Sherlock

Sadly, sir, your "reply" is just as I had expected. I shall say no more, as - for all your words - nor have you. Master Moderators, I am truly attempting to remain on the thread now, and so shall bow out, once again, until someone seeks debate and discussion, rather than a soapbox. Master Rasmie, Your words serve better than all my own grandiose verbosity to cut to the heart of this, previously somewhat convoluted, topic. You have my gratitude and admiration, sir, for capturing and expressing in several sentences what I, in numerous posts, did not. I shall remain, as always, Your humble servant. (sotto voce: Now then, Watson, what's on Sky Sport? Aha! The game's afoot! )

"A vast proportion of these were committed in a domestic setting and, unfortunately, it's very difficult to police inside somebody's home," said Inverness area commander chief inspector Julian Innes. Never a truer word spoken, sir, I assure you. Would you then, sir - a Freeman of the World such as yourself - advocate that we do just that, and monitor all homes now? Or should we merely give up and get rid of all Police, because the detection rate has dropped by 2% (you neglected to mention, sir, that detections in other classes of crime were up, and that the detection rate - while fallen by 2%- was still 61% overall). From the same publication last July:- "According to new figures released yesterday by Northern Constabulary concerning the five major classes of crime, 1757 cases were recorded between 1st April and 30th June this year. Of these, 1075 were detected, a rate of 61.2 per cent. For the same period last year, 1623 incidents were recorded and 952 solved, a detection rate of 58.7 per cent." Figures rise and fall, sir, ebb and flow. To suggest that a slight rise in crime, in what is still one of the safest areas in the country to live, is reason to divest ourselves of a Police force, is wholly bizarre. I am sure that I am not the only person to believe so. I am, however, gladdened that you, of all people, trust those fine fellows of the Press to report on any matter accurately, and to use as source for your claims. At least they, then, are not a corporate organ of the State, as you label the rest of us to be. But sir, please, impart upon us your wisdom. Should we all withdraw and take up gardening, will your belief in your cause rid us overnight of crime and fear of crime? Shall we all be safe to walk the streets unmolested, day and night, doors and windows unlocked, thanks to the Freemen? May we have your constructive view of how society would function, were we to remove the Police from our midst? I await your reply with anticipation, and remain, as always, Your humble servant.

To return to the matter which first inveigled me into this thread... Master Lookin, Are you now prepared to provide the evidence of corruption and lawbreaking, which you have levelled at my colleagues? It is a serious charge, and such pointed and venomous accusations should not be taken lightly, sir, as you seek to besmirch the good names of all Officers in refusing to divulge the names of those so unjustly accused, or provide evidence - even so much as an iota - as to the veracity of your outlandish and wholly erroneous or perverse claim. Do not hide behind another's words, sir. Stand forward and acquit yourself, else, I fear, your own silence on the matter shall determine you (at least in my eyes). Do not waffle on vague and nebulous claims of "Police state" and "bully boy" tactics, sir. Were we truly in such a state, I would but have to press a button and know your name, address, income and shoe size (a 9? Merely a light-hearted guess, I assure you! ). To return to my original theme, contrary to the beliefs of some, we are not a self-imposed elite who believe ourselves above the Law and society whom we serve. There is recourse, in Law and society both, to seek to redress perceived wrongs or ill-treatment at the hand of any of us. To suggest otherwise is to fly in the face of fact. Yes there are occasional bad apples, howver can you show me an occupation where there are not such as these? Officers have been sent to prison for offences committed whilst in uniform, rather than the system covering up for them and protecting them. In truth, it has been perceived by some of my peers that Police are treated more harshly by the system than another member of the public. For us, more often than not, the burden of proof in matters disciplinary is that of a civil Court, i.e. the balance of probability, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. Should you choose to reply with further waffle on "truth", rather than in answer to my questions, I fear I shall never be able to take you seriously again, sir. Please, speak up. In the meantime, I shall remain, Your humble servant.

