Sherlock

"The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons." Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky (1821-1881) With my penchant for quotations, I could not tresist the foregoing. Should you reduce prisons to "hellholes" or places of punishment, it seems to me that there may well possibly be an inevitable knock-on effect, prompting a further increase in serious crime. "Hung for a sheep as for a lamb". The same has happened in the U.S. with the "three strikes" policy of imprisonment, where the perpetrator - knowing they will be sent down for life if caught - sometimes carries out a more serious crime to make the risk worth their while. Even sometimes, is one time too many, in my opinion. And it is my colleagues and I who then have to pick up the pievces and deal with the victims and their families. It is, at least, worthy of consideration, in my humble opinion. And do we really, truly want a system where we are paying our gaolers to actively punish and denigrate others? To explain, I shall end this post with a further quote (forgive the translation, for there are several versions):- "Battle not with dragons, lest ye become a dragon also. And as you gaze into the Abyss, the Abyss gazed also into you." (Friedrich Nietzsche).

Twerto, thank you kindly, mon frere, for speaking on my behalf. I make a point of posting in personal time only, as it would be an abuse of working time to do otherwise. It is, therefore, my family whom I am somewhat neglecting in making any points herein (mayhap this is an even more serious charge!). My reason for posting, on any topic, is merely to offer yet another viewpoint and, perhaps, of a sort or source to which Shetlinkers have not previously had access. As for Willies_landy, were I to take such things personally, I might be tempted to ask whether you would be happier if I communicated in grunts and pidgin English for your benefit. However, as I am not that type of person, I shall not do so. I am somewhat bemused as to this unprovoked and spontaneous outburst from you, sir. Are you not the same personage who has posted on various topics in such a forthright and extremely pro-"justice" manner in the past as to have once given at least two fellow members the impression that you are or had been a Police Officer yourself at some point? Are you not the same personage who once posted the following:- "Another thing I have noticed is that the police never try and tell me how to do my job at Sullom or how to run my croft. However I often see the young ones trying to tell the police how they should be doing theyr'e job. In my humble opinion the police don't get the rspect they deserve." And yet, apparently, here you are doing the same? Say it is only that you care for my prose, and I shall accept it as so, dismayed and downhearted though I may be I appreciate from some of your other posts that you, yourself, have previously been a non-paying guest in my workplace. Surely you do not still bear a grudge, as the Officer/s who arrested you must surely have moved on by now? (Or was one named "Sherlock", and I have, in choosing this particular nom de plume, prompted some Post Traumatic Stress-style episode, in which case, sir, I offer my deepest apologies ). One must stop this jolly japery, as all this winking is quite giving me an eye strain! Whatever your reasons, sir, rest assured that my detection rate is quite satisfactory, as is - collectively - the rest of my colleagues here in Shetland. Thank you for your kind interest, however, and - should you feel differently as to my own or our collective detection rates and abilities - I feel quite, quite certain that, being a public spirited person with a well developed sense of moral and social responsibility, you would have no qualms in contacting my colleagues (or even my good self) and passing on any relevant or pertinent information which you may perchance hold on the dozens and dozens of unsolved crimes and desperate villains that skulk amongst us, and on whom I should be concentrating, rather than communicating with fellow members of the local community. (Pauses for breath ) There! I managed almost an entire paragraph with only one full stop and have spent almost a full seven minutes preparing this piece. That should provoke your wrath no end! Rest assured, at your urging, I shall polish my jackboots forthwith and shun all personable contact with my family and fellow man (and woman), not resting or pausing to draw breath; not so much as passing the time of day with the citizens of these fair islands, until all crime in Shetland is non-existent and the hordes of anarchy and depravity have been driven back into the depths, or sent to the lowliest gaol to brood and bide for eternity, allowing the good folk of Shetland to sleep safe in their beds once more. (All I need is Land of Hope & Glory played over that last, and I am set! Ouch! Me b@#%*y eye!)

Humblest apologies, Spinner72, I did not intend to ruin it for you, assuming - which I should know not to do! - that the answers may be contained in episodes 3 & 4, which you said you had already viewed. And, after all, your first post does warn "MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS". Forgive me.

