Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
neilinleeds
Over 90 days ago
Bisexual Male, 56
0 miles · West Yorkshire

Forum

lol
Don't worry I'll send you one Kent. Bi guy here, should be in keeping with the previous unwanted lot. Just ignore it! ;)
Pig wanker. He should masturbate pigs. For artificial insemination purposes. Being Franglaified, GnV is I'm sure only too keen to support your local French traditions like the yearly hunt for truffles. The best truffle hunting dogs go for loadsa bloody money, don't even think of buying something from the Perigord, undisputed masters of the truffle-hunting-dog-breeding art. So, you go for the next best thing, which is pigs, obviously. Having established which of his stock is producing the best truffle hunting snouts he will naturally want to breed selectively from that line, so careful management of said pigs, and their breeding is critical. Hence the pig wanking. You mustn't laugh, it's a noble art round those parts, oh yes. Can get awarded legion d'honneur type stuff and all sorts for yer skills with a pig I can tell you. Should seriously consider it.
It's a skill right enough but you start off simple, simple cuff restraints or something. You work up to the stuff in the link, that's what gives it the longevity. Like Rob says there'll be workshops near you, and some very good beginner websites. Wish I'd practiced more of it when I had the chance. Difficult, sure, but fascinating stuff. Lots of potential with even very basic knotting, cuff restraints again, spreading using the headboard or underside of the bed etc. Cost of a rope. ;)
rope work will give you hours of fun for bugger all money! Spreader bars with decent leather cuffs are not expensive either.
Course you do Trev. That's cos it's difficult to argue against once you actually stop to think about it for . . . oh . . . . how long did it take you? Seconds?
You know what I find most funny. It's the protestations you'll always see come up in some quarters from those complaining that black people seeking to organise themselves must by definition be racist in some way. Instant knee-jerk reaction. No. It. Is. Not, how many more times? ;) They don't even have the good sense to realise most often that by their knee-jerk they've just revealed why these organisations have the need to exist in the first place. Claim to be all egalitarian and I'm not racist but all you damn well please but until we get rid of whatever it is that's causing that twitch none of us can be said to be truly colourblind, and definitely not you mate! lol You're colourblind where your own representation is concerned, but not to theirs? Hmmmmmmm. *strokes chin* That's interesting? I don't expect to find it so much here. Always a surprise when I do.
Have you been moving the letters round in yer name again Trev BTW? You sure? Just I was sure I finally had it down a bit back but wrong again. Trev just seems all wrong for you that's all. Not very Celtic sounding, tha's all, Trev, is it? Trev-aun-ance. Got it. Sure I had before, sorry! only had 8 years to practice though. ;)
Leave it out Trevanaunce, spoiling a good argument with your incessant demands for actual 'facts' and shit. You've been here long enough now to know how it works by now, surely? rolleyes
Makes me laugh. You used to see the same argument used against the National Black Police Association, even though their own homepage used to make it clear that there's no colour bar to membership for none-blacks, which makes it a bit of a nonsense.
There is no need for a white footballers association, or rather, it already exists. It's called the PFA. The vast majority of footballers are white. Their views and interests are represented at every level thanks to the simple fact they are in the majority, so naturally their views are foremost. They already have their collective voice. Black footballers are by contrast under represented, and the very fact of their blackness means that they will face challenges not faced in the same way by white players. Bananas and monkey chants for example. Their experience of the sport and its followers is in that sense different to that of your white players. White players do not suffer racist abuse of that kind ( generally speaking. ) nor do they need to shout to make themselves heard in quite the same way, because their interests are already represented at the top table ( generally speaking ) by the fact that it's their own class, who share their values, running the show. An association for black players seeking to redress that imbalance, giving them a collective voice themselves is not racist. It is sensible, reasonable, and acknowledges the realities of the situation. Simple.