Master Njugle, I believe the appropriate response is, "I hear dee" Your humble servant. post script How comes the footwear, sir? I believe they may be a perfect fit in this thread.

Posted twice in error. Confound these newfangled contraptions.

Ah me. It is as well the written word is being employed herein, as I fear that, were we to debate in person, your eyes would be closed and your fingers plugging your ears, while loudly singing, "La-la-la-la! I can' heeeear yoooou!". Master Free, in a former employment, I was acquainted with a either rum cove, who had named himself "God, Master and Creator of the Universe". He genuinely believed this to be so, however the fervent and somewhat disturbingly single minded nature of this belief never - insofar as I am aware - afforded him any corroboration of his omnipotence or ineffability. I fear the same is true of your own rose tinted views (although in your case, I detect some metaphorical scratching and smearing on the lenses!). Bon chance, Master Free. Oops, I let slip my European influence! Master b, I fear there may be some veracity in your diagnosis. To one and all, I remain, as always, Your humble servant.

Master Free, Your invective assumes ever-growing proportions of insult, sir. Now I am a Nazi, in addition to being a liar, a thief and a Masonic drone. How have the good folk of Shetland managed tolerate my wicked and nefarious presence all these years?! Really sir, one might as easily surmise that had you been in Master Schicklegruber's Nazionale Sozialistiche Reich, you might have been feeding members of the collectives you so despise into the ovens. Given your rather extreme neo-fascistic espousals, such a theoretical surmise might ring true. At the very least, they suggest you and your Freemen would be rounding up and getting rid of those whom you identify as enemies of your Utopia. Strange how revolutionaries always promise Paradise, yet wreak chaos, misery and a state akin to Gehenna upon their charges, once in power. Ulyanov, Djugashvili, Schicklegruber even Luther and Knox all brought death and suffering, misery and suppression to those they "freed". Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, sir. I am satisfied - wholly satisfied - that my world view and my tolerance and treatment of my fellow man is preferential to those self-serving, egregious and egotistical words spewed in bile across these pages and others, condemning others and fostering hatred and division. I fear for you, sir. Master K, Your self-deprecating humour never ceases to amuse me, even a it soothes the sting of some of your more venomous statements. Quite laudable, sir, even if we shall rarely concur. I fear we have strayed even further from this thread, and are not in Kansas anymore, Toto! My humblest apologies, Master Moderators, I shall make a wholly concerted effort from hereon in. Unless someone else calls me a Nazi! Hmmph! I remain, as ever, Your humble servant.

Master Free, Your invective assumes ever-growing proportions of insult, sir. Now I am a Nazi, in addition to being a liar, a thief and a Masonic drone. How have the good folk of Shetland managed tolerate my wicked and nefarious presence all these years?! Really sir, one might as easily surmise that had you been in Master Schicklegruber's Nazionale Sozialistiche Reich, you might have been feeding members of the collectives you so despise into the ovens. Given your rather extreme neo-fascistic espousals, such a theoretical surmise might ring true. At the very least, they suggest you and your Freemen would be rounding up and getting rid of those whom you identify as enemies of your Utopia. Strange how revolutionaries always promise Paradise, yet wreak chaos, misery and a state akin to Gehenna upon their charges, once in power. Ulyanov, Djugashvili, Schicklegruber even Luther and Knox all brought death and suffering, misery and suppression to those they "freed". Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, sir. I am satisfied - wholly satisfied - that my world view and my tolerance and treatment of my fellow man is preferential to those self-serving, egregious and egotistical words spewed in bile across these pages and others, condemning others and fostering hatred and division. I fear for you, sir. Master K, Your self-deprecating humour never ceases to amuse me, even a it soothes the sting of some of your more venomous statements. Quite laudable, sir, even if we shall rarely concur. I fear we have strayed even further from this thread, and are not in Kansas anymore, Toto! My humblest apologies, Master Moderators, I shall make a wholly concerted effort from hereon in. Unless someone else calls me a Nazi! Hmmph! I remain, as ever, Your humble servant.

