Sherlock

Master Stewart, As this IS Master Rider we are discussing - one of the most single-minded and truly individual fellows I have encountered, short of a certain nefarious Professor - I would wholly anticipate his answer to be a simple "Yes!", and would take him at his word, sir! Your humble servant

Indeed, Master B... ahem ... Master EM, We can thank the insightful and accurate reporting of the Guardian and the Evening Standard for this modern myth. Acting under the influence of Cut-Throat Jake, perhaps? Your humble servant (me hearties!)

Master Mikeyboy, I shall be delighted to address you as such, and - as indicated in my last - extend my humble apologies for allowing past experience with slightly less polite and more ... manic ... individuals to colour my expectations in such a manner. Truly, sir, I am sorry for having pre-judged you (we are none of us perfect, I fear ). My reason for requesting you elucidate was your quite forceful assertion that it was correct to conduct yourself in such a manner in a Scottish court - Scots and English Law are wholly distinct, each from the other. I, therefore, formed the conclusion that you had previous experience, or knowledge, of same. It would appear, once again, that I am wrong. Thankfully, my first error was committed yesterday, else this would make TWO mistakes in the same day (and I would be carrying out discreet enquiry as to whether your surname might also begin with "M"... !). This is genuine advice, sir, politefully extended, if couched in such a manner as to (dare I say it) "puncture" any situation... I know how to wire a plug (much to Watson's shock). However, just because I can do so, I would refrain from providing another with advice as to how to work with the mains load within a dwelling. The end results could have severe consequences, should they decide to follow my advice. Is my allegory too vague? And what is this fascination these "Freemen" chappies have with Admiralty Law? Or Commercial Law? Truly bizarre and, as yet, without basis or explanation, other than some vague ramblings about the "dock" in Court making you a ship or vessel (no, seriously, this is what was written) so as to render you liable to Admiralty Law. Words fail me ... almost. The origin of the word "dock" in a Court of Law is accepted to originate from the slang adoption of the Flemish word for an enclosure used to pen an animal (Dokke or Dok = a cage or hutch). The word has it's root in the same Proto-Germanic word, namely "Dukk", as that in old English and Danish, to name but a few). This has been in use for several hundred years now, and has absolutely nothing to do with the accused appearing as a commercial entity, or property, "owned by the State" due to your "berth" certificate. I have - truly - rarely heard such tripe, even from Watson, as he regales me with the latest doings of the Dingles! Sigh I would look further into the facts behind any such argument or statement propounded by the "Freemen", before making my mind up, if I were you. I do not mean to disparage you, merely to illustrate some of the wholly ridiculous concepts and beliefs of this movement. My understanding is that a certain vertically challenged actor, and his disco-dancing burger-chomping chum, believe that we are the reborn spirits of billions of enlightened extra-terrestrials, brought to this planet 75 million years ago, before being slaughtered or sacrificed by the leader of the then Galactic Confederacy, and that by realising this and purifying your body and mind, you may unlock incredible powers and abilities, left behind from when you were an extra-terrestrial (I suppose everyone needs a hobby Still, it might explain his extraordinary ability to levitate in close-up shots with taller actresses!). Their sole foundation for this is the writings of a failed science fiction author, who once commented to an associate, "You know, the big bucks are in religion", or words to this effect. Without citation of definitive sources for the claims made by the Freemen, I can view such statements as no more based in fact or reality, or worthy of consideration, than those of the late Ron L. In my experience, requests for such information are met with vitriol and comments such as "You are blinkered, you and all the other sheeple". Helpful, no? Just because someone WANTS something to be, does not make it so. Master Crowley attempted this with his own variant of anarchy, namely his Thelemic Law. Look where it got him... ("Is it just me, or is it hot in here? And can you mind where you are pointing that pitchfork?!" ) I remain, as always, Your humble servant.

(Bated breath...) Indeed, Master Boy, I am, in the same way in which I refer to every individual whom I address herein (i.e. either Master or Mistress). However, to pre-empt any statement of how you are a master of no man or woman, because we are all Freemen of the Land, and sovereign individuals in our own right (or suchlike), it is merely an archaic and polite firm of address, which I appreciate and so have adopted in my posts. The foregoing is not to say I agree with your stance, merely a presumption on my part of your likely response, if I merely replied "Yup." If incorrect, I shall, of course, offer my apologies, post haste, as any gentleman should. Your humble servant.

Delighted to have been of some small assistance, or entertainment value, my dear fellows. Your appreciation is deeply valued by Watson and I, if I can but pull him away from the vagaries of life in the Yorkshire dales long enough to read your kind words! Sigh! ) I remain, as always, Your humble servant.

