Sherlock

Mr Qatsi, Please feel free to read the quotation appended as my signature. It is as relevant now as when it was first written, particularly when it comes to certain of the Press, and any such affair. (A purely personal viewpoint, of course) A more modern quotation, which is equally relevant, is "Never assume..." Unless you have the gift of clairvoyance or specialist knowledge of all the details of the case , I suggest these so-called experts and "sources" are experts at self-aggrandisement and little else (again, purely personal). The fact of the matter is, Portuguese law forbids ANYONE other than certain authorised persons from openly discussing aspects of the case, therefore there exists a vacuum of information. Show some people such a vacuum and they will fill it with little else than vaporous rumours which serve no purpose other than to fill a vacuum in some people's brains (again, a personal view only). And some elements of society are adept at finding "sources" in any establishment that come up with all sorts of "insider information". Peculiar, what? One might suspect that, in speaking to each other and grinding out the rumours, they might even quote one another as "sources". However, I am sure that such could not be the case . I know as much of this case as do you, however I have witnessed the allegations vary from day to day and, at times, from hour to hour. That, in and of itself, tells me some small tale with regards to the so called "facts". Nothing brings out so many "experts" as such unfortunate incidents as this and the human pain and gullinility which follows (yup, personal again). Incidentally, Portuguese law also forbids - or more correctly, fails to recognise - lie detector tests. So it is a moot point. And - as has been reported by my fellow forum users - they can be fooled or beaten relatively easily, as it all depends upon the physical responses to the baseline questions asked. I suggest that if two people were cool enough to murder their own child, hide her body nearby, carry on their evening meal, fake her abduction and then exist in the glare and hype of the world's media for several months before allegedly placing her body in their hire care, driving to Spain and burying her remains there before mounting further campaigns, etc, they would be more than cool enough to fool such a machine. However, once again, that is merely my opinion, and while I have the professional benefit of being somewhat trained in such matters, I do not have personal knowledge of the case and nor do you. I remain your faithful servant...

To provide some clarification on the matter, in England & Wales the Police use "arrest" as we would use detention in Scotland, however in Scotland you can only be detained once for a particular incident. In England & Wales, Officers may arrest you as many times are as required to go over evidence as and when it arises. Lastly, in Scotland, arrest is the "last resort" or final stage of an enquiry prior to a report going to the Procurator Fiscal and may only be carried out when there is sufficient evidence to do so. In England (obviously) matters are dealt with differently. So the fact that anyone has been arrested may be of no particular significance in the scheme of things and may lead to no progress in the enquiry or for the bereaved family in this tragic case. But it does sell newspapers and get folk watching daytime news!! Your humble servant.

Koyanisqaatsi, My dear fellow, I must disagree with you regarding your post wherein you say that "Police use them as grasses". In this day and age, I would be both suprised and shocked to find that such a thing was true anywhere within the U.K. It would certainly warrant an investigation into the Officer/s and the means by which they conduct their investigations and duties if they were to use such methods and persons to the dertriment of others, and children in particular. Please rest assured that such a situation would NEVER - and I do mean never - arise in Shetland, let alone anywhere else within the Northern Constabulary force area. As to sentencing, this is a common misapprehension. Once we submit our report to the relevant authorities, we have no further control over the matter, although it is to us that many members of the public look when they wish to air their annoyance/anger at what they perceive to be an inappropriate disposal. That is, sad to say, merely another part of the job. Your humble servant.

Khitajra, If we - the Police, or other authorities - do not know, or are not informed by others about these people, the only time we become aware is when it is already too late, and someone has therefore suffered at their hands. I would ask you to report this incident, even if you do so anonymously and merely provide the youth's name, inn order that the circumstances may be checked into. There may be an enttirely reasonable explanation, however - especially in light of the thread subject - in my professional (and personal) opinion, this DOES need looking into. Even the name of the village involved would be beneficial. Your humble servant.

Muppet (and Koyaanisqatsi - great name and amazing film, incidentally), You eloquently paraphrase and distil what I, in my tendency to waffle, have failed to get across to the riotous Mr Handy.