Master Njugle, It was, indeed, well phrased. While, insofar as I am aware, there is no offence committed by declaring self-determinism, I can but guess that any offences arising from such beliefs ("I declare this my car, and damn you, sir, for your impudence if you argue!") would result in a swift assessment by a practitioner of medicine, mayhaps followed by a night in an en suite secure room, or a trip to a more "comfortable, yet secure" medical facility on the mainland. Your humble servant. post script Is somewhat archaic eloquence or verbosity infectious?

Yes guv.

Master Rider, Equally, sir, it could be said that I have no proof, other than your avatar, that you are a motorcycle. A poor jest, sir. You shall just have to trust me, lest you wish us to exchange identities via PM? I have, however, every respect for your anonymity, and do not call upon or expect you to do so. As to your question. I could not do my job if I did not believe in justice. I am of those who are driven by a sense of justice, and of seeking justice for the victim. I must, however, recognise that I am part of a system of justice. In oder to fulfil my role, I serve justice in the very best, most impartial and objective way I can, else I am serving myself and my ego, rather than the public whom I sworn to serve. Again, should you have reservations or doubts about this, feel free to PM me, and we may discuss how I achieve this in my profession. So, the short answer is yes, yes and yes again. The day it is not, I shall retire, or seek alternative employment. I remain, as always, Your humble servant.

Master Free, Do not mistake my taking leave of you as some recognition of your veracity and a lack of faith in my beliefs. Far from it. I simply see no point in arguing endlessly with a person who has already confessed to being intransigent and obtuse. As to the "whore" allegation, I made no such claim in regards to you, sir. There has been another involved (and it would seem, heavily influenced by Messrs Icke, Gerrish, and your good self) in this debate. It is, however, nice to see you admit to pigeonholing and labelling collectives as stereotypes. I rather thought that was what we, the Police, were always accused of by our opponents. It rather reminds me of the "All (insert group here) are bad. Do away with them and the world will be a better place" type of mentality fostered by neo-messianic - one could even say crypto-fascistic - individuals via the more toxic and arcane corners of the instant communication medium that is the Internet. If you take the time to read my posts, you shall see that I treat all men fairly and impartially, regardless of their views, origins, creed or colour. I humbly and respectfully suggest you do likewise. I bid you luck with the world and your place in it, sir. I hope you are not too disappointed with it. I see pieces of paper all day, however none of these have yet informed me that my powers as a Police Officer - duly conferred upon me by society, via their (once again, for your benefit) democratically elected representatives - do not exist. If you see such a paper, which has at least some form of validity or modicum of origin in sanity and rationality (rather than neo-masonic plots), feel free to send it to me, via Lerwick Police Station. (Masonic hats? Sir, surely you can find a more accurate description? The caps worn by current Officers were adapted from surplus army stock following the First World War. Are the Army also, now, a neo-masonic front for a New World Order consipracy? I always thought that was the U.N.?? I am not a practicing Freemason, however through enquiry and research, I have a fairly detailed knowledge of certain of their history, practices, clothing and symbology. I know of no such masonic hat as you describe, which is black, bears a black and white chequered band, a flat top on which a helicopter could land, and a patent leather peak (a bishop's mitre bears more resemblance to that of which you speak, and yet its origins are not masonic either). As to your "legal maxim", it must also be an Americanism, as I am distinctly unfamiliar with it. "Do nothing which is of no use.". "Strategy is different from other things in that if you mistake the Way, even a little, you will become bewildered and fall into bad ways." “People in this world look at things mistakenly, and think that what they do not understand must be the void. This is not the true void. It is bewilderment...†"Never draffle a drexnix when you can quangle a quarg", I always say. I, too, can play the quote game. Just because something has been said by a "famous" person, does not make it any more true than if 'twere said by a gentleman of the road. I would have thought that you, of all folk, would understand that. (That is not an invitation to spark off a flurry of such posts, however kudos shall go to the person who identifies the origin of the above). I retire from this discussion, not because I am wrong and you are right, but because you refuse to respect the views of others, or even to attempt to recognise that another's views may be worthy of consideration. I wish you well, sir, and remain, as always, Your humble servant. post script Master Njugle, I am sorry to disappoint. I rather fear that I am all too human, and - after many years of public service (or thievery, perjury, intimidation and bullying to some!!) - find that I easily tire of the conspiracy theorists, or those who hurl invective, piffle and tosh over reasoned and intelligent, informed debate and discussion. I joined Shetlink and began posting in an effort to better inform some of those amongst you, who appeared to bear ill will or misconceptions as to the workings and requirements of my profession (often perceived as a closed shop), not to argue back and fore. I am, I assure you, a perfectly reasonable chap, never happier than when sat before a fire in my finest smoking jacket, with a fine and informative tome, whilst enjoying a pipeful of Barrats finest Sherbet (the true seven per cent solution!). I do not clamour for this particular fray, nor does argument hold attraction for me. It is another form of combat altogether that claims me, where my quarry and I may face one another across a table and hold forth at length in a battle of words and wills, till one or 'tother of us is proven the better person. Rest assured, sir, that - should I have recourse to do so - I shall re-enter the fray in future. But not when "Heroes" is coming on. And, should you ever require to borrow my handcrafted John Lobb Burlingtons, you need only ask. I am sure they shall be in good hands, sir. Or feet? One and all, please feel free to PM me, should you wish to do so and you have any reasonable questions with which I may assist. I am, after all, a consulting detective. I may not always post, however I am, more often than not, always around (sometimes where one might least expect). Your humble servant.

