Sherlock

My friends, As I have repeatedly stated, I do not represent the Police in any formal capacity herein, therefore it is not possible to provide answers to all of your questions. I did not say this WAS why he was wearing the facemask. I postulated a theoretical explanation, based on knowledge and experience. In any public order in which I have been deployed, I have chosen to wear the mask. Each officer is responsible for making an individual assessment of the risk they may be facing during their appointed duties, and must take into account what they may reasonably expect to face, based on intelligence and information gathered, and experience. To choose not to wear such gear would render officer liable for any injury resulting from their choice. Like the officer who chooses not to wear his vest, then cries, "Foul!" when stabbed. I would not make any assumption as to his motives in wearing his mask, nor should any other, without evidence to the ontrary. I can, however, speak from my own experience. It is a little late, should petrol bombs be used (and they have in the past), to say, "Hang on a tick, I forgot to put on my flame retardant headgear. Do you mind awfully njot throwing that petrol-filled bottle until I drop my baton and shield, doff my helmet and don my mask? There's a good chap, fire away!" Insofar as statistics are concerned, there are other areas of this Force, which are also "low reported crime areas", and yet the detection rate here is higher. As to the mention of statistics, I am well aware of Master Disraeli's quote on their useage, and have a favourite quote of my own, when it comes to thiose wise souls, who spend their time employing the 20/20 vision afforded by hindsight. It is attributed to that splendid fellow, Theodore Franklin Roosevelt, and may be foudnd by entering his name and "critics" on Google. It speaks far more eleoquently for my stance on such matters than I ever could. The bottom line should be, where a Police Officer breaks the law and the trust of those we serve, they should reasonably expect to face justice. Their should, in my opinion, be no argument on this point, although each circumstance should be evaluated accordingly, as with every other crime. (Low crime? Tell that to the victims of serious crime whom my colleagues and I deal with daily. And even "stupid" criminals require cases to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are so confident you know who they all are, perhaps you could share some knowledge with us, purely in the interests of your fellow islanders - who are after all, the victims of such folk?). Your humble servant.

Master b, Whilst my colleagues and I are, I assure you, grateful for your support and reasoned approach, I can, in turn, assure one and all that - regardless of what you may think of the police, or your background, circumstances or origins - everyone is entitled to, and should receive, the same level of professional and courteous service from the police. So, if you support the rioters, or the officers facing them, when you need us, we shall be there. To do otherwise, would defeat the purpose of our role and duties, in which case, a change of career might be advisable. No officer I know of does the job for the gratitude (although it is often welcome in knowing that the public do, on occasion, apreciate what we do). Your humble servant.

In such circumstances, each officer bears a unique designation by which they may be identified, other than epaulettes. This was the case with each officer involved in the protests. As to the issue of lack of epaulettes, without having been present, it is impossible for anyone to say. However, one perfectly plausible and reasonable explanation would be to point out that, earlier in the day, many "ordinary" uniformed officers were not wearing high visibility jackets. If this officer was one of those, and was also public order trained, he might be called to assist in a public order capacity (those helmeted officers bearing shields should all have some modicum of such training). Were he to be called upon, in such a capacity, he might not have a high visibility jacket available, and, therefore, might borrow one from a fellow officer. Should this be the case, he would be expected to remove the owner's own epaulettes, so as to avoid confusion. I, pesonally, know of several such situations, and would see this as being perfectly reasonable. As previously stated, any such officer is always identifiable to another, regardless of headgear or apparel, so this fellow would - in all likelihood - have been identified, regardless. Your humble servant.