Woop woop! :mrgreen:
Star, looks like your hundred quid won't be needed just yet after all? smile
Care to examine my was-a-double-crown-is-now-becoming-a-bald-spot Nola? You should get a pretty good view if I rest my head just <<< there I think?
( You may need to quote for the <<< to make more sense? ;) )
I feel the same about Gay Pride, why are you proud to be gay ? I am not proud to be hetrosexual

Why would you need to be Jed? Has anyone ever heaped shame on you for being straight? Ever had your essential humanity and dignity called into question or been looked upon with revulsion by polite society for it? Ever had your head kicked in for being a hetero? Ever been on the end of repressive laws as used to exist not even all that long ago in this country that dealt with your innate nature as though a perversion of all that's right and moral? I suspect not.
You've never once had to fight for the right to be straight, have you, so why should you feel proud of it? The same cannot be said of the LGBT community who still face daily prejudice in their daily lives and have fought red in tooth and claw for every right they currently enjoy in the face of those who would have denied it them. That's why they're proud mate, and rightly so.
I'll come back to the race thing later, else this will be overlong.
Quote by Dawnie
Neil I am genuinely impressed you have managed three months passionkiss

I think you've every right to be Dawn based on past performance, eh? lol Stunned might be a better word? ;) Ta! kiss
Quote by noladreams
worship Go you!

Onwards and upwards Nola, onwards and upwards. Just the beginning . . . . smile
Quote by Steve
3 months.....Well done fella

Cheers Steve! :)
Quote by Steve
Next available appointment.......Thursday November 8th

Bollox. Don't be too disheartened mate, though I know only too well how galling it is when you find the motivation to make a positive stride forward only to have the rug pulled from under you with a setback like this. It's hard to sustain things with will power alone cos it soon fades sometimes but mustn't let a simple thing like a delay sap that willpower in the meantime, before you're even able to apply. Keep up the motivation, find something else productive that might help alongside what the doc's gonna be giving you. Easier often to have a number of different streams running in parallel each reinforcing the other IME.
*falls off chair in amazement*
LOLWUT? :shock: Direct action and hunt sabs? Why Star, I've misjudged you all this time. You surprise me. Nice surprise don't get me wrong, but surprise all the same. Good for you putting your money where your conviction is.
*applauds*

Common sense prevails ( albeit temporarily it would seem ) as Govt bows to public pressure and ongoing legal challenges. As someone who signed Brian May's petition endorsed by the among other things this pleases me greatly! :mrgreen:
Nice going Steve. And I. Fucking. Made It! Eat that three months! :happy: :smug: :thrilled:
Here we go again

Yup! New Year next! smile
Reading and reading this again I think I may have missed your point Rob so apologies if that is so but this already happens in the treatment centres here, I'm not sure where your argument is. My experience of the local addiction unit that treats alcohol addiction as well as addictions to other substances is that they have a whole host of treatments running alongside the drug maintenance. They're not just handing out methadone willy-nilly to addicts and then packing them on their way.
Each individual addict is assigned a key worker responsible for one-to-one work tailoring exactly the kind of individual package of measures you describe. This may include Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, talking cure type therapies like counselling, relaxation exercises for those who find they're triggered by stress, social groups for the newly clean ex-addict who having got clean finds they're socially isolated because their circle prior to detox consisted only of other addicts they're trying to stay away from, all kinds of things. This runs in parallel with the GP they liaise with who'll have more experience of the particular needs of their patient as far as other treatments like anti-depressants or whatever go that might also be useful, and outreach services that can provide clean needles and harm reduction help where appropriate. It's pretty well integrated in Leeds, and I don't think Leeds is even remotely unique in that respect. The idea that these centres are just massive drug dispensaries for addicts is a million miles from the truth in my experience of them.
I guess the point is given all of the above, why is it that Portugal seems to be doing so much better than us? If the treatments are similar in these regards how are they having more success with their problem users than we are. The answer I think is that too many of ours are being steered away from effective treatment of the sort we have available in spades by the emphasis on a criminal justice solution, and that's what decriminalisation seeks to address. That's your difference.
If drugs were readily available to ALL addicts and drug users your telling me that the structure to treat all those extra people with Social workers and other professionals is already in place? Really?
Nobody can possibly say how many extra drug users would use the free drug centers,but if druge were freely available they would be swamped, and the system struggles to cope now as there are cutbacks on every level, so if it was to only increase by say 20% from current levels and the money is not there now, how do we go about treating all these extra people Neil?