Ah, the ever effervescent Master K. Sir, I shall take your post in the tongue in cheek manner in which I am sure it was intended. Else I shall ask you to look up "mens rea". If I do not believe the act is likely to be carried out, then there is no criminal intent. Without criminal intent, the crime is not complete. Any exceptions are statutory, or refer to culpable and reckless conduct, where mine is neither. And on that note, having now been baselessly slandered as a powermongering, thieving, lying, Masonic whore, I shall bid this thread adieu, and good luck to all participants. However, Master Free, I shall continue to arrest thieves, drug dealers, rapists, thuggish husbands, abusers of children and all their tawdry ilk, despite your apparent, and somewhat astounding, exhortations not to. I bid you well in your Freemen Utopia (no women allowed?). I remain, as always, Your humble servant.

Thank you, Master Allison, for proving my point. Blacks's Law is an American publication, dealing with American laws and legal definitions. If our Scottish laws and definitions differ from our English cousins, it is obvious that they also differ from our American counterparts, do you not agree? Hmm. You question my knowledge of law, and underscore your questioning with a quote from a piece intended to be somewhat humorous (allegedly, I might add). That makes no sense to me, whatsoever. As to the issue of corporations, this is a designation or label propounded by you and your Freeman peers, for which I can find no authoritative source (unless Andy Williams thought so also? A fine melody, if somewhat trite lyricism, yet I fail to see what legal bearing the song "Born Free" has on anything at hand. Unless we are lions, who but dream we are men ). And as for the "all laws are fiction" and so called self published "Notice of Understanding..." malarkey, then I say again, piffle and tosh, sir. I do not always like the law of gravity, or that my eyes are blue, however these are immutable facts, however much I may dispute these. Similarly, whether you like it or not (and by careful deductive reasoning, I would say not ) the Law does, indeed, apply to you, be it Common Law or Statutory. To suggest otherwise could be perceived as irratiobdl or arrogant at best, and delusional at worst. On the subject of Statutory law, I would direct you, sir, to www.statutelaw.gov.uk or www.opsi.gov.uk/acts.htm Both deal with laws (yes, laws, for I am truly sorry to upset you, however this really happened and these laws have been passed, as previously described) pertaining to this fair country of ours, and to all those herein, be it Freemen, or mere mortals like the rest of us. Finally, I was not talking about you, sir, I was questioning Master Lookin as to his (still) erroneous assumptions and statements made herein. Unless you are he, or his virtual ventriloquist. I remain, as always, Your humble servant.

