(28 May 2015, 7:22 pm)MrFozz wrote Adds whole new meaning to the term 'sucking balls'

Trust you to spot something like that   

(28 May 2015, 7:25 pm)Davie wrote Trust you to spot something like that   

Oh yes, lol, sometimes it seems like I can turn absolutely anything into a sexual reference/innuendo

(28 May 2015, 7:19 pm)danpick wrote Had them before they are really nice.

Would have been funnier if you said "I've had camels balls before they are really nice" as that could have been taken so far out of context if that picture wasn't there.

(28 May 2015, 5:29 pm)MrFozz wrote Saw this in the shop today



Camels Balls sweets, the illustration on the box shows a camel with it's knackers hanging...

Close to the mark I reckon, but quite funny at the same time, as I always say, I am very easily amused

Liquid filled too  

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/...?CMP=fb_gu

Good move?

(29 May 2015, 10:23 pm)aureolin wrote http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/...?CMP=fb_gu

Good move?

One part of that article that amused me was the bit about laughing gas:

Once the preserve of 15-year-olds watching Wheatus at the Reading festival.

Guess they're just a Teenage Dirtbag baby

(29 May 2015, 10:23 pm)aureolin wrote http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/...?CMP=fb_gu

Good move?

Pointless exercise. While I believe the danger posed by 'legal highs' should be addressed, simply criminalising their use is not the answer. The production of these substances will become even more clandestine and will lead to more deaths as users take more risks to to obtain them. As always, users/addicts will suffer the consequences ending up with criminal records while those at the top of the chain continue to produce and sell their product with little fear of being caught. There's also the fact that chemists will continue to make legal highs by slightly altering the synthetic process. It's difficult to legislate against drugs yet to be made - it's all a complete mess if you ask me. 

People who want to get high will always find a way of doing so and, in turn, there will always be people willing to fulfil their needs. Demand can be reduced but never eradicated.   

(29 May 2015, 10:46 pm)MurdnunoC wrote Pointless exercise. While I believe the danger posed by 'legal highs' should be addressed, simply criminalising their use is not the answer. The production of these substances will become even more clandestine and will lead to more deaths as users take more risks to to obtain them. As always, users/addicts will suffer the consequences ending up with criminal records while those at the top of the chain continue to produce and sell their product with little fear of being caught. There's also the fact that chemists will continue to make legal highs by slightly altering the synthetic process. It's difficult to legislate against drugs yet to be made - it's all a complete mess if you ask me. 

People who want to get high will always find a way of doing so and, in turn, there will always be people willing to fulfil their needs. Demand can be reduced but never eradicated.   

I may have got the wrong end of the stick, but it looks like they're trying to rewrite the misuse of drugs act to accommodate this? The misuse of drugs act appears to ban substances by their chemical compound, so by changing the compound slightly, it'd potentially become legal again. I read the article as them banning anything that is a high, but then adding excludes for the likes of alcohol, caffeine and tobacco. 

The problem with a complete ban is that the people determined to have them will find alternatives. There's not too much difference in the price between them and cheap (fake) ecstasy. This for example as a legal high replacement could present a much bigger problem.

(29 May 2015, 11:01 pm)aureolin wrote I may have got the wrong end of the stick, but it looks like they're trying to rewrite the misuse of drugs act to accommodate this? The misuse of drugs act appears to ban substances by their chemical compound, so by changing the compound slightly, it'd potentially become legal again. I read the article as them banning anything that is a high, but then adding excludes for the likes of alcohol, caffeine and tobacco. 

The problem with a complete ban is that the people determined to have them will find alternatives. There's not too much difference in the price between them and cheap (fake) ecstasy. This for example as a legal high replacement could present a much bigger problem.

I may have mis-read the article. 

There will always be a way to circumvent the law in some way though. 

When long-established 'illegal' highs pose less risks to users than the 'newer' legal highs available - you know there's something wrong somewhere.

(29 May 2015, 11:01 pm)aureolin wrote I may have got the wrong end of the stick, but it looks like they're trying to rewrite the misuse of drugs act to accommodate this? The misuse of drugs act appears to ban substances by their chemical compound, so by changing the compound slightly, it'd potentially become legal again. I read the article as them banning anything that is a high, but then adding excludes for the likes of alcohol, caffeine and tobacco. 

The problem with a complete ban is that the people determined to have them will find alternatives. There's not too much difference in the price between them and cheap (fake) ecstasy. This for example as a legal high replacement could present a much bigger problem.

I can remember the days a single Ecstasy Pill would cost up to 15 quid and some lads I knew would take sniff Coke through a rolled up £20 note and one lad I knew used a £50 as he said 'I want people to think I am minted' though I would not be surprised if the £50 note was a forgery...

What that has to do with anything I don't know, was just thinking about it lol

Don't suppose anyone knows where the nearest toilet to Consett Bus Station is?

