canuckhooker

No bad example? He went out of his way to get into his dress uniform, call the police and smoke a joint in public dressed that way knowing he was going to create a controversy. How about trying to show up your employer in public? He provoked the whole thing. Everyone was blissfully unaware, and then he had to make a spectacle of himself. Like he is the only one prescribed medical marijuana, it is not news, until a mountie in full dress does it in public in front of cameras he called. He pushed the limits and was dealt with accordingly, and I as a taxpayer am happy with the response, as long as our current drug laws stand.

Nobody is disagreeing with his need to use the marijuana. The problem is how that effects his job. Firstly, most police officers are required to drive, carry firearms and other weapons and deal with the public sometimes in volatile and tense situations. Secondly, marijuana, aside from its medical use is an intoxicant. I can say that with first hand practical knowledge as well as from study. That is why its prime use is as a recreational drug that has acknowledged physiological and psychological effects on the user. It is only recently becoming prescribed, and even then, there are still the impairment effects. So the RCMP while accommodating the member, at the same time have to look out for the public at large, as well as their own image. So, he was placed on administrative duties so he would not be in volatile situations with the public where impairment may cause an issue. He was not allowed to carry firearms while under medication, and he was not allowed to drive. All prudent measures that look out for not only the member's well being but the public at large. What he did was deliberately show up the force by standing around in his full dress uniform, smoking a poorly rolled doobie. It wasn't just his red serge, he was even wearing his medals (as opposed to the ribbons) which for those who don't know, only happens on special parades and occasions. And he was the one who contacted the press for the photo op, looking like Dudley Do-Right in a Cheech and Chong movie. This is a Corporal with over 20 years as a cop. Someone who's experience and rank would make one think he had some good judgement. Although he has the right to use the drug, no debating that, over 90% of the population does not. And if anyone of those 90% stood in front of a cop smoking a joint, the cop would have to take some kind of action. Do you not think that his actions, made his fellow officer's jobs a little bit harder? He deliberately tried to blow this situation up. As I said in an earlier post, more and more people who have been prescribed medical marijuana are using a vaporizer as it is more effective, doesn't involve lighting up in a traditional way and is a bit more unobtrusive. Those who don't are either old school, or are trying to show off what they can do that the rest of us can't. So I believe he has the right to medicate using marijuana. However, he should also have the good judgement, under current laws to use a little discretion on how he uses or administers it. He was definitely crying out for attention, and he got it. He also lost the privilege of wearing the uniform, something that apparently, if we can believe the footage on tonight's news was something he cared deeply about. And I think a corporal with over 20 years service would have anticipated that. Not to derail this thread, but this is not an endorsement or an indictment of our current drug laws. I think they are outdated and counter-productive, but they are still the laws. Personally I think it should be legalized and regulated the same way alcohol is regulated. Purchased from licensed vendors, age restricted, taxes paid, consumed in designated areas, individuals driving or doing anything else reckless while under the influence punished in court. I think anyone should be able to sit on his front porch and smoke up, but they shouldn't be giving it to their kids or driving a car under the influence.

There must be more to this then meets the eye. His behaviour seems to be a little like a kid acting out. Firstly I have read that while using marijuana he is not allowed to drive or carry a firearm. So that major concern of impairment is out of the way. Legal or not pot is still an intoxicant and use of it means you are legally impaired. I saw him on the news last night, sitting there in his full red serge dress uniform rolling and smoking a joint. He was not even trying to be discrete. Those uniforms are only worn on special occasions, not just sitting at his desk in the office. The funny thing is that a lot of people who are prescribed marijuana don't smoke joints, but use inhalers. He is trying to make a point of some type, or stir the pot. I am sure more will come out about this.

Or one of my favourites from a movie I can't remember: We need to slip a .... over his head and fuck some sense into him.

Well it is not new.. it has been referenced many times on this board... and I hate to burst your bubble but it is a parody. Search for Ylvis on Youtube or Google and you will find out all about them. They are actually witty, and intelligent.

All major hotels offer a day rate, all you have to do is ask. However they are subject to availability. The Marriott on Kent does for sure and often has them available.

Spending a great afternoon at Tease. Just met the lovely Cerbie (cerbette?) Ivy Bliss. Lots of sexy ladies.

Having done the couples thing there I can guarantee you will enjoy the experience. Many of the ladies love couples, so pick one of them and you will be golden. Highly recommended.

Sorry, don`t want to be too contrary but it can work. Firstly you have to set the limits, like no un-protected sex, and any other constraints. Secondly set all the limits, time, price etc, and it can work. If people can follow an agreement, then you could have a good time.

If you are under the PSHCP then first you need to go to a doctor. They will prescribe any kind of therapy you need, and then depending on where you go to get the treatment, you may need to submit bills. Some RMT`s are affiliated with medical clinics and they can submit the bills like when you go to the dentist. But you will have to pay on the day you get treatment and then get reimbursed. The key thing, you need a Doctor to recommend. Otherwise, not eligible.