A dock originally referred to a walled enclosure, such as was used for the building and repair of ships, or the holding pen wherein an accused was held during trial. It's useage in such circumstances dates back several hundred years, and has no other link to the sea, insofar as I am aware. Your humble servant.

Is it just me, or am I arguing an immutable set of facts with a wholly intransigent and obtuse opponent? Master Lookin, you are not correct in assuming that statutes and law are not the same thing. That is why they are called statutory laws (statutes is an Americanism, or may sometimes be used as shorthand). There is no "fictitious" person. If you are having your details noted lawfully (contrary to your erroneous definition, they are one and the same: "legal adj 1 lawful; allowed by the law. 2 referring or relating to the law or lawyers. 3 created by law. ETYMOLOGY: 16c: from Latin legalis." source Chambers Dictionary) it is you the person to whom they refer, not some fictional person. Crime reports are statements of fact, as provided by witnesses testimony, which may be proven, and other corroborative evidence. They are not to be found next to Danielle Steel and John Grisham in the public library. I do not even begin to understand where this misapprehension has arisen from, nor how it can be maintained in the face of rationalisation of fact. Piffle and tosh, sir. On to your next erroneous point: The Police Forces (Plural, for there are many, not one - see I could be petty also, however it is a tiresome attitude to maintain, so I shall not) are not corporations[/i]. I know not where you have read or formed this view, however it is utter nonsense. We are not a business - if so, what is our product? Is the NHS a business? Or the Fire Service? We are public servants. Again, sir, piffle and tosh. And finally: Of course Acts of Parliament are Law, for it is from such circumstances that Statutory Law originates. Common Law is historical, originating from interpretation of the biblical sins (murder, theft, etc). Where new laws are required by a changing, developing society, Axcts of Parliament are passed and become Statutory Law. And, yes, I am sorry to inform you, they govern you every bit as much as Common Law, else why would folk be arrested for drink driving (I do not believe they had motor vehicles in the 1800's, for instance, therefore the introduction of new laws became necessary in the face of abuse of such vehicular transport - such is Statutory law). Yet again, piffle and tosh. May I make a suggestion, sir, in order to test your mettle, the courage of your convictions and your boundless depth of knowledge of all things legal and lawful? If you drive, then next time, weave your car from side to side in front of a police vehicle. When you are stopped, behave exactly as you have advised others. When you are thereafter arrested and held in custody until the next lawful sitting of the Court (and this you shall be, should you refuse to lawfully provuide your details when required), you may have this pointless debate with the Sheriff. Should he yield to your argument, I shall do likewise. Aleister Crowley advocated "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law". This is very close to your own view, however, I do not suggest likewise, as it is not much of a defence in Court!! Forgive me if I doubt I shall see, or hear of, such shenanigans any time soon. As ever, I remain, Your humble servant.

