours. Hardly what I call bleak, I have also stayed in June and September on two occassions, June was a bit miserable but September was wonderful. Hardly "bleak". As for the Crown ownership of land, ownership like everything written in "law", is subject to the ultimate rule of the gun or sword and is worthless without the backing of force. The aquisition of Shetland as part of a marriage dowry, as I understand it, was not fully paid by the Scots, and the Danes have raised the issue on a number of occassions down the centuries. This is part of the basis of the Udal Law claim having authority over Scots/British jurisdiction. Of course, had the Danish navy been bigger and better than the Royal Navy this would not even be a subject for debate. Perhaps it is now time for the return to DaneLaw and acknowledge the Danish royal family, language, and law as paramount in that area of England previously and legally subject to that status and forceably removed by those nasty English. I have a design for a flag, any takers of the proposal to formally acknowledge the Danish crown as head of state for Danish England as established in the Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum: "The Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum is an agreement between Alfred of Wessex and Guthrum, the Viking ruler of East Anglia. Its date is uncertain, but must have been between 878 and 890. The treaty is one of the few existing documents of Alfred's reign; it survives in Old English in Corpus Christi College Cambridge Manuscript 383, and in a Latin compilation known as Quadripartitus. The original was probably in Old English."