I take this new herbal remedy, Ginko Viagra, for those moments when I can't remember what the fuck I was doing.

My last words on this subject because quite frankly it has become tiresome with people resorting to emotion and using words that are deliberately inflammatory. Not all clients are perfect. Some are complete arseholes. They can be dangerous, they can be liars, they can be thieves. Not all providers are perfect, they can be dangerous, they can be liars, they can be thieves. Not all encounters could be considered contractual because of the nebulous way the encounter was set up. e.g. no specific requests, no promises, just let it flow. But not all encounters are that way, and sometimes clients have specific requests or providers make certain promises of service. The question here was whether or not a contract exists and what rights does someone have if one or other party violates that contract. And that went for both providers and clients. Although the original question was from a clients point of view we have examined and discussed the topic in a civil manner. One of the very valid points made in this argument was that if a client contracted for full service, completed the act and took the envelope back, was that it would be sexual assault. And I have no problem with that. That is axiomatic in my mind. But on the other hand to suggest that someone seeking restitution from a provider for breaching an agreement, is "rapey" well that is offensive. Sexual assault is something serious, and to refer to it in this context actually belittles those who have been victims, and points the finger at people who may have been victims of a someone whose sole intention was essentially fraudulent. It is being used like a trump card to justify a point of view. Once we result to these kinds of logical fallacies to win an argument I am the hell out of here.

And here is unfortunately where misunderstandings occur, and I must respectfully disagree with Georgiana on some of her wording. First of all for a contract to be valid both parties have to agree on what is to be delivered and for what consideration. So that has to happen first. If one of the parties is coerced, as in any other contract, it would not be valid. So at the outset the provider is not compelled or coerced. They have willingly agreed to be party to the contract. We are all adults here, and we all seem to be proud that we do what we do of our own free will. So I doubt there is any coercion at the outset. Secondly the word punishes for failing to hold up one's end of the bargain is really not the correct word. It is not punishment. In a contract, the aggrieved party can seek relief or remedy for the failure of the other party to deliver. In most cases the offending party is not forced to provide the service in question, it generally means they must return any money or other consideration provided by the other party. It is financial relief, and any provable damages. It is correct that you frequently hear of punitive damages in civil cases, but that is generally applied where there has been physical harm to one party. They are very rare in Canada and usually only applied where there is proven malice on the part of the offending party. So in no way have I been discussing forcing someone to deliver sexual services, and I don't think anyone else here has been either. We were not "weighing the loss of money against coercion to perform sexual acts". We are discussing, in theory, what remedies a legitimately aggrieved client has. We have all noted that it would be virtually impossible to take one of these cases to court unless it was on a huge scale. Something akin to the recent fraud case against the escort in Hull, but that was a criminal case and not a civil case. I am not sure if the client there has sought civil remedies to get his money back. It would be an interesting case. I too don't want to sound confrontational but I am a bit sensitive when I see words like coerced, compelled, punishing, "rapey vibe", when that was never discussed in this thread. I don't think anyone here would think or expect a court to force someone to provide a sexual service. What they may expect however is that some financial restitution might be granted. However, my perverted side does see the absurd, dark and warped kind of Monty Python-esque skit that could result from the former case. "The court has found you guilty of failing to provide the defendant a BBBJ. I hereby order that the plaintiff be taken to the court showers, where he will get squeaky clean, paying particular attention to his genital region. Be sure to pull that foreskin back, and use soap. Once he is clean he is to be taken to my chambers where the defendant will fellate him without a condom until completion. The Bailiff will be present to ensure you swallow every drop."

Music video channels actually played music videos, and a lot of them were pretty good. Or alternately you could watch the late night music video shows on the non-cable channels.

I think you will find that there is a contract. The fact that someone has done something misleading in the agreement is the issue the OP raised. Which in terms of law is fraud. You promise one thing, and deliver another after there has been a change of consideration. Now whether you can prove it in court is another issue. That is if you wanted to pursue legal remedies.

Not sure if this helps, but in terms of the liquor license act in Ontario, any place a person sleeps is considered a dwelling. This is why you can drink beer when you go camping and are living in a tent. It used to be technically illegal. If you sleep in the tent, it becomes a dwelling for the purposes of the law. I would think a trailer, or live in cab would be the same thing.