Master Rider, I would, once again, take this opportunit to remind my peers, herein, that I do not represent, nor claim to represent, my esteemed colleagues or employers in any way, shape or form, on this thread, or any other. My purpose in joining and posting is, I would hope, well established and understood. I would also submit that it would be a poor detective, indeed, who had not already ascertained, from your previous posts, that you have established trust issues with your local constabulary. And yet, I believe it is worth pointing out that, whilst you - and several others herein, no doubt - believe yourself to have valid reasons for your stance, you do not appear to be representative of all of the good folk of Shetland. It is well documented that Shetland has a higher detection rate than any other area in the Force. It would, therefore, seem that, rather than victims losing out, or the community declining to assist us, the reverse could be held to be the case. I rather hope - and experience both here and elsewhere in the Force area appears to bear this out - that people respond to the individual more than they do the uniform one wears, or organisation one represents. To suggest otherwise, would be akin to bearing a grudge against an entire country for the actions of two or three of the occupants, were it to be extrapolated to conclusion. I, for one, have experiences mistrust from a few in these isles, however the vast majority have - as I suggested - responded to the professional and courteous manner in which they were dealt, and responded in kind. I am sure that this is not what some wish to hear, and I am sure there are some areas in which we could all be better, else we would be divine, rather than human. For my own part, I shall continue in my usual fashion and, like the vast majority of my fellows, seek to provide the service, which I am sworn to, to the good folk of Shetland. I would like to think that these same good folk will not judge me any more harshly for the perceived actions of any officer in London. Your humble servant.

Post script No officer was "wearing a scarf". Officers with specific training and duties regarding certain public order situations are routinely issued with - and expected to wear - protective facegear, worn under their helmets. This is a flame-retardant material, which leaves the eyes uncovered - other than by the helmet visor - however it protects the nose and mouth from inhaling flame, or being exposed to excessive heat. Rioters have been known, on occasion, to offer up what used to be referred to as "Molotov Cocktails" to front line officers in such situations. Police, therefore, responded by issuing such flame-retardant apparel, which I, myself, have been known to cut a dash in, on occasion. While less than comfortable, it is, sadly, sometimes necessary. Your humble servant.

My dear friends, For obvious reasons, I do not intend to engage in debate on a matter, which is subject to investigation. My deepest sympathies lie with this gentleman's family, as, I believe will be those of my colleagues and peers - regardless of whatever the circumstances are found to have been. As to the topic of the manner in which we police, and the "personality" of ALL police officers - once again collectively tarnished by the perceived actions of the tiny minority - I will only say this. To wit, we, the police, have the following core role, responsibilities and duty, which may be found here... www.scotland.gov.uk/library/documents/police.htm I have stated herein before that the Law is, for the most part, particularly unforgiving when it comes to those servants who infringe it - despite what some might believe. I would ask you to believe me when I say that internal disciplinary procedures are also to be taken into account, and these require only the Civil level of proof, i.e. the balance of probability, as opposed to beyond a reasonable doubt. Our Force has a very high standard, to which all Officers are expected to adhere. As to the public having a right to know of outcomes of enquiries, no Police force, that I know of, is in the practice of habitually naming and shaming any person suspected or charged with an offence. If this were to be applied to Police, it would have to be applied to all. The Human Rights Act provides any individual the right to privacy. Although there may be exceptions to this particular Article of the Act, I do not believe that satisfying the curiosity of the public would be sufficient to breach same. If the information enters the public arena through other means, such as Press reports of Court cases, that is another thing entirely, and I would not expect this to be instigated by Police. I remain proud to be a Police officer, as - in the long run, my colleagues and I can only be held accountable for our individual actions, rather than the perceived actions of officers in other Forces - and I remain, as ever, Your humble servant.