Spinner72, I have been hearing rumours on the 'Net about the heavy involvement of the Bauer family in this new day that our hero faces. In fact, the suggestion is that some members of his family are behind the 2nd, 3rd and 5th days he faced also!! Do you know anything, or do you wish to hear more?

Aaaah (sighs) Peace reigns at last (albeit temporarliy) in Shetland, on one topic at least!

AS the law/procedure in England on many issues is different to that here in Scotland, I cannot really state with any degree of certainty whether it would allow the arresting Officers leave to search her home without a warrant to do so. However, I would be extremely surprised as it would appear to my lowly self to be a breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, through which Police must eventually justify any breach to an appropriate legal authority - i.e. judge.

I question AIAMG's statement regarding whodat's postings that he has shown "previously admitted animus towards me, the Bible and Yahveh." Having examined whodat's postings, I found no evidence of this alleged animus. I find he has declared his distaste for Mr Rothschild and his brand of religious intolerance towards all others who do not share his beliefs, and his questioning of Mr Rothschild's values as a fervent believer and interpreter of the OT when, as whodat correctly states, so much of the earlier books of same are derived and culled from earlier sources who appear to follow a different god. That Mr Rothschild is devout in what he believes can be in no doubt, after all, he appears to have joined us in this debate from all the way across the Atlantic, time difference and all. However, the same could be said of Tomas de Torquemada or Abu Hamza - not that I am comparing him to either of these persons, merely using them to illustrate that belief does not equal right, no matter how devout the person holding these beliefs believes themselves to be. Following me? What does puzzle me is Mr Rothschild's avowance and support for any form of Christianity (and why Protestantism, in particular) when he is a devout and lifelong Jew himself, who does - if I have interpreted some of his blogs correctly - take issue with the entire Christian faith and it's treatment of the Judaic faith. He even appears to view the English language - amongst other things - as a quintessential tool of that same Christian faith in suppressing and victimising/ostracising Jews throughout the ages right up to present. His sense of victimisation perhaps serves to explain his outspoken, intolerant and ultimately hate-filled brand of preaching (and, yes, I do see these posts as a form of preaching, for is that not what a maggid does?). See Mr Rothschild's own blogs for explanation of the foregoing, if you wish. I find the reviews of his self-published works on Amazon.com interesting, noting - a coincidence, I am sure - the striking similarity between the editorial review and those of the several anonymous "readers" who come after. As I say, I am sure this is merely happy coincidence and nothing more. There is also a striking similarity between these reviews and Mr Rothschild's earlier post in this thread, wherein he speaks of his writings and states he believes that:- "these books on four subjects will provide much of the theology of the church in the near future when they catch on and go big. (Yes, yes, save your comments.)" Sorry, Mr R, I for one, cannot. Once again, I am surely this is purely a striking coincidence and nothing more. (I am sure there are many allegedly religious men (read messianic cultists et al) who would find your books very interesting. Not my cup of Lapsong Suchong, old fellow. Ultimately the question in this thread is presented thus. Was the good Doctor wrong in what he did? The GMC will, no doubt, deliberate at great length and eventually decide. However, in a country where a Doctor can indecently assault women and not be struck off, despite conviction - yes, it does happen - I believe he probably has little to worry about, save censure and a slap on the wrist. From a purely personal and objetctive point of view, I would say, yes he was wrong, but it is not the worst thing I have ever heard of folk doing to one another. I deal with FAR worse all the time, believe me. If I, in my job, were to do the same as he, I would be equally guilty of an act of cupable stupidity and expect some comeback for my troubles. Finally, Mr Rothschild, as I previously stated, I was Jesuit educated. Many of these selfsame, extremely erudite men who taught me would say the same of you that you ultimately say of the Islamic faith, namely that you are an unbeliever in their version of god and therefore doomed to hell for eternity as a result. Who is right, who is wrong? I am but a man and cannot know the thoughts of any divine being, and to be honest it worries me somewhat when I meet or hear of folk that profess to such glories. Call me a cynic. That does not mean I do not strive to live a good life, serving my fellow man as best I can every waking day. Does that doom ME to your hell for eternity? If so, so be it. I wish you well, however I also wish you did not hate quite so much. It is an ugly emotion and one that I also deal with the end results of quite regularly. It does not befit any man of any god.

