My local spot has a name that makes me think of BDSM for a certain Scottish couple on here, but again, I think that's just me :twisted:
Enjoy Cox Wallow
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Serendipity
Over 90 days ago
Bisexual Female, 107
Bisexual Male, 107
0 miles · Hertfordshire
Forum
Quote by Kff30
so lets hear some more from those in favour and hear their ideas then if SH do bring in a verification system they might put in to place some of the ideas that members have posted in here
I see no reason why ideas should be limited to only those in favour of it, those who don't want it or who will opt out may still have a valid suggestion(I made one, I'm sure others have!)
Interesting that those who want this want to see more ideas from others in favour though - does the fact that these are being asked for yet again say something? perhaps that people who want verification want it to exist but they don't really care how, just as long as ticks or stars start appearing?
Just a thought, but quite a pertinent one I think!
Quote by Steve
I haven't been taken to that page
Is it a random vote :dunno:
Me neither, if it is random or just a snapshot of responses in a limited window of time, the results aren't going to be very meaningful
I won't use it if (when) it arrives though, I've seen it on other sites and it had a novelty factor for 5 mins but was relatively unimportant in the end. I don't feel any need to be deemed "suitable" to SH members by anyone and am happy to rely on my own judgement of who I do/don't want to meet!
Assuming that it does come though, the option to show the verification without the need to reveal who it came from publicly would be worth consideration. As long as the person receiving it knows who sent it, do other members need to? Unless people who want this also want to only play with people verified by people they know! (Hmm Royston Vasey springs to mind
) Quote by Dirtygirlie
No Stormy, a sock would be a 'Tramps Wank'
OK....so what's a Posh ladywank then?
On page two!
With latex gloves! :rascal:
Or leather! Or PVC!
Or white silk ones like the queen wears, if you're realllllly posh (although if you're that posh, it's probably just a normal ladywank for you :lol: )
Quote by Calista
Land of Confusion (Genesis) by Disturbed
Way better than the original, better video too, good choice Cali!
I'm particularly fond of Korn's cover of Another Brick in the Wall (Pink Floyd) and Placebo's versions of Running Up That Hill (Kate Bush) and Daddy Cool (Boney M) and my own version of All Right Now sung in the car is quite awesome
That was last year, this year I've been a bit of slacker on both fronts John!
Quote by dirtydoggers
It was a truly wondrous night in the most enchanting company, and yet another city dweller has been shown the true meaning of “darkness” :twisted:
I'm bringing luminous gloves next time, not being able to see my own hands was tooooo freaky
I'm not being lazy, I'm recycling like a good girl! :smug:
It's that time of year again, so here's wishing all of the dogging gang a very Happy Christmas!
This year, I finally managed to visit the fabled woodlands of Norfolk....and am rather envious of the locations there!
Happy new year too!
It's that time of year again, so here's wishing all of the dogging gang a very Happy Christmas!
This year, I finally managed to visit the fabled woodlands of Norfolk....and am rather envious of the locations there!
Happy new year too!
Quote by Steve
A single meeting a couple should I believe pay 50%
The couple,although they are 2 people,are in effect 1 if you get my drift....
Mmmmm I've seen this "couple treated as one" reasoning posed before. I suspect it's quickly changed if that reasoning is the basis for only one lot of oral sex though
I'm afraid I will never pay 50% of anything when three people are involved, it's not my job to subsidise others just because I'm single, whether it's swinging or dinner or anything else!
Quote by caveman81
If police went down this line you may be arrested but in interview state that lights were flashed etc doggers code. This gives implied permission to watch thus not making the offence complete as you need to watch without permission.
Hi Caveman!
Just a question about this, if you're able to answer it - the "doggers code" isn't something that can be wholly defined, by law, so I'm curious as to how the conclusion of implied permission is reached when it's only anecdotal? Most of us will have seen various lights flashing of course (including the blue ones :shock: ) and view it as a visual message, I don't dispute that, but the doggers code isn't written down anywhere that can be used as evidence or defence legally.
Is that not a bit like saying that someone who leaves a £20 note on their doorstep is giving implied consent for someone to take it?
Not that I am complaining about it mind, purely curious about whether there's a legal basis for it or it's just leeway!
Quote by kentswingers777
Will the next step be to hide drink under the counter,
I hope so! I don't really care if cigarettes are kept under a counter from now on and the ban on smoking in bars is fine by me (I smoke) but I cannot understanding why the government demonises tobacco yet appears to actively support the promotion of alcohol consumption (e.g. minimal increases in the budget on drink prices compared to cigarettes, extended opening hours for drinking, continued TV advertising). Both have health risks to the person drinking/smoking as well as others around them, yet alcohol seems to be ignored for the most part.
Quote by kentswingers777
Woss was not even sacked as he should have been. Is what he said not worse than what Gaunty said?
Did Jonathan Ross actually said anything though, or did he just do nothing to stop it and giggle in the backgroud? that might explain a suspension rather than sacking (plus he pulls in BBC viewing figures wheareas even MTV have sacked Brand
)When even the very people who Gaunty dislikes, the liberals, like Liberty comes to his aid, does that mean his words were not a sackable offence?