My dear fellow, my deduction, in fact, referred to the fact that we were in disagreement - a semi-permanent state for us both, it seems. The appreciative posts on my floridity of phrase strongly suggest that those posting might not enjoy or appreciate them quite so much, were I to begin to adopt "text speak", or phonetic English - or even (were there such creation) "plain English"! I really do rather enjoy such discourse, and shall miss your readership and repartee, should you choose to ignore my own in future. I bid you pleasant slumber, and pray that Morpheus is kind. Master DaCat, One often finds, when using these deuced contraptions - particularly of the handheld variety - that they have a mind of their own, believing their command of our language greater than that of the unfortunate soul employing their use! While some may welcome such assistance, I find it quite, quite irksome on occasion, and am grateful for your pointing out my inadequacy to me. It was never like this at Eton, I assure you! I am in wholehearted agreement with you, in respect of standards of education, if such unutterable nonsense is being propounded by those whom we depend upon to instil knowledge in our youth. Your humble servant.

It should suffice to say, sir, that those who have my acquaintance in everyday life, do not require to be told that I am Sherlock. I have rarely, if ever, suffered a negative response from colleagues. However, I confess to readily employing social engineering skills with witnesses and suspects alike, in order to build rapport and put them at their ease. In fact, the initially (often) tongue-in-cheek nature of some of my posts, gave way to an only slightly exaggerated version of my usual self. I do not view it as a redundant use of "big words" in order to display and boast of my knowledge. Far from it, in fact. Rather, I see it as a celebration of the richness and diversity of our ever-evolving, oft-ignored language. Master Stephen Fry speaks far more eloquently than I do on the subject of our language and it's useage, and, if interested, I would urge you to seek out his own scribblings and comments on the subject. I am more Sherlock, than he is me, if that makes sense to you? Your humble servant.

Ah, Master Michael, an erudite fellow! But then it also means "dull and tiresome", and I have, on occasion, been accused of both! (sniffle! ). Your humble servant.

Ah me, once again, my attempt at dry wit has fallen flat. My use of Lithuanian was part of a light-hearted response to Master Maywick's reference to possible alternate identities for my "true self", which became separated from my main post, owing to a "contre temps", I experienced with my Interweb contraption. It obviously fell flat. I'll get me coat!! In my defence, I did not begin this thread, nor did I provide the title. That accolade must go to our esteemed moderator, Master Pooks, who took issue with our repetitively tangential discussions on my (apparently vexing) loquaciousness. That the selfsame soul, who first took such issue with my use of our - all too oft ignored and underused mother tongue - should riposte in a similar fashion, gladdens my heart, even as it irks others. Master Nederlander, it may be that such florid prose and verbosity is contagious! In which case, I would willingly be Patient Zero. Master Maywick, I fear we are in disagreement, sir, as I do not agree with your view on my reaching a wider audience - as evidenced by our peers' own posts on the topic at hand - and you do not agree with this. It does not take deductive reasoning to reach such a conclusion, however, at least our debate is a friendly and good-humoured one, and you have my thanks for that. Master Nederlander, once again, sir, you have my assurance that my intention was not to provide scorn nor to be patronising. Your humble servant. Post script If anyone knows Master Maywick, please pass on my aforementioned regards, as I fear he may just see my name and pass over the content pertaining to him.

Veliau, mano draugas! (the above should have been appended to my previous, however this confounded contraption is at odds with me, once more, and posted my last before it had been completed. Now the deuced thing will not allow addition or editing, for some reason! Ah, for my dear friend, Watson, and his faithful journal!! ) Your humble servant.

Master Maywick, One might be forgiven for thinking that you seem somewhat determined to find me guilty of some offence. Whether against language, sensibility, content, or your own good self, I know not. The encouragement received from others indicates to me that content and style both appear to be reasonably well-received by our peers. I am, truly, sorry that you do not agree, however it is all part of growing up and being British to reach an understanding that, invariably and inevitably, one may not please every quarter of an audience all of the time. My shoulders shall, eventually, recover from their current slumped posture as my disappointment ebbs. Come, come, my dear fellow. Have we not each agreed to disagree on this matter? For my part, I take no issue with the manner in which any party may choose to post herein, as long as the content is not slanderous, malicious, nor designed to slight another. For my own part, I do not seek to alienate, aggrieve nor irritate any party. That my posts may do so, in your case, is now duly recognised. We all have some small burden to bear. Rest assured, I shall continue to peruse your own posts with open mind and naught but good will to you. I would counsel you against being overly suspicious. however. Such a view can be common, particularly on my own occupation, where one sees more of the worst in some folk. However, such metaphysical armour tends to bring with it a tarnish, which - long-term - affects the soul, and may curdle the milk of human kindness in an era when, more than ever, one's humanity has become truly precious and important. I digress, sir, and would discourse more, however my Grandpapa's crack pipe has extinguished, and he is calling me from my homework in order to relight it for him.