Why, thank you, PeerieBryan. And I yours. Forgive me if I have stepped on any moderating toes, however it seemed to me - as a reasonable and reasonably objective fellow - that the debate was bogged down, had digressed markedly and was going exactly nowhere (other than up some folks' noses).

I confess to having followed this "discussion" with some modicum of interest, as - Jesuit educated as I was - theology, philosophy and science are all interests of mine. Yes, we are allowed some interests outside of work! 8O For a thread title, I respectfully tender, "moomin for tat" I jest. I fear it does not take a detective to work out the veracity of either side's argument with regards to this argument/discussion. Allahisamoongod has deeply entrenched dogmatic views that lead him to believe he knows better than anyone who dares to argue or disagree with him. His very name declares this like a foghorn going off in your face. Subtle? I think not. And yet I cannot help but reflect that, strangely enough, this is the same sort of mentality that one would expect in a communist or fascist dictator/regime. Lord knows, I have met enough so called Christians - some of them men of the cloth - with the same smug mentality. We are not, any of us that different, it would seem. Whodat, I suspect to be a self-educated man with a passion for challenge and debate (not a criticism, by any means!) who is fond of gently needling his opponents ("shalom, salaam" anyone? ). His motives, at least, appear to be genuine in challenging what I too find to be a wholly unacceptable rewriting of history. "Misguided crimes of passion" is - I submit - a wholly appalling attempt to justify mass murder and genocide carried out by men who sought to further their own twisted delusions or material ends on this earth, not the ends of any God. That single statement displays the thinking behind a twisted dogmatic philosophy which - has to be said - preaches intolerance and hate just as surely as any Finsbury Park rant by (allegedly) mad mullahs. To both men I would quote my namesake (I do like this quote):- "It is not really difficult to construct a series of inferences, each dependent upon its predecessor and each simple in itself. If, after doing so, one simply knocks out all the central inferences and presents one's audience with the starting-point and the conclusion, one may produce a startling, though perhaps a meretricious, effect." Or to paraphrase, you can make anything mean anything if you break it down, reassemble, twist and turn it for long enough. Apparently a mathematician proved this previously to demonstrate that he could make 2 + 2 = 5. 8O Or is that merely an apocryphal story? In which case, I give Allahisamoongod permission to use it along with all his others! Having carefully examined all the evidence posted thus far, I respectfully suggest that both men leave the debate as stands, as it is readily apparent to any outsider that both are equally intransigent and entrenched in their respective views. This thread was once about a local issue, not a history or theology or philosophy lesson. Or a point scoring exercise. Why not call it a draw.8O Adieu to you both, and as Dave Allen used to say, "May your God go with you".

droilker, Unless the chap that wrote the report is a consummate liar or a charlatan, it would appear to be true.

Fjool, Read away to thine heart's content.... www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/ille-e/presentation-e/korf-e.htm (Try as I might, I cannot get it to hyperlink. Apologies) The answer to your question (and more) may be contained therein. Regards.

For those of a certain age, with memories of badly dubbed actors (always the same voice actors!) swinging swords and charging on horseback, I give you the absolute pits in theme tunes... "The Desert Crusader". I thank you.

Holland have also acted to actively and pretty severely curb the number of coffee shops selling Cannabis there since the '90's, thereby imposing greater controls and restrictions and reducing the number of persons using cannabis, whilst not re-criminalising them. They also report that their population tends to be more experimental with Cannabis, moving on/quitting (most just quit) after some time, whereas here, the picture tends to go another way, with a higher percentage using steadily, for a lot longer. The same is said of alcohol (yes, that other drug of choice) in this country, where abuse tends to be far higher and last a lot longer (i.e. throughout abusers' lifetimes) than in many European countries. Answers as to why on the back of a postage stamp to "How Long Is A Piece Of String?" PO Box 323 Strawberry Fields.

Why not wait and see what the police do about it? That is my suggestion.