Master Ness

Post script. Admiralty Law? Corporate Law? My dear sir, you have me - and, I do not doubt, all my colleagues - at a disadvantage. For we are not, to the best of my knowledge, ever involved in either. (I cannot remember the last time I arrested an Admiral!!) Might I suggest you try CRIMINAL law (the clue is in the title), composed of Common Law (Scottish, of course) and Statutes (aren't what they seem? They are, my good fellow, just what they seem. Words, in black and white, which deal with legal matters. I am puzzled as to how they could be perceived as other?! ). My dear, dear fellow, capitals are advised in noting details for the very reason so obviously surmised by our peer, Master Pleepsie, whom you then so casually disparage for stating an obvious truth. As the tutelage of copperplate handwriting is no more - alas for our educational system - capitals serve best in recording important details such as the identity of a person whom you may intend to report for a crime or offence, or the victim of a crime you intend to investigate ("Now then, what was the name of that victim again, erm MacDonald? MacDougall? MacDonell? Alas, I cannot read even my own scrawl! Damn you, teacher!") While I am on the topic, how do I, as a public servant - even attempt to defend myself from any complaint or accusation, when I may not - in your world - even be entitled to know to whom I am talking? Please advise... I fear your views in this respect - whilst you are, indubitably entitled to hold same - are as misinformed as they were on the matter of "drug taking demoted/transferred Police Officers" (I still await the names associated with this baseless and scurrilous accusation, as your PM's - whilst filled with bile and insult - have declined to provide same), or paedophilia being legalised throughout the EU (the latter being particularly distasteful to me, given the professional nature of my involvement in many such enquiries, and my personal knowledge of the victims of same). None of the foregoing is intended as criticism, and if read as such, I humbly apologise. I merely seek to attempt to understand (and I can say that, in this instance, I do not) and to remain, as ever, Your humble servant.

Ah me, where to begin? Once again, please take it as moot that the following are my own personal views, and do not reflect those of my esteemed employers. The website to which Master Lookin has, so kindly provided a link is, in my personal and professional opinion, both misleading and egregiously in error throughout (an understatment, trust me). To wit, when an Officer requests your details, you may not, necessarily, be required to provide them. However, where an Officer REQUIRES your details, I am afraid, dear sir, that you are. You see, there are a number of statutes and situations where to fail to do so is an arrestable offence, in and of itself. Where you are involved in a reportable road traffic accident, there is a legal requirement to provide your details to Police. Where you are detained in terms of Section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, there is a legal requirement to provide your details. So too with Section 60 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act (suspected theft), Section 14 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act (detained on suspicion of having committed an offence punishable by imprisonment), and so on. Even where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting you have been witness to a crime, there is a legal requirement to provide your details, if such requirement is made of you. In many such instances, Section 13 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, provides an Officer with the authority to demand your details. To fail to do so may well see you arrested (although obviously common sense and discretion would be expected to play a large part in any such decision making process). These are not powers which we conferred upon ourselves. They are, on the whole, results of Acts of Parliament, wherein your democratically elected representatives have agreed that such are required. The use, however - as I have already stated - should be proportionate to the incident at hand. Whatever the reason for arrest or detention in terms of Section 14, once taken into custody in such circumstances, Police have the legal authority to question you, to fingerprint and photograph you, and to take DNA from you whilst in custody. (Believe me, good folk, this is quite necessary, in order to establish that the person is who they pertain to be and, more importantly, this process often provides significant evidence in serious cases, which thereby allow the enquiry to move on and often be detected, i.e. rape or other serious sexual offences - although dishonesties such as housebreakings also often benefit. In such instances, where the offender is brought to justice as a result, I find it difficult to know what else we might do that would appease Master Lookin, et al. Perhaps asking politely might work?!). Unlike some of our English cousins, should the case not proceed, or you be found not guilty of a reported offence or crime, ALL your samples (fingerprints, photograph and DNA) pertaining to that incident MUST and WILL be destroyed. There are, to my knowledge, no incidents where such samples have been kept, for to do so is, in itself, unlawful, and renders the body doing so liable to suit. Master Lookin, I heartily recommend that you read, and digest, the quote appended to my signature. I, personally, bear it in mind at all times, and I suggest that you do likewise, else your entire life may become a steady series of misunderstandings and misapprehensions. With all due respect, sir, it is always best to know just a little of what you speak, before you do so. Might I also humbly suggest that Masters Icke and Gerrish may not be entirely objective in their own colourful views, and a balance may be required in formulating your - no doubt - rather exciting and intriguing view of the world as you know it. I close in assuring you, sir, that, contrary to your outlandish and quite unfounded claims that we are whipped into a frenzy by NLP, or ruled by a secret caste composed of Common Purpose members (perhaps Moloch worshipping, highly evolved lizard folk?), we are - rather boringly - merely men and women, like any other. We wear a different set of clothes, and have a required level of training in order to carry out a necessary, often difficult and unpleasant - yet no less noble - profession, however we are, and remain, your humble servants.