Incongruous? Moi?! My virtual friends, it has genuinely gladdened my heart to have read your posts on my oft inane ramblings. I can only assure the slightly cynical Master Maywick that I am, indeed, a genuine holder of the sworn office of Constable, within our community. Had you seen me after I read your posts, one might have easily distinguished me as the rather pleased looking chap, on Market Street, with the broad grin and the ill-fitting deerstalker (I know this was more an addition to Conan Doyle's creation, however, I pray you will allow me the poetic licence in this instance?), such was the temporary swelling of my cranium. As to poetry and language, I have always believed that the scions of those responsible for some of the most significant early sagas and histories would be genuinely appreciative of the richness of language, and such would appear to be the case within this splendid forum. On the subject of my posts being so filled with trees that the wood may not easily be distinguished, I would point out that the writings of some of the finest authors known to the English language are renowned for deftly concealing meaning, messages and allegories in what - to some - may appear to be rambling gibberish. While I do not portray myself as being on a par with Master Shakespeare, may I not, perchance, dream of such prosaic heights? Personally, I would rather be guilty of verbosity and loquaciousness, than "text-speak" or (shudder) "twittering". However, to each their own... Mistress Khitajrah, I would willingly lobby for the introduction of top hats and capes for all detectives, however I fear some of my splendid colleagues might object, and that the stab-proof lining might detract from the cut of the material. Ah me... Furthermore, not all my fellows lay have the necessary presence and gravitas to carry off such splendid apparel in the requisite manner! For my own part, the chin strap (necessitated by local climate) might also ruin the overall look. I, too, hold doors and adhere to the tutelage of my parents in respect of manners and gentility. I do believe that manners maketh the man. Or woman. Their cost is nought more than a second or two of our time, which cannot be so precious as to needlessly upset and inconvenience our fellows, surely? My slightly archaic use of our delightful language will continue herein, as long as my fellows are willing to put up with me. As to the manner in which others may choose to post, vive la difference! I remain now, more than ever, Your humble and appreciative servant.

Yes, Guv. Sorry, Guv. Won't happen again, Guv.

Ah, me, no, Master or Mistress Bee! I assure you, the content of my nightly Meerschaum is nothing stronger than a bowlful of Barrats Finest Sherbet. It is strong enough for any man or woman, and eases me into the welcoming arms of Morpheus in a fashion, which, I am certain, the old Colombian Marching Powder would not. Your humble servant.

Capital detective work, Master Trout (your first name would not be Mycroft, perchance?) I see how it would make sense for your colleague to have done as they have. As to my use of "we" and "I", I spoke of some of my colleagues feeling as I did, yes, however I believe I began to use the singular when I spoke of creating Sherlock, and posting herein. May we therefore call this semantic discussion closed, lest we see ourselves deported to a literal Rockall? Back to topic, one and all! Your humble servant.