I don't honestly know and, as ever, don't wish to speak for my colleagues. I can say that I have had the conversation with several over the years and have occasionally heard the same response. It is difficult to say really, until it happens (although I hope it never will)!

I have to agree with the enthusiasts. I did not watch the first series thinking, "Kiefer Sutherland? A hard man? Pshaw! I saw 'Dark City', you know!" and that the whole idea was nought but a gimmick. Then I happened to watch episode one of Day 2 with my good lady wife, just to pass the time as the schedule was otherwise dull and - HOLY HELL!!! I never knew television could be that gripping and exciting any more! The thing I love and hate is the constant cliffhangers and genuine tension they leave you with at the end of most episodes. It was no suprise to find that the writersonly ever write four hours ahead, so that the actors don't know how the season will end, until it does. Quite unique. I have to say that the thought of asking oneself in a job like mine, "What would Jack do?" (fans will understand that question - it has become something of a mantra with followers of "24") makes me laugh. If I did as he did, I would leave a trail of dead and damaged bodies behind me at the end of every shift! Mr Sutherland is the most convincingly cold and brutal character that you could imagine rooting for. I see it as no coincidence that, with the huge success of his character, and the character driven series he inhabits, the producers of the "Bond" series chose to strip their character right back to previously undreamt of and similar brutal "I do what I have to, to get the job done in the service of others, regardless of the cost to my self and soul" style basics. Still, they do say that imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.

From a purely personal point of view as a Police Officer, the day they routinely arm us all is the day I hand in my resignation. It means we have lost and it shall no longer be the job I signed up to do. I don't believe I am alone in my views either.

REgarding the above quote, as I pointed out earlier, Northern Constabulary does NOT pay the DAD handler so much as a penny. Regards.

Pshaw! You young rapscallions! Rest your concerns, the strongest thing it is likely to be is finest Barrats Sherbet, my friends! As for the information requested... forgive me, however I decline to be an oracle of all things information-related insofar as Police are concerned. I joined the forum to add to a rational, informed and reasonable debate and hope that, so far, I have succeeded. I draw a line at being a source of such information, as it is not my place to do so and may well cross the line between what is personally allowed and what is professionally allowed insofar as the fine profession I follow is concerned. I hope you understand, and if not, c'est la vie, c'est la guerre.

Rasmie old man, I am sure you mean it in jest and I take it as such. Howevere, my brave fellow, rest assured I hound no-one as it is not for me to pronounce their guilt. I merely "gather the facts" as another fictional detective used to say (Jack Webb, probably before your time) and put them to the PF. To do otherwise is to cross the line between professional and personal. It can be a tad difficult to maintain, however has to be done where possible. That way we cannot be accused of harassing or persecuting some poor innocent wayward soul and I can sleep easy.

Rasmie, My dear fellow, I shall begin, if I may, by responding to your point of "them". I do believe I explained my use of the word (and absolute fear and loathing of such semantics) in an earlier post. There is no ill will or denigration in my use of these words and I bear my peers in what was formerly C & E no more antipathy than I do my peers in the Prison service, Immigration or the Fisheries chaps. Which is to say, for the record, none whatosever! It is no more ironic that he was a customs officer than that he may have been a butcher, a baker or candlestick maker as far as I am concerned. Each of the aforementioned enforcement agencies fight the good fight daily in our own way, and I shall be drawn no more on the subject. As to the chaps who put up sticks in a garden somewhere in Shetland, I am surprised to say the least and rather suspect they had not the requisite authority nor legal standing for such a venture. But again, I do not have enough information and shall only say it would not and cannot happen without very specific authorities these days, else one puts one's own behind over a very clear and strict line. I am unsure as to the description as "They were the "genuine article" at least". Does this mean that we, their successors, are not? Again I have been here several years now and am no further forwards as to whether events did indeed transpire as you so eloquently describe. I certainly know not of whom or what you speak, and am further surprised to see you describe them as "PCs" when such is normally the remit of those plainlcothed chaps in CID (or CMU as they are now known). I still doubt whether such an injunction was ever granted though, as such stuff would form part of Police folklore and has not done so. You may have been told this by someone, however (with all due respect to the "cook") I suspect they were over-egging that particular pudding! And on this and your point as to the status of the DAD handler, what you are told and what is the truth is always suspect, wouldn't you say? Unless you are one of these admirably trusting souls, in which case, sir, I commend you on your ability to retain your innocence and deny cynicism a foothold in your soul! Kind regards.