My dear fellow posters, As always, what follows are clearly my own views and, in no way represent those of my noble employers. Ah me! I have just found this thread and find the contents quite, quite disconcerting and disturbing. While I have no grounds to refute or dispute your experiences - you were, after all, there, while I was not), it troubles me that, through extrapolation, some amongst you would judge us all by the behaviour of one or few. If I received poor service from a garage (and I have, although not - I hasten to add - in these fair Isles), I would not form the, somewhat skewed, opinion that all mechanics are thieves and rapscallions, eager to tear the shirt from my back with their nefarious and bafflingly convoluted explanations for why my hansom cab required X hundred pounds of - allegedly - vital and lifesaving work done, when I am aware all that is required is fresh hay for my steed. Similarly, I would ask that you do not hold every Officer of the Law responsible for the poor service you perceive you may have experienced. There are many fine Officers in these Isles, who are all too keenly aware of our duties - of which I have informed the bemusingly misinformed/misguided Master Lookin at some length. Why, I, myself, am one such fellow ( ). May I reassure you, one and all, that should you ever have cause for complaint over poor service or downright rudeness received from any Officer, you have the right to complain. And I assure you, such complaints are investigated, thoroughly and vigorously. No Officer of whom I am aware would relish or invite such a complaint. Personally, I believe in treating all impartially and objectively (yes, I did say ALL, my friends), for it is not my role or duty to judge another. However, I have found that, even such open mindedness is no dfence against complaints, as if you are even so much as reasonably successful in the role of detecting habitual and recidivist criminals, one or two shall, inevitably, seek to use the very system we serve against us, and threaten or complain, where there are no valid or truthful grounds to do so. That does not deter me from my job, else I should retire and take upknitting and belly-button fluff collecting for excitement. As to the accusation that Police have never experienced trauma or stress in their occupation, sir, if only you had seen what I have seen, and had to do what I, and my oft-benighted colleagues, have had to do, you would not make light of such. However, I seek no sympathy, it is a job (although personally, I view it more as a vocation) which I am glad and proud to carry out. And carry it out, we shall, whether it be Master Lookin or Master Rider whom we serve, or Master/Mistress J3ova, until our respective retirement days. Or until I win the Lottery!!! (I jest!) I remain, as always, your humble servant.

"Each and every one of us has it in us the ability to be a psychopathic killer, if all the ducks line up that way on the day" Hmm, remind me to take that day off. Your humble servant.

In which case, I, and my esteemed colleagues, look forward to making your acquaintance. (Although not, I am sure, your good self, Master R. ) I remain, as ever, your humble servant.

Justlookin, My dear fellow, I fear some rapscallion has purposely misled you, or has been pulling your leg. That is the only viable explanation for your (somewhat boggling) post, as I can assure you that no such thing has occurred as you have alleged. If you still feel you are in the right with regards my fellows, please feel free to PM me, that we may hold discourse on this. I remain, as ever, your humble servant, Sherlock.

By strange coincidence, a second crime writer was writing his own procedural novel set in Shetland (name of the outlying island changed/fictionalised) at exactly the same time that Ms Cleeves wrote Raven Black. This came to light when she won the Crime Writers award, by which time the unfortunate author's book setting had to be re-located to the Western Isles. Still a decent read and it can even be found in our own Times Bookshop. 'Tis a small world, after all. Your humble servant... Post Script - personally, I recommend any of James Lee Burke's elegiac prose, and (as a close second) the first four novels of John Connolly (Britain's closest comparison to the sublime JLB).

Mr Saxon, You are right, sir, on both accounts.^^ Your humble servant.