Sir, The fictional detective resided at 221b Baker Street. My working residence is Market Street (the Police Station - not owned by any councillor, insofar as I am aware). The address 221b Market Street is, therefore, a small attempt at humour - which has obviously failed Rest easy, no such connection, as you suggest, exists, sir. Your humble servant.

You misjudge my colleagues, sir. There have been historical instances where Officers, including the most junior, have reported what they perceived to be misconduct and breaches of regulations. There has been no comeback on these Officers, even when those reported have been exonerated, following enquiry. And, in my experience, no Officer in their right mind wishes to be the subject of a misconduct enquiry!! Most, if not all, Officers believe in what we do, and - in my experience - would have the strength of character to challenge poor conduct or criminal behaviour in their fellows. They also have the support of senior Officers, in doing so. If we believe ourselves to be above the Law, the whole system fails, sir. There is a rigorous requirement for challenge and openness. This is not the Police service of the 70s, 80s, or even the 90s. I am, once again, proud to say that this Force has never really suffered from such a problem on any significant scale. Indeed, this Force outperforms every other, in Scotland, on a regular basis, and this Area Command has outperformed others, within the Force, for quite some considerable time now. Once again, I would assure you, we do not conduct ourselves as do our dramatic television counterparts. Suffice to say, and in the spirit of Juvenals, we who ARE the watchmen, watch one another, even - and as rigorously - as we watch you. And, in my experience, we do it well. I hope this may now be an end to it, sir. Your humble servant. Post scriptum There is that awful word again. "grass". If you had knowledge of a child molester, and passed this to the Police, does this make you a "grass". It implies someone who does something wrong or seedy (no pun intended). Far from the truth, where it is, in my experience, someone obeying a moral code and sense of duty to their peers or family, doing something RIGHT. I mentioned that this Area Command outperforms others. This is often due to the community involvement in these Isles, where good folk, who have such knowledge, refuse to stand by and let others get away with damaging a community by their actions and crimes. Good folk, sir, NOT "grasses". If someone broke into your home, sir, and "trashed the place", stealing all your hard earned goods, leaving no evidence to trace them, yet a single neighbour had witnessed them leaving abd could identify them, would you label him or her a "grass" if they provided you and the Police with said evidence and your goods were recovered? It is a disappointing mindset to encounter, and yet, I do so regularly, herein. If everyone in Shetland viewed it this way, I fear our performance would be greatly and negatively affected. I am happy to say that such is not the case.

Master Peat, If you ever have the opportunity, at least in Scotland - and I sincerely hope you do not - read a Search Warrant some time. It makes reference to "break open any lockfast place" (from memory), and requires to be signed by a Sheriff or Justice of the Peace. And this is a legal document! Gasp! Imagine!! Sir, I now consider this matter closed. If you wish to argue some more, do so with some other party. Must dash, my nightly Punjana is calling. Your humble (bored) servant.

No apology necessary, Master Spinner, save on my part. I allowed a moment of irritation to affect my manners. I shall endeavour to ensure there is no repeat. "My bad" Your humble servant.

In fact, I shall comment further on your questions, sir, which - to my mind - stretch the boundaries of any familiarity beyond what most, if not any others here have been asked. Each and every one of the Officers with whom I have had the honour and privilege to serve, throughout my career, have been of a like mind. To act as you describe, while it may appear tempting to you, at least, would run the risk of providing cause for any case brought against such an offender to fall, thereby allowing them to remain free and at large, to possibly re-offend again. To take pleasure in such a moment is to possibly make a victim of another. I know no one who would behave in such a manner. Then there is the presumption of guilt. It is not for me to decide upon guilt. Along with every Officer, I am an agent in gathering any and all available evidence, both for and against a suspect or accused, and to effect the detention and/or arrest of any such person, where there is a sufficiency of evidence against them. If I behave in any manner other than objectively, once again, I afford the suspect or accused a line of defence, which is unnecessary and only self-serving. We deal with real life, sir, not some poorly researched, poorly scripted Mockney cop soap, or brooding melodrama with ageing cynical maverick detectives. And I am no judge, nor jury. I am a Constable, sworn to uphold the law and to serve the public. Along with every other Officer in these Isles, and, I would hope, the entire Force, I take that charge very seriously indeed, and I am by no means alone in this. I have not, to date, encountered Judge Dredd in my working life, nor would I have truck with him, should I do so. I am proud of what I do, and of those with whom I have the honour to serve. That SHALL be my final word on the matter. Your humble servant.