Master Maywick, At the risk of repeating myself, I do NOT represent my colleagues or employers. I post in a stylised and personal manner, the content of which is wholly my own opinion, assisted and augmented by my "inside" knowledge and experience of my chosen occupation. I take it that this clears up any misconception. Your humble servant. Post script Has any other party noted a sudden dearth of posts from the mid-section of this thread? Is it my own confounded contraption playing up, or do we have a mystery? Quickly, Trout! The game's afoot! (***Mod Edit - Your magnifying glass must be requiring a clean Mr Sherlock. The accused posts were dragged off to their own little cell. As has this one! ***)

Master Maywick, Apologies are extended as I was raised to be courteous, and such may often soothe aggrieved parties quickly and with little damage to either party involved. As for any contradiction, when I spoke of posting informally, I should have spoken with more clarity. I merely intended to denote that my scribblings are unauthorised and not representative of my employers or supervisors. For my own part, I would never seek to judge by appearance, but by content and depth of knowledge. If such is ever lacking in my post, I would urge any parties to bring this wholly unacceptable situation to my attention. Master Lookin, I extend my apologies to you also, sir, as this tangential dissection of language and its acceptable useage and application has, temporarily, hijacked your thread. I shall endeavour not to do so again, although my intention was wholly honourable, and I do earnestly hope you found my link somewhat informative. Master Trout, Your gracious and eloquent words are welcome, sir. Your humble servant.

Master Maywick, Please accept my apologies. No slight was intended and, I assure you, I do not speak this way in every day life. However, nor is my name Sherlock, either. Sherlock is best explained as a tongue-in-cheek characterisation - almost a caricature - born from the frustration felt by some of my colleagues and I at seeing Police Officers being misrepresented or stereotyped as misanthropic fascists, barely able to string a coherent sentence together. There was also, we felt, a genuine knowledge gap regarding what we (the Police service) may/may not or can/cannot do. We therefore believed that this forum might benefit from informal and personal input, as and when required or appropriate, in such matters. In doing so, I adopted the persona of that (arguably) most famous of detectives, Mr Holmes, albeit he is fictional, whereas I am not (to the best of my knowledge). I assure you, my intention is not to boast of my loquaciousness, but to use such light-hearted characterisation as a buffer and, hopefully, demonstrate that we are not all the jackbooted thugs and idiots so often portrayed by all and sundry (including herein, on occasion).b I was genuinely not being patronising in my reply, as your own post could have been interpreted - or, indeed, misinterpreted - in any number of ways. I merely attempted to answer in the same tongue-in-cheek and good-humoured fashion, which I have always attempted to adopt (and which, I might add, has previously been the subject of previous complimentary comments from several other of our peers - horses for courses, as they say). I do, however, find it genuinely curious that one may post in a formalized fashion and receive criticism for this, where others may post in broad dialect (of which I am undeniably fond, however as a non-speaker, may often struggle in my own undestanding) and nary a comment is passed. I suggest we are all equal, and therefore more than capable of deciding what we do, and do not, appreciate. That my prose is not appreciated by you may be a source of some fleeting melancholy to me, however it will not deter me from continuing to post in the fashion to which I have grown accustomed. I am sure that, as a reasonable person, you will respect my decision and henceforth continue to ignore my scribblings. At least I now know it was not the link that you found distractingly convoluted, as my offer to attempt to explain more clearly, if required, via PM was quite genuine (the contraption from which I was posting would not allow access to the emoticons, which otherwise may have demonstrated the levity of my previous post). Master Nederlander, the answer is, most assuredly, yes. However, I choose not to be. If you misinterpret my scribblings, I extend my apologies to you also, with my assurance that such was not intentional (see above for detail). Master Moderators, my apologies to you also, for going off topic. However, I felt it necessary to plead my case, and hope not to do so again in future. I remain, as always, Your humble servant.

Master Maywick, I have indeed, sir, heard of this campaign, and applaud wholeheartedly their - no doubt sterling - effort to promote a sensible use of the Queen's English. Am I to take it that this question is some form of attaque au fer, intended to poke a finger of fun at my own use of our language (in which case, sir, I would playfully suggest that there are a goodly number of our peers herein who may have recourse to such an institution ahead of me - including Master Lookin's rather excitable friend, who writes in a curious fashion, almost guaranteed to ensure you have to peruse each comment at least twice, in order to fashion some modicum of sensibility from therein). Or is there some part of the document to which I provided a link that, perhaps, confounds your own sensibilities? If none of the above may pertain to your query, please enlighten me further as to your meaning. I am, after all, a seeker after knowledge. If so, please feel free to enlighten me as to which passage eludes your grasp, and I shall - as always - do my utmost to enlighten you further. Your humble servant.