NewMagnie, If there was not such a word before, there henceforth should be! It's a gem (and a surefire winner on a Scrabble board - if it will fit!) I am genuinely sorry in that I do not know of the history of Dogs Against Drugs, I am merely aware of the involvement I have had with them in the time since my arrival on these fair shores. As long as I have known him, the handler has been a Special and I am surprised to hear that he was, in fact, deployed prior to having any legal status. I shall endeavour to look into the matter and report back to you in due course. In the meantime I shall consider myself duly chastised.

In defence of this comment, I must add that I cannot honestly remember if she was speaking about Shetland or Scotland in general. I cannot access the Real Player article on Radio Scotland to check. Is anyone else having that same problem or is it just me? Perhap they can enlighten us, if they have accessed it.

Trout, I concur with my fellow Man! Damn fine idea!

Folks, My purpose in joining the forum was to put across some facts where they are available to me, and attempt to clear up some (what appear to me to be) misapprehensions where I notice them. I am not going to argue with anyone or go "moomin for tat", but where I see something that I (note the "I", not "we") perceive to be needlessly derogatory or baseless, then I will (as others have befpre me) call that into question. I don't say I am right. I simply believe that I am, in the stances I take. I work within a fairly rigid framework of laws and legislation and am happy to do so. Not everyone would be or will be and this I wholly accept. I know that there are many of you whom I shall never see eye to eye with on certain matters, and that's just a fact of life. Just to address several points for NewMagnie (and perhaps others):- My supervisors' opinions are their own. I shall not breach their confidence nor shall I deign to speak for them or attempt to do so. If they wish to post, so be it. I shall instead espouse my own opinions, if that is alright with other forum users. Re "us and them". I work for the Police, they (yes! Gasp! Dammit, he's only gone and done it again!) work for Customs and Excise. At no time have I disparaged the work they do, which is almost entirely separate from our own (don't be so surprised, they no longer exist as a separate entity anyway as they are now a division of the new "British FBI" as the media would have it). Our paths seldom cross and I do not believe I have ever met any of the Officers based here. It is therefore, entirely natural to me that I refer to "us and them". I don't expect you'd find a butcher talking about his colleagues along with farmers as "us" would you? And yet he relies on the farmer for his produce, so could they not be said to work together also? Semantics are the realm of politicians and pubblic speakers and I am neither. If I am at fault in this, blame my upbringing rather than the organisation for which I work. Mother, father, you have shamed me! Mea culpa. I cannot comment on the handler's situation prior to being a Special, as I was not here at that time and therefore have no experience of same. I would, however, be surprised if he had the ability or legal standing to take ANY form of action prior to being confirmed as a Special Constable. Feel free to educate me on the matter, I thirst for knowledge! ("Disingenuous"? I don't see it, however it is your perception and I shall not interfere). As to how he - or they - spend their duties, that depends on the level of staffing that day and enquiries or incidents that are ongoing. There is rarely a shift goes by when either or both are not fully engaged in their dog handling duties, however they must be available to assist their fellow officers and/or members of the public when required to do so. That seems sensible and practical to me at least. I hope that clears up this point. Your reading of my latest post bemuses me also. I fear you look too deeply at things, seeing issues and slights where there are none. The fact that I have missed "'some of your fellow shetlanders' or even 'a substantial amount of your fellow shetlanders'" from my post merely indicates that I do not know just how much support DaD have. However it remains that those who do support them are Shetlanders, therefore my statement is correct when I stated, "Once again you take issue with the Police and your fellow Shetlanders". How you take further issue with this and seek to turn the situation around on me is interesting. Finally, as The Man stated, I am a serving Police Officer and "do my bit" daily to stem what I see - as a Police Officer, father and law abiding citizen - to be a pernicious and vile trade corrupting and destroying the lives of many. I donate to DaD financially, and let my work take the place of knocking on doors collecting tins of Chum.