This is between my conscience and I. My conscience is clear. I have ever been my own man, sir. I shall comment no more on the matter save to say no one is above the law. If you believe otherwise, there are other professions. Your humble servant.

You're presuming again. Tut. Anyway, to return to the body of this thread, there exists no such method of breaking into vehicles, so the security of cars in Shetland remains unaffected. Your humble servant.

And yet Master Boy's comment remains. History & Culture? Ah well, you are the moderator...

Try asking them. I describe it as other people's altruism. I would not class it as a duty, it is a choice. As to my duty, I perform it very well, thank you. Nothing - except ill health - prevents me from doing so, and I take pride in it, as I do in all my colleagues.

I presume the moderators have removed the last three comments, addressing the issue of "Freeman of the Land", raised herein, for some reason? Your humble servant

Indeed, I, too, would appreciate it if, while elucidating on the finer points of Scots Law, you might cite some successful precedents based in fact and supported by law...

[**Mod Edit - Split from Sovereignshetland.com thread**] Master Boy, Please elucidate. I did google this and found a page by a (thank goodness!) ex-police officer, with definite mental health problems, and others ranting about "berth certificates" (their spelling! Something to do with ...) and "Admiralty Law"! (For the avoidance of doubt, while Common and Statute Law make up the Scottish legal system, Admiralty Law DOES NOT.) Hardly a reliable outlet for any discussion... Your humble servant.

Yet again you misread my posts, or misconstrue the meaning. When I made these statements, they were not in respect of myself, or my chosen vocation. Rather, they were in support of those others herein, not - insofar as I am aware - in a similar position to my own, who were seeking such knowledge, or looking for further information. I was addressing their motives, and must say that, if I was not in this profession, I would have posted similarly to theirs, out of concern for my own and others' property, which I might otherwise believe more secure than it would actually be, if such a method existed. I believe this was supported by Master EM's reply "altruism", which you appear to have missed, or chosen to ignore. I had no need to ask further of the originator, as you will see from my initial post here. I know, for a fact, that the method does not exist. I have repeatedly stated herein that I am limited and, in some cases, proscribed from imparting certain types of information that otherwise, were I not of this vocation, I might be free to do so. I do not know how to make this more clear to you, without reverting to baby talk. I SHALL not breach this ethic, here or elsewhere, to satisfy you or any other, and make no apologies for this. Does this satisfy you? The need to be right can be a terrible thing... Your humble servant. Post scriptum The references to "could" and "might" relate to the vague details in the original post. It does not say whether the "article" was read online, in a book, a magazine, or - maybe - "The Beano" Therefore, in order not to make any assumptions or jump to any conclusions without available evidence, I used these words, and would do so again in similar circumstances. It MIGHT be inferred, from the fact that the originator was posting online straight afterwards, that they had read this online. In this case, it would increase the likelihood of more and more people becoming aware of such information. In a day and age where - apparently - information online is becoming increasingly less secure, it is not too much of a leap, in such circumstances, to suppose this information might fall into the wrong hands. As others may tell you, apparently such information spreads on a viral basis in secure institutions. If you KNEW of such as fact, and did nothing to warn your fellows of this, rendering them more likely to fall prey to theft of items they might otherwise believe to be secured, I MIGHT think less of you for this. In fact, I would. Master EM and Master Caster's altruistic spirits are - increasingly - all too rare in our "don't get invloved" society, where to provide information to the Police of ANY crime, regardless of the victim or scale of offending, is to be despised as being "a grass". Something to be mourned, I believe.

Master/Mistress Kipper, I find the best seats to be those to either side of the centre gap, which is in the back row. This is slightly elevated (the rows are tiered) affords easy access and quick exit. There are two exits, and both afford easy and fairly rapid egress, however I favour the rear side exit, as it is closest to my favoured seats. There are a minimum of trailers, unlike those interminable advertisements shown South. There are refreshments, not a huge range, but adequate. Prices are not much more than in a garage/shop. Staff are helpful and polite, however I am unsure as to how long you may enter, prior to the screening. I believe it is around half an hour prior to screening. Yes, in my experience, you may take in your own refreshments, within reason. I hope this may help. Your humble servant.