I think you're confusing two issues here Star, and perhaps tying yourself up in knots because of it? The route Portugal has gone down is criminalisation of the supply side is retained, with decriminalisation of possession. Addicts ( and only addicts ) receive their maintenance drugs, which may not be their drug of choice, methadone instead of heroin for example, once inducted on to treatment programmes. Noone's making drugs freely available to none users. Similarly noone would be making drugs freely available to none users if we went down the full legalisation route. Users buying from licenced outlets would be one possibility in that scenario. Only those users who develop an addiction would be coming through drug treatment centres after they've failed to manage their use responsibly, at which point their addiction becomes a medical ( rather than criminal ) issue requiring treatment.
Before anyone asks what's to stop these recreational users blagging free drugs out of the treatment centres right from the off, the same thing that stops them doing it now: the requirement to provide blood tests confirming that the drugs being sought are actually in their system combined with objectively testable signs of withdrawal from those drugs indicating physical dependence.
In any event, the Portugal experiment shows that with decriminalisation as implemented there the number taking drugs, and by extension seeking drugs has actually fallen, not increased, so not sure where you're going with this any more?
The specialist addiction units treatment of this sort requires already exist Star. Where do you think addicts pick up their methadone and buprenorphine at the moment? From Rob's 200 000 users ( among them what once would have been called registered addicts before the rquirement to register addicts by GPs was dropped ) already in contact to some extent with them out of an estimated total number of problem users of around 300 000. Put more people through treatment than sure costs will increase accordingly but seems these agencies are already fully geared up to treat large numbers of users. I see no issue here.
Quote by Lizaleanrob
is the decline created by the decriminalization or way addicts are now treated
IE each case treated as an individual with proper help from the likes of social workers and psychologist

Think I can see where you're going with this Rob. Yeah, you're right I think, it's the latter that's most important inasmuch as addicts that come to the attention of the authorities are being steered towards treatment where their addictions can be treated as a medical issue, rather than as a criminal justice issue. Decriminalisation is the thing that enables that steering I think, rather than being the full solution by itself.
I guess it could be argued a Drug Treatment Testing Order serves a similar purpose to the above while retaining the criminal justice aspect. Whether you could increase the throughput of schemes like that by going down the decriminalisation road is I guess a question that can't be answered without actual testing. It may be worth doing so.
Quote by Meeko
Well done too Neil, I cut my drink down a few years ago but don't think it is something I would like to stop completely, I do enjoy the odd drink or 2 now and again.

I wouldn't wanna stop drinking completely myself, I love real ales too much but it's past the stage where I have a choice in the matter unfortunately. I dunno, there may come a time when I can start with the odd drink having regained some control but that seems unlikely on past performance. I drink the first drink, the rest seem to drink themselves and just don't know when to stop. Not having that first one is the only control I'm able to exert at the minute. Shit really but there it is. The consolation for the loss of Black Sheep and Theakstons is that my mood is almost unrecognisable from how it was just three months ago, and things are just generally much improved every which way. I can stand the loss on that basis, it seems a fair trade, one very much in my favour. smile
And congrats on the three weeks. Stopping drinking is hard, I'm sure I'm gonna find quitting smoking even harder so three weeks is quite an achievement Meeko, one to be quite pleased with yerself about. Few more days you can officially start counting in months, one day at a time though obviously! ;)
Found some for you Star, though it's a lengthy read at 30 odd pages:

Not had chance to read it fully yet, except to find a figure of 100 000 problem drug users pre-decriminalisation in Portugal being bandied about in a number of other reports referencing the report linked to ^up there^ like . Rob's NTA stats say we have 300 000 problem users of heroin / cocaine, allowing for a little margin for error seems my previous post extrapolating from drug related deaths wasn't very far wrong at all.
Quote by Lizaleanrob
where did Neils post go dunno

Sorry Rob, realised I'd misread the stats, though the general thrust was right. Needed to do some more checking and an edit before someone caught it and ripped my argument to shreds on the basis of a simple clerical error transcribing the numbers! ;)
In fact so much less of a problem that I struggle to find any figures about this country at all.