Mr Handy, the following is a purely personal view on your posts, and in no way refelects on my honourable profession. My dear fellow, your argument is fundamentally flawed in that men are born with said apparatus, whereas we have to make or buy - or steal - guns in order to own one, and thereby possibly abuse said item. If that is not enough to point out your flaw, I do not believe there is much else that will dissuade you. I remember well when the Dunblane shootings took place. A friend of mine, newly out of the Police College, was one of the first responding Officers. It still affects him - and an entire community - to this day. I would be interested to hear a debate between such as yourself and someone from that community - or any other that has been affected by gun crime - on this matter. Perhaps such a personal experience and viewpoint as theirs may sway you somewhat more than words from strangers. To hear/read such articles as yours fills me with a sense of despair that my fellow man would be so addicted to the sense of power that a handgun/firearm can provide, that he would be willing to place many other lives at risk merely to prolong the rush that can come with the pull of a trigger. Or do you wish to have exemptions from the handgun ban for fine upstanding fellows, and run the risk of one slipping through due to the common factor in many such tragedies, i.e. HUMAN ERROR? Might I humbly and respectfully suggest you try a more peaceful hobby? I do not - honestly - mean to criticise, for it is not my place to do so. I merely cannot honestly understand the mindset that wants to own such weapons, just for the sake of it, when the potential is there for tragedy at every turn. I have lost count of the number of times we hear from our American cousins of youths - and young children - shooting themselves and each other while playing with "Daddy's gun". I stand with my peers on this matter in saying that if banning handguns means one such child is saved, it is worth it. The catch in this, of course, is that by ensuring the youth never has the opportunity, we also ensure we will never hear about it, because it will not have happened. Therefore there is no empirical evidence which to employ in arguing with the pro-choice/guns lobbies. If everyone believed in free will and we were all such perfect souls, we would be truly civilised and have no need for guns, armies, wars or even laws. But this is not Utopia, and - despite what we proclaim - we are not truly civilised, we merely drape ourselves in the trappings that are accretions of culture. We then use these to beat those from another, differing culture or viewpoint about the head with while proclaiming them barbarians or ignorant fools. Finally, as for the argument, "well if you ban guns, they'll just use bombs", that may well be, however we will have less to worry about on a daily basis because guns are not such an issue and everyone is not carrying one. Is this not also simple logic? So then, let us say "People are speeding! The law doesn't work! Hey, I know! Let's get rid of that law and let everyone drive as fast as they want, where they want, when they want!" It is a logical extension of the same sort of argument. Is it really an answer though? I remain your humble servant.

I normally hesitate to become involved in such debates, lest my profession be used against me. The fact is, my colleagues and I are more likely than most, throughout the course of our careers, to have a firearm pointed at us or used against us or to be threatened with such as a result of what we do. And, yes, it IS our job and our choice to do so. You might, therefore, expect us to wish the additional "protection" of having firearms as routine? I, for one, want no such thing. Nor do many of my colleagues. In fact, other than in jest, I can think of none I have met throughout my service who would wish for such a thing as the routine arming of the police. From a purely personal point of view, guns kill. As do knives. All those who say, "Ah but guns can be a deterrent", well then, by logical extension of that reasoning, so can a knife. Shall we all start carrying knives, axes, razor blades, baseball bats, etc, as deterrent, just in case we are attacked by groups of marauding youths carrying baseball bats? There is an equal chance that, should you produce such a "deterrent" and your opponent is armed, one of those weapons may end up being used, through fear or desperation, or just bravado/red mist/adrenalin, whatever. Violence, or the threat of violence, is not an answer. Every day, my colleagues attempt to defuse situations which have the capacity to become violent. They don't achieve that through the threat of violence as a deterrent, but through the use of interpersonal skills, reasoning and use of language - verbal and non-verbal - to resolve difficulties. Locking someone up is a last resort. We are taught that to take away the liberty of an individual, for however long, is an enormous and far-reaching act in its implications and effect on the person so detained. Contrary to some popular belief (and many urban myths) we do take this responsibility seriously. To summarise. Guns bad. Yes, gun crime is on the (gradual and very slow by comparison to other nations) increase, however to advocate arming ourselves to protect ourselves is - again, personally - sheer lunacy and the next step on a slippery slope to more Hungerfords, more Dunblanes, our very own Colombine... It does not matter what caused these men to do what they did, it only matters that they had the tools necessary to do so. Pinch bars did not kill 32 people in a Virginia campus, guns and bullets did. That, for me, is enough. I remain your humble servant.

The "nazi style skid lids" (I DO find somewhat irksome the attempt by some to automatically pigeon-hole all Police as jackboot wearing right wing fanatics. It is tiresome and unimaginative and - as I have previously said - displays a narrow mindedness and bigotry which ill-behooves rational and sensible people) are regulation, as is the body armour. A Police officer should wear both where practicable, and they should certainly wear the body armour when dealing with such a reported incident, where the full facts are still not yet known. It is not so terribly long ago that, prior to the adoption of the armour, a Police officer in Yell was stabbed to the chest- narrowly missing his heart - during a routine traffic stop, so it COULD and HAS happened here. I remain, as ever, etc...

My dear Ms Jailbird, I look forward with interest to the thread wherein you do decide to discuss and air your apparent grievances. Kind regards. PS "armed and fully suited in armour and riot gear !!" Are you QUITE sure? I rather think not. Shall we stick to fact rather than fantasy?

My dear fellow, madness may be a side-effect of attempting to form some semblance of sense or rationality from your (increasingly) erratic posts. I wish you well all the same. Your humble servant...