By the way, in this day and age, with side airbags and the like, any would-be pilferer attempting some if the methods shown online are, quite literally, playing with death or serious injury... Your humble servant

As I do not post here as any formal representative, to gain an authoritative answer to your question, I once again suggest that you direct it to the relevant authorities. I do believe, though, that my colleagues regularly petition members of the public not to leave their vehicles unlocked, or to leave valuables within, or in plain sight. It may be that the formal answer to your question would be that, in doing so, they are attempting to publicise and address this issue. It is not for me to say, or presume. Merely an observation. Your humble servant.

Master Gibber, He stated that there was a difference between breaking into a vehicle and gaining access lawfully. His implication was that those of us using this terminology were incorrect. I have demonstrated that there is not a difference, and that it is he who is incorrect. His point and mine are quite different... after all, I am right and he is not! (Oh, do be quiet, Watson! Hubris? Moi?! The very idea! ) Your humble servant

Master Gibber, Sir, you do not appear to understand my point, which followed Master Peat's post. There IS no difference between breaking into a vehicle, whether lawfully or unlawfully. His post is incorrect, sir. Your humble servant. Post scriptum Amended, through a misunderstanding, now rectified. My apologies, sir. However, you have - once again - made a rather large assumption. I have explained MY reasons for not disclosing the methods, of which I am aware. However, you then go on to state "and the Police...". Sir, I go to great pains to stress, regularly and at length, that I do NOT speak for the Police, nor for any other of my colleagues. Therefore, unless you have made formal enquiry of the Police and been rebuffed, your post is quite incorrect, and appears to be merely taking an opportunity to "knock" them. If it were left to me, and I felt the individual MIGHT benefit from such knowledge, I might pass this on, on a case by case basis, with due regard to the merits and possible outcome. However, in truth, I cannot think of a single instance, in my entire career, where this would have been the case, and to impart such knowledge would, I am certain, very possibly be contrary to Police Regulations, by which I am bound, at all times, to act.

Master Gibber, You have made an assumption, sir, and one not based on the available facts. If you are unable to find any reference to methods of breaking into vehicles online, I am delighted, as this removes the likelihood that all and sundry may gain access to such knowledge, and a small percentage thereafter put this to nefarious use. To wit, this makes our vehicles just as secure as they were before we started. However, the original post stated that there WAS a method available (the "article" referred to) which allowed a person other than the owner to gain entry to a lockfast and secured vehicle, without the true key, using only a mobile phone. If such were true, this WOULD be of concern to me, both personally and professionally - and to others, I am sure - as this COULD be widely available and, if so, would only increase the likelihood of persons falling victim to done unscrupulous pilferer, armed with this knowledge and a mobile phone. I would submit that to publicise and discuss this issue, and to enquire further into the initial post - as some members attempted - WOULD be in the public interest. Your argument would, therefore, appear to be self-defeating. Your humble servant.

To do so might be viewed by my senior Officers as straying across a line I have always strived to avoid. This is widely accepted by members herein, and I would ask you to do likewise. If these methods ARE widely available, one would hardly require my services in obtaining such knowledge. I would, therefore, direct you to Masters Page and Brin's splendidly useful search engine (I attribute this to the creators, rather than the current owners, for the avoidance of doubt or ccontroversy). The issue of pedantry arose after Master Caster, Master EM and I discussed in our respective posts the issue of "breaking into" vehicles. That Master Peat felt the necessity to attempt to infer our stupidity or criminality through his quite redundant post, led me to apply the maxim quoted previously and label the post as pedantic. I stand by this assertion, sir, and have fully explained my reasons for doing so. Master Peat attempted to state, quite categorically, that there is a difference between breaking into a vehicle and gaining unlawful entry. If you read my previous posts, you will see I have covered this point. However, I shall do so again, for your benefit. If a vehicle, domicile, suitcase, shed or ANY lockfast article or dwelling is secured by the owner, and thereafter said security is overcome by another, by any means - including the true key, if this has been stolen for this purpose, then this is breaking in. However, you may break in to a property, dwelling, etc, with the permission of the owner. This is NOT unlawful, yet it IS still breaking in. If my parents (God bless them! ) lock themselves out of their well secured home, and the only means of gaining entry for, say, an Officer attending to assist them, is to break a window and open the latch, do as to gain entry, this IS breaking in, however this is NOT unlawful. I cannot continue repeating this point without appearing condescending, myself. (I may already have done so, in which case, and you have been affected by this, you can call the helpline on "0800 I am a sensitive soul." Thank you.) Therefore Master Peat's assertive and authoritative post on the matter was incorrect, redundant and pedantic. I cannot be more clear, and Watson - in a rare moment - concurs. Now, back to my newly purchased novel, and a mug of (yes, Master Rider! ) strongest Punjana. Your humble servant.