How do you work this out if you've not got the figures Star? You're not just . . . gasp . . . guessing are you? One might begin to think you don't know what you're on about son?
'That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence' ~ Christopher Hitchens
Portugal was getting around 400 deaths a year according to this:

UK stats on drug related deaths, all classes, 2652 for 2011:

Some of those deaths relate to legal prescription drugs, but there's a stat on table 1 for drug misuse which might be more properly relevant here of around 1600 deaths for 2011. I'm gonna use that one. From that we can probably extrapolate that Portugal has about a quarter as many problem drug users as us, assuming risky behaviours in both populations are roughly similar.
Portugal has seen a fall of over 25% in drug related deaths, down from 400 to 290. Again extrapolating from that to UK population we could expect something like a potential fall of 400+ deaths a year. I don't know about anyone else but I would say each of those lives is valuable beyond measure and worth every effort to save.
Quote by starlightcouple
Then when Cameron was leader of the opposition remember this nonsense?

How Cameron wishes he never said that now.

Regret what, the hug a hoodie thing? He never did say it Star. T'was the Labour Party tagged it as that IIRC.
From the article linked to:
Other measures are likely to include fines for prison bosses who fail to stop criminals re-offending after release, in a new "payment by results" system and an "element of punishment" in community sentences, which have been dismissed as a soft option.

This big stick approach is a complete nonsense until such time as proper rehabilitation programmes are made available to all prisoners, though this is going to be somewhat problematic for the vast number of inmates coming in on short sentences for very petty crimes and typically serving 2 and 3 month sentences. What Mr Cameron d'you expect the prison service to usefully do with these people? Need to sort your bloody sentencing policy out first before you can even begin to implement punitive measures like this on the service.
the custom of giving £46 cash to all inmates when they are freed from jail may go.

Idiot! So we're gonna kick people out of jail and back on to the streets with no money whatsoever until their dole comes through, a wait of at least two weeks if memory serves. Don't think they're able to even claim a crisis loan until their claim is accepted at least on a provional basis, though I could be wrong there, it's a long time since I last signed on. I wonder what 'criminals' are likely to do in the meantime to support themselves? confused
"Cushy" regimes for prisoners will also come under attack

Hopefully someone from the Prison Service will explain what these 'cushy' regimes ( sounds like something straight outta the Dail Mail, that. ) are intended to achieve? Not there for the prisoners' benefit, they're there to help prevent riots and burning prisons FFS. They're management tools you fool.
Sorry Too hot but because it works in a country very different to ours, that does not mean it would work here. Are there any figures on crime that we can compare with the two countries so as to judge how big a problem Portugal have, when compared with the UK?

I don't understand your argument but it would seem to be flawed. Relative numbers of drug users is not relevant to the fact that Portugal have experienced a fall in problem users with more seeking treatment. The more relevant figures would be what sort of percentages are we talking about. If we implemented the same policy why could we not expect a similar result with similar percentages? If our population is greater than theirs then wouldn't simple logic lead one to conclude that we could expect a greater fall in the total number of users / increase in those seeking treatment?
Quote by Dawnie
How is everyone getting on dunno