To paraphrase, under the Roads Scotland Act, a road is any way (other than a waterway) to which - amongst other things - the public have access at any time. While not a Road Traffic chappie myself (and I doff the proverbial cap to those fine folk in white hats who are!! ), we should all know that that is why if you drive - for example, whilst drunk - even in a private carpark( so long as there is no means by which to prevent access), then basically any accident which causes injury to any other person or object other than the driver/occupant/animal within a vehicle, or certain vehicles being towed by said vehicle, is an offence. Phew! Said legislation is in the public domain and should be easily accessible to all you Internet-minded wallahs out there! That's my last on the subject, other than my personal opinion, previously posted. I remain your most humble servant.

Just a closing thought... Yes we are busy, but not too busy to serve those we provide a service to (does that make sense to anyone other than me?! ) And if someone is capable of causing damage to another vehicle without realising it, it offers up several further questions, such as:- are they then fit to be driving? If not, why not? Have they been drinking or using drugs (even certain prescription drugs may render you unsuitable to drive... always check with your doctor, or your insurance may not cover you if you are in a bump - even if the other driver is at fault!! 8O )? It would not be the first time I heard of a drunk driver causing an accident while nipping out to the supermarket/off licence/pub to stock up on more drink!!! 8O Have they been changing the CD or otherwise not paying attention, in which case, might they do it again, when there is someone in the way, rather than a car to hit? Or is it a genuine and understandable accident, of which the other party is not even aware? Some of these may seem pretty unlikely, I know, but all may have to be considered by Police or your insurance. Our guidelines these days are that where there is no injury caused or anything other than minor damage to the vehicles involved, we will not become involved where drivers are prepared to swap details and inform their respective insurers. Failure to inform a Police officer of the incident where you have not informed the other driver/owner is still an offence under the Road Traffic Act. And Willies_Landy, I know you meant well by your post, however at the end of the day, it is part of the job (just not a very exciting part! )

Willies_landy has assured us previously that, despite several posts implying otherwise, he is not, in fact, an Officer of the law. I can corroborate that, as I know of no Officers here with such a poor attitude towards serving the public. Dealing with Road Traffic matters is a necessity of the job, as is attending to noise calls, dealing with minor domestic disputes and anything else that may be reported to us by the members of the public whom we are sworn to (and paid to) serve. Anything which impacts on the public and which relates to a possible breach or infraction of the law can be reported to Police and should thereafter be dealt with them accordingly, if appropriate to do so. Damage to a vehicle in a car park, minor as it may seem to Willies_landy, does qualify for our attention, and I do wonder if it was his vehicle ,or that of any of his family, that had been so damaged would he then be so callous in his disregard for the disadvantaged owner? Why should they be punished through insurance excess and escalation for the poor driving or inattention of another? I can see no reasonable answer. Although I am sure he would not excuse such behaviour, it is this attitude which excuses the youths who pelt old persons' houses with eggs, or otherwise cause annoyance, alarm or upset, while not causing any actual physical damage. Should those victims then also consider themselves as wasting Police time when considering reporting such matters? Strangely, I have always found - almost without exception - that where folk speak of "dealing with real crime", etc, to Police, it is while they are being dealt with for infractions of laws which they themselves consider to be minor, such as seatbelt or construction and use (vehicular) offences. Not that I am saying this is the case in Willies_landy's case, of course, it is merely an observation relating to, what seems to me, may be a similar mindset. Such an opinion as his, if held by any member of the Police, would serve only to disassociate us further from the public and remove any sense that we are providing any form of a service. Think of it as something akin to the old Yellow Pages advertsisement, i.e., "We are not just there for the serious crimes in life". I am sure his comment was well-intentioned, however I can assure you that he does not speak for the Police when he posts such a viewpoint. I remain your humble servant.

Droilker, I have always been of the belief that a measure of a person is in their willingness to apologise for an action, and in the willingness to accept such an apology. I can do no less than accept your sincere apology and hope that we can continue to confer and debate as "virtual" comrades. I post here (openly as a serving Police Officer) in order to provide what I hope to be a rational and reasoned viewpoint. I attempt to provide information and a viewpoint that may be otherwise lacking, and which may serve to address and inform issues raised and - in doing so - to fuel further debate. I would expect others to pull me up on anything I posted which was seen as unacceptable or offensive to others. Alas, I accept that we share different views on the matter at hand, and that it is unlikely that either of us will change to agree with the other. I thank you and remain your (and all others') most humble servant. (Njugle, my gratitude is further extended to you for your words over this point.)

Dressing gowns, perhaps? I do not know. I yearn, however, for a decent smoking jacket, to accompany my nightly pipeful of Barrats Finest Sherbet.