(30 May 2015, 2:08 pm)Jimmi wrote Don't suppose anyone knows where the nearest toilet to Consett Bus Station is?

If you come out of the bus station, and walk down the street past Iceland (and you'll walk past Argos too), you'll come to a Wetherspoons pub (The company row). Literally a 2 min walk.

Seen something on the news this morning...

Russia slapping travel bans on politicians and others from EU countries, EU chiefs are fuming about it...

What have they got to be angry about? Aren't us, the EU and America doing exactly the same on prominent Russians to stop them travelling here or the US, I don't really understand what the problem is when it is going on from both sides

Looks like Dalton Parks next phase is about to start(praise the lord), most of the perimeter is fenced off and there's a few dump trucks at the back of Next

(31 May 2015, 10:42 am)MrFozz wrote Looks like Dalton Parks next phase is about to start(praise the lord), most of the perimeter is fenced off and there's a few dump trucks at the back of Next

Does celebrating the commencement of groundworks at Dalton Park on the sabbath, and praising the lord in recognition of work that's about to take place, constitute sacrilege?

Coincidently, I was at Dalton Park on Friday for around half-an-hour before heading off into Sunderland.  

 

(31 May 2015, 10:42 am)MrFozz wrote Looks like Dalton Parks next phase is about to start(praise the lord), most of the perimeter is fenced off and there's a few dump trucks at the back of Next

Well, it's completed now isn't it?! 

Seems a Brazilian Wandering Spider was discovered in a Tamesworth Warehouse chilling out beside some pallets which had been sent over from South America.

Oh great, not like i don't like spiders already...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sto...e-32936805

(31 May 2015, 3:22 pm)MurdnunoC wrote Does celebrating the commencement of groundworks at Dalton Park on the sabbath, and praising the lord in recognition of work that's about to take place, constitute sacrilege?

Coincidently, I was at Dalton Park on Friday for around half-an-hour before heading off into Sunderland.  

 

Nah.....

We have waited 11/12 years for it now

Has anyone had the little icon appear on their toolbar for Windows 10?

Some sort of pre-order scheme going on for a limited time.

(02 Jun 2015, 12:36 pm)Andreos1 wrote Has anyone had the little icon appear on their toolbar for Windows 10?

Some sort of pre-order scheme going on for a limited time.

I have, its just a pre-load thing for when windows 10 is launched, iv'e accepted mine, in the windows update area it says:

Windows 10 upgrade reserved - we'll let you know when the upgrade is ready to be installed on this PC.

(02 Jun 2015, 12:36 pm)Andreos1 wrote Has anyone had the little icon appear on their toolbar for Windows 10?

Some sort of pre-order scheme going on for a limited time.

Yes, I noticed that last night on my laptop.

(02 Jun 2015, 12:39 pm)Michael wrote I have, its just a pre-load thing for when windows 10 is launched, iv'e accepted mine, in the windows update area it says:

Windows 10 upgrade reserved - we'll let you know when the upgrade is ready to be installed on this PC.

(02 Jun 2015, 12:39 pm)Jimmi wrote Yes, I noticed that last night on my laptop.

Haven't clicked 'yes' yet. Just had a look and it appears some functions will vanish.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/1/8696949...ature-loss

(02 Jun 2015, 12:43 pm)Andreos1 wrote Haven't clicked 'yes' yet. Just had a look and it appears some functions will vanish.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/1/8696949...ature-loss

Don't use gadgets, don't play any already installed games, don't use the media centre - All no losses for me

(02 Jun 2015, 12:36 pm)Andreos1 wrote Has anyone had the little icon appear on their toolbar for Windows 10?

Some sort of pre-order scheme going on for a limited time.

Windows 10 will be worse than 7, 8 and 9. You probably all know my hatred for Windows 7.

They skipped 9 and went from 8 to 8.1 to 10.

You'll have to do it sometime, as they'll stop supporting windows 7 soon.

Is there really any need???

Seen on 5374

(03 Jun 2015, 11:41 am)MrFozz wrote

Is there really any need???

Seen on 5374

Really irritates me seeing stuff like this.

Horrifically poor grammar has also been used here. They also have sloppy handwriting as well.

(03 Jun 2015, 11:41 am)MrFozz wrote

Is there really any need???

Seen on 5374

Josn Gorgett Jdd is in an FuceoooB.

(03 Jun 2015, 11:48 am)Jimmi wrote Really irritates me seeing stuff like this.

Horrifically poor grammar has also been used here. They also have sloppy handwriting as well.

Should see my handwriting, its terrible! 

(03 Jun 2015, 3:47 pm)Tommy_1581 wrote Josn Gorgett Jdd is in an FuceoooB.

Even i can tell that the a looks nothing like a j...

The message is '(name) add is on Facebook'