Still good ta Dawn. Really good. Thanks for asking passionkiss smile
Next Tuesday is day 92, three months. No question I won't do it, absolutely not in doubt. Feeling too good. :mrgreen: Counting the days. I can't tell you how excited I am to be nearing it. I wonder what I'm gonna do once it's been and gone? Will I feel all deflated all of a sudden having hit so major a target for me? I guess the next step is a still bigger challenge: baby stepping it one day at a time to New Year!
No further with cigs either sick with flu missing clinics or can't get the time out of work at the minute over-timing it but patience, will get round to remedying it sooner than later.
Steve, Rob's right. Get some endorphins and energy going, specially omportant after a period having to rest up so completely. Soon wears very thin, eh? Will make benefits of cutting your smoking all too readily apparent also. Quite a motivator finding out how shockingly out of shape you are take it from me mate.
Quote by Too Hot
The war on drugs is a complete failure and a total waste of money. I am early 50's now and the war that was going on when I was a teenager is still going on - possibly worse now. Unfortunately - people take drugs - always have and always will. So if the same drugs strategy has been in place for 40 years and is not working - does it not make sense to try something else? Let's be real about this and just accept that a huge % of people have taken drugs at some stage in their life be it hash, acid, ecstacy, coke or something stronger. Many found it pleasurable, non addictive and a better social experience than alcohol and so continued it. Meanwhile we all get treated like children and told the same stories that we were told 40 years ago. Something has to change.

+1s on above. By any standards this is a failed policy. More of the same is beyond sane and humane whichever way you look at it, financially, medically, socially, morally, whatever.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. ~ Albert Einstein
Only logical course of action is try something else. Only economic importance on nation state scale given investment in and counter to the trade in illegals can explain the reluctance of the big players like the US to move on this, no moral authority whatsoever. Start from scratch, level the playing field all substances legal and then build a new reclassification of the drugs of abuse by objective relative harm, work upward from there, prohibit the ones deemed most dangerous but decriminalise for simple posession. Don't think can be all that up for argument any more, some even on the fringes of govt openly acknowledge it. Only question is how to proceed from here, nothing else..
Quote by Cubes
I hold the view that our bobbies have access to firearms as/when they need them, and I'm actually quite proud to confirm to my American friends that our laws can mostly be upheld without their use. :thumbup:

Yup. Policing by consent in a nutshell Cubes, because even your criminal classes have a general tendency to comply once the game's up. As opposed to policing by threat of deadly force which simply raises the stakes for all concerned in a never ending arms race, you have a service revolver, I'll get an automatic pistol, you get an automatic pistol, I'll get a semi-automatic rifle, bring on your SWAT teams, yadda, yadda, ya. Arming the police wholesale fundamentally changes the dynamic and the relationship between citizen and state with the police as the state's enforcers.
The way things work at the minute seems sensible. I lived in Chapeltown in Leeds for a good coupla years, 100 yards from what was then crack central. Think a Yorkshire version of Moss Side. The sound of occasional gun fire was depressingly all to familiar. It's been cleaned up massively since, almost beyond recognition by a real concerted effort involving council, police and community working in tandem. Policing by consent in action once again. Course, there was almost always an Armed Response Vehicle on stand-by somewhere nearby, Chapeltown nick being a major police station to deal with incidents of gun crime, often just making its presence known in the area with fairly high profile patrolling. This is the right way to police in my opinion, see no reason to change it.
Quote by starlightcouple
I am not a great believer in that if addicts could get their next fix from a medical centre that all would become well overnight. I think their drug habit would get worse in the long run, as they will take the free drugs and continue to do the crime to gain extra fixes.
Any drugs they were to be given out, would be under very strict guidelines, and many addicts would need far more drugs than the centres would allow.