You say you do not wish to suggest that the UK today is comparable to Nazi Germany, right after mentioning the Holocaust and the (allegedly) democratic election of the Nazis. Shall we attempt to keep this thread in perspective and on track, or shall we all just start insulting one another? If you read my post, ArabiaTerra, I believe I already at least attempted to cover the "I do what I am told" Milgram mentality side of things. If I go in to Comet, it would be a pleasant, although unlikely, surprise to find the staff handing out free 42" plasma tv's just because they felt sorry for folk who could not afford it. Instead they sell them at prices guaranteed to make a profit for their employer. Why? Because they do their job. If I go to the butcher, I expect to see hygienic conditions and not filthy worktops, hands and other unsanitary conditions, just because they do not agree with the requisite legislation. Or a garage where they do their job rather than neglect to fix your brakes during your MOT just because they cannot be bothered and don't see the need. So why, when I do my job and try and serve a community to the best of my ability and uphold laws that - to the best of my knowledge (and correct me and provide proof if I am wrong here) - have been passed by, on the whole, decent thinking men and women, on behalf of millions, and without mass uprising, civil unrest, anarchy or populist overthrow of tyrannical regimes taking place, am I compared to and villified as the same class of person who shepherded people into gas chambers and slaughtered millions? Does anyone else see the sheer offensive lunacy in this viewpoint? 8O I have to admit to having moved past offended to becoming a trifle annoyed at these posts. The smug "It's a minefield, isn't it?" "just following orders" bit could be applied to just about any job out there. Perhaps I am a wee bit more high profile (or just an easier target) because of mine, however it is far more important that Police learn the laws and thereby understand how to apply them than to constantly question them. Unless you wish Police standing by the roadside saying to the drunk driver, "Nah, I'm fond of a pint myself, go ahead, mate, drive home". I could provide even more (offensive) examples of how we could stop doing our jobs through questioning "each and every law", however I do not believe in doing so, in case it offends someone. As I said, in my opinion, it betrays a lazy mindset looking for easy targets and bogeymen, that is in it's own way as bigoted as any racist or sectarian out there. A uniform does not a Nazi make. 8O And at what stage of my posts have I ever stated that the wishes of the government comes before the public interest? Damn these subliminal messages! As to my statement about Cannabis, it is merely that, not an argument, although I thank you for your compliments on that account (although I am somewhat surprised not to therefore be compared to Goebbels for my troubles in this current mode of thinking on the forum!) I remain, as ever, your humble servant.

Willies_landy, My fellow forum users are correct, in that it depends entirely on what the circumstances of the specific addict are. If employed and able to maintain their habit, the effects are purely personal (i.e. physical) and appear to affect no one else. I am not an expert on the matter, my esteemed colleague, Mr McConnachie, is the Area Drugs Officer, and best suited to provide a detailed and comprehensive answer, replete with facts and figures. I can only offer a balanced generalisation (which I must emphasise is a generalisation) based on my experience and limited knowledge. If they are in the apparently larger per centage of those less fortunate, they must finance their habit however they see fit or appropriate (bearing in mind the manner in which withdrawal can skew your ability to rationalise and reason what is appropriate or reasonable). If you were to accept - for example only - that each bag of Heroin costs £10 and the user requires approximately (for example) 4 bags a day (some use more, some less), then they have a £280 per week habit to finance. Other things can often tend to fall by the wayside, such as wholesome food, clothing, providing for dependents, personal hygiene, all of which costs money to provide for. I am absolutely certain that the majority of such addicts would much rather be in the first camp, able to provide for themselves and have a "normal" lifestyle, while not preying on others to fund their habits. However if they are in the latter category, such humanitarian concerns tend to also fall by the wayside when the pains and demons of withdrawal set in, and any person they encounter or shop they enter may well be seen as a potential source of funding for the habit. The cumulative imposed effect of such unfortunate souls on a society in funding a habit can be massive, and lead to correlative increases in crime, affecting the "ordinary" folk around them. Not quite the News of the World answer, merely trying to make it an honest one. Your humble servant.