Well I haven't had a chance to reply before now, but since the gauntlet has been thrown down, here goes. First lets dispense with the BS that we are contracting for "companionship". What we are talking about is the selling of sexual services despite efforts of some to dance around that reality. We discuss a wide range of sexual services on here, not just FS. So with that understanding we can assume a client and a provider have had some discussion of the services to be provided. So the first requirement of the contract is met. Both parties have an agreement on what is being contracted. It doesn't have to be in writing, or formal. It is just an agreement on what is to happen. Then the next condition is an exchange of consideration. That is either the client paying (part or full) or the provider providing some or all of the service. Once one or the other does that, you have a valid contract. Whether it is enforceable is the problem. An oral agreement can be problematic and can rapidly devolve into a "he said-she said" argument. In the US this contract would not be vaild because you are contracting for an illegal service, as prostitution is illegal. In Canada however, it is legal, and this contract would be valid. So the OP's question, as I understand it, was what recourse does he have when the agreed upon services are not provided. If he complies with his end of the agreement, and meets all the conditions, (good hygiene in my mind would be a condition) what does he do when the SP does not provide the agreed upon service? In my mind unfortunately, he is probably SOL. It would be tough trying to enforce an oral contract, particularly in this industry. Most clients who feel they are aggrieved would be reluctant to seek a remedy because of the stigma attached to buying sexual services. That is what a lot of these folks count on. They can get away with it, because the victim won't complain. Now let me be clear, I am not saying that the only person at fault in these situations is the provider. I am just answering the OP's question. There are problematic clients and there are problematic providers. If all providers were perfect there would be no need for something like the Cowboy's Diary. For the client it is a Caveat Emptor situation, and it pays for any client to do his research, from a variety of sources. Please don't be as naive to say something like "stick with the lovely ladies of CERB". Granted there is a very high percentage of awesome and honest ladies on this site, but not everyone is perfect and we all know about shill posts, and other problems. Those problems may not be severe enough to be posted in the warning section, but they cannot be discussed in the review section either.

Because this thread got derailed by people focusing on one person's point of view, and they started debating that instead of sticking with the OP's original premise and question. For some it became an obvious exercise in bashing. It certainly didn't address the OP's question. We went from the very tricky concept of a "contract" between and SP and a client, and all that that entails, to the highly negative concept of "review fraud" and a very one-sided argument. In the spirit of the board I will leave it at that in this forum. I will gladly discuss elsewhere. (and that does not mean the infamous red board a place I tend to avoid)

I am in.. How do we pay?? or when are you accepting payment?

Or to paraphrase an old MacLean and MacLean joke, someone ought to slip a c*nt over Reverend Phelps' head and fuck some sense into him.

The funny thing about "review fraud" is that the knife cuts both ways. Even worse on a site like this where you can only say positive things. That means that we are more at the mercy of inflated reviews, shills etc. And there have been numerous instances of that. If you want to use that term then fill your boots, but remember it can cause as much of a problem for a client as it does for a provider. Unless of course you operate under the premise that negative things are only perpetrated by clients.

Sorry, but just because somebody doesn't want to get drawn into this argument and say they take payment after, does not mean it doesn't exist. In fact I have personal knowledge that it does exist. Not everyone, not in every case, but it does happen. If some client doesn't want to pay you upfront, then you have the choice to tell them to move on. The same as they have the choice not to see you. If an SP for any reason chooses to accept payment after, then that is their choice, and I am sure they have weighed the pros and cons. To suggest otherwise is rather presumptuous. And because they chose not to post on this thread is not proof that they don't exist. Seriously, given the tone of this discussion, I don't think any of them would post on this thread, with you rounding up a bunch of torch carrying villagers to chase the monster into the windmill. Now I wish the thread would go back to the far more interesting and original intent of discussing what kind of contract a client and an SP have.

Last SC I went to in Belleville was that scary place across from the Via station. It was called Doc's or Docks.... I do remember this wild milf-y dancer with the incredible stage name of Bandicoot. LOL

This is a very thorny issue. Firstly, you imply that there are "sneaky" negative comments that have managed to be posted on this board. I would say they are few and far between. People have learned that those are caught out pretty quickly. IMO there are a lot more shills in the rec section than "hidden" negative comments. The problem here is that when someone writes a recommendation, you are essentially asking for a critique. However the value of that critique is diminished if you can only say positive things. I don't think I have had very many experiences in my life that were 100% positive. There is always something that could have been better. The value of a true critique is that someone can improve their service to make it better. If that is something they want to do. So we have the situation here where clients don't write recs, and we get threads like the one this past week, that call their motives into question. A thread the mod had to shut down. Of course as mentioned before any place that allows negative comments is going to get the trolls and others who revel in complaining. Just look at any other review site, like Trip Advisor, restaurant rating sites etc. etc. They get their share of trolls and shit disturbers, but the real reviews give important information not only to other potential customers, but to the person or persons being reviewed. They get feedback that can help them improve their service. The choice for the provider is to take the valid criticism and address it to fix a problem, or to ignore it, get defensive, go on the attack. They can react positively or negatively. The point is that IMO frankly discussing or giving a valid critique with negative points, can be beneficial. But it can also result in more negativity. This board chose to allow no negative comments, and I think it has been fairly successful. I don't think any negative comments that may be hidden were put there by the trolls and people trying to stir the pot. It takes time and thought to do something like that, things that are in short supply in trolls. If there is a "sneaky' negative comment on this board I think it is most likely would have some validity, and a wise person would take it to heart.

I think only you and I get the humour in the second point. You obviously never watched me play..LOL