A sackable offence is dictated by a contract of employment and employment law, not by newspapers and pundits. I would guess that John Gaunt has had warnings previously, based on the descriptions of him on this thread.
With regard to Liberty though, supporting the cause of an "enemy" would strengthen their own position as a protector of individual rights - I think it would be over generous to assume that they're acting entirely for the benefit of Gaunt and with no interest in the publicity it will bring them
Seems to me that a lot of people think "freedom of speech" is the same thing as "licence to be abusive". It's not.
If I called someone a nazi in the course of my work, I'm sure I'd be hauled over the coals and possibly sacked. If I said to them, "I feel that you're enforcing your views without considering anyone else involved", it gives them the ability to discuss it with me without feeling attacked - no P45 for me. Should this guy be treated any differently to me or the rest of the UK workforce?
On the other hand, the word nazi is used in a specific way nowdays i.e. an extreme jobsworth or someone who acts in a dictatorial way, just like the word tsar/czar has been appropriated for other meanings (no longer relating to Russian rulers of starving subjects or drugs barons but Dame Joan Bakewell for example). So ultimately, it depends on the context in which he used the word as to whether it was a sackable offence.
(Then we need to measure it on the Brand-o-meter to determine whether it was equal to, worse than or less offensive than phoning an old man to talk about shagging his granddaughter )
I've not heard the entire interview, I haven't clicked on the link to the Sun to see the details, so I have no idea whether he *should* have been sacked - but it sounds like it may have been a case of trial and sentence by the media (or the fear of it at least). Hmmm, what's that saying....those who live by the sword, die by the sword?
I disagree. I think people have just gotten very lazy in expressing themsleves and end up saying things such as "you're a nazi" which is a invitation for confrontation rather than debate. Being forthright isn't about speaking without any consideration for what you're saying. Much of this is due to the examples set by the media who seem to want to egg people on but equally, by peoples unwillingness to think for themselves as it's far easier to be spoonfed an opinion.
(edited to correct typo)
If I called someone a nazi in the course of my work, I'm sure I'd be hauled over the coals and possibly sacked. If I said to them, "I feel that you're enforcing your views without considering anyone else involved", it gives them the ability to discuss it with me without feeling attacked - no P45 for me. Should this guy be treated any differently to me or the rest of the UK workforce?
On the other hand, the word nazi is used in a specific way nowdays i.e. an extreme jobsworth or someone who acts in a dictatorial way, just like the word tsar/czar has been appropriated for other meanings (no longer relating to Russian rulers of starving subjects or drugs barons but Dame Joan Bakewell for example). So ultimately, it depends on the context in which he used the word as to whether it was a sackable offence.
(Then we need to measure it on the Brand-o-meter to determine whether it was equal to, worse than or less offensive than phoning an old man to talk about shagging his granddaughter
)I've not heard the entire interview, I haven't clicked on the link to the Sun to see the details, so I have no idea whether he *should* have been sacked - but it sounds like it may have been a case of trial and sentence by the media (or the fear of it at least). Hmmm, what's that saying....those who live by the sword, die by the sword?
I am coming to the opinion that to a lesser extent that this is happening in this Country today. Which leads to the answer that we have a lot less freedom of speach than we used to
I disagree. I think people have just gotten very lazy in expressing themsleves and end up saying things such as "you're a nazi" which is a invitation for confrontation rather than debate. Being forthright isn't about speaking without any consideration for what you're saying. Much of this is due to the examples set by the media who seem to want to egg people on but equally, by peoples unwillingness to think for themselves as it's far easier to be spoonfed an opinion.
(edited to correct typo)
Quote by Naughty Wigan Couple
So, what non adult picture could represent a strap on - a cucumber perhaps
I really dont think I can answer that one :shock:
Marrow? 'nana? vegetarian sasusage? :lol:
New glitch for the groups - in the Members box, it shows you about 8 of the members of the group but the "Next" button to view the rest doesn't unless they post, there doesn't seem to be a way to see who's joined.
Quote by anais
New question!
Why do group logos have to be of a non adult nature?
Did that come up when you tried to add a logo? I don't have anything none adult on this pc to have a go with.
Maybe its because the logo can be seen without logging in???
Nah, I just uploaded it and it seemed to be fine then when I realised I couldn't see it when I went back to the group a couple of times, I went to re-upload it thinking it was a glitch and saw the blurb about not using logos of an adult nature. I guess it would be visible without logging but it's not any more adult than what you see in the galleries without logging in.
So, what non adult picture could represent a strap on - a cucumber perhaps :lol:
Quote by st3v3
Will it be possible to move friends out of Favourites and into the Friends folder at some point? or will friends invites need to be resent to achieve this?
What would have been called friends in the past was more of a collection of bookmarks, which is why we renamed them favourites, whereas the new friends have to accept, so if they don't accept they won't be added.
Aha, thanks for answering that Steve!
Soooooooooooo, now I'll find out who my real friends are