Droilker, my dear fellow, it is my choice to do my job, just as it is that of a soldier to go to war if necessary, or of a doctor to treat all patients in the same professional manner. It is not my job to question the law, unless I am ordered to carry out an illegal act, in which case it IS my duty to do so. It is not the job or duty of the soldier to ask "Shall I follow that order?" If it is a lawful order, and he/she does so, they will be dealt with accordingly for refusing to soldier, and should not be doing the job. If a doctor questions whether to treat a patient whom he/she knows or believes to be or have been a killer/rapist/addict/merely unpleasant, the medical professional is not doing their similarly sworn duty and needs to move on to another profession. If we Police are to do as you suggest and question the laws passed by the democratically elected government of this country, deciding not to enforce them as we see fit dependent on our personal views, are we not then taking power unto ourselves and taking the country that step closer to a Police State? Where do we draw the line, if you are prepared for us to exercise such a vast increase in our authority? It would seem that you would have neither Parliament nor the House of Lords, nor even the European Court of Human Rights hold sway over the Police. What a trusting fellow you are. 8O It is a very sharp double-edged sword that you suggest we hold. The Police should not be swayed by religion, politics, nor personality, and none of these things have any place in deciding how we should act, in my humble opinion. I took an oath to preserve life, protect property and prevent/detect crime, and to serve the public in doing so. To carry out the sworn office of Constable requires you to serve the law and the public interest. Not YOUR interest, the public interest. If the two are the same, then I have done my duty and you are happy. If not, so be it, however I will still do my job and sworn duty in order to serve the silent majority, those law abiding citizens who do attempt to uphold the law on a daily basis. Please refrain from attempting to tarnish me and my colleagues with fascistic overtones to satisfy your need to take a pop at what you see as flawed authority. It verges on being deeply, deeply offensive and ill befits you, sir. In fact, it just IS deeply offensive. Do not attempt to portray me as some product from Milgram's laboratory or Mengele's workshop, trained to "do what we are told". I do not feel I have ever posted anything or done anything to you, or any other person, to support such a gross and baseless accusation. If you had any inkling of what is involved in the role of a Police Officer on a day to day basis, I would hope you would not attempt to make such analogies. Portraying us all as Nazis is not only offensive, it displays a lazy mindset that is, in itself, bigoted and not prepared to see past the uniform in the same way racists refuse to see past skin pigment. If such laws WERE ever passed, then you would surely be as much to blame as anyone else in that, unless the system of government changed beyond all recognition, it would be a democratically elected government - in which you have a vote - that would be responsible for doing so? It would be the collective people who would have allowed such to happen without protest or outcry. Not the Police. We are not your bogeyman, despite your attempts to portray us as so. Police Officers are agents of the law. Where crime has been committed we gather facts and evidence, from every side and every available source in an enquiry. We then furnish these facts and evidence to the authorities to place before the courts, if they qualify for such a setting. We are not Solomon, dispensing divine wisdom and decisions as we see fit, and it concerns me that you might think that we should do so. Similarly, we are not Judge Dredd, dispensing instant and totalitarian justice on street corners, Judge and Jury, etc. I believe what I said was that it was "apparent to me that to argue over such points is a useless and pointless exercise and leads to intransigence on both sides". I was speaking for myself (I believe I covered that in my disclaimer and use of the words "to me"?). I did not advocate that every forum user should think likewise, did I? Or am I mistaken and were there subliminal messages contained therein, urging you to stop your protests and to accept Big Brother and the State to control your every move and to hand your stash in to the nearest Police station, thereafter reporting to the cells for imprisonment? Please stop looking for shadows where there are none, I do try to be an eminently reasonable fellow, and would ask only that you do likewise. And do forgive and indulge me for being so long-winded, it is just that there is only one of me and seemingly so many of you out there, and I merely make every attempt to answer all questions or points that I see as requiring an answer as fully as possible. Perhaps I should restrain myself from hereon in and merely just say, "Nope, you're wrong. Just because!" Or perhaps not. I remain your (collective) humble (if slightly chagrined ) humble servant.

Actually, the Shah (Mohammed Pahlavi) had previously been installed by Britain and the Allies as they felt he was more susceptible to their influence and control than his father, who had been Shah before him. He was pretty much a figurehead and head of state in name only, much as our own monarch. Pahlavi then became an autocrat and took power away from the first democratically elected government in his so called "White Revolution". It was actually British intelligence who formulated the whole operation, approaching first Truman (who declined), then Eisenhower (who agreed) with their plan, having convinced the US that the Prime Minister was a Communist sympathiser (which, apparently, could not have been further from the truth, although - purely by coincidence, I am sure - he had nationalised the company that later became BP, thereby upsetting the major interests!). America provided the local "muscle" and foot soldiers, but it was the Brits wot really done it. For shame. That same White Revolution led to the exile or diappearance of many who disagreed or spoke out. Khomeini was one of those exiled. Oops, more pedantry!

My dear fellow, humblest apologies if I have irked you any. I shall consider myself duly chastised and refrain from such churlish behaviour in future.