Not sure why you think addicts would need more drugs than the centre would allow. If you're not prescribing at the level dictated by the individual's tolerance you're on a hiding to nothing from the off, so of course you dose as is appropriate to the individual's requirements. As for illicit use this would be easily monitored Star I'm sure. The pharmokinetics of heroin ( what happens to it in the body as it is metabolised ) are sufficiently well understood to make testing for illicit use over and above the amount prescribed fairly trivial I would think, perhaps with a simple blood test looking at serum levels of metabolites at a given point in time after dosing, allowing for the individual's metabolism for instance. Find they have more remaining in their system than would be expected indicating illicit use and you start with the sanctions, sanctions that would include removal from the programme. Simples.
The point Star is not that users would become well over night. Of course not, noone's pretending as much. It is called maintenance for a reason: you keep them where they are so they don't get any worse at least before they have a chance to get better. The point is to bring users who would not otherwise be in contact with treatment centres given a resistance to methadone / buprenorphine and not yet ready for detox and abstinence into the fold where their use can be stabilised and made less problematic for them personally, and for wider society. The aim is to make their lives less chaotic and less risky so that they're able to function socially at least and meet their day to day responsibilities, as opposed to abdicating responsibility altogether in the search for their next fix. It's enabling them to be productive and responsible members of society despite their drug use that is often most important as far as fostering long term change goes. Once you've begun the process of change, often with a small series of baby steps the likelihood of more fundamental changes like detox and recovery becomes much greater.
But... I thought I would point out at this stage that Human Rights law is English law. The whole point of the Human Rights Act 1998 (which is UK legislation) was to bring the human rights protocols contained in the European Convention on Human Rights under the jurisdiction of UK courts. This is why people are able to raise human rights issues within the UK legal system (rather than the having to go to the ECHR).
If you're interested in the wider picture... The UK has signed up to a number of international (UN) treaties on human rights, but none of these form part of domestic law (so you cannot bring a claim in the UK courts under any of those treaties). In addition, the UK has signed up to the European Convention (which is regional law, rather than international law). The Convention was implemented by the Council of Europe (which is not the same thing as the European Union) following WWII in order to safeguard and defend human rights, democracy and the rule of law. (And, in answer to your original question, flower - given the atrocities committed in WWII that form the backdrop to the Convention, I think it is most definitely a good thing). The UK was very instrumental in drafting the Convention, and (as I have already said), since 1998 we have had our own UK legislation to make human rights law a part of our domestic law. In fact, given that we have domestic law on human rights, the European Court will only hear a case once all domestic avenues have been exhausted.

I think I may have got him to accept that he was wrong on a couple of occasions
But he may have just been flirting with me, 'cos I'm a girl

rotflmao
I hope the latter quote about you being a girlie and stuff having its uses is true in this case cos I've tried explaining the former quote about a squillion bloody times and some people still don't get it. I hope you have more luck with it Lilith, I really bloody do! lol
Does this mean that human rights legislation can be a good thing and is something we should embrace ?

How galling for her, having to rely on Article 3 of the despised HRA she's pledged to scrap to stop it! lol I note she's ensured she will never have so onerous a duty as appealing to the HRA placed on her again in future now she's handed off the Home Sec's powers to decide on extraditions to the courts. Must really have hurt her! Home Sec's aren't exactly known for volunteering to give away their powers, are they? :P
We were certainly going this way again recently. The so-called British System of prescribing diamorphine to addicts as had existed previously up until the late '60s was seeing something of a rebirth under the last Govt at least. With the setting up of the National Treatment Agency in 2001 and the publication of the 2002 Updated Drugs Strategy the last Govt made explicit provision for an expansion of diamorphine prescribing where the most suitable option. I'm not sure if this has panned out in quite the way intended under the latest Govt, TBH I haven't kept up with it and struggling to find the info on how it's gone since.
It's a no brainer, classic harm reduction. Note harm reduction, not elimination, an important distinction. For those who are not yet ready for abstinence based programmes or are resistant to maintenance on other drugs like methadone or buprenorphine it's perfectly right and proper that clinicians should have available the option of diamorphine in their arsenal. The decision as to whether it's the right drug to make available given the individual circumstances of a particular user should be theirs and theirs alone, free of all political considerations and based solely on clinical need.
Makes perfect sense:

reduces the individual's exposure to illicit sources
reduces health risks associated with bad IV practice where injection is supervised
improves contact time with those able to offer other psychological / behavioural therapies alongside,
improves social functioning / ability to pursue education, employment, etc now time is freed up from sourcing a fix,
reduces acquisitive crime to pay for said fix,
improves retention on programmes now able to offer the user their drug of choice.

Who could object to any of that? confused