Master Lookin, In order to assist you in avoiding some of the confusion and misconceptions suffered by your friend (as evidenced in his post on that paragon of objectivity, sanity and fact that is tpuc.org) I would direct you to the following page... www.scotland.gov.uk/library/documents/police.htm This should explain the role of Scottish Police Authorities (which would be much the same as the role played by their Southern cousins, if one were to hazard an educated guess), how they are financed and what role they play in the Police-related scheme of things. Not nearly as exciting as your friend's post, however slightly more objective and factual in content. I hope this is of some use to you. Your humble servant.

Master Lookin, (and Master Free, pray allow the lad to answer for himself, without further dull and empty rhetoric, which only purpose is to attempt to obscure the vacuity of your calumniations) Why so coy, sir? I still await your naming those Officers whom you so falsely accuse. And this after repeated - yet hollow - assurances that you would do so. Has your ventriloquist's mouth run dry? His hand developed cramp? And I can assure you, sir, when I say with certainty these fellows are innocent, that I, at least, have some knowledge of what, and of whom, I speak. For a little bird or two have informed me of the fact that you are PM'ing others on this fine forum, wherein you provide two names. Yet you steadfastly refuse to do the same with my good self. Why could this be? Can it be that, despite all your bluster - which sounds to mine ears like a bitter and empty, frigid gust of air, withering the grape of open debate on the vine of free speech as it passes by, bringing discord, while stealing warmth and sensibility - you know that, behind your sword (mouse) and shield (keyboard), I shall surmise your falsehood? Do you fear exposure as yet another charlatan"? (to quote the fiery Master Abraxas). I have been made privvy to those names spitefully whispered by you, from one who grew tired of your desperate pleas for information, regarding any person who might have names of those you believed to be involved - and these AFTER your first posts wherein you made the allegations?! - and who then received your PM naming them. I challenge you, sir, to provide even so much as an iota of evidence against these men. Like you, and your so-called Freemen, these men should be innocent until proven guilty, should they not? Rather than being subject to your tawdry and illicit smear campaigns against them. Unless your own state of "enlightenment" and "freedom" allows you to create your own rules, whereby we mere and lowly mortals may be disadvantaged at your whim? To date, these men have, at least proved their worth many times over, in the course of their duties. Can you say likewise? I throw down a gauntlet to you, sir. Prove your worth. Prove me wrong. Until that far-flung and unlikely day, I shall remain, Your humble servant.

Well said, Master Njugle. Master Abraxas, I know not what I have done to offend you, sir, as I perceive your tone to be angered. Your loquaciousness is beyond doubt, even as - by your own admission - your diplomacy is somewhat less developed. Do not rise to the bait, sir, rise above it instead. The satisfaction gained in the employ of insults and invective is but fleeting. The taint of such, however, lasts somewhat longer, and I would not see you so afflicted as is our guest, Master Free. Please sir, curb your enthusiasm . Your humble servant. post script I have the motion picture from whence your quote originates, sir. I shall pause and allow my fellows to attempt, if they choose. If I have irked you, please PM me, that we might hold further discourse, and settle any issue between us amicably and constructively.

Master Lookin, Indeed, sir, it was some time ago that you offered to do so. And yet, still I wait...? Forgive me, sir, if I do not test my anaerobic capacity whilst I wait. Mayhaps I should pass on the details of my executors, in case, at some point, you wish to pass on the details to my, as yet unconceived, grandchildren. Until then, I remain, as ever, Your faithful servant.

Another repost in error! That confounded violin has me all fingers and thumbs!