Personally, I try to avoid such generalisation as "Arabs", etc. After all, Iran, and Iraq, for example, are where the Aryan ethnic group originated, and Iraq is still (to my knowledge, linited and flawed though it may be) counted as being the only non-Arabic country in the Middle East, in that the majority of it's citizens appear to originate from the Aryan genetic branch. (On a somewhat unrelated note, I once read that Alexander was dark haired and skinned, originating from Macedonia as he did - not Greece - whereas the sons of the House of Xerxes, whom he faced in battle for world power, were hereditarily tall and fair haired. In fact, the same article stated that the Royal line of Xerxes were famed for being close to 7 feet in height! Does anyone know if this is indeed true, or is it just so much claptrap? ) As to Arabs being free, educated, etc, the pedant in me must point out that some of the nation races around at that time most certainly were (although the neighbouring races they conquered and enslaved were not so lucky!). Sumeria is seen as the birthplace of all modern civilisation, providing our reading, writing, mathematics, farming, etc. However, at the same time, there were also millions of people throughout the vast region that is now known as the Middle East who were nomadic, living spartan lifestyles, with little or no formal education, etc. Just as the Picts appear to have had a formal culture at the same time as other races were still living in mud huts and caves in Britain. To portray them as or suggest they were - every single one - free, highly educated and sophisticated, seems to be a suggestion of some Utopia that I had hereftofore not been aware had existed prior to today. The pedantry is over. My humblest apologies to all. I do, however, wholeheartedly agree that the West and the British Empire must accept our fair share of the historical blame for our ancestors' colonial exploits along with our European cousins/rivals. In their mad dash for expansionism and world domination, they shattered cultures, destroyed empires, slaughtered those "savages" who dared stand against them for their freedom and generally acted like the savages they claimed to be "civilising", for God (ours) Queen (ours) and Country (theirs!). In doing so, they removed any force or influence that could stand against them, such as previous rulers, their families, or any other "troublemaking chappies" capable of causing them problems in their governance and stripping of their vassals' country's resources and peoples. As a result, our forebears created vacuums and exacerbated often ancient conflicts that eventually festered and exploded, unrestricted and uncontrolled, in almost every corner of their withering Empire, when it suited them to withdraw their "Empirical benevolence". Cast stones at America all you want, they are however following a long standing tradition of "He who is strongest, decides who play with his toys". Apologies for appearing to make light of a deadly serious situation, that is most definitely not my intention. Your servant.

Is it not also possible that some of the no doubt fine work being done by the Community Drugs Team has paid off and more folk have therefore approached them and declared themselves to be addicts seeking assistance and/or advice, thereby leading to the reported rise in the numbers on the Scottish Drug Misuse Database? Mayhap I am wrong, however it is a possibility, surely? It would be interesting to see the numbers for the preceding few years and how they have risen or fallen. Over to you number-crunching chappies. Or perhaps Big Brother has already taken over and local dealers or addicts are calling in to report to whoever monitors said database "That's another smack addict you can chalk up for the books, way up here in Sleepy Shetland" I somewhat doubt it. As ever, your servant.

Disclaimer:- With apologies to Willies_landy... The following are purely my own views, carefully considered and in no way reflecting the views or aims of Northern Constabulary, or the Police in general, in the enforcement of drugs legislation (don't get excited, good folks, there is nothing overly controversial herein). May I begin by saying that, in my view, the news of the ACPO(S) anti-drugs conference centring on Cannabis supply and use, has been - purely in my opinion - taken somewhat out of context. The reason for this decision has been muddied or lost altogether in the retelling by others. The main reason appears to be that many European forces - not just the Scottish forces, or Northern Constabulary - have now acknowledged that they have "taken their eye off the ball" regarding Cannabis. To explain, in Police somewhat ignoring Cannabis use (as has been the case, for instance, in some areas of England and Europe), there has been a correlative increase in the use of Cannabis. The main reason for this is that a lot of people have come to believe (erroneously, obviously) that it has been decriminalised altogether, or that the Police cannot take action against persons using it. Not so. An established fact is that Cannabis can often be a gateway drug, leading some into the use of harder, more addictive drugs, leading in turn to increases in crimes of dishonesty. Ultimately, the people at the top end of the supply chains for Class A (Heroin, Cocaine and all their pernicious offspring) are the same as those at the top end for Cannabis. The same gangs and syndicates market and supply these drugs throughout the UK, whether Class A, B or C. The resultant increase in profits these criminals have reaped from the increase in Cannabis use has been ploughed back into the more lucrative Class A trade. This has had a knock on effect, ultimately contributing to already existing crimes which affect many persons living in most areas of the U.K. As my colleague so eloquently put it, Class A addiction most often leads to crime in order to fund the habits of those addicted. Few in number are those persons who can finance such habits and maintain a lifestyle and employment sufficient to feed said addiction (although that is not to say that such persons do not exist). This increase in numbers of those addicted, in turn, affects the victims of said crimes, often hugely and dramatically. If any of you know any victims of robbery or housebreaking, take the time to ask these people how they felt about it at the time, how they feel about it now, and how it has changed their lives - and I guarantee you, with little or no exception, it WILL have changed their lives, and not for the better. I have known victims of housebreakings, for example, to sell their home rather than return or continue to live there, such is the sense of violation and of not being safe within their own dwelling. This is an example of a long-term effect of acquisitive crime and should not be ignored or downplayed. Another is the victim of street robbery, who fears to go out alone, or at night, or just to go out. And that, too, is not an over-dramatisation, and does happen. For most criminals committing such street crimes look for frail, vulnerable or inacapacitated victims. Easy marks. Look at the street crime where older persons are targeted and the rash of OAP bashing break-ins in Scotland in recent years, where elderly victims answer their door and are forced back into their own homes and robbed, often beaten badly by those committing such horrendous crimes if they resist or are seen to "offend" their assailant. I am sure some will say these are scare stories. They should scare, but they are fact, not fiction. If Shetland is truly "awash" with Heroin, Cocaine, Crystal Meth et al, it is because Shetland has a relatively vibrant economy and is fresh ground for established syndicates to begin to ply their trade here, or because more persons are choosing to turn away from more "traditional" drugs such as alcohol and Cannabis. Ever increasing improvements in travel, communication, and a more affluent society than our forebears inhabited all serve to play their own part in contributing to this problem (although none can be said to be the cause, which is rooted deeper still and to which, sadly, I have no answers or cure, save to do my duty). It is not because Northern Constabulary is allegedly ignoring the widespread supply and use of Class A addictive drugs which cause correlative increases in crimes of dishonesty, merely because Police wish to have "an easy life" or satisfy some strange urge to ignore the Heroin pusher in order to swoop on the wean smoking a peerie spliff on Commercial Street. (Having said that, if someone is stupid or ill advised enough to do so in full public view, expect to be talking to two Officers about it, and don't cry foul when you do!) An established aim of the entire Force - of any Police Force across the country - is to target the supply of controlled drugs, and Class A drugs in particular, and the effect such drugs have on the communities in which we serve. To do otherwise would be madness, and I would appreciate anyone suggesting that we do so being able to provide hard evidence to back up such outlandish and ill-informed claims. To reply to Droilker's last posting, the Police certainly do not take it upon themselves to designate or describe these drugs as controlled, or otherwise. This is laid down in legislation passed in Parliament (Commons and Lords), not by the Police, or any other agency. As to drugs being "good", "bad", or just "ugly", the simple fact of the matter is that - as a Police Officer - I personally do not care. These drugs are controlled by the aforementioned state legislation and until they are decriminalised, I - as an Officer - will continue to do my duty and job and enforce this legislation where possible and required to do so. To do less would be a neglect of my duty, in which case I should look for employment elsewhere, where I don't have to go upsetting people who willingly and knowingly break these same laws that apply to each and every resident of the U.K. It is, therefore, apparent to me that to argue over such points is a useless and pointless exercise and leads to intransigence on both sides. Both are too deeply entrenched in their own respective dogmatism for their own respective reasons to be swayed by a posting on Shetlink. It is fair to say that there is no negotiation to be had on the matter with Police. If you wish to negotiate or discuss the matter, or argue why you personally believe drugs not to be bad and why they should be decriminalised, I respectfully suggest that you do it with someone with whom it may possibly have an effect, i.e. your elected Member of Parliament (be it Holyrood or Westminster). Or with the courts, should you happen to appear therein as a result of your willing and knowing infraction of said laws. We live on an island (yes, it's true, I checked! ) and as such most drugs are unlikely to be grown/produced here. This in turn means that the most obvious means of bringing them into Shetland is to carry them on your person or in your vehicle and thereby "import" them onto the islands. Police have the ability to screen passengers disembarking from ferries and planes on foot, using trained and accredited drug sniffer dogs and handlers in public places to do so. We do not have the means to stop every vehicle and put the dogs through them, nor would I expect to do so without good and justifiable reason. Therefore, an obvious tool in the "arsenal" in policing the possession and supply of controlled drugs in Shetland is the deployment of said sniffer dogs where appropriate and practicable to do so. Just because some people do not like the legislation, or approve of the use of the dogs, is not - in my own view - sufficient justification to stop enforcing extant drugs legislation, as is our duty to do so. I do not do my job to be popular. I just do my job, and in doing so fairly, objectively and with the appropriate exercising of practiced judgement and discretion (once again stressing ONLY WHERE APPROPRIATE and in the interests of justice), try to remain popular with the many. Merely my own humble point of view, posted in an attempt (in vain though it may be) to counterbalance and hopefully inform some of you good people who appear to be of the belief that the Police set the laws which we enforce. We do actively enforce them, yes, however we also look to provide suitable drugs awareness education in local schools and groups in Shetland. An often overlooked responsibility of ours, methinks. In (finally) closing, please forgive me, one and all, if I refrain from holding my breath whilst awaiting the decriminalisation. Kind regards to one and all, to whom I remain your humble servant.

BigMouth, You are a most reasonable and eloquent chap and I can find nothing to take further issue with in your post. I thank you for the PM, and have replied in kind. I did not mean to bemoan out job or make out it is the worst in the world, there are a lot lot worse things I could be doing! I am glad we agree about society in general appearing to be at issue. That is a huge issue, so further debate is called for! Regards to all, Sherlock.

Bigmouth, I must confess to feeling a trifle vexed and confused as to your recent bold statement, "Most laws are not upheld. The police feel that there are more serious crimes to deal with. OK, they are in the know, but when you ignore the chav driving about in his car with his illegally loud exhaust pipe, he then thinks that it's OK to do 90mph up the Tingwall straight, then overtake dangerously, then have a race with his mate, then drive drunk etc., etc. When the inevitable carnage happens everyone looks surprised. Why? We don't get to these events immediately. It is normally via a path of other offences that were committed. The laws are there to protect us from each other. If the law isn't being used it needs to be binned" My dear fellow, I know of not a single one of my sterling colleagues who believe that they "are in the know" and so do not uphold "most laws". This is akin to my saying that all farmers care not a jot for any health codes or animal legislation as there are instances of CJD amongst the general population, for which the farmer - any farmer - must therefore bear personal responsibility! Where an officer witnesses an infraction of law, he/she is duty bound and obliged to act. While there is an amount of discretion afforded to each officer in certain scenarios, this must be weighed against the public good and the ends of justice being served. For an officer to fail to carry out their duty in a manner such as you describe, this would quite possibly be a case of neglect of duty - a serious charge which, upon investigation and being upheld, would have serious disciplinary ramifications for the officer concerned. I, for one, have never witnessed such neglect in this Area Command. Perhaps you can furnish us with some examples of that which you speak? Unfortunately, road traffic accidents happen. They do not happen because the lazy copper did not stop the lad for his illegally loud exhaust pipe. Why single out "the chav" anyway? Why not the middle-aged man on his mobile phone or the lady not wearing her seat belt? Surely by your logic, if they are also getting away with these crimes, they too will go on to do 90 mph up Tingwall straight, etc? Anyway, I digress. Police are all too aware that little things lead to big things, and that the driver who gets away with one thing MAY commit worse infractions (I hesitate to say will, as there are, no doubt, many amongst us who have infringed some road traffic legislation at some point, your good self perhaps included?). Police are also all too keenly aware of the consequences of poor driving and the aftermath of RTA's. We are, after all, the ones bearing the onerous task of knocking upon the door of the next of kin and informing them in person of their son/daughter/father/mother/loved one's untimely demise. Believe me, sir, when I tell you that this is not a task that any amount of training or waffle can prepare you for, nor does it ever get any easier. To suggest, then, that such a tragedy is the fault of the lazy old copper - no doubt stuffing his/her face with doughnoughts and coffee by the roadside, or hidden in the back of a shop somewhere, instead of doing his/her job - is quite frankly, insulting in the extreme, both to me and my fellow Officers. Is this not the same forum wherein I have read others complaining of draconian road traffic enforcement here in Shetland? I can guarantee you that the officer tasked with overseeing such enforcement in Shetland - which is undertaken on a constant basis here and not in response to national campaigns - would take grave issue with your statement, as have I. Police officers cannot be everywhere. We cannot control the manner in which people drive or behave, although, by judicious and due application of the laws of the land we will, where we witness any infractions, attempt to influence such behaviour through education and enforcement. The only surefire possible solution to that which you suggest is to move towards a Police State. Perhaps we could employ Thought Police, a la Orwell and his nightmarish vision. I, for one, hope we never see that particular development. Your thoughts on how the Police are viewed today are echoed, on occasion, by some of my older colleagues. I do not have an answer, however these days we must acquit ourselves to the letter of the law and no more. Gone are the days of PC Murdoch, et al, when cheeky young rapscallions would be escorted home suspended by an earlobe, no doubt having previously received several sharp cuffs to the same auditory organ by way of chastisement. Gone are the days when most parents would be shocked and horrified to have the Police at their door in response to their offspring's behaviour. This is a problem indicative of societal change and there is, alas, no magic wand which can be waved to make things back to "the way they were" (in my experience, often an all too over-rated and somewhat rose-tinted view of yesteryear, for the most part). We must all deal with things they way they are now, today, and that is surely not just the responsibility of the Police alone. Forgive my misuse of the word, however, the abrogation of responsibility by many areas of society is, perhaps, more at fault, with many all too happy to leave it to the Police and partner agencies while saying "Nothing to do with me, oh no, tut tut, and isn't it shocking the way these young ones behave, tsk tsk, didn't happen in my day, oh no!" I do not have the answer to how to best combat this malaise either, else I would be a wealthy man and we would not be having this discussion. It is, at the very least, perhaps worthy of debate while you consider the eventual outcome in some of these instances - i.e. those who fail or are failed by "the system" and end up as non-paying guests at Her Majesty's prisons. I remain your (collective) faithful servant.